1 Thursday, 9th April 1998
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Good morning, ladies
4 and gentlemen. May we have appearances, please?
5 MR. NIEMANN: Good morning, your Honours. My
6 name is Niemann and I appear with my colleagues,
7 Ms. McHenry, Mr. Turone and Ms. Udo for the Prosecution.
8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: May we have appearances
9 for the Defence, please?
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: Good morning, your Honours.
11 My name is Edina Residovic, Defence counsel for
12 Mr. Zejnil Delalic, along with my colleague, Eugene
13 O'Sullivan, professor from Canada
14 MR. OLUJIC: Good morning, your Honours. My
15 name is Zeljko Olujic, representing the defence for
16 Mr. Zdravko Mucic, along with my colleague, Mr. Michael
18 On behalf of my client, we have a request.
19 Last week, the Trial Chamber allowed us to start the
20 questioning of the witness and we are thankful for
21 this, since on the 14th of this month there will be a
22 continuation of the examination of our client in the
23 Scheveningen prison and our client would like to waive
24 his right because of this physical examination, and he
25 would ask not to be present on the 13th and he agrees
1 to waive his right to be present at trial.
2 MR. KARABDIC: Good morning, your Honours.
3 I am Salih Karabdic, attorney from Sarajevo, Defence
4 counsel for Mr. Hazim Delic, along with Mr. Thomas Moran,
5 attorney from Houston, Texas.
6 MS. McMURREY: Good morning, your Honours.
7 I am Cynthia McMurrey and, along with Ms. Nancy Boler,
8 we represent Esad Landzo.
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.
10 Thank you very much, Mr. Olujic. I think your
11 application will be granted. The accused has a right
12 to determine whether he will be present or not. His
13 condition is sufficient for him to stay away for his
14 medical examination, but obviously you would know that,
15 when it comes to his turn to give evidence, he has to
16 be here. That is an important consideration. If he
17 really wants to stay away because of his condition for
18 the examination, the Trial Chamber will grant the
19 application and there is no problem with that.
20 MR. OLUJIC: Thank you, your Honours.
21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Before we continue this
22 morning, we agreed that, today, we continue the
23 cross-examination of the second Defence witness for the
24 first accused and it has so transpired that it is only
25 the Prosecutor who has not started the
1 cross-examination. Everyone else has started their
2 cross-examination and merely reserved it for today. If
3 you have to proceed with further cross-examination, you
4 will cross-examine when the witness comes in. But, for
5 the Prosecutor, he is starting his cross-examination.
6 We will now start with those who have still reserved
7 their cross-examination.
8 Can we have the witness now, please?
9 (The witness entered court)
10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Let the witness make
11 his declaration.
12 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that
13 I will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
14 the truth.
15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Olujic, you are
17 MUHAMED VEJZAGIC (continued)
18 Cross-examined by MR. OLUJIC (continued)
19 Q. Thank you, your Honours.
20 Good morning, Brigadier.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. You have been in The Hague for quite some
23 time. I believe that now we are winding down, I will
24 be very short in asking you additional questions. May
25 we start?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you. Brigadier, can we say that
3 tempore criminis suspecti, that means the critical
4 time frame that is between May and November 1992, in
5 your view, according to your research and study, were
6 there any ranks in the Territorial Defence?
7 A. I am sorry, but I did not hear whether the
8 interpretation was completed.
9 In this period, that is in 1992, from the
10 outset of the war, there were no ranks in the Army of
12 Q. Tell me, Brigadier, again, based on your
13 research, can you say that you could not find whether
14 there were any rules -- house rules, that is, in the
15 Celebici prison?
16 A. My research did not find anything relating to
17 those regulations with respect to the Celebici prison.
18 Q. Brigadier, since there were no ranks there,
19 could we say that there was no special hierarchy in the
20 prison, either?
21 A. Through my research, I could not learn
22 anything about the hierarchy within the prison.
23 Q. Brigadier, based on your comprehensive
24 experience and your study of this matter from the
25 military point of view, based on that, can you say
1 whether there were any rules that prevented members of
2 the formations who were not part of the guard to enter
4 A. My research also did not find any rules that
5 would prevent such individuals from entering the
7 Q. Can we also say that there was no way to
8 prevent these persons from entering the prison if they
9 did enter the prison?
10 A. I could not establish any rules that the
11 outsiders -- that would prevent the outsiders from
12 entering the prison.
13 Q. That is the Celebici prison?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. OLUJIC: Thank you, Brigadier.
16 Your Honours, this completes my
18 MR. MORAN: May it please the court.
19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, you may proceed.
20 Cross-examined by MR. MORAN (continued)
21 Q. Could the usher take the Brigadier volume III
22 of his documents? (Handed).
23 Brigadier, I would like you to look at one of
24 the documents way in the back there -- it is document
25 V-D/55. If it would help you, the Bosnian original is
1 on page 859 and the first page of the English
2 translation is on page 864. The document is the report
3 of the commission appointed by the headquarters in
4 Konjic to investigate the conditions in the Celebici
5 camp. I just direct your attention to paragraph 2. It
6 talks about the security team of 17 persons and the
7 commander, who had that duty since 4 June 1992. Have
8 we got the right document, Brigadier?
9 A. I have a document from 6 December 1992.
10 Q. That is correct. I would direct your
11 attention to paragraph 2 on the first page.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Are you familiar with this commission's
14 report, other than just having seen it? Do you know
15 anything at all about the commission's investigation --
16 any independent knowledge?
17 A. As far as this document is concerned, I only
18 reviewed the roster of the guards and it also says that
19 there is an order of the municipal commander -- I see
20 it was Mirsad Catovic -- about receiving recruits --
21 I think it is his order.
22 Q. Brigadier, on commission reports like this,
23 are they sufficiently accurate, as a rule, that one can
24 base factual determinations on the commission's
25 report? So if, for instance, the commission reported
1 that there was a security team of 17 people and named
2 the commander, in all likelihood is that accurate
3 information, given the way that these commissions
5 A. I do not know where the problem is. I do not
6 know what is in question -- I do not know what my
7 answer should be.
8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Are you trying to find
9 out whether the findings of the commission could be
10 regarded as correct?
11 MR. MORAN: As accurate and that --
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Put that to him.
13 MR. MORAN: Can we regard the findings of
14 this commission, that made this report, as accurate?
15 A. I am not witness to these events, so I cannot
16 speak to it, but if the commission made those findings,
17 I guess they are probably fine, but I cannot determine
18 anything in that regard.
19 MR. MORAN: That is fine, Brigadier. That is
20 all I have and I thank you very much. Your Honour,
21 I pass the witness.
22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Ms. McMurrey?
23 MS. McMURREY: We have no further questions
24 of this witness, thank you.
25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Niemann.
1 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours, please.
2 Cross-examined by MR. NIEMANN
3 Q. Good morning, Brigadier.
4 A. Good morning.
5 Q. Brigadier, I think your position is that you
6 have no personal knowledge of the events that occurred
7 in Konjic during the course of 1992; is that right?
8 A. I cannot have personal knowledge of these
9 events, because I was not an eye-witness, so my
10 research is based on the documents and on my expertise.
11 Q. In the course of preparing your statement,
12 did you have access to any witness statements that you
13 took into account?
14 A. I do not know which witnesses you have in
15 mind -- I received certain statements from the Defence
16 counsel, and, when preparing my report, I did speak to
17 persons who were witnesses to the events with respect
18 to some of the events.
19 MR. NIEMANN: Did you have access to any
20 witness statements that have been provided by the
21 Tribunal's Prosecutor's Office.
22 JUDGE JAN: What are you referring to --
23 persons detained in the Celebici camp?
24 MR. NIEMANN: Yes.
25 JUDGE JAN: Please make it more clear to
1 him. There were many witnesses not detained --
2 MR. NIEMANN: I am asking a general question
3 but I am primarily concentrating on those.
4 I am interested generally in witness
5 statements that you looked at, but, in particular,
6 whether you had access to statements by people who had
7 been detained -- can you answer that question?
8 A. Yes, I had an opportunity to see such
9 documents, which were shown to me by the Defence, and
10 that focus on this particular matter.
11 Q. Those statements that you saw, did any of
12 them -- did you rely on any of them in order to form
13 your opinion?
14 A. I could not rely on these statements, because
15 they were not true, because my research has shown, by
16 review of the documents, that there is quite a bit of
17 untruth in these statements.
18 Q. Did you keep a record of the statements that
19 you reviewed?
20 A. I did not keep any record of the review of
21 these documents.
22 Q. I think you said a moment ago that you also
23 spoke to people in the area. Did you keep any record,
24 tape recording, hand-written notes -- anything of that
25 nature of the people that you spoke to?
1 A. I have some personal notes with respect to
2 the Celebici case. For instance, when I spoke to
3 direct participants, like the chief of the municipal
4 staff, I have notes on that; how certain things
5 unfolded, things that I was interested in. I saw
6 certain videotapes regarding the situation in Konjic,
7 and that is about all.
8 Q. When you spoke to people and where you took
9 notes such as with the chief of the municipal staff,
10 did you rely on those notes when you formed your
12 A. For the most part, I focused on documents,
13 regardless of what people were saying -- the documents
14 were really the true basis of my views that I formed.
15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Can we really explain
16 this a little? You say the -- counsel is not saying
17 you relied entirely on those things. They did assist
18 you -- did those statements assist you in making up
19 your opinion -- this is what he wants to know, not
20 necessarily that you relied entirely on these
21 statements -- whether they assisted you in making up
22 your mind about the views you took.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, they were of assistance in
24 general terms of forming my opinions. When you talk to
25 some participant, it helps to clarify the situation,
1 even though people do see people in different ways, so
2 it is subjective views that you are encountering, but
3 my basis for my expert's report were the documents.
4 MR. NIEMANN: So, you did not include any of
5 these notes in your binder of material -- that is
6 obvious; they are not there?
7 A. No, the notes as such I did not include.
8 Q. What about the statements provided to you by
9 the Defence as opposed to those that you may have seen
10 from the Office of the Prosecutor, did you rely on
11 those statements?
12 A. I reviewed those statements, but this was --
13 this came in quite late during my work on this expert's
14 report, so when I arrived here, I saw that there were
15 additional documents and there was some truth in them,
16 but there was some untruth there as well. Based on
17 what I found out in the documents, I saw that these
18 statements were biased and so they were not supported
19 by the documents which I had already included in my
20 report, so I found no need to include them in my
22 Q. Just turning to the documents themselves, did
23 you include all the documents in your binders that you
24 relied on in order to form your opinion?
25 A. I included such documents that I found of
1 relevance, which confirm the state of affairs
2 that I saw, but there was a whole mass of documents
3 there, so there was no need to include all of them.
4 Q. Did you find any documents that contradicted
5 the point of view that you espoused in your report?
6 A. If you have in mind the statements which
7 I had an opportunity to see later on, and these were
8 statements without proper seal or signature --
9 Q. No, I am not referring to statements; I am
10 referring to documents. Did you find any documents
11 amongst the material that you had which contradicted
12 the point of view that you were espousing in your
13 report -- documents, not statements? I have moved on
14 to documents?
15 A. I did not find such documents which would
16 point to any contradiction with respect to any
17 particular document, that is, that it did not agree
18 with that document.
19 Q. Are you able to categorise for me the sources
20 you relied on in order to obtain these documents?
21 A. I said in my introduction, when I was asked
22 by the Defence what were the sources of my knowledge,
23 I said that they were documents which were at the
24 disposal of the Institute; secondly, they were
25 documents which the general staff of the Army of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina had in their possession and
2 documents that I found in the municipal staff --
3 municipal headquarters. Other various publications
4 were also used and all these documents formed the basic
5 documents, which helped me to form my opinion and
6 present my expertise.
7 Q. One of the sources was the Defence, though,
8 was it not -- you were given documents by the Defence?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. With the documents that you were given,
11 especially those given to you by the Defence, did you
12 carry out any evaluation of them in order to determine
13 their reliability and authenticity?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What factors did you rely on for this
17 A. I relied on the verisimilitude of the
18 documents and what I was able to see earlier on and
19 I looked over the documents of the Defence, I compared
20 the documents in my quest to arrive at the truth. Some
21 of these documents exist -- there are facts in some of
22 these documents which state that the events actually
23 occurred, whereas, in another portion of the documents
24 they did not bear out the facts and the document did
25 not reflect the truth as I found it to be.
1 MR. NIEMANN: Brigadier, I now want to ask you
2 some questions about your report itself. It is not
3 necessary for you to go to each part of the report
4 that I go to, unless you wish to, but I think you
5 should have access to it just in case you do need it.
6 Might the report be given to the Brigadier,
7 please? (Handed).
8 As I say, you do not have to go to each part,
9 because I assume you know the contents of your report,
10 so it is not necessary to look at it, but, if you want
11 to, please feel free to do so.
12 Professor, in the introductory part of your
13 report, you say at page 1:
14 "The JNA was a mutual armed force of all
15 nations and nationalities in Yugoslavia and it
16 constituted all branches of the service."
17 I think you would agree with me the three
18 main nationalities in Yugoslavia during the operation
19 of the JNA were Serb, Croat and Muslim; is that right?
20 A. I do not understand -- how do you mean these
21 three nations were in conflict?
22 Q. I did not say anything about conflict.
23 I just merely asked you whether -- I will be more
24 specific -- in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time the three
25 main nations represented were the Serbs, the Croats,
1 and the Muslims -- you would agree with that, would you
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And they are the nations that you are
5 referring to when you say the JNA was a force that
6 represented them -- initially, not at the time of the
8 A. Well, I do not want you to reduce the problem
9 to Bosnia -- we are talking about Yugoslavia, and then,
10 afterwards, we can talk about Bosnia. There are other
11 problems. You are speaking about the JNA. I do not
12 know whether you have in mind the initial stages of the
13 war in Slovenia and Croatia, but you are bringing me
14 down to the problem in Bosnia. What do you want me to
15 answer -- what question exactly?
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think it would be
17 easier if you answered the question asked. It is a
18 straightforward one. These were the main entities in
19 the area at the time.
20 THE WITNESS: In Bosnia.
21 MR. NIEMANN: Further on in your report at
22 page 3 you speak of how the Territorial Defence was
23 weakened by the withdrawal of arms and other military
24 equipment -- this is on page 3. I take it that you are
25 not suggesting, are you, that the decision to remove
1 the arms from the Territorial Defence, which occurred
2 under the direction of the SFRY, that there was
3 anything illegal in that at the time?
4 A. It was a completely legal decision of the
5 military and political peaks in Belgrade -- it was not
6 unlawful, illegal, at all. There was an order issued
7 by the Federal Secretariat to withdraw the arms from
8 the Territorial Defence units. It was stated that the
9 arms would be looked after better and that they would
10 be separated from the depot and that it be placed under
11 army command in army depots.
12 Q. I think you say that this decision to remove
13 the arms and ammunition from the TO did not occur in
14 areas or regions that were predominantly inhabited by
15 the Serb population; that is correct, is it not? You
16 say that in your report?
17 A. I say in my report that, in the areas where
18 the Serb population lived, that arms were withdrawn
19 later on, so where the population -- Serb population
20 lived, the region was more secure and the arms were
21 withdrawn to the army depots later on, but now we are
22 dealing with the start of the whole conflict situation,
23 there were army warehouses, army depots, and where it
24 was considered unsafe to house ammunition and weapons,
25 the weapons were removed and then they were returned to
1 the area where the Serb population was predominant,
2 whereas, later on, the arms were withdrawn completely,
3 both where the Serbs lived and in other areas where
4 there was a different population and immediately before
5 the war, then the warehouses, which were located in
6 areas where the Serb population was not the dominant
7 population, from these warehouses material would be
8 removed to the areas in Podrinje, Romanija and Sokolac,
9 where there was a predominantly Serb population and
10 those arms were later removed to these localities
11 regardless of the fact they were army depots, because
12 there was the danger that, in future operations, this
13 would not be a safe place for the weaponry, so the arms
14 were removed to what was considered safer localities.
15 Q. At page 4 of your report you refer to the Ram
16 Plan. In fact, I think you refer to it in a couple of
17 places in your report. When you were in the JNA or at
18 any other stage, indeed, did you ever have occasion to
19 see the Ram Plan?
20 A. I did not see the Ram Plan and I do not think
21 anybody saw it, and that is standard practice, to use
22 this term -- "the Ram Plan" -- it is standard
23 terminology. I can only speculate when I say this, but
24 it was the realisation, the implementation of a plan on
25 the part of the Serb leadership to have the
1 Virovitica, Karlobad, Karlovac Greater Serb
2 territory formed, but I did not personally see the
4 Q. Have you ever met anyone who has?
5 A. No.
6 Q. On page 8 of your report, you speak there of
7 the withdrawal of the JNA forces from Croatia, and you
8 speak of them being placed in various regions in
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina. In particular, you say the Maribor
10 Corps was located in Banja Luka, Tuzla and Zenica.
11 What source did you rely on for that?
12 A. In the course of the war, we had a lot of
13 information, that is one source of the information and
14 intelligence we received, but there is a report of
15 February 1998, that is, it is a journal called
16 "Hrvatske Vojnik", "Croatian Soldier", it is a
17 publication put out in Croatia, and an admiral writes
18 about this situation and about the war in Croatia and
19 preparations for the war in Bosnia, and that is where
20 that piece of information is contained.
21 I have brought it with me -- I can show you
22 -- and the author speaks in greater detail on the
23 removal of the 14th Lubanje and 31st Maribor Corps and
24 the 13th Rijeka Corps. This, for the most part, agrees
25 with what I stated. He gives additional, more precise
1 data, but the source is our knowledge before the war,
2 in the course of the war -- before the war broke out in
3 Bosnia, the intelligence service, as far as I was able,
4 I came by this data and information and when a corps
5 comes to a certain locality, we know what forces were
6 sent where, so that the corps is not a small unit -- it
7 is a vast unit and we saw that they were forces
8 distributed along those localities.
9 Q. If I were to suggest to you, Brigadier, that
10 the 31st Maribor Corps was in fact moved to Jakovo,
11 which is 10 kilometres west of Belgrade, you would
12 disagree with that, would you?
