1 Wednesday, 23 March 2005

2 [Open session]

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

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Please be seated. Yes, Mr. Registrar, could you

6 call the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Case number

8 IT-03-68-T, the Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Oric, can you follow the proceedings

10 in a language that you can understand?

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours, ladies

12 and gentlemen. Yes, I can follow the proceedings in my mother tongue.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. You may sit down. Appearances for the

14 Prosecution.

15 MR. WUBBEN: Good morning, Your Honours. My name is Jan Wubben,

16 counsel for the Prosecution. Good morning to the Defence. I'm here

17 together with Ms. Donnica Henry-Frijlink, our case manager, and Ms.

18 Patricia Sellers, co-counsel, and after the first break, Mr. Gramsci Di

19 Fazio, as co-counsel, will take my place.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you. And good morning to you and your

21 team. Appearances for Naser Oric.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. My name

23 is Vasvija Vidovic and together with Mr. John Jones, I appear for Mr.

24 Naser Oric. With us are our legal assistant, Ms. Adisa Mehic, and our

25 CaseMap manager, Mr. Geoff Roberts.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And good morning to you and your team.

2 Any preliminaries?

3 MR. WUBBEN: No, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, let's bring the witness in, please. When do

5 you expect to finish, Ms. Vidovic?

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by the middle of the

7 next session, the next part of the session. The first part, up to the

8 first break, and then the half of the next session. Not more. And maybe

9 less, depending on the answers given by the witness.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: You expect to have a re-examination?

11 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour. I have a re-examination that I

12 hope to run possibly 15 to 25 minutes.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 [The witness entered court]

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, good morning, Mr. Bogilovic.

17 WITNESS: BECIR BOGILOVIC [Resumed]

18 [Witness answered through interpreter]

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Mr. Bogilovic.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: You may sit down. We are going to continue with

22 your cross-examination. I would just remind you about your solemn

23 declaration, which is still in force, still operative. Madam Vidovic, you

24 may proceed. Thank you.

25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] We will begin with Prosecution

1 Exhibit P255. Would the usher please show this document to the witness,

2 P255.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we will see it on the ELMO. Put the English

4 version on the ELMO, please.

5 Cross-examined by Ms. Vidovic: [Continued]

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, this is a decision on -- to leave the Srebrenica OS

8 staff number 167/92 of the 21st of December, 1992. This was shown to you

9 by the Prosecutor and I will quote some small excerpts from the document.

10 I will start with the first part of point 1 of the document, which reads.

11 "In the decisions it said that we were responsible for our work

12 to the chief of the OS staff, but they were signed by the president of the

13 War Presidency. This absurdity is particularly worrying for us, because

14 it brings into question the justification of the staff's existence and the

15 functioning of this institution. We are afraid of the truth that the War

16 Presidency does not know the most basic competencies and hierarchy of the

17 armed forces in conditions of war. This relates particularly to the

18 responsibility of the chief and the commanders of the Srebrenica armed

19 forces, and an even larger question mark hangs over their decisions.

20 Mr. Bogilovic, from what I have read to you, it is clear, is it

21 not, that the members of the staff are complaining about the actions of

22 the War Presidency? They say "we are afraid of the truth that the War

23 Presidency does not know the most basic competencies and hierarchy in the

24 armed forces in conditions of war."

25 It's correct, is it not, that the members of the staff of the

1 armed forces were afraid of responsibility, because they had no way of

2 influencing people and events in Srebrenica and they did not have the

3 basic conditions for this. Is this correct?

4 A. Yes, it is correct. The Presidency certainly did not have at its

5 disposal proper authorities and regulations in order to act, because we

6 did not have any instructions and we were not familiar with these

7 procedures.

8 Q. Thank you. I will quote paragraph 7 from the same decision, where

9 it says: "Quite a large number of staff in leadership positions and

10 people in the staff are -- look disparagingly at the OS staff and

11 sometimes ignore it".

12 So I will ask you the following about this. Mr. Naser Oric, in

13 late December, 1992, was part of the staff of the armed forces and shared

14 the fate of the other members of the staff. He was also ignored by

15 certain members of the War Presidency and certain local commanders. Is

16 this correct?