13 A. How many kilometres did you say from
15 Q. 10 kilometres west of Belgrade?
16 A. Jakavo is far off from Belgrade.
17 Q. Perhaps I might have the distance wrong but
18 if I were to suggest it was moved to Jakovo, you would
19 disagree with that, too, would you?
20 A. Jakovo is Croatia.
21 Q. You mentioned that the Air Force Corps, which
22 covered the 5th military region, was withdrawn to
23 Bihac. Was that the 5th or the 10th Corps?
24 A. The 10th Corps was the corps of the ground
25 forces, the 5th is the Air Force Corps. This is an
1 enormous difference, because the Air Force Corps
2 covered the whole of the territory of Slovenia and
3 Croatia and it was removed to Bihac in part and Banja
4 Luka and to Glamoc in part where the airports exist.
5 The difference is enormous. The 10th Zagreb Corps was
6 a corps of the ground forces and the 5th is the
7 Aviation Corps, the Air Force Corps.
8 Q. Brigadier, further on in your report at page
9 12 you make reference to the fact that people were
10 illegally carrying weapons and you refer us to the
11 Resolutions by the Security Council in May 1992, so
12 about this period of time I am referring to. Is your
13 position that, so far as you understand it, that
14 carrying of arms without a permit was illegal at the
15 relevant time in 1992?
16 A. Resolution 572 of the Security Council came
17 somewhat later. I do not know where I said about the
18 illegal carrying of arms. Who carried arms illegally?
19 I am not sure what this is about -- do you mean before
20 the war?
21 Q. Let me clarify that, because it was a bit
22 confusing. You say in your report that people who were
23 arrested and taken to Celebici camp, a large number of
24 them were arrested for illegally carrying arms; do you
25 remember saying that?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. And that illegality arises because they did
3 not have a permit?
4 A. You could not have a permit for this kind of
5 weaponry -- permits were given for ordinary hunting
6 arms, whereas a permit for army weaponry of a military
7 type was not issued -- and nobody could come by such a
8 permit. Permits are not issued for that purpose.
9 Q. An exception to this was, though, if you were
10 a member of the armed forces -- you would agree with
12 A. Of the legal armed forces, of a recognised
13 country, yes.
14 Q. So, the armed forces that were illegal or
15 paramilitary, they illegally possessed weapons, if they
16 had them?
17 A. Of course. Paramilitary units which were not
18 in the system, which were outside the Territorial
19 Defence or the army, which came after 15 April,
20 everything that was outside that system were considered
21 to be paramilitary and illegal formations.
22 Q. I take it that military forces of other
23 countries present in Bosnia at the time were illegally
24 in possession of arms as well?
25 A. I do not know what military forces of Bosnia
1 you have in mind. Were they forces who were in Croatia
2 in the war or whether they were forces who fought
3 against the JNA on the territory -- the JNA were the
4 legal forces of the State in question, if that is your
6 Q. I am asking you a general question. I am
7 saying that forces of other countries that possessed
8 weapons would have done so illegally at the relevant
9 time, would they not?
10 A. For Bosnia, as an internationally recognised
11 country, foreign forces were the JNA forces and the
12 forces of Croatia, they were also the forces of that
13 particular country.
14 Q. And, if, for example, the Novi Sad Corps was
15 in Bosnia possessing weapons and carrying on military
16 activity, you would regard that as illegal, would you
18 A. I would consider this an aggression against
20 Q. And, likewise, if Croatia had its forces
21 there, that would be illegal as well, would it not?
22 A. It depends on the agreement. If the
23 Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina asked assistance from
24 Croatia, then this would not be illegal. It would be
25 an alliance and assistance in that respect.
1 Q. It would have been contrary to Resolution
2 number 752, would it not, of 15 May 1992?
3 A. From that date on, when Resolution 752 came
4 into being, all foreign forces were duty bound to
5 withdraw from Bosnia, and they would then be considered
6 illegal -- they could not remain in Bosnia as of that
8 Q. And that would be irrespective of any
9 agreement that Bosnia may have entered into, would it
11 A. Afterwards agreements of this kind were
12 formed, where joint action was required against the
13 aggressor. At the time Croatian forces, like the
14 Yugoslavia forces, were to have been guided by
15 Resolution 752 and were to have withdrawn.
16 Q. Or to come under the authority of the
17 Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina -- that was the other
18 option for them?
19 A. Yes. If assistance is required and if the
20 Government complies, then the forces would remain as
21 allies in the operations, then this would be legal.
22 Q. But at no stage that happened, did it,
23 Brigadier, that the Croatian forces or the forces of
24 Serbia came under the authority of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
25 A. No.
1 Q. So the continued presence of Croatian forces
2 and forces of Serbia, after 15 May 1992, would have
3 been positively illegal?
4 A. Yes, that is what it should have been like.
5 Q. That would have been the position for the HVO
6 as well, was it not -- it was a force that did not come
7 under the authority of the Government of
9 A. That is not the case with the HVO. The HVO
10 was considered an armed force of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
11 regardless of the later obstructions, regardless of the
12 fact that they did not accept a unified command --
13 united command, but the HVO defended Bosnia-Herzegovina
14 from the rebellious Serbs or "Chetniks", as they are
15 called. We had brigades of the HVO along Majevica, the
16 111th and then the 110th unit, the Brcko 108th unit, so
17 up to the conflict of January 1993 -- no, 9 May 1993,
18 the forces of the HVO were a component part of the
19 defence armed forces of the Republic of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina; therefore, they were not a foreign
21 military force, they were considered to be legal armed
22 forces defending Bosnia-Herzegovina.
23 Q. But you would agree with me, Brigadier, that
24 the self-organised groups of citizens, at the beginning
25 of the war, some of them did not come under the control
1 of the legal authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that
2 lasted well into 1993?
3 A. I do not think I could agree with that. We
4 did have, in the course of the war, at the beginning of
5 the war, self-organised groups of citizens under
6 different terms. They were known by different names,
7 but with the law on armed forces that was enacted, they
8 were all placed under the system, so that the forces
9 which were placed under the Patriotic League of the
10 Green Berets and other names as well as the HVO and
11 within them, the HOS units, all of them became part of
12 the system on 15 April, so there is no question of
13 1993. We formed corps -- from October to December, we
14 formed corps, and not some kind of groups working
15 outside the system -- not at all.
16 The rechannelling of the army went slowly --
17 it was a slow process and the first groups did exist in
18 April, self-organised groups of citizens. For the most
19 people, the people who were patriotically disposed,
20 their initial arming was ad hoc, they used what they
21 could find, hunting weapons and so on, and very quickly
22 this became a problem, the force became larger,
23 battalions and companies and detachments were being
24 formed, which became the armed force and were led by
25 commanders and in May the brigades were formed, so
1 there were no self-appointed groups after May 1992, let
2 alone 1993 when there was heavy fighting and when the
3 commands of the corps were in charge of the combat
5 Q. So, from that, do I take it that it is your
6 opinion that, at least after May 1992, there were no
7 independent units operating in Bosnia?
8 A. There should not have been, apart from the
9 fact that the forces of the Croatian defence force
10 always had their directives from Grude, the
11 headquarters in Grude and they were given their orders
12 from Grude. Formerly they were in the composition of
13 our form, for example the 111th, 108th, 110th, they all
14 had the names of the HVO brigades but were part and
15 parcel of the 2nd Corps. However, when our inspection
16 went on the locality, I went to see whether the orders
17 from the 2nd Corps reached the brigades and whether
18 they were given tasks and we learnt that the directives
19 came from the staffs in Grude.
20 Q. I am not asking you what the position should
21 have been, I am asking you what the position actually
22 was. You mentioned the arms embargo having an impact
23 on the ability of the armed forces of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina being able to arm itself for the
25 conflict in 1992. By that, and accepting, and
1 I accept, that there will no doubt have been
2 considerable constraints upon the Army of
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina because of this embargo, but you are
4 not suggesting, are you, that it was not breached from
5 time to time?
6 A. The arms embargo, for the most part, was
7 directed at the Bosnian armed forces. I am not going
8 to say this in absolute terms, but both the Serbs and
9 Croats had the free flow of the arms. Had the embargo
10 been lifted in Bosnia-Herzegovina, there would be much
11 less destruction. It was very clear -- Yugoslavia was
12 the fourth largest armed force in Europe. I am not
13 going to say that there were illegal deliveries of
14 arms. You cannot be allowed to just get slaughtered
15 and not respond to that, so people probably used
16 different channels and probably even bought arms from
17 the Serbs.
18 Q. And probably bought some from the Croats as
20 A. That is also possible. Again, I have
21 problems with the interpretation. It is alright now.
22 Q. A moment ago you spoke about the fact that
23 the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina was a number of
24 different groups which were finally put together at the
25 end of the day into what became the corps. Your
1 position, is it not, is that what is the Army of
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina did not really formally take shape
3 and finally take shape until the corps were actually
4 established at the end of 1992?
5 A. The forces of the Bosnian army developed from
6 small groups of citizens and then very, very soon the
7 youth of Bosnia responded to the call of arms, mostly
8 Bosniaks and then also some Croats and Serbs, even, and
9 so the army grew. However, you had a problem with
10 personnel, the officers' corps, those who were going to
11 organise and then train and lead the operations. As of
12 May we had brigades established. When a corps gets 25
13 brigades, we had big communication problems, because
14 you could not have 25 communication lines. If you
15 issue an order to one brigade, you had to have 25
16 different brigades, so we had to enlarge these
17 brigades, so we formed corps, we skipped divisions.
18 So the corps were established in -- started
19 being established in October and then, later, in
20 November, and through reorganisation there were 6th and
21 7th Corps established, so from the brigades we move on
22 to corps and the objective was efficiency in leading
23 and controlling the units. Because the general staff,
24 that is, the staff of the supreme command at first had
25 to deal with about 90 brigades, and you know what kind
1 of a task it is to command and control that many units,
2 so we had to bring them together into larger formations
3 so that we would be able to better command and control
5 Q. Indeed, in May and June of 1992, there were
6 many parts of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina that were
7 not even part of brigades or groups -- that is right,
8 is it not?
9 A. In some parts, there were detachments that
10 were left. However, in May and June, the brigades were
11 developed, but it is a development -- it is something
12 that you cannot rush, so it was an ongoing process
13 throughout 1992. So, for instance, the 4th Corps was
14 established in November 1992, so this was an ongoing
16 Q. When we look at the outset, in April and May
17 1992, we have a situation such as this, do we not and
18 I am talking about what became the Army of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina: we had a fledgling military force,
20 we had very few armaments, it lacked professional
21 officers, its ultimate headquarters in Sarajevo were
22 under attack, and the communications to its disparate
23 parts throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina -- it is true, is
24 it not, that the higher command in Sarajevo was so
25 preoccupied with the siege that it was difficult to
1 keep track of what was happening in regions such as
3 A. Yes, Konjic was a specific case as well as
4 Jablanica and other municipalities who used to be under
5 the district staff in Mostar. Since there were
6 differences in opinion with the HVO, this staff was not
7 functioning and in those two headquarters, in Konjic
8 and Jablanica, in the Neretva River valley were
9 directly linked to the supreme command in Sarajevo,
10 which was not the case with the others, who were linked
11 to the district staffs in Tuzla, Sarajevo, Bihac, in
12 Donje Gorazde and so forth. These two staffs were an
13 exception as well as the municipal staff in Livno,
14 which could never take hold, because the HVO forces
15 were there, so those parts in -- so these municipal
16 staffs were directly linked to the main staff in
18 Q. So, you are disagreeing with me then when
19 I say that communications between Konjic and Sarajevo
20 were disrupted by the war and very difficult at the
21 time -- you disagree with that?
22 A. No, that is not what I said. At first, the
23 communications in April were possible. However, later,
24 there were major difficulties there. We could only
25 send couriers and sometimes by radio communication.
1 There were no protected communication lines. We did
2 not have the equipment, we did not have the modern
3 equipment in that regard, so that was a major problem
4 -- a lack of communication lines, a lack of equipment
5 -- so that the communication of the main staff with
6 particularly small staff was very difficult and
7 sometimes it took days for an order or a despatch to
8 reach the subordinate to whom it was sent.
9 Q. And, indeed, there was an issue, was there
10 not, for Sarajevo, as to who in fact and indeed would
11 be loyal to Sarajevo at the time in terms of persons
12 selected to take command and control in remote regions
13 -- regions remote from Sarajevo?
14 A. I do not know what your question refers to.
15 MR. NIEMANN: I do not know whether I can make
16 it much clearer. All I am saying is that, when it came
17 to the selection of staff to control the military
18 forces in remote regions, one of the issues that needed
19 to be paid attention to in Sarajevo was the correct
20 selection of people who at the time would be loyal to
21 the cause of the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina --
22 you do not disagree with that, surely?
23 JUDGE JAN: (INAUDIBLE).
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, your Honour.
25 JUDGE JAN: ... problem of disloyalty on the
1 part of the local leaders.
2 THE WITNESS: I do not know if the question
3 referred to the loyalty of the local commanders -- I do
4 not know if I ever addressed that.
5 MR. NIEMANN: It certainly, because of all
6 these difficulties with communication and so forth, and
7 the fact that the army was being established and
8 developed, a great deal of responsibility was thrust
9 upon, by necessity, the municipal authorities; is that
11 A. The army was not authorised to order anything
12 to the municipal authorities -- the municipal
13 authorities followed the laws that are their own and
14 the army structures do not issue commands to them and
15 do not control them.
16 Q. You are not answering my question, but the
17 point I am making is that, because of these
18 difficulties on the ground in Konjic, and on the ground
19 in Sarajevo at the time, the municipality had to
20 perform a much more significant role than would be the
21 case if, for example, the JNA were still loyal and were
22 still commanding the forces from an invasion from, say,
23 an outside country outside of Yugoslavia, or do you
24 disagree with that?
25 A. No, I would not. As far as difference is
1 concerned, in terms of authority, there are laws
2 governing that and, in that sense, there is no
3 difference whether there was an Army of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina or the army structures of the JNA.
5 That means the authorities do not step out of their
6 competencies. The army has its own clearly defined
7 duties and so do the authorities, regardless of whether
8 it is the army or the TO that is in question. The
9 authorities have their own set of rules that they
11 Q. There is no question about that, but the
12 point I am putting to you, and -- I withdraw that.
13 Are you suggesting that, on the ground -- and
14 I am not talking about the pure science of the law, but
15 are you suggesting the municipal authorities at no
16 stage ever went beyond the reach of their legal
17 authority -- is that your position, is it?
18 A. If you are talking about the units and their
19 use in combat, they never overstepped their
20 authorities, but the truth is that they could do other
21 things for the army, especially as far as logistics is
22 concerned, providing food, clothing, et cetera. But
23 the authorities do not meddle in the command and
24 control -- they do not order the use of units.
25 Q. Moving on to the SDS, which you also speak
1 about in your report at page 16, I am right, am I not,
2 in saying that the position of the SDS in broad terms
3 in 1992 was that, if Bosnia was not to remain part of
4 the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, then the
5 Serb occupied or dominated part of Bosnia would be
6 incorporated into a concept of Greater Serbia -- you
7 would agree with that, would you not?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And conversely the Muslim and Croat
10 population saw themselves as being -- I withdraw that
11 -- that the Croat population saw themselves as being
12 distinct from the concept of Greater Serbia and so did
13 the Muslims?
14 A. In the referendum of 29 March and 29 February
15 and 1 March 1990, the elections were held, and the
16 choice was whether to remain in Yugoslavia or not and
17 the majority of Muslims, that is, Bosniaks, and Croats,
18 I think 63 per cent or 64 per cent of the population of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina voted that Bosnia should not remain
20 within the former Yugoslavia. At that time, the
21 concept that the Croats had was such that there was no
22 difference between Croats and Bosniaks at that time --
23 Serbs had a different idea and a different political
24 position which was dictated from Belgrade that Bosnia
25 can only remain within Yugoslavia, and I would not go
1 on to elaborate on this political issue -- I am a
2 military expert, so please let us stay out of politics.
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You have already done
4 so much, instead of answering "Yes" or "No" -- that
5 would be sufficient.
6 MR. NIEMANN: Brigadier, on page 17 of your
7 report, you make reference there to a place called
8 Ostrozac, which you say is located in the immediate
9 vicinity of Celebici, and you say none of the Serbs of
10 this town were arrested or punished in any way. What
11 is your source for that -- where did you find that out?
12 A. The population of Celebici, which at the
13 request of the police surrendered their arms, were not
14 arrested and they were all issued certificates of
15 temporary requisition of their weapons and nobody
16 touched them and nobody arrested them. This is a fact
17 and this record still exists -- it is kept in Jablanica
18 in the police headquarters, and you can verify it
19 there, because it is in the control of the Jablanica
21 Q. Yes, but my question is the source statement
22 that none of them were arrested -- that is what I was
23 interested in -- how did you know that none of them
24 were arrested?
25 A. I had a conversation with a witness who was
1 involved in that.
2 Q. Did you keep a copy of that conversation, or
3 did you make a note of the conversation, I should say?
4 A. I did not take any notes -- I thought that
5 the conversation was enough, but I found that, as far
6 as Ostrovac is concerned, this is what actually
8 Q. Who is this witness; who did you speak to?
9 A. It is a man who was questioning persons and
10 who was issuing the certificates on temporary
11 requisition of arms, so he was a member of the security
12 authorities in Jablanica.
13 MR. NIEMANN: Do you have his name there.
14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I thought you could
15 rely on him as a source of that information. He has
16 told you it was somebody who he interviewed.
17 MR. NIEMANN: We might like to know who it
18 is, because we might like to speak to him ourselves,
19 your Honour. He has not told us who it is.
20 JUDGE JAN: Is it your case that all the
21 Serbs from that village left the area?
22 MR. NIEMANN: The witness says that none of
23 them were arrested.
24 JUDGE JAN: Yes, but if they are still there
25 -- none of them were in Celebici.
1 MR. NIEMANN: He said none of them were
2 arrested or punished in any way. We are asking him how
3 he found that out and who told him.
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It could even be
5 information which he can always remember -- what he
6 thinks happened to a whole community.