17 A. Mr. Oric knows this best. In the government, there were always

18 issues about who was senior to whom, the War Presidency or the staff. And

19 this was never resolved.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Please allow an interval. Mr. Bogilovic,

21 particularly you, because you're jumping in with your answer before Madam

22 Vidovic has even finished her question. So please allow her an interval

23 of time before you start answering. Madam Vidovic, please.

24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, are you aware that individual members of the War

1 Presidency and individual local commanders simply ignored Mr. Oric?

2 A. Ultimately I don't know, but they did certain things on their own

3 initiative with which Mr. Oric was not happy. So, yes, of course one can

4 conclude that they did not respect Mr. Oric.

5 Q. Thank you. Yesterday, during your testimony, you confirmed that

6 Hamed Salihovic, in late 1992 and early 1993, as the president of the War

7 Presidency of the subregion was engaged in attempts to establish the

8 subregion and to draw the attention of the public in Bosnia-Herzegovina

9 and the international community to the difficult situation there. Is this

10 correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. In fact you do not know whether he dealt with security matters at

13 all in the staff, in the first three months of 1993?

14 A. As for his job description in the staff, I don't know anyone -- or

15 rather, I don't know the competencies of any of the members of the staff.

16 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, you do not know whether Mr. Hamed Salihovic de

17 facto worked on security issues in the staff, or not?

18 A. I don't know that for certain. He was a member of the staff and

19 he associated with people working in the staff. He was with them.

20 Q. But you do not know what his job was exactly, what he did exactly?

21 A. No. I certainly don't.

22 Q. Thank you. You also don't know whether, in the first three months

23 of 1993, security matters were dealt with by anyone in the staff?

24 A. I don't think anyone dealt with these matters in the first three

25 months of 1993.

1 Q. I don't know whether I made a mistake or whether there was a

2 misinterpretation. I think I asked you about the first three months of

3 1993. The first three months of 1993. You don't know whether anyone

4 worked on security matters?

5 A. I don't know who did that. I know that on the 18th of April,

6 1993, I received a piece of paper saying I was appointed to that post.

7 Q. Very well. In connection with this I will ask you the following.

8 On the 18th of April, 1993 you were appointed to these duties: You did

9 not wish to continue working on these duties, but it's true, is it not,

10 that you met Safet Salihovic and took over from him the documents he had

11 belonging to the security organ. Is this correct?

12 A. Yes. That's correct. Professor Masic was present when this was

13 done.

14 Q. Thank you. Between you and him there was some sort of takeover of

15 duties. Can we take it that this happened?

16 A. Yes, you can take it that this happened officially and there is a

17 record signed by Professor Masic who was present at this event.

18 Q. You remember the documents that you received. You saw the

19 documents that Mr. Hamed Salihovic handed over to you, didn't you?

20 A. Mr. Hamed Salihovic did hand over some documents to me, but not

21 all of them. He told me that there were some documents he was keeping for

22 himself, that these were his documents and that he had authority over

23 them, because they pertained to the region, the subregion or the region.

24 Q. In other words, he did not hand over to you the documentation

25 pertaining to the War Presidency of the subregion; is this correct?

1 A. Yes, that's correct, he didn't.

2 Q. So he handed over to you the documents pertaining to the

3 functioning of the security organ that he had performed up to that time?

4 A. Yes. These were some notes from interviews he had conducted, but

5 there wasn't much there.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Would the usher now show the witness

8 several documents, which I will list: P61, P19, P469. Your Honours, to

9 make use of the time while we are waiting for the witness to be shown to

10 the documents, on page 6 line 12, instead of "Hamed Halilovic" it should

11 read "Hamed Salihovic".

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I thank you for that. Actually, it was also --

13 I heard it, Samed Halilovic. That stands to be corrected according to

14 line 17 on page 7. Thank you.

15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, can you please look at these four documents, P61,

17 P19, P469 and P60. These are documents purported to have been produced by

18 the security bodies. P61 is a note dated the 21st of January, 1993 in

19 reference to an alleged interview with Bogdan Zivanovic. P19 bears the

20 number 108/93 and the date is 3rd of February, 1993. P469 is an alleged

21 document produced by the security bodies, 16/93, 3rd of February, 1993 and

22 finally P60 14/93 dated the 5th of February, 1993.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because the reference number or the --

24 the document reference number as it appears in the English version is not

25 the second one that you mentioned. It is not 16/93, at least in the

1 English version. But it is 108/93 and I haven't checked the third one

2 because I haven't seen it as yet.

3 So let's go through them one by one for the time being. Please

4 put on the ELMO in the order that I will be indicating to you, Mr. Usher,

5 the following. The first of the three documents, P61, first put the

6 original in B/C/S on the ELMO for a while so that we have a look at it.

7 And could you move it a little bit further up. Yes. Okay. Now,

8 could you put the equivalent in English, please. Yes. All right. Let's

9 go -- Madam Vidovic, do you want the witness to see them all.

10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's see the next document, the B/C/S

12 version one first please.

13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Now, witness if you could please look at P19 --

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's finish this exercise first please. Is this

16 P469?

17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The previous one was.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: P469, yes, yes. So this is 16/93. Could you move

19 it up, please. All right. Okay. Thank you. Could we see the English

20 equivalent, please, or corresponding English translation. All right. So

21 as you see, the reference number is okay. Does it have a second page?

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No. No, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: The English does, Madam Vidovic. This is precisely

24 why -- because that's why I wanted to see the B/C/S first. Yes, yes,

25 let's see the third document. I forgot now which number it is.

1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] P60.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. And, okay. And let's see the English

3 translation, please. All right. And could you move it up, please. All

4 right. Thank you.

5 Now, before you put your question, Mr. Bogilovic, do you want to

6 have a closer look at them? Have you seen them? Or do you want more time

7 to look at them?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for these specific documents, at

9 the time of the handover --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bogilovic, I have only asked you a simple

11 question. Do you want more time to look at them, or have you looked at

12 them enough so that we can proceed with the question. Let me put the

13 question, not you; questions that haven't been put.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Honour.

15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. I will be asking the question. Mr. Bogilovic, you never received

17 these documents, did you?

18 A. No.

19 Q. You never even laid eyes on these documents, did you?

20 A. No. Not until now.

21 Q. Can you please look carefully at P60 and what it says. We have

22 the English translation on the ELMO before us. Can you please look at the

23 Bosnian original. This is a document from the security organ, number

24 14/93 and the date is the 5th of February, 1993. You have that before

25 you, don't you?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. This is purported to be a note of the interview conducted with

3 Bogdan Zivanovic. My question is -- it says here, in the low right

4 corner, "court martial, Srebrenica" and just underneath that "a committee

5 for mediation with the enemy".

6 Mr. Bogilovic, it's true, isn't it, that no court martial was ever

7 established in Srebrenica, or rather, there was one but it never got off

8 the ground in a manner of speaking. Is that not true?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. It is also true, isn't it, that there was never a High Court in

11 Srebrenica throughout the war?

12 A. No. There never was one. No court at all, in fact.

13 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, can you now please try to focus on the date of

14 these documents alone and their respective protocol numbers or references.

15 If you can please look closely at the dates on these four documents and

16 the protocol numbers, please. Very carefully.

17 I will ask you a question now, if I may.

18 A. I've had a look.

19 Q. You worked as a police officer for a very long time, you held one

20 of the leading positions in the police force. You know how documents are

21 filed and how they're assigned protocol numbers; don't you?

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. Can you please look at P60. First of all, the number is 14/93.

24 Do you agree that the date is the 5th of February, 1993?

25 A. Yes, I do. That's precisely what it says.

1 Q. Next, can you please have a look at P469 bearing the number 16/93

2 and the date is 3rd of February, 1993?

3 A. That's what it says.

4 Q. It's true, isn't it, that the established practice for assigning

5 protocol numbers was clearly outlined, and that the numbers assigned and

6 -- in relation to the dates, is that the lower the number, the later the

7 date. Wasn't that a rule?

8 A. Yes. And the same applied to whatever mail came in and then you

9 would start with "1" and then go up.

10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we please make a

11 correction in the transcript. The witness is reflected as saying --

12 THE INTERPRETER: Can counsel please speak into the microphone.

13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Just a minute, please. What I said, is it true, isn't it, that

15 the practice for assigning protocol numbers was clearly outlined and that

16 the numbers are assigned in such a way as to follow the other number and

17 the later date is always assigned a lower protocol number. And it seems

18 to be the other way around here.