7 MR. NIEMANN: It is in his report, it is
8 tendered in evidence. I do not know what your Honours
9 make of it that he cannot tell us who it was who told
10 him. Perhaps you might look for it and tell us later,
12 On page 17 of your report you speak of the
13 fact that the SDS paramilitary formations in Borci took
14 hostages of the then Konjic municipal president, the
15 municipal executive board, and arrived for political
16 negotiations. This issue of the SDS paramilitary
17 taking hostages, where did you find that out from?
18 A. It is a well known fact -- they went for
19 negotiations there and were arrested, because they
20 asked that the Serbs move out of Konjic and, if you
21 allow people to leave, they would let them out of
22 Konjic. The official policy was not to -- for the
23 Serbs to stay in Konjic, not to move out, but the
24 authorities that were already established in Borci
25 asked that the Serbs move out. It was not difficult to
1 find out why they wanted this, so that later they could
2 shell, they could destroy Konjic.
3 MR. NIEMANN: I understand all of that, but it
4 was not my question. I wanted to know who told you
5 that, or how you found that out.
6 JUDGE JAN: One of your own witnesses spoke
7 about Asim Dzambasovic being taken as a prisoner by the
8 Serbs and then he entered into some sort of a
9 compromise, which is not in the interests of the
10 municipality -- one of your own witnesses spoke about
12 MR. NIEMANN: I know. I am asking did he
13 speak to that witness. It is just a question. He
14 writes a report, he gives us some of the material and
15 not all of it. Surely I am allowed to pursue where he
16 got his information from.
17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You are not speaking
18 for him, because some of these things are matters of
19 common knowledge about the period at that time --
20 things which everybody else knows.
21 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps I am the only one who
22 is not in that loop.
23 JUDGE JAN: Have a look at your own witness
24 statement then.
25 MR. NIEMANN: I certainly am aware of the
1 knowledge but not common, your Honours.
2 On page 19 of your report you speak of the
3 fact that the Igman military factory surrendered --
4 expressed its readiness to surrender to the legal
5 authorities and so forth, so that those forces handed
6 over the factory to the forces representing the
7 Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Was there anyone
8 arrested or anyone interrogated at the time?
9 A. I do not know what kind of hospital you are
10 mentioning -- was this a hospital or a factory?
11 JUDGE JAN: A factory.
12 MR. NIEMANN: A factory. I did not mention
13 hospital at all -- the Igman military factory of
14 ammunition and other products at page 19.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, we received the
16 translation of "hospital", which is why the witness is
17 now confused. I see in the transcript it
18 states "factory".
19 THE WITNESS: There was no fighting around
20 the factory -- it was agreed that these were all
21 workers, that there was no problem there. I do not
22 know if anybody was arrested there, I do not have such
23 information, but I know that the legal authorities took
24 control of this facility and I know that a large
25 quantity of weapons was taken then, but I do not know
1 whether anybody was arrested.
2 MR. NIEMANN: And if I were to suggest to
3 you that at least one person was, you would not or
4 could not disagree with that?
5 A. I am not in a position to agree -- I was not
6 a witness there, I am here under oath and so I can only
7 confirm things that I know and I cannot agree to things
8 that I am not familiar with.
9 Q. In the next paragraph, paragraph number 2 on
10 page 19, you speak of the taking of the Celebici
11 facility and you say that the action of seizing the
12 Celebici facility was managed by the then executive
13 officer of the municipal Territorial Defence
14 headquarters, Midhat Cerovac, the JNA soldiers found in
15 the barracks safely left Konjic. I am not disputing
16 that that may have happened. I am asking you what was
17 the source of this information?
18 A. The source of information was Cerovac, the
19 commander, the chief of command, who was a witness
20 there. There was no fighting there -- there was an
21 agreement with the non-commissioned officer who was there
22 in charge, he had about 20 to 30 soldiers there, they
23 had negotiations which were political in nature, and he
24 agreed to surrender without fighting, he feared that
25 somebody would get injured and hurt, and so there was
1 no fighting, and so they peacefully came in, and they
2 collected whatever was there, some 20 or 30 pieces of
3 small arms, and there were some hand-held
4 rocket-propelled grenades and then they were released
5 and they went home.
6 Q. I just really wanted to know who it was who
7 told you and you did, you told us it was Cerovac.
8 I have a simple question -- did you keep a record or
9 note of the conversation you had with him about this?
10 A. I have notes -- personal notes of my
11 conversations with all individuals with whom I spoke.
12 You cannot keep all that in your head -- it is a lot of
13 material -- two months of research, so obviously I did
14 keep notes.
15 Q. You say Cerovac at the time was the executive
16 officer of the municipal Territorial Defence
17 headquarters -- what is that -- what is an "executive
19 A. It is not executive -- you have commander and
20 you have a chief, so he was person number 2 in the
21 command. The commander commands and the chief is his
22 deputy, and also coordinates everything and he usually
23 proposes a decision to the commander, so there is no
24 executive person, as you call it and the chief is not
25 able to issue commands unless authorised by the
1 commander to do so.
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think we will have to
3 stop here. We will reassemble at noon.
5 (A short break)
7 (The witness entered court)
8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Tell the witness he is
9 still on his oath.
10 THE REGISTRAR: I remind you, Sir, that you
11 are still under oath.
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed,
13 Mr. Niemann.
14 MR. NIEMANN: Brigadier, we were discussing
15 that part of your report where you speak of the taking
16 over by the Territorial Defence of the Celebici
17 barracks and you mentioned that a group was led by
18 Midhat Cerovac. Do you know who was the commander of
19 the Territorial Defence at the time?
20 A. No, I do not -- there was not a commander --
21 he was chief of the staff. Cerovac was never commander
22 of the municipal staff. This notion of commander of
23 Territorial Defence does not exist -- it is commander
24 of the staff -- commander of the municipal staff was
25 somebody else and he was the chief in command --
1 Q. It is the commander of the municipal staff
2 then, that person, do you know who that was?
3 A. At the time, the commander of the municipal
4 staff was it Omer Boric or perhaps -- I am not sure of
5 the other name -- Omer Boric was ill for a time and had
6 to leave for a time -- perhaps it was somebody else --
8 Q. Have you been told or did you read anywhere a
9 suggestion that the accused, Mr. Delalic, led the
10 take-over of the Celebici facility?
11 A. Delalic never is mentioned in any document as
12 a military commander, except the time when he was
13 commander of Tactical Group 1.
14 Q. That is not my question. My question is:
15 had you read or have you been told at any stage that
16 the accused Mr. Delalic led the take-over of the Celebici
17 facility -- I did not ask you whether he was a military
19 A. In a statement, I seem to recall having read
20 in a statement that Delalic led the group for taking
21 over the Celebici facility.
22 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you. Brigadier, before
23 I was asking you some questions about the 31st Corps in
24 Maribor and I put it to you that it had been moved to a
25 place 10 kilometres west of Belgrade and the place
1 that I referred to was Jakovo and I think you told me
2 that was in Croatia. Could you please look at the map
3 that I now show you. I have extra copies for your
4 Honours. (Handed).
5 JUDGE JAN: Is it really important to the
6 case, the position of the 31st Corps?
7 MR. NIEMANN: It is important to determine
8 the accuracy and reliability of the report and to
9 correct something that has been arisen.
10 MR. NIEMANN: Brigadier, just looking at that
11 map there that is in front of you -- might this be
12 given the next number in order?
13 THE REGISTRAR: It is Prosecutor Exhibit
15 MR. NIEMANN: I think if we place it on the
16 ELMO --
17 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Do you have copies for us?
18 MR. NIEMANN: It is merely a map of the
19 Belgrade area.
21 If you place it on the overhead protector, we
22 can all see it then. Would you look at the machine
23 beside you closely, please, Brigadier? Would you look
24 at Belgrade, where you see "Belgrade" written on the
25 map. Would you go directly west of Belgrade, about
1 one centimetre. You need to look at the map as it
2 appears on the screen -- it may be difficult to see on
3 the projector. Do you see what I am pointing to?
4 A. I see the airport of Sucin. If you are
5 talking about west of Belgrade, 1 kilometre west, I do
6 not know the scale of this map.
7 Q. I ask you go immediately below the airport of
8 Sucin, do you see the name that appears immediately
9 below it?
10 A. It says Jakovo -- that is a village -- the
11 village of Jakovo.
12 Q. I put it to you that that is where the 31st
13 Maribor Corps was moved when the forces were taken from
15 A. According to the orders from the Federal
16 Secretariat, these two corps were to have been deployed
17 to Serbia, but, after the loss of the 17th Tuzla Corps
18 in Slavonia, this corps was to have filled the gap of
19 the 7th Tuzla Corps, so that this one corps did not
20 remain in Serbia; it went to replace the Tuzla Corps,
21 which was sent to fight in Slavonia and the 11th Corps
22 was sent to Serbia -- when the 17th Corps sustained
23 losses due to the fighting in Slavonia.
24 MR. NIEMANN: I tender that map, your Honours.
25 Brigadier, on page 23 of your report, you
1 speak of a period in mid April 1992 and you say, "as
2 the representative of the Republic of TO headquarters
3 in mid April Lieutenant-Colonel Asim Dzambasovic
4 arrived in Konjic". My question is, is this a
5 gentleman that you spoke to and obtained a statement
7 A. Yes, it is. His name is Asim Dzambasovic.
8 Q. This statement was not included in your
9 materials, although it appears to be something that you
10 relied upon -- where is the statement now?
11 A. I did not draw up the report in writing, but
12 just took the knowledge that he was -- that he came
13 from Visoko, the region of Konjic, and he brought
14 material with him concerning the organisation of the
15 defence forces in Konjic.
16 Q. Is that an expert opinion you are expressing,
17 or are you just reciting what he has already told you
18 as part of your report?
19 A. He is an officer with the command staff in
20 the academy and there is no reason why I should doubt
21 his knowledge. He is an expert officer, as I myself
22 am, he knows the orders he received and what he did.
23 There was no need for me to ask for a statement from
24 him. We just had a talk and I was told what I was told
25 -- the orders he had and how he translated them into
2 Q. Brigadier, also on page 23 under the heading
3 of the, "Organisation of the Municipal TO
4 Headquarters", the first paragraph, you speak of the
5 fact that the TO headquarters chief of staff was the
6 second person in the line of authority and he at the
7 same time held the position or had the duty of deputy
9 In relation to this part of your report,
10 firstly, can you explain the different positions --
11 what do they normally entail, that is, the chief of
12 staff and the deputy commander -- what is the
13 difference between them?
14 A. If we are only talking about that particular
15 matter, then, in the former Yugoslavia, there was the
16 notion of the commander -- the commander is the
17 individual who decides, who takes decisions and it is
18 only one individual who can take decisions -- that is
19 one of the principles of command. The chief of
20 headquarters staff is a different individual, and he is
21 also the deputy commander.
22 Q. It is merely a question, Brigadier -- I am
23 only asking you to tell me what the significance is of
24 having two titles -- chief of staff and deputy
25 commander and is there any difference between the roles
1 performed by the deputy commander vis-à-vis the chief
2 of staff?
3 A. I said that it is one individual -- there is
4 no deputy -- it is the chief of staff who is also
5 deputy commander. When the commander is not there, he
6 acts as deputy and the chief of staff in relation to
7 the commander has quite a different function. The
8 commander decides and the chief of staff decides on
9 these decisions and takes part in the decision-making
10 and it is the chief of staff that has all the
11 information on one's own forces and on the basis of an
12 analysis, an assessment, and appraisal, the commander
13 brings in a decision when everybody sends in their
14 reports to the chief of staff, who then puts forward a
15 decision to the commander for the use of forces. The
16 chief of staff does not decide on this particular
17 matter. He can give a different decision if, according
18 to his assessments and his knowledge, these do not
19 coincide, and then he makes his decision regardless of
20 the fact that the chief of staff has proposed a
21 different decision -- he can reject the decision in
22 part, or he can accept it as a whole. So when you are
23 talking about the role of the chief of staff and the
24 difference between the deputy commander, there is only
25 a deputy when the commander himself is not there in
1 person, and when he is authorised to take his place --
2 authorised the deputy to take his place, but this does
3 not rid him of the responsibility for the repercussions
4 of what he has conveyed to the commander, so it is
5 always the commander who is responsible for the state
6 of affairs in the units and the repercussions and
7 everything that follows a given order or decision.
8 MR. NIEMANN: On page 25, you talk about the
9 fact that, on 20 April 1992, the Celebici facility also
10 held a station, Ministry of Interior units --
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, I apologise to
12 my colleague, but could he tell us the page in the
13 Bosnian text? I see there is a significant difference
14 -- the witness is losing time in finding the relevant
15 passage, so could you give us the page in the Bosnian
16 text, please?
17 MR. NIEMANN: I would be delighted but
18 I have never been given a copy of the Bosnian text.
19 Even if I had been, I could not read it anyway, but
20 I have never received a copy of it. I am afraid I am
21 stuck with the English.
22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It is fairly difficult
23 to do that in practice except when you have had enough
24 time to compare. Hopefully, we will follow it as it
25 is, because I think the witness follows the Bosnian
1 drafts while the Prosecutor is following the English
3 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps I could raise --
4 JUDGE JAN: It is subheading (e) --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
6 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, I can do that. I will
7 raise a matter with the Brigadier which may solve the
8 problem anyway.
9 I am asking you questions about your report,
10 and I am really proceeding on an assumption that the
11 questions I am putting to you are things that you know
12 about, because you have written about them in the
13 report. In fairness to you, I have an English version
14 and you have a Bosniak version, and as best we try,
15 interpretations may not always be accurate. So, when
16 I put things to you, it may be that, relying upon the
17 English version, I am not being precise so far as what
18 you wrote in Bosniak. Please do not hesitate to say to
19 me if you are confused or you think that I am not
20 putting it correctly, because I do not want to be
21 unfair to you -- I want to put it to you as fairly as
22 possible and if what I am saying appears to be
23 incorrect so far as what you intended, it could well be
24 an interpretation error and I just invite you to do
1 Moving on to page 25 of the report, it is
2 under the heading "(e): Locations of the OSTO"
3 et cetera and it is the fourth paragraph, there is a
4 reference there to the HVO Splitska Brigade.
5 Brigadier, the Splitska Brigade -- I take it that is a
6 brigade that is named after the city of Split in
7 Croatia; is that right?
8 A. Probably.
9 Q. And one would assume that it has been formed
10 in the city of Split, that brigade; is that right, or
11 am I wrong in that?
12 A. I do not know exactly.
13 Q. Assuming it had been formed in the city of
14 Split, would it be a fair thing to say that it could be
15 made up of people from Split -- maybe not entirely, but
16 it could be made up of soldiers from the city of Split,
17 or that region?
18 A. I would like to ask you to wait so that I can
19 find my own text. I cannot find this in my text on my
20 page here. May I just have a few minutes to find it?
21 Q. By all means?
22 A. You are referring to paragraphs, I do not
23 have paragraphs here. I do not know what you have in
24 your translation.
25 MR. NIEMANN: It is under part 4, which is the
1 Konjic defence forces, and it is subparagraph (e)
2 entitled "Location of the OSTO and the Deployment of
3 Units" and it is about 10 lines -- 14 lines more
4 precisely in English down from the top --
5 MR. MORAN: I may be able to help. I am
6 informed it is page 31 of the Bosnian text.
7 MR. NIEMANN: Page 31, thank you, I am
8 indebted to my learned friend.
9 Page 31?
10 A. On my page 31 I cannot find it. What is
11 written there is on the command and the combat units
12 and the areas in which they were active, the Celebici
13 facility of 20 April with the MUP units, so it does not
14 seem to me to be on that page.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: Yes, it is that particular
16 part you are reading now.
17 THE WITNESS: The Split Brigade, is that
18 what we are talking about?
19 MR. NIEMANN: That is what we are talking
21 A. They were the forces of the Croatian defence
22 forces with about 120 Croats, locally called the Split,
23 Splitska Brigade. I cannot maintain for sure where the
24 name came from. I am not a witness of the events --
25 whether they were actually people from Split or whether
1 the local Croats just gave themselves the term
2 of "Split".
3 Q. Thank you. Going over to page 27 of the
4 English version, and it is the last section of
5 paragraph (f), "Leadership and Command of the
6 Territorial Units" and it is perhaps more easily found
7 three paragraphs above the next major
8 heading, "Ministry of Interior Police Forces as Part of
9 the Konjic Defence". I wanted to ask you some
10 questions there about a section of your report where
11 you speak of the fact that the OSTO of the Bosnian army
12 had supervision over lower commands and units and the
13 word in English that I have is that "an anarchy was
14 never a characteristic thing at any point over 1992".
15 It is the word "anarchy" in English, whether that is
16 the same word that you used, that is of interest to
17 me. Can you see that?
18 A. Can you tell me the line -- we have page 32,
19 six lines -- where do you find the word "anarchy"?
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: May I help? It is the one
21 but last paragraph, the second but last paragraph from
22 the bottom.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can see it now, thank
25 MR. NIEMANN: I am not sure whether the
1 word "anarchy" is the word selected by you or whether
2 it was a word selected by the interpreter?
3 A. Yes, you are talking about "anarchy" in the
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. There is proof that, in the system of
7 command, there was always the law of conduct within the
8 rules and regulations for leadership and command, the
9 principles on which this was based and it is maintained
10 that there was never any anarchy, a state of anarchy in
11 the system of control and command. There were
12 principles governing the system of control and command.
13 Q. By that, are you saying that there were no
14 cases at any stage of people taking independent action,
15 or failing to obey orders in the Konjic area during
16 that period in 1992?
17 A. I am not a witness of the events in Konjic
18 and the possibility that individuals sort of step out
19 of the system cannot be excluded.
20 Q. You may not have been a witness to the
21 events, but you make a pretty clear statement there,
22 that it was "never a characteristic thing" and that is
23 the issue I am really addressing myself to?
24 A. When you say that there was no anarchy, that
25 is a general statement -- that means within the
1 system. But, you can never exclude the fact that
2 sometimes within any army, any individuals can operate
3 outside of the system.
4 Q. So if I were to show to you a document by the
5 TG1 commander of 30 October 1992, the accused,
6 Mr. Delalic, complains of a failure to comply with an
7 order, you would not say -- you would not deny that;
8 you would simply say that it is not a matter that you
9 intended to deal with when you used this expression; is
10 that right?
11 A. I do not know -- it is probably some kind of
12 order to the Tactical Group 1 that it was issued to a
13 commander who did not carry it out. Maybe the order
14 was not carried out in a timely fashion rather than the
15 order was refused to be carried out. Those are two
16 separate things -- one is not carrying it out timely
17 and the other one is to refuse to carry it out.
18 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps I should show you the
19 document so that we can deal with it. This is a
20 document that has previously been given to the Defence
21 but it is not an exhibit. I ask that it be marked with
22 the exhibit number in order.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecutor Exhibit 220.
24 MR. NIEMANN: Brigadier, it is not a very
25 good copy, so I hope that you are able to read it
1 clearly enough (Handed). But in particular, do you see
2 in the very first paragraph what appears to be there a
4 A. I cannot read the copy very well. I cannot
5 see who is the author. You cannot see the headings --
6 I see that the date is 31 October.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: We cannot see who signed this
8 document and who issued this document -- there is no
9 signature on it, so I object.
10 MR. NIEMANN: I suggest you look at the very
11 bottom of the second page.
12 THE WITNESS: There is no signature -- it
13 says "Commander of TG1 Delalic", but there is no
15 MR. NIEMANN: You know, as a military man,
16 that this is a telex, do you not, Brigadier?
17 A. I did not see the contents of this document,
18 so I would need some time to study it in order to
19 ascertain its authenticity. I cannot speak to it right
20 now. So, I do not know where the problem is. He does
21 not give the daily report -- I do not know if this is a
22 failure to carry out an order or is this a refusal, so
23 I would have to study it a bit closer in order to give
24 you my expert military opinion. I cannot see any
25 signature here, and up here I cannot see who is sending
1 it, who the author is.
2 Is this the Tactical Group that is sending
3 it, in which case it should state there, and I can also
4 not see the commander's signature. If this is the
5 commander Zejnil Delalic, then there should be "SR"
6 which stands for "in his own handwriting", so that we
7 can trace the original document back, so I cannot say
8 this is an authentic document, because I do not have
9 any proof of it.
10 Q. Are you seriously suggesting that as a member
11 of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that if you received
12 a telex message in the field, or wherever, which issued
13 you with an order, you would refuse to obey it because
14 it happened to be a telex -- are you suggesting that?
15 A. No. What I say is that it has to
16 state "commander" in his own handwriting, so "SR" would
17 be the abbreviation and that is a statement that
18 confirms that it was sent by who states on the document
19 that they have sent it.
20 Q. But you would agree with me that -- whether
21 or not you would accept it yourself, you would agree
22 with me that there is a suggestion in this that not all
23 orders were being obeyed at the relevant time?
24 A. I cannot confirm that. Even though I worked
25 in the general staff, the staff of the supreme command,
1 I am not aware of the cases where orders were not
2 carried out, so I am unaware of this case, even though
3 I worked in the supreme command staff. I did not have
4 an opportunity to study this document, so I cannot tell
5 you in which sense the orders were not carried out.
6 That is a very serious matter -- if that is determined,
7 then you go and you are court-martialled.
8 Q. Certainly you would not have carried out
9 this. If this had been an order directed to you,
10 I take it you would have just ignored it?
11 A. This is not an order as far as I can see;
12 this is a report. It is a report to a superior. If
13 this was addressed to Zejnil -- that is, if this is
14 Zejnil, then it was a report to Sefer, so it is a
15 report on something, so I cannot comment on it now
16 because I would have to read it first, so this is not
17 an order -- this is a report of a subordinate to a
18 superior and it is a report on the situation -- the
19 state of affairs.
20 MR. NIEMANN: We will not waste any more
21 time. Might that be marked for identification?
22 On page 28 of your report, which is under the
23 next heading 4.2, "Ministry of Interior Police Forces
24 as Part of the Konjic Defence", you say that:
25 "Given that in the beginning of the war the
1 Territorial Defence did not have an organised military
2 police, all arrests of persons in the illegal
3 possession of arms, as well as arrests of persons
4 deprived of liberty after the actions in Donje Selo and
5 Bradina, were performed by the SJB Konjic Police Forces
6 and by the HVO military police."
7 Are you saying that the Territorial Defence,
8 when it was engaged in military activity, carried out
9 no arrests whatsoever?
10 A. As far as Bradina is concerned, from what
11 I know, the regular police of the Ministry of the
12 Interior was in charge of arresting people who were in
13 illegal possession of weapons. At that time, the
14 Territorial Defence had no military police, and the
15 arrest of individuals who were in possession of weapons
16 was carried out by the HVO and the police of the
17 Ministry of the Interior of the Konjic municipality.
18 Q. Did the Defence show you any witness
19 statements in which the witnesses said that they were
20 arrested by the Territorial Defence in Bradina and
21 Donje Selo?
22 A. I do not recall having seen such a document,
23 that the members of the Territorial Defence were
24 arresting people. It may have been shown to me, but
25 I do not remember it.
1 Q. But if in fact witnesses did say that, your
2 only response to that would be that that, according to
3 your theory, was not technically correct; is that
5 A. No, I am not a witness of these events, so
6 I cannot say what was true in these cases and what was
8 MR. NIEMANN: In the very next paragraph, you
9 speak of the fact that the prison at Celebici was used
10 to keep prisoners that had been arrested, because the
11 police station in Konjic was not available because of
12 the constant shelling of the SJB building. You are not
13 suggesting by that, are you, that somehow or other
14 these people were being imprisoned in order to take
15 them out of harm's way, are you, at Celebici.
16 JUDGE JAN: You mean for their own safety?
17 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, for their own safety?
18 A. That was not the only reason. The reason was
19 that the prison in the police station in Konjic was
20 very small. It could only house 10 to 15 prisoners, so
21 that was a reason, too, because larger numbers of
22 prisoners came, so at first it was a shelling so they
23 had to move the prisoners who were already there, and
24 then after the problem arose after all the arrests in
25 Bradina and Donje Selo, there was no other way but to
1 use the Celebici barracks.
2 Q. Am I to understand you correctly that,
3 earlier in your evidence, you were asserting that the
4 HVO was legally constituted as a military force in
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina in the early part of April/May/June
6 of 1992; is that your position?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So when you say on page 28 of your report
9 that the HVO units were formed contrary to the
10 regulations of the legal authorities of the Republic of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina, you would now tell me that that is
13 A. I never showed anywhere in my report that
14 they were formed illegally. Where is it, please?
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: Page 35, paragraph 2.
16 THE WITNESS: It is a different kind of
17 problem here. They were not under the command -- they
18 never accepted the command of the republican
19 headquarters of the Territorial Defence -- they had
20 their own chain of command, but they were defence
22 MR. NIEMANN: They were therefore able to
23 act independently of the forces of the Republic of
25 A. Yes, they could be tasked out of Grude,
1 depending on what position they were in, and they were
2 controlled and commanded out of Grude. The main staff
3 of the Territorial Defence could not issue commands to
4 the HVO units, even though they were defence forces of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the beginning they never
6 engaged in combat operations against the legal defence
7 forces, that is, held front-lines against the Chetniks.
8 That is the paramilitary formations of the Serb
10 Q. But that is not the issue, is it, Brigadier?
11 The issue is whether the HVO was a legally constituted
12 force, and whether it was the military units, as had
13 been envisaged by the regulations of Bosnia-Herzegovina
14 in respect of its military forces, and clearly that had
15 not been envisaged in those early parts of the war?
16 A. On the basis of the experience from the war
17 in Croatia, the war in Croatia was raging in Croatia
18 since July 1991, so that was more than half a year
19 before the outbreak of war in Bosnia, and the Croatian
20 Defence Council did receive instructions from Zagreb
21 and they were more prepared for the war. They had
22 weapons, equipment -- of course, not from their own
23 depots, but this was all coming -- it was assistance to
24 help the Croatian people, so they were better prepared
25 for the war than the Bosniaks. They had a better
1 organised military. They did go and fight in Croatia.
2 They were trained in Croatia. They were armed and
3 obviously the HVO structure in the beginning of the war
4 did represent a force even in Konjic.
5 Q. And their position in Konjic could not, under
6 any interpretation of the matter, be considered legally
7 constituted pursuant to the law of Bosnia-Herzegovina
8 and, indeed, I will go further and say that it was
9 subsequently contrary to the Resolutions of the
10 Security Council?
11 JUDGE JAN: He has already answered this
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 JUDGE JAN: He has already answered this
15 question in the morning.
16 MR. NIEMANN: I get different answers, your
18 JUDGE JAN: I am not sure about that.
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: Judge Jan is correct -- the
20 witness gave a very precise answer regarding the
21 Resolution. He said that he spoke about the HVO and
22 the BiH army units as being two separate forces.
23 I think he stated it very clearly this morning.
24 MR. NIEMANN: You go on at page 29 of the
25 English version and you say:
1 "The joint command had no superior higher
2 command. The TO and the HVO of Konjic kept having
3 separated lines of subordination."
4 Do you remember stating that in your report?
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: Page 36.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes. And what answer is
7 being expected now?
8 MR. NIEMANN: Do you agree with me what
9 I have said, that is what you say in your report? I am
10 going to ask you a question about it.
11 A. I agree that they did not have a superior
12 command. It was a very specific case for Konjic, that
13 is, this joint command did not have a superior command
14 above itself, so each of these commands was linked to
15 their own respective commands, that is, to Grude and to
17 Q. And, indeed, I think you rationalised that --
18 you go on to say that this is the reason why there was
19 need for mediation and coordination?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I will get on to ask you some questions about
22 your documents a little later, but you have attached a
23 couple of documents in your document binders, where you
24 have a situation where the coordinator signs the
25 documents -- the coordinator, Zejnil Delalic. Do you
1 remember those documents? I do not think it is
2 necessary to go to them -- I think you would have seen
3 them, or you did not?
4 A. Yes, there are such documents -- yes,
5 I remember well.
6 Q. And I think that, if you remember them quite
7 well, you would say that they deal -- do you say that
8 they deal with logistics only?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Or do you say something else?
11 A. For the most part, the logistics.
12 Q. Have you ever seen any documents that were
13 signed by the coordinator, Zejnil Delalic, that dealt
14 with matters other than the issue of logistics?
15 A. Yes, I did see such documents as well, where
16 he is signed as transmitter of certain orders -- in the
17 preamble it is stipulated that he transmits certain
18 orders of the supreme command.
19 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps you might look at
20 Exhibits 210 to 213.
21 There are extra copies for your Honours of
22 these exhibits, if your Honours would care to see them
23 -- they have been allocated numbers already, however.
25 Brigadier, the first document I would like to
1 take you to is Exhibit 210. It is an order of 25 June
2 1992 -- sorry, it is 24 June 1992 but it has the 25th
3 date on the top. It is 24 June 1992, Exhibit 210.
4 Perhaps the usher might assist the Brigadier
5 in locating these exhibits as he goes through them.
6 Do you see that one? That is an order on
8 A. Yes, I do see it.
9 Q. It deals with a gentleman called Enver
10 Redzepovic -- do you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you say that that is a document relating
13 to logistics?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Can you go to the next document, Exhibit 211?
16 A. Excuse me, I would like to explain something
17 about this document.
18 Q. Go ahead.
19 A. This is an appointment of an officer to
20 another duty, because he is not capable of exercising
21 the function that he was given and I already stated
22 that commanders are commanding and Esad Ramic signed
23 this, and this relates to the municipal authorities.
24 It is communicated to them that this officer should be
25 transferred to another duty, from the artillery battery
1 to another duty, so the coordinator knows, he is a
2 witness, and he is not in charge of issuing orders.
3 I already spoke about the role of coordinator
4 -- he has no authority with respect to appointments of
5 people and giving them higher ranks, or controlling or
6 commanding the units to make decisions on their use, so
7 the coordinator here is in the role of a witness.
8 MR. NIEMANN: Let us go to the next document,
9 Exhibit 211. Can you find 211, which is --
10 JUDGE JAN: In this context, air defence is
11 a function of the municipal committee and is
12 coordinated between the war presidency and the TO, and
13 the commander of the TO has also signed it and he is
14 signing as a coordinator. It is in relation to the
15 appointment of a person in charge of air defence.
16 MR. NIEMANN: The witness says he is a
17 witness. The witness says he signed as a witness.
18 JUDGE JAN: He is a coordinator between the
19 war presidency and the TO.
20 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, I am only asking
21 questions of the witness. He says he is a witness.
22 I do not know what -- other than deal with his answer
23 -- what you can do.
24 Exhibit 211, can you see that one? That is
25 an organisational order of 8 June 1992. It
1 starts, "Mirsad Mesic, son of Rasim"?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Is that a logistical order so far as you
5 A. It is the same case -- it is the same thing.
6 Here, specifically both Dinko Zebic and Esad Ramic
7 signed this. The commanders have the authority to sign
8 this. It is an organisational order and, also, the
9 coordinator is again a witness there. There is no
10 other explanation to this. As I said, the coordinator
11 never had authority to order anything.
12 Q. It does not say he is a witness, though, does
14 A. He is a witness here.
15 Q. It does not say that?
16 A. It cannot say that he is a witness. It is
17 the fact that the commander has agreed, so he has to
18 report to the municipal authorities that the commanders
19 have reached this agreement. Nobody can issue any kind
20 of orders to the units without commands, so he is
21 saying that there is agreement between the commanders
22 and the presidency -- he will also say that the
23 commanders agreed. I stress that several times -- a
24 coordinator is not authorised according to the rules.
25 He is not authorised to issue orders and here he is not
1 in a capacity of a person who is commanding -- he is
2 here as a witness in the capacity of a person who is a
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think we might stop
5 here and continue at 2.30.
7 (Luncheon adjournment)
2 (The witness entered court)
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Kindly remind the
4 witness that he is still on his oath.
5 THE REGISTRAR: I remind you, Sir, that you
6 are still under oath.
7 THE WITNESS: I have understood that, yes.
8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Niemann, you may
10 MR. NIEMANN: Before we start, Brigadier, a
11 lot of the questions that I ask you only require a
12 "Yes" or "No" answer. It is entirely a matter for you
13 if you want to give a more detailed explanation, but it
14 is a slower process and it slows down the whole
15 progress of the matter and I know that you are probably
16 anxious to complete your testimony today and certainly
17 I am, to complete my cross-examination, but you may
18 rest assured that their Honours and everybody on this
19 side of the courtroom and on the other side of the
20 courtroom have read your report and we know about it,
21 so you do not have to repeat it each time you give us
22 an answer, because we know what you have said.
23 So, if you are as anxious as I am to finish
24 this cross-examination today, and not have to go on
25 next week, then you may wish to consider giving me a
1 short answer to my questions -- you can -- I am not
2 trying to restrict you, but I am just suggesting it to
4 Brigadier, before the adjournment for lunch,
5 we were looking at Exhibit 211. Perhaps that could be
6 shown to the witness, please (Handed). You were
7 explaining that the signature of the coordinator that
8 appeared there is in the capacity of a witness. You
9 would agree with me, would you not, Brigadier, that it
10 is an unusual military practice to have witnesses and
11 particularly people who sign as witnesses in these
12 circumstances without acknowledging the fact that they
13 are a witness?
14 A. I did not hear the interpretation -- yes,
15 I did hear the interpretation. I said that it was a
16 specific position in this case for the Konjic region,
17 and that it was the municipal staff which was a joint
18 staff and that this practice did not exist anywhere
19 else -- the need for a coordinator of this kind.
20 Q. Are you suggesting that there were no
21 coordinators anywhere else in the whole of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992?
23 A. As far as I know, for this kind of case, a
24 case of joint command, because we are dealing with
25 command, I do not know of any other case -- perhaps
1 there was the need for coordination of some kind, but
2 for a joint command as in this case, I do not know of
3 any other case.
4 Q. And, certainly, you cannot or would not point
5 to any regulations which would require the coordinator
6 to sign in the capacity of a witness in the
7 circumstances of this signature as it appears here in
8 Exhibit 211?
9 A. I do not know what your question refers to
11 Q. I said to you that you certainly would not be
12 suggesting that there is any regulation which would
13 require the coordinator to sign as a witness in the
14 circumstances that the signature of Zejnil Delalic
15 appears on this exhibit, 211?
16 A. No, there are not any regulations of that
17 kind. This was the result of necessity for a joint
18 command, a parallel command, to be composed of the
19 presidency, the wartime presidency of the municipality,
20 and to coordinate the commands and that here he is
21 signed as a witness, to be able to say that they have
22 solved the problem jointly.
23 MR. NIEMANN: I want you to imagine for me for
24 a moment, if you would, a document being issued out of
25 Sarajevo, the supreme command in Sarajevo, and let us
1 assume that the document has been signed by President
2 Izetbegovic and Sefer Halilovic. If such a document
3 was to be signed and if such a document existed, what
4 would be the order of signatures?
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: The question is completely
6 unclear. I do not know why it is being asked.
7 MR. NIEMANN: I am not going to tell you why
8 it is being asked, but I will --
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think the witness
10 might be able to answer it if he knows the order in
11 which the signatures should appear. If he does not
12 know, he will say so.
13 THE WITNESS: I do not know about the
14 order, but on the right-hand side would be the superior
15 authority and on the left-hand side the subordinate --
16 not from top to bottom but left to right -- that would
17 be the order of seniority. Which is more relevant --
18 the President is of course the superior authority than
19 the chief of command.
20 Q. So, looking for a moment, if you would, at
21 exhibit -- on page 33 of your report in the English
22 version, it is the first full paragraph and the last
23 sentence on page 33, in your version it is -- I do not
24 know the page reference but it is under the
25 heading (c), "Coordinator" and it is the second
1 paragraph of the section, paragraph (c), "Coordinator",
2 page 33 in the English version.
3 You say that the coordinator of the military
4 defence forces cannot be brought into any sort of
5 connection with the term "coordinator" in the sense of
6 combat duty recognised by military terminology and
7 military regulations.
8 By that, are you suggesting that the
9 coordinator appointed by the war presidency in Konjic
10 had no role in a military sense in the conflict in
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina in the early part of the war in
13 A. First of all, the war presidency cannot
14 appoint any individual which would have any
15 competencies over the army, because it is not in its
16 authority to do so, and as far as -- because it is a
17 civilian organ, therefore, it cannot appoint any
18 individual who would have any competencies over the
19 armed forces. That is the point I want to make.
20 MR. NIEMANN: Okay. I ask you to look at a
21 video -- a short video clip that I now want to play on
22 the television in front of you, which should appear,
23 and it is Exhibit 116, and it is a very short video
24 clip, but I want you to watch it for me, as we play it
25 through, and then I would ask you some questions about
1 it. Could you just watch closely on your television
3 (Videotape played)
4 Perhaps if we stop for a moment.
5 (Videotape stopped)
6 We need to make sure their Honours have a
7 copy of the interpretation. I am sorry, I think it
8 might be better if we could roll back to the beginning
9 again just so that their Honours may be able to follow
10 the interpretation.
11 This is already an exhibit which has been
12 tendered and your Honours have seen it but for your
13 assistance we have a copy of the interpretation.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Is there a copy for the
16 MR. NIEMANN: If a copy can be made
17 available for the booths, it might assist -- it has
18 already been made available.
19 It looks as though the interpretation has
20 gone to one side and not the other, your Honours.
21 Can you just play that again for us, please?
22 (Videotape played)
23 THE INTERPRETER: (Translating videotape).
24 "Everything is ready, Padalovic reporting,
1 At ease. Do you know who is imprisoned in
4 What do you have to do to liberate Babo?
5 Where will you take him?
6 To Konjic!
7 That's it! Are you the same soldiers who
8 have liberated the area from our enemy?
9 We are.
10 Captain, take over the command.
11 Yes, Sir."
12 MR. NIEMANN: Just stop there for a moment, if
13 we can.
14 (Videotape stopped)
15 Brigadier, have you ever seen this before?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And has it been explained to you what it is
18 -- a video clip of what it is and what it represents?
19 A. The video clip represents a sort of solemn
20 occasion linked to the train.
21 Q. That is what you have been told?
22 A. I see a train there ready, so that is what
23 I thought it was all about.
24 MR. NIEMANN: Were you told who the gentleman
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, may I --
2 THE WITNESS: The one commanding or --
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, for a point of
4 truth, the witness was shown the whole video clip of
5 war in BH with this particular segment. The Defence
6 did give the whole videotape -- did place it at the
7 disposal of the witness, the videotape that we received
8 from the Prosecutor, but we did not give any
9 explanations as to the individual segments of the
11 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you, your Honours.
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.
13 MR. NIEMANN: Brigadier, the gentleman that
14 says, "Captain, take over the command," did you
15 identify who that was?
16 A. Yes, I saw who it was.
17 Q. And who was that?
18 A. It was Mr. Delic.
19 Q. Delalic?
20 A. Delalic, yes.
21 Q. Do you know the person who took over the
22 command as captain?
23 A. Captain Ramic.
24 Q. Do you know what time or approximately what
25 date this video was taken?
1 A. I do not know.
2 Q. If I was to tell you that it was during the
3 period of time that Mr. Delalic was a coordinator --
4 acting as a coordinator -- that would be contrary,
5 would it not, to what you said in your report on page
6 33, when you so emphatically stated that the
7 coordinator of the municipality defence forces cannot
8 be brought into any sort of connection with the
9 military and military regulations?
10 A. I maintain that now, too, because from this
11 I cannot see that he is commanding the army on the
12 battlefield. It is one thing to command a unit, to
13 issue orders, to direct forces on the battleground, to
14 demand statements or reports from them, but this is a
15 sort of event, manifestation, I do not see this is the
16 commander -- he is not performing the role of a
17 commander here -- it is just a ceremony.
18 Q. So, so you place no significance on the
19 words, "Take over the command"?
20 A. No.
21 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps we might see the next
22 segment that follows, and I would ask you to look at
23 this for me, please, on your television screen.
24 Might the next segment be played from Exhibit
1 (Videotape played)
2 THE INTERPRETER: (Translating videotape).
3 "002, do you hear me?
4 Okay, 'Obala', let's go.
5 They are fiercely shooting.
6 I wish somebody would repeat the order.
7 002, switch off, 'Dedo' do you hear, Oganj 1
9 I understand. Oganj 2 here, respond."
10 MR. NIEMANN: I think that will probably be
12 Brigadier, if I were to tell you that the
13 person that was calling, "002, do you hear me, Oganj 1
14 calling" was Mr. Delalic, and that this was a scene from
15 the attack on Borci on 28 June 1992, you would not
16 refute that, would you?
17 A. It is possible that it was him, yes, with
18 this secret code -- the 001 and 002, because 001 called
19 in once and 002 called in the next time.
20 Q. That is during the period of time that
21 Mr. Delalic was a coordinator, was it not?
22 A. It is the period -- he is the coordinator in
23 this case, because we have an official document for
24 this particular Operation Oganj, an order from the
25 supreme command to the municipal command, and this
1 operation was prepared by the municipal command,
2 Mr. Ramic, together with the HVO, so in what particular
3 capacity Mr. Delalic is to be found here, I cannot
4 ascertain exclusively on the basis that he was a deputy
5 for logistics, to coordinate the army as a coordinator,
6 but not to elaborate a plan and not to draw up
7 documents for an operation. You cannot see that from
8 the video clip, and the official documents on Operation
9 Oganj say something else -- not his role as commander.
10 They testify to something quite different.
11 Q. Quite so, but is it not a fact that this was
12 a military scene and it was in the course of battle,
13 which you said was the criteria upon which you would
14 say a coordinator was acting as a military coordinator?
15 A. The military coordinator in this case did not
16 exist. He is the coordinator at all times between the
17 presidency, the wartime presidency of the municipality
18 and the armed forces, and thus deals with logistic
19 problems -- everything needed to support the conflict,
20 the course of the battle. That is what he is there to
22 MR. NIEMANN: We have read your report,
23 Brigadier. On page 34 of your report you also state
24 quite emphatically there that Zejnil Delalic had no or
25 could not have -- had no, nor could have had any
1 superior position in relation to the TO -- the
2 Territorial Defence of the Bosnian Herzegovina army and
3 such authorisation was not granted to him to act on
4 appointment. You go on and say specifically:
5 "Zejnil Delalic as coordinator neither had
6 any superior position in relation to the HVO because
7 the HVO never recognised anybody's superiority in
8 leadership or command."
9 That is a long question, but I am just
10 quoting from your report at page 34. The point I am
11 specifically getting to is where you say "Zejnil
12 Delalic had no superior position in relation to the
13 HVO." During the course of your research, were you
14 shown the document by the Defence that is now given to
15 you. (Handed).
16 Might it be given the next number in order?
17 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecutor Exhibit 222.
18 MR. NIEMANN: Brigadier, I would like you to
19 look at -- perhaps you can read through that while the
20 other copies are being given to their Honours and the
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: Before the witness reads and
23 responds here, I would like to state that the Defence
24 did not submit this to the witness and the Defence has
25 submitted all the documents that were either introduced
1 into evidence or were marked for identification. This
2 is a document which has been provided to us by the
3 Prosecutors. However, we do not know the provenance,
4 we do not actually know anything about this document.
5 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, I ask that the
6 witness be permitted to answer my questions in relation
7 to it. The witness comes here as an expert and saw
8 lots of documents and numerous of them, particularly
9 witness statements and so forth -- he tells us that he
10 has not included them in his report, so in my
11 submission, that should not be a factor.
12 Brigadier, this document I have now shown you
13 -- you see it has a stamp and it is signed?
14 A. Yes, what is the question, please?
15 Q. I have asked you, do you see it has been
16 stamped and signed -- do you see that?
17 A. Yes, it is both signed and stamped.
18 Q. And do you recognise the stamp?
19 A. I see it for the first time.
20 Q. You have never seen this stamp before?
21 A. No.
22 Q. And the person signing the document, do you
23 know who that was?
24 A. I know this is Mate Sarlija, a Croatian army
25 general, who, as I see, is a commander in the Konjic
1 sector, and in the heading it says that it is the Kralj
2 Tomislav Herzegovina Corps. I hear of this corps for
3 the first time. This gentleman had no authority within
4 our armed forces -- he is a Croatian general, not an
5 HVO general.
6 Q. Quite so -- not an HVO general?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Why do you say that?
9 A. Because he was never a member of the armed
10 forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
11 Q. You would agree with me -- and you said this
12 morning -- that the Croatian military had considerable
13 influence over the HVO?
14 A. Excuse me, we have to distinguish between two
15 things here. There is the Croatian Defence Council,
16 which has its political institutions and military
17 institutions -- that is part of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
18 The Croatian army is a separate thing -- they come from
19 the Republic of Croatia and this general specifically
20 is a general of the Croatian army, and the formations
21 that are called the HVO, these are the Croats from
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina -- citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
23 Q. But you would agree with me that the HVO
24 normally accept the authority of the Croatian generals
25 who were operating in the field at the time?
1 A. I cannot say about this general. I know that
2 the headquarters was in Grude and I know that this
3 general was never chief of that staff.
4 MR. NIEMANN: Might that document be marked
5 for identification?
6 On page 38, you state that the commander of
7 the --
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, before my
9 esteemed colleague continues, the witness has not
10 identified this document, so it cannot be marked for
11 identification. The witness never identified this
13 MR. NIEMANN: It certainly can be -- it
14 cannot be tendered but it certainly can be marked for
16 JUDGE JAN: It is not part of the evidence
17 yet at all -- it has just been marked for
18 identification that this document was shown to the
20 MR. NIEMANN: On page 38, you state that the
21 first commander of the Tactical Group was Mr. Polutak.
22 You say that due to a traffic accident Mr. Polutak
23 transferred the duty of the commander of TG1 to
24 Mr. Delalic in July 1992. Brigadier, what is your
25 source for this information, that Mr. Polutak was
1 relieved of his command because of his traffic
3 A. The source is the order of the commander of
4 the republican staff of the Territorial Defence of 11
5 July and contact with Mr. Polutak, he is currently a
7 Q. If I was to tell you the traffic accident did
8 not take place until August, which was after Mr. Delalic
9 had assumed command, you would deny that, would you, or
10 refute that?
11 A. Absolutely.
12 Q. On page 46, in the first full paragraph on
13 page 46, under (b), "Conditions of Accommodation and
14 Stay at the Prison" -- you are referring to Celebici --
15 you make reference to the food at the camp and you
17 "The quality of the prisoners' food depended
18 primarily on the objective situation affecting the
20 You go on to say:
21 "Both the soldiers and the prisoners received
22 identical food."
23 How do you know that? Where did you find
24 this out from, that they obtained identical food?
25 A. The source of that information is
1 conversation with people who prepared the food. The
2 food was prepared in the building of Sumarija,
3 I believe it was called, and then the food was
4 transported to the soldiers on the front-lines and the
5 prisoners ate the same food.
6 Q. I think you would agree with me that this is
7 not included in your report as part of your expert
9 A. You mean that they did eat the same food or
10 they did not?
11 Q. You say that they did eat the same food.
12 I simply put it to you that that is hardly a matter
13 that you are able to opine on, on the basis that you
14 are an expert in such matters?
15 A. As I already stated, I am not a witness of
16 these events, but in the process of my research on my
17 expert's report, this is the information
18 that I received, that the food for everyone was cooked,
19 prepared at the same location.
20 Q. On page 44 of your report, you speak of the
21 physical location of the Celebici prison vis-à-vis the
22 M17 road. You say:
23 "If persons were imprisoned or being treated
24 in an illegal manner, that activity would have easily
25 been perceived by those using the M17 road."
1 Do you recall saying that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. So, you say that the local population would
4 have seen all of this?
5 A. It is quite possible that they would have
6 seen it, except if something was happening at night.
7 MR. NIEMANN: Brigadier, I want to turn to the
8 documents that you have submitted and ask you some
9 questions about those. This way it may be a little
10 easier to keep track of where we are. I start with
11 volume I. I think the easiest way for us to follow
12 each other is when I take you to a document, Brigadier,
13 I will give you the page reference at the foot of each
14 document plus the document number. So in volume I,
15 I want to ask you some questions about the very first
16 document itself. That is document 1/1 and it starts on
17 page 2 and it starts on page 2.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: I am not getting the
19 interpretation. It is better now, thank you.
20 MR. NIEMANN: Brigadier, this is a document
21 which you have included in your materials, because it
22 relates to the national defence law that was applicable
23 during the time of the existence of the Socialist
24 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. When you look at these particular excerpts
2 that you have here but, in particular, to articles 9,
3 16, 17 and so forth, do you agree with me that it sets
4 out certain rights, duties and responsibilities of the
5 citizens of the Socialist Federal Republic of
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The second to last paragraph of article 8 in
9 particular says:
10 "It is the right and duty of working people
11 and citizens ..."
12 It says:
13 "... self-management organisations and
14 communities to participate in the preparation and the
15 conduction of mobilisation."
16 Do you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Article 9, you see -- I am paraphrasing,
19 Brigadier, because I do not want to spend a lot of time
20 reading out the whole thing, but do you see in
21 paragraph 9 it says what should happen in case of
22 attack. It says, among other things, "The communities
23 have a duty immediately after receiving information,
24 not waiting for notice or order, to exercise their
25 rights and duties in terms of defence" et cetera. Do
1 you see that?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. And then going over to article 13, again it
4 speaks of rights and duties of working people to
5 participate in national defence. It says:
6 "In case of immediate war danger or other
7 extraordinary circumstances, to participate in armed
8 combat and other forms of national resistance."
9 Do you see that?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Article 16 speaks of the fact that this even
12 applies in territory which is occupied?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. We could spend more time studying it in
15 greater detail, but we will not need to. The point
16 I want to make is that this culture of duty and
17 responsibility of participating in military activity of
18 defence was something that was deeply ingrained in the
19 community of the former Socialist Federal Republic of
20 Yugoslavia, was it not?
21 A. It was a process which one could say was
22 accepted by the citizens of the whole of Yugoslavia and
23 they were prepared in case of foreign aggression to
24 engage in fighting without any specific orders, should
25 they find out, through the media, that an aggression
1 has taken place, or an extraordinary situation. It was
2 a concept of foreign aggression.
3 Q. Of course it was a concept of foreign
4 aggression, but the point that I am making is that this
5 culture of defence -- defending one's self, defending
6 one's territory -- was very much part of the ethos of
7 the community. You would not deny that, surely?
8 A. I do not know what you want to say here.
9 Everybody was prepared in the same way -- there was no
10 difference in terms of ethnic background among the
11 peoples of Yugoslavia. They all had the same
12 programmes and they all were trained the same way.
13 Q. It was expressed as "rights and duties" --
14 fairly significant terms, you will agree, surely?
15 A. Yes, those were rights and duties.
16 Q. And the ordinary members of the community,
17 the working class, the ordinary citizens of Yugoslavia
18 could not be expected to be au fait with the
19 complicated definitions of international armed
20 conflict, internal conflict, and things of that nature
21 -- do you agree?
22 A. I believe that in the political system at the
23 municipal level, that is even lower structures, local
24 communes, I believe that the citizenry was informed
25 well enough. I think that citizens did respond to the
1 programmes of training, whoever was affected by that,
2 who was not in the armed forces, and, through that,
3 they were informed of the world events and, also, the
4 domestic events.
5 MR. NIEMANN: Brigadier, if people in a
6 community -- any community -- in Bosnia-Herzegovina
7 felt under immediate threat of war, having regard to
8 this national ethos, these laws which set out rights
9 and duties, it is quite understandable, is it not, that
10 they would seek to defend their territory and respond
11 to a call of arms?
12 MR. MORAN: Objection, that is outside this
13 man's area of expertise.
14 JUDGE JAN: He said foreign aggression.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, your Honour.
16 MR. NIEMANN: We will move along.
17 We go to document number 1/4 on page 30. Do
18 you see that one? Does that document have any
19 signature or seal on it that you can point me to?
20 A. There is no signature, but at the top it
21 states who issued this document. It was the first army
22 district and the date is 15 May.
23 MR. NIEMANN: My understanding from what you
24 were saying this morning is that if it has no seal or
25 signature on it, then it is not something that one
1 could rely on.
2 JUDGE JAN: Is it an original document?
3 MR. NIEMANN: I have no idea, your Honour.
4 It is the witness's document.
5 JUDGE JAN: I know. Has he said it is the
6 original document, or merely a copy of a document --
7 has he said that?
8 MR. NIEMANN: I will ask the witness.
9 Is this the original document or merely a
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: Objection. The witness said
12 that, if there is no stamp, if there is no signature
13 and if there is no abbreviation "SR", which stands
14 for "in his own handwriting" --
15 A. In this document it states "SR", so that
16 means it is a valid document, so it is Aleksandar
17 Spirovski, General, so this is an original document
18 issued by the commander of the first military district.
19 MR. NIEMANN: You say the document speaks of
20 the order to remove arms and ammunitions from the
21 Territorial Defence and secure them in a more secure
22 way. This is the famous order where the arms were
23 taken from the Territorial Defence by order of the JNA;
24 that is right, is it not? You have it there,
1 A. Yes, I do, I do. I do not know what the
2 question is.
3 Q. I will repeat it. This is the order which
4 related to the removal of arms and ammunition from the
5 Territorial Defence when the Territorial Defence arms
6 and ammunition were placed in JNA storehouses; is that
8 A. Allow me to clarify -- this is an order of
9 the commander of the first military district. It
10 follows the order of the Federal Secretary, so there is
11 a superior person who issued that order, so let me also
12 clarify that this order was issued on the 14th by the
13 general staff and the general issued it on the 15th,
14 and it was formally confirmed by the presidency in its
15 session of the 23rd, so what I want to say is that the
16 military had issued the decision beforehand, and the
17 presidency confirmed it, that is, agreed with it,
19 There is a statement by the former President
20 of the presidency where he states that the presidency,
21 when debating this order, reached a decision on the
22 23rd to pool the arms. However, the general staff
23 issued the order on the 14th of May, to withdraw the
25 Q. I think the document you are referring to,
1 which relates to the decision of the presidency, is
2 document 1/8, which appears on page 73 of the
3 documents. Is it customary -- was it in the former
4 Yugoslavia -- for the army to act before the presidency
5 made the decision?
6 A. I cannot say that, but specifically there is
7 a statement by the former President of the presidency,
8 who, when researching these events, stated that this
9 decision was adopted on 23 May, which means that the
10 military had issued such an order prior to this. So,
11 you could say that the presidency in this case was just
12 confirming a decision which was already made.
13 At that time Raif Dizdarevic was President of
14 the Presidency. He retired a year before these events
15 and he researched this and, when asked this question,
16 he said -- he stated that this decision was reached on
17 23 May.
18 Q. We have read that, but I was asking you
19 whether that was customary and okay, we will move on.
20 The only point I wish to make about the document of 1/8
21 on page 73, your version page 70 and following, is that
22 there is no reference there whatsoever to it being
23 confirmation. He speaks of the decision being made --
24 you will agree with me, will you, on that?
25 A. I do not know what confirmation -- when the
1 general staff issued the command on the 14th, it was
2 then distributed to all command posts and in all
3 republics everybody had to follow this order. The
4 republican staffs of all republics and autonomous
5 provinces had to carry out these orders.
6 Q. If we can move on to document 307C, your
7 document appears at page 307 of the first volume -- the
8 English version of that document appears at page 310.
9 Will you go to that?
10 A. 307C?
11 Q. 7D -- it is page 301 -- it is the decree with
12 force of law on defence, basic provisions. It is the
13 law of 20 May 1992 -- can you find 307? It is 307?
14 A. No, I cannot find it. I have 315, the decree
15 with force of law on the armed forces.
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: May I help the Brigadier? It
17 is 307C, "Decree with Force of Law on Defence" -- there
18 is a stamp, 307 on the bottom, so it is 307C.
19 MR. NIEMANN: That is a law that was made on
20 20 May 1992; is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You have included some excerpts there, but
23 not all of it, but, in particular, there is a section
24 dealing with the rights and obligations of the
25 municipality -- do you see that, article 35 and
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You will see there in article 35, and again
4 I am paraphrasing, that the municipality will organise
5 its Territorial Defence and protection. It deals with
6 Civil Defence and it says, "In the event of war, shall
7 organise all people's resistance" -- do you see that in
8 article 35?
9 A. Yes, that is right.
10 Q. In article 36, "In order to organise and
11 implement preparation for defence, the municipality
12 shall" and then it says "take organisational material
13 and other measures, to implement citizens' rights and
14 duties" -- those rights and duties that we spoke of
15 earlier in the realm of defence and in (3), "formulate
16 its own defence plan"; (4) organise the reserve police"
17 and in (8) "provide for the implementation, manning and
18 outfitting of the armed forces, deployment and
19 mobilisation of persons and goods" etc., "Organise
20 defensive preparations and trainings".
21 Then article 38 goes on and says:
22 "In order to realise the rights and duties in
23 the realm of defence, the municipality shall", and it
24 sets out a number of issues there, and says:
25 "Provided the material reserves for war adopt
1 a municipality defence plan, and form other defence
2 work as stipulated by the constitution" and so forth.
3 Article 39 speaks of the presidency of the
4 municipality and says:
5 "The municipal assembly presidency shall lead
6 the resistance in the municipal territory."
7 Article 41, "the Presidency's rules on the
8 proceedings shall govern the work of the municipal
9 assembly", et cetera and, "the command over the wartime
10 resistance". I could go on.
11 Again, you will agree with me, will you not,
12 Brigadier, that the municipality is very fundamentally
13 involved, under this law, in the defence of the
14 municipal territory, when under a threat of war?
15 A. I can say that if what you have just said is
16 there, then it is not the correct translation. If the
17 interpreters can follow me, I will give an explanation
18 regarding each of these articles, when speaking of the
19 municipality and its responsibilities --
20 MR. NIEMANN: I do not want you to give us
21 your interpretation, Brigadier. We have already had
22 that. What you can do, though, Brigadier, is if you
23 tell me that the interpretation that I relied on is
24 incorrect, then, by all means, correct any errors, but
25 you can rest assured that we are fully aware of your
1 interpretation of it.
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, can I just make
3 an objection? I do not know whether it is the
4 interpretation of Mr. Niemann or whether it is a
5 translation problem, but the witness is probably
6 reacting to the fact that our learned colleague said
7 that the presidency "commands" -- in the Bosnian text
8 the verb "to command" does not exist when speaking of
9 the duties of the municipality.
10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think you appreciate
11 your witness is an expert and it is his opinion that
12 matter is there. Whether Mr. Niemann has given the
13 wrong interpretation, the correct interpretation, his
14 opinion matters about it. It is for him to answer and
15 tell the Tribunal what the opinion is.
16 Yes, let us hear your view about what the
17 question is all about.
18 THE WITNESS: We are talking here about
19 plans -- perhaps that is what led the Prosecutor -- the
20 defence plans. Of course, the municipality does have
21 its own defence plan and institutions in the case of
22 war which must function. These institutions must
23 function during a war. That is the defence plan, and
24 not the defence plan of the State, the territory and
25 the facilities. Then each enterprise had its own
1 defence plan. This must not be confused. The
2 municipality and its leadership never had any
3 competencies as far as the armed forces are concerned
4 -- with respect to the planning of their operations,
5 it has no competency of issuing orders to those
6 forces. That is not its authorisation.
7 It is there to do everything logistically to
8 support the struggle -- of course, to mobilise forces,
9 to begin with. Then these forces are taken in by the
10 army, they are trained and prepared for war and then
11 the commanding cadres then command these cadres and
12 then the heads of platoons, batteries, companies,
13 battalions and corps are formed. The municipality has
14 no competencies over those units -- logistically, it
15 supports them, yes, but the municipality does not
16 command the army and that is the most important thing.
17 It is duty bound to supply them with food and arms and
18 medicines and Civilian Defence, saving the population,
19 and so on and so forth -- all this comes under the
20 competencies of the municipality, so there is a lot for
21 the municipality to do and they do have some sort of
22 connection with the armed forces in supporting them in
23 that way, but the armed struggle is not under the
24 competency of the municipality in any way.
25 MR. NIEMANN: If a person, expected to be
1 reasonably familiar with the events that were going on
2 in Konjic municipality during 1992, was to say the
3 president of the war presidency of the municipality,
4 according to the ruling from before the war, took the
5 complete military responsibility for the situation in
6 the area, the presidency is practically a collective
7 commander; you would disagree with that?
8 A. Collective commander of what?
9 Q. Of the military forces?
10 A. No.
11 Q. You disagree with that?
12 A. The municipal presidency is no collective
13 commander over the armed forces -- neither by law,
14 according to the law, nor did this occur in practice.
15 Not only in Konjic but no municipality --
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You have said this
17 several times. You have made it very clear in so many
19 MR. NIEMANN: If we can go on to the next
20 binder and perhaps you can have that given to you.
22 Brigadier, the first document that I would
23 like to take you to, if I may, is document 4/7 and it
24 appears on page 370. Do you see that?
25 A. 300 and what did you say -- what was the
1 number of the document 4/what?
2 Q. 4/7?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you have that? This document appears to
5 agree with you and your interpretation, it would seem,
6 at least in one sense, Brigadier, because it is urging
7 people not to comply with the mobilisation and summons
8 to join the Territorial Defence of Konjic municipality
9 -- do you see that?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. And it says that the reason for that in the
12 explanation is that the Serb people in the presidency
13 were not present at the time when the decision was made
14 -- do you see that? That is explanation paragraph 1?
15 A. No, that is not the reason.
16 MR. NIEMANN: I see. Is your interpretation
17 different? Mine says:
18 "The decision on mobilisation and change of
19 status of TD was brought without the presence of the
20 Serb people in the presidency and other republic
21 authorities in charge of those matters."
22 Does yours not say that?
23 JUDGE JAN: He is talking about the factual
24 position. He is not referring to the document. This
25 is what the document states.
1 MR. NIEMANN: Are you saying this is not
2 what the document states, or are you saying it is not
3 the position?
4 A. I can see what they concluded, that they do
5 not respond to the call for mobilisation, allegedly
6 because the representatives of the Serb Democratic
7 Party did not vote for this -- it is not their
8 document, it is not recognised by them. That is a
9 political question. I would like to ask a different
11 Q. Well, perhaps I just might ask the questions,
12 otherwise we will be here for a long time, Brigadier.
13 This document says that the only legitimate armed force
14 is the JNA?
15 A. That is the attitude of the Serbs.
16 Q. I put it to you that their objection to
17 complying with mobilisation by the municipality is not
18 because it is the municipality that is mobilising the
19 Territorial Defence but because the Serb people, they
20 claim, were not permitted or did not participate in
21 that decision?
22 A. They consciously formed an obstruction to the
23 organs of power and authority. It was not that they
24 were not permitted -- this mobilisation was done
25 officially on the basis of what the State of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina decided -- it brought in the
2 decision for mobilisation, so this is an official act,
3 an official document, which they should have
5 Q. This is dated 13 April 1992?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. If we can move on to your document 4/9, and
8 it appears at page 378. Do you see that?
9 A. I will find it quickly. Yes, I have got it.
10 Q. Who made this summary?
11 A. I can see that these are excerpts from
12 statements of the rebel Serbs that were captured.
13 Q. That is not my question. My question is:
14 who drew it up, who made it?
15 A. Probably the military investigating
17 Q. You will agree with me that the document
18 contains reference to the fact that people were
19 tortured in Celebici?
20 A. I am not a witness of those events.
21 Q. I did not ask you that. I asked you whether
22 the document made reference to that. You would agree
23 with me that the document made reference to it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. In particular, I think one reference is
1 number 122, which refers to the person being tortured
2 and forced to give a statement -- do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you ordinarily rely on documents where you
5 do not know the source of them, or are uncertain of the
6 source of them?
7 A. I am certain of the sources that I spoke to
8 you about that were confirmed by the individual
9 institutions that I mentioned.
10 Q. So you are now certain -- it is not probably,
11 it is something that you are certain about, is it? You
12 can tell us as a matter of certainty where you received
13 this document?
14 A. The document was signed by Juric Slavko who
15 probably questioned the individuals. As he was in this
16 position, I have no reason to doubt the document.
17 Q. My copy does not have a signature. Does
18 yours have a signature?
19 A. No signature.
20 Q. And no --
21 A. But the document has been confirmed by the
22 Institute for the Research into War Crimes. You have a
24 MR. NIEMANN: And no "SR" either, I see.
25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If you do not consider
1 it having any value, do you bother about this?
2 MR. NIEMANN: The next document I would like
3 to take you to is document 4/11, which appears at 410
4 of your binder, and it is merely an extract of a
5 newspaper article and I do not really need to ask you
6 any questions about the article itself so much; I am
7 mainly interested to know whether or not this is
8 something that you relied on and felt was accurate for
9 the purposes of your report?
10 A. No, in my report I do not speak of this
11 cooperation of the HVO and the Serbs, but this is an
12 illustration -- it is the president of the municipality
13 of Trebinje, Buturovic, who gave a report to this
14 paper, newspaper, of how cooperation evolved between
15 the Serbs and the HVO.
16 Q. Thank you. When you were doing your report,
17 did the Defence provide you with any newspaper articles
18 or reports about Mr. Delalic?
19 A. I saw some newspapers, but I did not have
20 time to study them carefully, when I worked on my
21 expert material.
22 Q. If these newspaper articles were to deal with
23 such matters as his authority over Celebici, would you
24 have considered them to have been important?
25 A. On newspaper articles you can never guarantee
1 their authenticity and that they deal with events as
2 the truth demands.
3 Q. The next document I would like to go to is
4 document 5a -- 5 and the page number is page 436?
5 A. Yes, I have it.
6 Q. Where did you receive these minutes from --
7 who gave them to you?
8 A. I received the minutes from the municipality.
9 Q. On the first page of these minutes, there is
10 a reference to a report by the president. In the
11 second paragraph he says:
12 "I would also propose one item and,
13 considering things which have occurred for the moment."
14 He made a concept for the agenda and then he
16 "... I propose the today assembly to make a
17 decision on the establishment of the Konjic municipal
18 Territorial Defence and, pursuant to the respective
19 conclusions of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
20 presidency, being the highest body of this republic,
21 also to make the decision on Konjic municipality
22 Territorial Defence regarding appointment of
24 Do you see that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And then, going over -- it is page 3 on my
2 document -- I am afraid I cannot assist you, but,
3 again, it is the President speaking, and he says:
4 "The assembly president emphasised in further
5 discussion that the Konjic municipality was in a
6 special kind of blockade."
7 Meaning "isolation". It speaks about
8 difficulties of getting to Mostar and access to
9 Sarajevo. He then says:
10 "In that sense he proposed that the assembly,
11 as the highest authority body, make a conclusion and
12 demand the authorised republic institutions to provide
13 a communication to Sarajevo in the shortest period of
15 And so forth. Then, going over, just
16 immediately above item 1, he says:
17 "The decision on the forming of the
18 Territorial Defence was adopted conditionally, with six
19 votes against, and the decision on appointment of
20 Redzepovic, Enver, a captain first-class, to be
21 commander of the municipal territorial headquarters was
22 adopted by five votes against and one abstained."
23 You would agree with me that is a decision,
24 is it not, on the appointment of the commander of the
25 municipal territorial headquarters, would you not?
1 A. This is the question of a proposal -- the
2 proposal given by the municipal assembly, and it is
3 adopted by the supreme commander of the army, so the
4 general staff cannot know who to appoint in a
5 municipality. The proposal for an appointment must
6 come from below, so it is the proposal by the
7 municipality that a commander be appointed, so it is
8 not the municipality who appointed the commander but
9 initiated through this proposal that a certain
10 individual be appointed commander.
11 Once the decision is approved from the
12 military peaks, then that individual will become a
13 commander, in actual fact.
14 Q. And can you point to me where in these
15 minutes the word "proposal" appears in relation to this
16 appointment as such, other than the proposal that the
17 assembly do it?
18 A. I do not know whether you have read the
19 document in full. You can see parts of the Serbs
20 discussing the fact that, without confirmation and that
21 it is a proposal which will be subject to the opinions
22 of the military chiefs.
23 MR. NIEMANN: I did read it, but I could well
24 have missed that. Perhaps you could point it to me,
25 the paragraph -- perhaps if you can point me to the
1 paragraph where that appears?
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: Can I help, perhaps? Page 6,
3 paragraph 3, Nedzo Stojanovic, and that goes on to
4 speak of the decision, that it is adopted
5 conditionally. The paragraph begins with Nedzo
6 Stojanovic that this decision can only be brought
7 conditionally and that was approved -- that is what the
8 minutes state.
9 MR. NIEMANN: That is the part that you rely
10 on for what you say is "conditional approval"?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. NIEMANN: Going on to the next document,
13 V-A/6 --
14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think we will have to
15 break until 4.30.
17 (A short break)
19 (The witness entered court)
20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Kindly inform the
21 witness he is still on his oath.
22 THE REGISTRAR: I remind you, Sir, that you
23 are still under oath.
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed,
25 Mr. Niemann.
1 MR. NIEMANN: Would you agree with me that,
2 in some contexts, the war presidency could issue orders
3 to the defence forces?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Then go, would you, please, to documents
6 V-A/15 and V-A/16, appearing on pages 469 and 472, is
7 the English version and your version is 468. You would
8 agree with me that that is an order, would you not? In
9 particular, I am dealing with V-A/15?
10 A. I see this document.
11 Q. That is an order of 3 June 1992 by the
12 president of the presidency, is it not?
13 A. The president of the war presidency of the
14 municipality, yes, it is, and it is the prohibition of
15 use of vehicles. Again, this is not a command -- the
16 civilian authorities do not issue orders; they issue
17 decisions, so they adopt the decision and obviously
18 this is a mistake because of ignorance and it has been
19 formulated as an order. So, this does not regard the
20 use of units -- it is not about command -- and it is to
21 the HVO and TO not to use the vehicles for the
22 electrical utility company, so they see a need to use
23 those vehicles themselves and are telling the HVO and
24 the TO commands that they cannot use them.
25 Q. Likewise, document V-A/16, that is a mistake,
1 too, is it?
2 A. Yes, again, there was an order there and
3 another order here and it is about the use of fuel --
4 the oil. They have to agree on the common use of
5 fuel. It was not again the use of units or armed
7 Q. We will go to the next volume, if we could.
8 (Handed). The first document I would like to take you
9 to is V-D/15 and it appears at page 726 is the
10 Serbo-Croat version -- it is V-D/15 -- 727 is the
11 English translation of that document. Have you found
12 that? It is about halfway through the documents?
13 A. I have 127 as the English version and 126 as
14 some kind of an order.
15 Q. I have not mentioned 127 -- I mentioned 726
16 as the page, but the document is V-D --
17 A. 726?
18 Q. Yes. It is an order from Omer Boric to a
19 mobile detachment, dated 27 May 1992. Can you find the
20 document V-D/15?
21 A. Excuse me, could you please repeat the page
23 Q. The page number in my version is 726?
24 A. Yes, I have this in front of me.
25 MR. NIEMANN: You would agree with me that
1 this document is a document from Mr. Ramic to his
3 JUDGE JAN: Boric or Ramic?
4 MR. NIEMANN: Boric.
5 JUDGE JAN: And also the HVO commander
7 THE WITNESS: Here, the signature states
9 MR. NIEMANN: Sorry, that is my mistake,
10 I apologise.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: If I can be of assistance,
12 this is 123/7.
13 MR. NIEMANN: We have found the document.
14 You would agree with me that it is a normal
15 military document, this one -- you had it open there,
17 A. 123, is that the document you are looking
19 Q. No, we had the document open, I think -- it
20 is page 726, and it is V-D/15. It is an order from
21 Omer Boric?
22 A. Yes, I do have that document.
23 Q. You would agree with me that this is a normal
24 military document?
25 A. Yes, I see the signature here -- both
1 commanders, both Boric and Zebic.
2 Q. You would agree that it is a normal part of
3 command authority to transmit orders from a superior
4 command to subordinates, in other words, it is a common
6 A. Yes, I can see that it is an order by both
7 commanders to send a detachment of a strength of two
8 companies and to then have a parade of them, but I do
9 not see what the question is that you are trying to
11 Q. I will repeat my question. It is a common
12 practice, is it not, for intermediate commanders to
13 transmit orders from a superior command to the
14 intermediate commander's subordinates -- that is common
15 military practice, is it not?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. NIEMANN: Is it possible --
18 THE INTERPRETER: May we have the microphone
19 on for the witness?
20 MR. NIEMANN: Can the commander of a
21 municipal headquarters, say, for example, of Zenica,
22 give orders to commanders of the municipal headquarters
23 of Tuzla -- would that be possible?
24 A. No.
25 Q. What about if the commander of Zenica says,
1 in his order, that he was told to give this order by
2 the supreme command, and he then goes on to say to the
3 other municipal headquarters, "You are responsible to
4 me for implementing this order." Would that be a
5 legitimate military order? I am giving you an example
6 -- it is a hypothetical example?
7 A. If we are talking about the commanding -- it
8 is a duty of every commander to carry out the orders of
9 his superior unless that involves committing a criminal
10 act. That means that if a commander was given a task
11 to transmit an order to another officer, even though he
12 is not in the chain of command, he is still obligated
13 to do so, because the order was issued by his superior,
14 so we have a case of transmission here. If he belongs
15 to another staff, he could not.
16 Q. In that event, does the supreme command have
17 to signal or send a message, in our hypothetical
18 example, to Tuzla headquarters that it has given
19 authority to Zenica to issue the order? Again, this is
20 my hypothetical example?
21 A. No, that formulation could not take place --
22 that they would authorise headquarters in Tuzla to
23 authorise the headquarters in Zenica, that case does
24 not exist. If there is a supreme command --
25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Niemann, if you
1 really have any direct question to ask, put it to the
3 MR. NIEMANN: I am making it as direct as
4 I possibly can.
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Hypothetical questions
6 which are not related directly to a command line of
7 authority. Why make things more difficult?
8 JUDGE JAN: Can the supreme commander direct
9 one headquarter to give a direction to another
10 headquarter -- would that order be illegal.
11 THE WITNESS: No, in that case, that order of
12 the superior must be carried out, so, in that case,
13 they are a transmission, because this commander is not
14 his subordinate -- they are just passing on or
15 transmitting what was ordered then.
16 MR. NIEMANN: Their Honours have requested
17 me to go to a specific example. In your report and,
18 indeed, in your testimony, you stated that a Tactical
19 Group commander could give persons who were not his
20 subordinates orders based on orders from the supreme
21 command. You said that in your testimony and in your
22 report. In your opinion, would the Tactical Group
23 commander have to explicitly state that the orders are
24 made because of a direction by the supreme command?
25 A. In principle, and that is what I am talking
1 about, the commander of the Tactical Group can only
2 issue commands to his own personnel and I think that
3 I am clear if I say that it is only if he states in the
4 preamble that he is carrying out orders of a superior
5 that he can do so. I hope that is clear.
6 Q. What about the situation where the Tactical
7 Group commander did not receive a direct order from the
8 supreme command but merely had consultations, would
9 that be sufficient?
10 A. What kind of consultations do you have in
12 Q. Discussions over the telephone, or by letter,
13 or some other means, but it was not a direct order as
15 A. An order can be transmitted orally, through a
16 courier, through communications lines, and in whichever
17 way these orders arrived, those to whom it was directed
18 have to carry them out. There is no question of any
19 kind of consultations here.
20 MR. NIEMANN: Would you look at the document
21 that I now show you? (Handed).
22 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecutor document 223.
23 MR. NIEMANN: I agree that this is not a
24 very good copy, Brigadier. But I want you to assume a
25 couple of things for me for the moment. I want you to
1 assume that it is signed Territorial Defence commander,
2 Zejnil Delalic, and that there appears the stamp on the
3 document. The relevant part that I want to take you
4 to, though, is this -- you will see in the heading of
5 the document a reference to consultations --
6 MS. RESIDOVIC: On the basis of this
7 document, I think that nobody can confirm this as
8 authentic. Half of the name is missing, half the stamp
9 is missing and we do not know in which way this
10 document is being offered to the witness.
11 MR. NIEMANN: You see where it says in the
12 paragraph in the head paragraph "Consultations"
13 -- "After Consultations with Supreme Command"
14 et cetera -- do you see that?
15 A. I see the document.
16 Q. And do you see --
17 A. I cannot say that it is authentic, because,
18 firstly, the date is not the same as the dates of the
19 conflict, if I recollect well -- the conflict in Prozor
20 was some time in October and here we have 28 August.
21 I do not know who signed it, so I cannot accept it
22 as --
23 Q. I do not recall asking you to authenticate
24 the document. I asked you to look at the first
25 document, Brigadier, to the reference where it
1 says, "After Consultations with the Supreme Command" --
2 that is what I asked you to look at. In a military
3 context, I want you to tell me what that means?
4 A. You mean in the first paragraph or
5 after, "I hereby issue an order".
6 MR. NIEMANN: Before, in the first paragraph.
7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Niemann, if we go
8 back a little bit to what the witness has said, he
9 clearly stated that instructions can be oral, can be by
10 courier, and can be by any method through which you get
11 to the officer responsible. Really, you are trying to
12 establish what "consultation" should mean. I do not
13 think you need bother about that -- it is by any method
14 through which the commander has been reached in terms
15 of the instruction being given to him -- that should be
16 sufficient, even from his own evidence.
17 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours please.
18 You will agree with me there is nothing there
19 to indicate that Mr. Delalic was ordered to transmit the
20 orders to the municipal headquarters -- you would agree
21 with that, would you not?
22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: He has not been
23 accepting this message as a thing which must have
24 passed through him anywhere. He is unable to say
25 anything about the document itself. If you are
1 proceeding in a hypothetical manner, you continue that
2 way, in the absence of authenticating this document.
3 If you are trying to rely on this, at least on my copy
4 of the Bosnian version, it is completely illegible.
5 I do not think anyone can rely on that.
6 JUDGE JAN: Mr. Niemann, "Consultation" can
7 have many connotations. For example, the subordinate
8 talks to the superior and says, "This is the position,
9 what should I do?" -- the consultation takes place.
10 The superior can tell him, "Do this, that and the
11 other." He can say back, "No, I cannot do that."
12 Consultation like that, a command of the superior can
13 be derived from consultations, also.
14 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours understand it
15 -- I did not -- then I need not press it any further,
16 I guess. I do not understand what it means in the
17 context of this.
18 JUDGE JAN: I am sure you must have
19 consulted so many people. Your client consults you, he
20 can say, "Please do this", and you can tell him "No, do
21 not do that." "Consultation" can be in various forms.
22 MR. NIEMANN: I know what it means in
23 English. What it means in the military context in the
24 former Yugoslavia --
25 JUDGE JAN: I am not speaking about
1 Serbo-Croat; I am just talking about what
2 "consultation" can connote in English.
3 MR. NIEMANN: My problem is what it means in
4 the military context in Bosnia-Herzegovina at that
5 time. I will pass on. Might that document be marked
6 for identification.
7 In your report, and again in your testimony,
8 you stated that a Tactical Group commander could give
9 persons who were not his subordinate orders based on
10 orders from the supreme command?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. NIEMANN: I show you another document --
13 JUDGE JAN: Incidentally, this document does
14 not relate to Konjic, because the areas mentioned here
15 relate to different municipalities.
16 MR. NIEMANN: The very hypothetical
17 proposition that I was postulating.
18 JUDGE JAN: You can ask him because he knows
19 these areas.
20 MR. NIEMANN: You want me to pursue it?
21 JUDGE JAN: Ask him if these areas fall
22 within the Konjic municipality.
23 MR. NIEMANN: Does Prozor fall within the
24 Konjic municipality?
25 A. No.
1 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you.
2 JUDGE JAN: There are some villages also
3 mentioned here.
4 MR. NIEMANN: What about the villages or
5 towns that are mentioned there -- Varva in paragraph 2
6 -- are they in Konjic? You may not know the answer to
8 A. I cannot see this village of Varva.
9 Q. Paragraph 2 of the order?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you see those villages mentioned there?
12 A. There are no villages here.
13 JUDGE JAN: Varva, Kovacevo, and Polje.
14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I think the witness may have
15 the wrong document in front of him.
16 MR. NIEMANN: I think he has been given two
17 documents at the one time. I want you to go back to
18 the document you said you could not read -- the Prozor
20 MR. OLUJIC: May we also receive a copy of
21 this document, your Honours?
22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Since he could not even
23 identify any part of it, because of illegibility, I do
24 not think it is necessary to proceed with that.
25 MR. NIEMANN: If Your Honours please.
1 I think you have another document that has
2 been given to you in front of you, which is an order of
3 14 November 1992. That document is more readable,
4 I think you will agree?
5 A. Yes -- I agree.
6 Q. On the back of it, there appears to be a
7 certification, is there not -- on the back of the
8 second page?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And, having regard to that certification, to
11 the fact that it is signed, that there appears a stamp,
12 that would satisfy all your indicia of reliability,
13 would it not?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And I think just looking at the document, you
16 would agree with me that there is no reference in it to
17 the fact that there has been an order made by the
18 supreme command?
19 A. No, there is no such thing in the preamble,
20 but based on the contents which I was able to review,
21 I concluded that this is possible, that identical
22 problems appeared in the majority of municipalities,
23 that is, of the subordinate commands, so here we have
24 an order which probably was circulated to the majority
25 of commands, and it is a problem of poor organisation,
1 of reconnaissance and intelligence activities, and it
2 states that on the basis of such poor records, that new
3 personnel be found, that they be trained to perform
4 these reconnaissance and intelligence duties, that they
5 also be equipped for night time reconnaissance --
6 MR. NIEMANN: That is very helpful. I do not
7 think we need read it -- we can do that but my question
8 is more directed to those specific matters. I tender
9 that, your Honour?
10 A. I have the sixth point which I want to
11 expound. For the realisation of this order, it is the
12 commanders of the municipal staff of defence who are
13 responsible and it would appear that the signatory is
14 now the superior authority to the municipal staff. He
15 was probably copying this possibility from another
16 document -- that they are responsible to the commanders
17 of the municipal staff of defence, as if the person
18 signed below is the superior authority and that is why
19 I believe and suppose that this is a circulatory
20 document which wanted to indicate the weakness of the
21 intelligence service and the fact this was not
22 contained in the preamble, I do not know, because the
23 possibility for this is provided for that, that is,
24 that this act be received from above and that the
25 signatory of this document did not refer to this order
1 in the preamble, because it when it states that day and
2 night reconnoitring and intelligence activities are
3 provided for, we know we had no possibility for night
4 reconnaissance, as is the possibility in modern armies
5 of the present day, so formally this order could not be
6 carried out.
7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Let us be clear,
8 paragraph 6 is very clear -- the persons to whom the
9 other commander should be responsible -- it is very
10 clear. It is to no-one else other than the signatory
11 -- that is what is stated there. Read paragraph 6
12 carefully, "The commanders of municipal defence
13 headquarters shall be responsible to me for compliance
14 with this order" -- that is what it states?
15 A. Yes, that is what I say -- it says "we"
16 -- "to me" -- "they are responsible to me", but he did
17 not have under him the municipal staff and that is why
18 I believe that we are dealing with a circulatory
19 document sent from above so that this problem could be
20 solved in the same way in all parts of the
21 municipality, because he is using the plural, which are
22 the municipal staff that can be responsible to him --
23 that is the question.
24 MR. NIEMANN: The next document I want to go
25 to is document V-D/17, which appears in your language
1 at 733 and the English version of the document is 734.
2 It is 733 V-D/17. The document is an authorisation
3 dated 4 June 1992?
4 A. Yes, I have it.
5 Q. I have a simple question about this and it
6 relates merely to the version of the document that
7 appears in your language. The question I have for you
8 on this is that there appears to be an alteration to
9 the original document, in that a name has been taken
10 out. Did you see the unaltered version of this
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did you make any enquires as to what the name
15 A. No, I was not able to obtain an answer to
16 that question.
17 Q. Did you make any enquires as to who altered
18 the document?
19 A. No, I did not. I did not think that it was
20 important, that the name was important, because it was
21 to do with contacts with prisoners, and I did not make
22 any enquiry into who that particular person was.
23 Q. I want you to go next to V-D/53.
24 Have you found that document? It is a list of names?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Of prisoners of Celebici?
2 A. Yes, I have found it.
3 Q. Do you note, or did you see there that there
4 has been an alteration or a deletion, I might call it,
5 in 27 and 31 -- do you see in particular 31 -- I will
6 just direct your attention to 31 -- do you see 31?
7 A. I do not have 31.
8 Q. Number 31 -- there is the prisoners numbered
9 from 1 to 32, starting with Dusko Bendzo and ending
10 with Vitomir Vlaski and immediately above 32, Vitomir
11 Vlaski, there is a blank -- a simple question: did you
12 ever see a version of this document with that name that
13 appears in it -- that is number 31?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did you make any enquires as to what that
16 name was?
17 A. As this was not the subject of my enquiry,
18 I did not make an enquiry as to which name was under
19 that particular number.
20 Q. But surely you saw that it had been altered?
21 A. I thought that it might be a technical error
22 in the writing of the numbers. I cannot say that an
23 alteration had taken place.
24 Q. So, in other words, you made no enquiry in
25 relation to it?
1 A. No.
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, --
3 MR. NIEMANN: I ask you to look at the
4 document I now show you.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: -- may I assist you?
6 MR. NIEMANN: I object to this.
7 I appreciate assistance but it is slowing down the
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: I just want to say that this
10 document was received by the witness from the Defence
11 and this is the first time that I have seen that there
12 is a blank space for the two names in question.
13 MR. NIEMANN: My colleague --
14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You have already put it
15 forward as your document. Questions can be asked about
16 it and explanations if necessary could be made.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecutor Exhibit 225.
18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Niemann, have you
19 another copy which has a correct name?
20 MR. NIEMANN: I have a complete version,
21 yes, your Honour.
22 Brigadier, if I tell you that this was a
23 document that was given to us by the Defence, and when
24 we first received it, number 31 was in -- the name --
25 and it has now been taken out, you would not know
1 anything about that, I take it?
2 A. No.
3 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you. I tender that
4 document, your Honour.
5 I want to move to another document, V-D/55,
6 appearing at page 859 and the English version is 864.
7 Do you see that?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. I specifically want to take you to paragraph
10 3 of that report -- paragraph 3; do you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The document makes reference to four
13 attachments, which are said to be integral parts of the
14 report. We note that three of the attachments are in
15 your binder, but the report relating to the condition
16 of the prisoners -- report 3 -- is not attached in your
18 A. I did not find the document and was not able
19 to incorporate it.
20 MR. NIEMANN: Who gave it to you?
21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If I remember,
22 Mr. Niemann, many of these documents are documents
23 admitted on the basis that they were relied upon for
24 the formation of his opinion. I think that was the
25 basis on which they were admitted.
1 MR. NIEMANN: It is just curious that the
2 document which touches upon the condition of the
3 prisoners, which is a fairly interesting document, is
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If it was not there, he
6 would not have considered it in making up his opinion.
7 MR. NIEMANN: No. But if it was
8 deliberately left out, then, in my respectful
9 submission, I think that is a legitimate line of
10 enquiry, to find out why.
11 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: He merely relied on
12 certain documents for the forming of his opinion.
13 MR. NIEMANN: There may well be an innocent
14 explanation for it, and if there is, fine, we will deal
15 with that and move on. But if not, then I will make
16 comments about this in my closing address.
17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I suppose that is the
18 more relevant place for it -- after establishing that
19 such a document was there, and he could not have
20 admitted it, or he should have known about such a
22 MR. NIEMANN: If I ask your Honours to draw
23 any adverse inferences based on the fact that this
24 document -- this annexe is not attached, the first
25 thing I would expect the Defence to say is how unfair
1 it is of me not to give the witness an opportunity to
2 explain what the position is.
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Having established that
4 this is a document he should have seen, and did not
5 see, I think that sufficient background has been laid
6 for making any other comment you can.
7 MR. NIEMANN: I will be making adverse
8 inferences about the fact that it was deliberately
9 withheld, because there was an attempt not to provide
10 your Honours with all the detail and, in particular,
11 that this was a report which may in some respects have
12 been damaging to the Defence and that is why they did
13 not provide it. I will be asking your Honours to
14 withdraw that inference. If I do not confront the
15 witness with this, I imagine someone from the Defence
16 would be very quick to tell us how unfair that would
18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If I understand him, he
19 has not seen that document at all.
20 MR. NIEMANN: That may be so. I want to ask
21 him what he did when he discovered it was not there.
22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You can ask him what he
23 did, having not seen it.
24 MR. NIEMANN: When you did not see this,
25 what did you do about it, this annexe 3?
1 A. I do not know -- I did not ask what I was to
2 do. I saw just the other things that were given me,
3 I did not see that particular document.
4 Q. Who did you get it from?
5 A. I think I got it from the Defence, or I do
6 not quite recall exactly.
7 Q. Thank you. I would like to go to another
8 document, if I could, and that is VI-3 and it is a
9 table or "organogram", I think it is called. 893 is
10 the version in your language, 894 is the version in the
11 English language. Do you have that? Did you obtain
12 this document yourself, or was it given to you?
13 A. This document was drawn up by Brigadier
14 Mustafa Polutak, the first commander of the Tactical
15 Group number 1.
16 Q. I did not ask you that, I asked you who gave
17 it to you -- did he give it to you or did you receive
18 it from some other third party?
19 A. I was given it by the municipal staff and it
20 was drawn up by the commander of the Tactical Group, as
21 I say.
22 Q. And do you know if the document that appears
23 there is exactly as it was authored by Mr. Polutak, or
24 has it been altered in some way?
25 A. This document was drawn up -- was authored by
1 Mustafa Polutak.
2 Q. Has it in any way been altered?
3 A. I do not know in what sense it would be
4 altered. The essential points are that it speaks of
5 the composition of the Tactical Group and the forces
6 who remain on the locality of the municipality. That
7 is the essence of the document and nothing was changed
9 MR. NIEMANN: I would ask you to look at this
10 document, if you would, for me. We will have to put it
11 on the overhead projector, because --
12 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecutor document 226.
13 MR. NIEMANN: If that could be placed on the
14 overhead projector.
15 That is the document that appears in your
16 language. Do you see in the second box, which, in
17 English, is Tactical Group 1 -- do you see that there?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. In the version that you have in your binder
20 there, is there anything else contained in that box --
21 any other words appearing in that box?
22 A. No. It also says Tactical Group 1.
23 Q. Going down to the bottom on the bottom
24 left-hand side, do you see where it says "Author:
25 Mustafa Polutak"? Do you see the signature -- there is
1 no signature there, you will agree with me, will you
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. In the document that you originally had in
5 your report, did it have a reference in the box to
6 Konjic and did the signature of Mr. Polutak appear there
7 -- his actual signature?
8 A. I do not understand the question.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, --
10 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps I will ask it again.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, may I say, just
12 to avoid any misunderstanding, the expert witness sent
13 us his complete expert report, which we then said to
14 the Prosecutor and in the box which states "Tactical
15 Group 1", it did state "Konjic" and the document had
16 the original signature of Brigadier Polutak. When the
17 expert came here, he told us that, through a technical
18 error, the box included "Konjic" and that this was not
19 in the original document and we informed the Prosecutor
20 of that typing error, and that is why we have an
21 amended version here, and the Prosecutor alone has the
22 original document with Polutak's signature and our
23 letter informing him that Brigadier Polutak was
24 informed of this error in the typing of the table.
25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Niemann, did this
1 type of exchange occur between you and the Defence?
2 MR. NIEMANN: It certainly did. The point
3 I am endeavouring to make by this --
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Why then are you
5 pressing it? If you knew so much about why there
6 should be that difference --
7 MR. NIEMANN: Two reasons. First, it is a
8 document the Defence are putting forward to your
9 Honours which contains a statement of somebody else,
10 which has been altered -- altered not by the author of
11 the document --
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: But they informed you
13 about the alteration.
14 MR. NIEMANN: It was altered by the
15 Defence. They gave us the amendment without any
16 explanation whatsoever.
17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That is not how
18 I understood Mr.s Residovic's explanation.
19 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps your Honours might
20 like to read the letter, because I have it here. The
21 point is that this is a document that has been amended
22 by the Defence.
23 JUDGE JAN: With regard to the signatures.
24 MR. NIEMANN: Not the author -- and the
25 signature has been taken off -- the signature and the
1 reference to Konjic.
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Who now has the
3 original which contains the signature?
4 MR. NIEMANN: We do.
5 JUDGE JAN: Can we have the original?
6 MR. NIEMANN: We have a copy of the
7 original. I have just given it to the witness, your
8 Honour. I assume the very original document is with
9 the Defence.
10 JUDGE JAN: There are two originals?
11 MR. NIEMANN: I have a copy.
12 JUDGE JAN: You said "very original".
13 MR. NIEMANN: It may well be I am the only
14 one with the original.
15 That document contains the signature, does it
16 not, and contains the word "Konjic" in the box?
17 A. Yes, it does.
18 Q. Were you aware that this amendment was made
19 to this document?
20 A. As the Defence said, there was an error here
21 with the word "Konjic". There were no other relevant
22 errors to verify this document -- it was only the
23 word "Konjic", and we are dealing with the composition
24 of the Tactical Group, and those who drew up the
25 document only had that one mistake, "Konjic". The
1 composition of the group is correct, the composition of
2 the forces remaining under the command of the municipal
3 staff is correct, so no other relevant data was
4 changed. The composition of the forces correspond in
5 full to the actual situation. We are only dealing with
6 one word and that is "Konjic" and Mr. Polutak, when he
7 signed the document, did not see this. He knew that he
8 drew up the document and did not pay attention to the
9 word "Konjic".
10 Q. Why did you not draw everyone's attention to
11 that in the course of your evidence, that the document
12 had been amended from the original one?
13 A. I gave it to the Defence. I do not know who
14 the Defence gave the documents out to.
15 Q. But we were led to believe that this was a
16 document that was drawn up by Mr. Polutak and something
17 that you relied upon, whereas in fact it is a document
18 that had been amended or altered -- not by Mr. Polutak
19 himself. That is true, is it not?
20 A. There have been no alterations here. We are
21 quite simply dealing with the deletion of the
22 word "Konjic". Everything else is authentic and
23 correct, as it is in the version given previously,
24 which means the composition of the Tactical Group, the
25 composition of the forces within the Tactical Group,
1 the composition of the forces of the municipal command
2 -- so, the only difference is the word "Konjic" and
3 that is the error of the person who copied the
5 MR. NIEMANN: I thought you were telling us
6 earlier how important signatures were. We see the
7 signature has been removed here.
8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Actually, the emphasis
9 has been laid -- it is understood that it is something
10 different from what should have been there.
11 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honour pleases.
12 Your Honours, I am just endeavouring to
13 ascertain how much longer I will be. I will not be
14 much longer.
15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If we can help it, this
16 witness should not stay beyond today.
17 MR. NIEMANN: I will try to move along as
18 expeditiously as possible and see if I can complete
20 I just want you to go now for a moment --
21 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, after this very
22 exhaustive cross-examination, we shall be having some
23 questions -- re-cross-examination. I do not know
24 whether we can keep the witness for such a long time.
25 You have already said that the visa can be extended,
1 and we have extended it, so perhaps we can devote an
2 hour on Tuesday morning for the continuation of this
3 cross-examination, because I feel it to be important.
4 MR. NIEMANN: I am certainly in agreement
5 with that. I understand that it must be very difficult
6 for the Brigadier to be here all day under this
7 cross-examination and I think it would be a good idea
8 if I completed my cross-examination as expeditiously as
9 I can on Monday. I do not think I have much longer to
10 go. I have a few more documents that I wish to show
11 him and some general questions and that should be the
12 end of my cross-examination. So, rather than continue
13 on now, if he can come back next Tuesday, then
14 certainly I would join with the Defence in suggesting
15 that that would be an appropriate course.
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Is it likely you will
17 exceed 6pm?
18 MR. NIEMANN: I can try and do it by
19 6 o'clock.
20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That should be enough
21 and then on Tuesday he can just be re-examined.
22 MR. NIEMANN: Brigadier, would you go,
23 please, for me to document V-D/31? Do you have that
24 document there? This is an order from Esad Ramic dated
25 3 August 1992?
1 A. Yes, I have.
2 Q. Do you see there above the date, 3 August
3 1992, a reference to a number -- can you see that
4 number there?
5 A. Yes, I can.
6 Q. Is that number a unique number in the sense
7 that -- is there a separate number given on every
8 occasion to documents?
9 A. I do not know -- I do not know about protocol
10 as regards documents. I was not interested in that
11 subject. They are details which I did not study.
12 Q. Move on then to document V-D/41.
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. OLUJIC: Your Honours, I have just
15 received information from my client that, if he may be
16 allowed to leave the Chamber for five minutes without
17 interrupting the proceedings -- he has to go to the
19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: He may do so.
20 MR. NIEMANN: Was the Tactical Group
21 considered part of the army supreme command
23 A. The Tactical Group was not part of the
24 supreme command -- the supreme command -- it is the
25 Tactical Group -- the Tactical Group is a unit which is
1 a subordinate -- it is not part of the supreme
2 command. The supreme command is a command composition.
3 Q. If you look at the heading that appears there
4 in that order immediately above "I hereby order", does
5 that not imply -- the heading right at the top, "Army
6 Supreme Command Headquarters, Sarajevo, Tactical Group
7 1" -- do you see that?
8 A. Yes, I see it.
9 Q. Does that not imply that the Tactical Group
10 was considered as part of the supreme headquarters?
11 A. This is a confirmation of the lack of
12 knowledge on the part of our officers. It was never
13 part of the supreme command -- that is a lack of
14 ignorance -- that is ignorance. What should be stated
15 there is its formational title and in the preamble, you
16 can relate to the order of the supreme command. It is
17 obvious that this individual was not trained and did
18 not have the knowledge of how to draw up a document.
19 Q. I think you would agree with me that persons
20 who are part of the staff of Tactical Group 1 were
21 subordinate to the commander of Tactical Group 1 --
22 that is an obvious situation, is it not?
23 A. Yes, of course they were subordinate. First
24 of all his command and then all the commanders.
25 Q. Would you agree with me that, in this order,
1 the commander of Tactical Group 1 is ordering that an
2 offensive combat action be taken in the area as part of
3 the "Jug" or "South" Operation and that that order is
4 directed to Mr. Ramic -- you see paragraph 5?
5 A. Yes, that is clear. Once again, it is an
6 order which the commander of the Tactical Group has
7 received from the supreme command headquarters, and in
8 the preamble he says, "On the basis of the command of
9 the supreme command" and then goes on to order the
10 orders that he does, which means that in this case, in
11 order to facilitate operations, it is necessary to
12 engage forces in another direction, and he is
13 transmitting what the supreme command has ordered him
14 to do, so he is not commanding and ordering in his own
15 personal name but following orders from the supreme
17 Q. You agree with me then that the order
18 indicates that some of the Territorial Defence troops
19 will participate in the "Jug" or "South" Operation and
20 remain under the immediate authority of the Territorial
21 Defence, with the superior authority being under the
22 Tactical Group commander of Jug -- you will agree with
23 that, will you not?
24 A. The commander of the Tactical Group Jug led
25 the forces under his command, and here they are
1 ordering special forces of the municipal headquarters
2 of Konjic to use its forces in another direction to
3 facilitate the Jug Operation, so they are not forces
4 which entered into the composition of Operation Jug.
5 Q. You stated in your opinion that the supreme
6 command would decide what troops would be part of the
7 Tactical Group, did you not?
8 A. By order of the supreme command, and that
9 order regulates this question.
10 Q. According to your opinion, since only the
11 supreme command was superior to the municipal
12 headquarters, only the supreme command would have the
13 authority to determine what troops would be sent to TG1
14 -- that would be the position, would it not, according
15 to your opinion?
16 A. Yes. What we are dealing with here is that
17 most probably the supreme command headquarters had no
18 links with the headquarters at Konjic, but that this
19 was done within the frameworks of the operation, that
20 an order be given of this kind to engage the troops of
21 the municipal forces of Konjic, in a certain locality,
22 to help the main forces in Operation Jug.
23 Q. You would agree with me, would you not, that
24 it is unusual not to provide a full description of the
25 troops that were to be included?
1 A. Included in Operation South, do you mean?
2 Q. No, included in the territorial group -- the
3 Tactical Group, I apologise?
4 A. In the Tactical Group, when it was first set
5 up, compositions entering into the Tactical Group must
6 be included and must be precisely defined, the portions
7 of the municipal forces which form the Tactical Group.
8 Q. But this did not happen, did it, because the
9 July appointment of the Tactical Group commander was
10 not specific as to the particular troops, was it?
11 A. This was a defect in the order. He should
12 have determined the details -- a Tactical Group was to
13 be formed and the tasks precisely defined as well as
14 the TG's composition.
15 Q. I refer to the 11 July order. I assume that
16 if Mr. Delalic had been given authority to determine the
17 troops that he could take from the municipal
18 headquarters for the Tactical Group, this order would
19 be consistent with that, and it would also show that he
20 had superior authority over the Territorial Defence of
21 Konjic, would it not?
22 A. The documents that I studied gave no
23 authorisations of this kind to Zejnil Delalic, that is
24 to say, that he could select the cadres or units which
25 would make up the composition of the Tactical Group.
1 Q. If he said that he had control over four
2 municipalities but not all the municipalities were
3 complete, because some parts were under the Serb
4 control, I take it you would disagree with that, would
6 A. I have already said that this was a defect --
7 a weakness in that order. He cannot be given orders to
8 form a Tactical Group from those municipalities,
9 because the forces that he was to take for that TG were
10 not precisely defined and the troops were not allowed
11 to leave their positions.
12 Q. I did not ask you that question, Brigadier.
13 I was asking you a question: if he had the view that
14 he had the responsibility, that he considered himself
15 to have the responsibility to unify the forces from
16 different municipalities, and hence have control over
17 those municipalities, then you would disagree with him?
18 A. He could not have had any control over the
19 municipalities -- he has no competence of that kind.
20 His authorisation was to command the Tactical Group.
21 MR. NIEMANN: Again, you did not answer my
22 question. My question is: you would say you would
23 disagree with what he said?
24 JUDGE JAN: That is what his reply amounts
1 MR. NIEMANN: Possibly, your Honours.
2 I will pass on.
3 Just going to document VI/11 and it appears
4 at page 917 of your documents, and 918 -- it is an
5 order from the commander of Tactical Group 1, Zejnil
6 Delalic dated 28 August -- sorry, a request, 28 August
7 1992. Do you see that document?
8 A. Yes, I see it.
9 Q. And I do not want to ask you specifically
10 about the contents of the document. I am just asking
11 you that this is a document that you relied on as an
12 authentic document?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. Again, the reason why you relied on it is
15 because of the signature, and the appearance of the
16 stamp among other things?
17 A. Yes, that is right.
18 MR. NIEMANN: Excuse me, your Honours. Again,
19 just looking at document 6/4, which appears at page 195
20 of your documents, and 896 and 897 is the English
21 version -- it is 6/4 and it consists of an order from
22 Sefer Halilovic, the chief of the armed forces main
23 staff, appointing Zejnil Delalic -- do you see that
24 document? Do you have that?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. Again, I do not want to ask you specifically
2 about the document, but do you see right at the very
3 top of the document there is what appears to be the
4 shape of a telephone, a number, and then a date and a
5 time -- do you see that, right at the very top of the
7 A. Yes, I see the contents -- the protocol
8 number is 0.2349- et cetera of 11 July.
9 JUDGE JAN: Mr. Niemann --
10 MR. NIEMANN: I want to go to the top of the
12 JUDGE JAN: This is also a fax message.
13 MR. NIEMANN: I do not believe so.
14 JUDGE JAN: Look at the top. It contains
15 the seal and the signatures.
16 MR. NIEMANN: It is that very top part. You
17 see right across the top of the document -- do you see
18 that there? Do you see what appears to be a telephone
19 and then a number, 384127123 right at the very top?
20 A. Yes, I can see that number.
21 Q. It goes across the page and then there is a
22 number 23/07 -- do you see that?
23 A. On the right-hand side, yes, I can see that.
24 Q. Did you make any alterations to this
1 A. No alterations at all. This is the first
2 time that I am paying attention to these numbers. They
3 were not interested for me -- although it was not usual
4 practice in documents of this kind. I do not know what
5 those numbers in fact represent.
6 Q. Who gave you this document?
7 A. I was -- this is the document from the
8 archives of the supreme command.
9 MR. NIEMANN: I would like you to look at the
10 document that I now show you, which is a photocopy of a
11 Serbo-Croat version of the document or a Bosniak
12 version of the document -- in your language.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecutor document 229.
15 MR. NIEMANN: Go to the very top again, that
16 part we have been looking at. Do you see something
17 that now appears in that document, which is different
18 to the one that is in your folder?
19 A. Yes, I can see that there are more numbers,
20 and some letters. I do not know what the letters
21 mean. The other number is exactly the same.
22 Q. Yes. INDA-BAU -- that is the word that
23 appears there, is it not?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You have no idea who removed that reference
1 to INDA-BAU?
2 A. I do not know what this means at all -- what
3 the word means and whether it was in the original or
4 not, I do not know.
5 Q. I am not asking you what it means. I am
6 merely asking you whether you knew anything about the
7 circumstances of how that name INDA-BAU came to be
8 removed -- that is all I am asking you, Brigadier?
9 A. I know nothing about this at all.
10 Q. Did you go to the archives of the supreme
12 A. Yes, I did go to the archives.
13 Q. And, when you obtained documents from the
14 archives of the supreme command, did you note them or
15 mark them in any way to indicate their source?
16 A. I have the source of the documents which have
17 been authenticated -- confirmed source.
18 Q. Do you have that somewhere in your papers --
19 is that right?
20 A. Yes, that is right.
21 Q. So, in relation to this particular document,
22 you could check those papers over the next few days and
23 tell us where you received it and confirm where you
24 received it from?
25 A. I shall try to do that.
1 Q. Thank you. We are nearly finished. Who had
2 authority to determine who would be members of the
3 command staff of the Tactical Group?
4 A. That cannot be seen from these documents.
5 Q. I am not asking you about that specific one.
6 I am just asking you a general question -- I have moved
7 on. I am asking you who had the authority to determine
8 who would be members of the command staff of the
9 Tactical Group?
10 A. I would say that, according to the same
11 principle that the operative group was determined, so
12 also was the command staff for the Tactical Group
13 determined, if it is not indicated in the document that
14 the commander selected his cadres himself.
15 Q. Who was part of the command staff of the
16 Tactical Group 1 during the time that Mr. Delalic was
17 its commander?
18 A. I only know his commander, Major Pilica
19 Sucro. I do not know the other cadres, the composition
20 of the command, I do not know.
21 MR. NIEMANN: Are you saying that, in your
22 opinion, the supreme command would determine the staff
23 of the Tactical Group?
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: The witness has answered the
25 question. He said that it would be normal unless there
1 were special orders for him to be able to form the
2 command -- the answer was given in full and in precise
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Is that your answer to
5 his question? It is for you to answer -- not your
7 THE WITNESS: I have already said that, if
8 there was no special order regulating, then he can
9 select the composition -- if the cadres of the group
10 were regulated, then it can be selected by the superior
11 authority. If he was given the order to be able to
12 select his cadres himself, then that is another matter.
13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.
14 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps you might be shown
15 Exhibit 193, and this document that I show you --
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think, Mr. Niemann, we
17 might have to stop here.
18 MR. NIEMANN: I will be very short on
20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If I knew you would
21 have exceeded 6 o'clock, we would have waited until
22 Tuesday -- it would not have made much of a difference
23 -- instead of getting somewhere and continuing on
24 Tuesday. So, the Trial Chamber will now rise and we
25 will reassemble on Tuesday at 10am.
1 (At 6.00pm the matter adjourned until
2 Tuesday, 14 April 1998 at 10am)