19 The later date -- for example, if the date is later than the

20 number assigned is "1". If the day, for example, is the 1st, and the

21 document that is filed on that day is a signed the number 1. If the date

22 is the 2nd, then the number has to be another higher number, like 2, 3,

23 whatever. Am I right in claiming that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You have seen these documents, haven't you? It is true that the

1 protocol number 16/93 must be filed after the one bearing the number

2 14/93. Would I be right in claiming that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Next, please, look at the date on the one bearing the protocol

5 number 16 --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because this may call for some

7 clarification. Could you put, please, the second document -- the second,

8 the last one that we have seen on the ELMO, please. We need to see -- no.

9 Not that one. This is not...

10 The second one -- the first one then, yes. Mr. Bogilovic, you see

11 there, after the first paragraph, in handwriting, something like exchanged

12 on 7/3/1993, and further down in handwriting: "exchanged on 7/3/1993" and

13 further down, I don't know what there is further down, but let's -- could

14 you move it, please, usher.

15 And the second page, again at the end, before the -- where there

16 is supposedly a signature, again in handwriting "exchanged on 7.3.1993".

17 Does that provide you with any kind of explanation why the

18 protocol number of this document is what it is, even though, supposedly,

19 the date of the document is a later one or an earlier one?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you ask me, this protocol number

21 at the beginning is the principal number and everything else had to be

22 added later on because the principal number that this document bears is on

23 the cover page, on the title page, right there at the beginning.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Judge Eser.

25 JUDGE ESER: Now, was it normal to put the numbers in the

1 typewriter or by hand? So could it be that the text, the main text of

2 this document or certain of -- the certain day, that the numbers have been

3 put in later on? For instance, the date of exchange or...

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we have the original on the ELMO please so the

5 public, in general, will see whether the reference number or protocol

6 number, as it has been referred to is typed or handwritten. So is the

7 date incidentally, but -- all right. All right. All right. I think we

8 are losing too much time on this. Let's move, Madam Vidovic, please.

9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Indeed, Your Honour.

10 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, you probably don't know whether this -- you weren't

11 there yourself. I suppose you can't answer the question, can you? Would

12 you agree with me?

13 A. I agree with you. I don't know. I simply can't say. I can

14 perhaps give you my opinion, but I don't think I'm being asked to do that.

15 Q. I'm asking you about a principle, Mr. Bogilovic, what the rules

16 were for assigning protocol numbers and filing documents. So can you now

17 please look at another example, the document bearing the mark P19 and the

18 number is 108/93. This is also alleged to be a document drafted by the

19 security organ.

20 The number it bears, the protocol number is 108 and the date is

21 the 3rd of February, 1993. Can you please just compare this number, 108,

22 with the protocol number on the document bearing the number 14/93.

23 You will agree with me, won't you, that the number 108 is much

24 bigger than the number 14/93 which is purported to have been produced

25 later than the first document, because the one bearing the number 108

1 bears the date the 3rd of February, 1993 and the 14 bears a different

2 date, the 5th of February.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. It's obvious, isn't it, Mr. Bogilovic, that the date and protocol

5 numbers of these documents seem to indicate that there was quite a

6 substantial aberration from how these numbers were regularly assigned or

7 should have been assigned?

8 A. Of course, I agree with that. This is irregular, that much is

9 certain.

10 Q. Do you agree with me when I say that because of this, these

11 documents could not have been officially filed and registered?

12 A. No. The order certainly doesn't tally.

13 Q. Do you agree with me that Mr. Hamed Salihovic, who was the former

14 pre-war chief of the public security station and chief of the security

15 service, must have been familiar with the way protocol numbers were filed?

16 A. Yes, that much is certain. He, after all, is a professor.

17 Q. You agree with me that Hamed Salihovic was a highly educated man,

18 he had a university education?

19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to speak into

20 the microphone.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. It seems that part of the answer was not reflected in the

23 transcript. You said that he had obtained a university degree and he was

24 a secondary school teacher, right?

25 A. Yes.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. You worked with him before the war, didn't you? You saw the

2 documents that he produced, so would you agree with me when I say that his

3 documents were crystal clear and that it was obvious that they were

4 drafted by a literate and educated person?

5 A. He was chief of the public security service. Since he occupied

6 that sort of a position in peacetime, he had to be adequately qualified,

7 in terms of training and school qualifications.

8 Q. Yesterday, when you testified about the various appeals that were

9 sent out, you said that Hamed Salihovic produced these as president of the

10 Presidency but also because he was a elementally literate person; is that

11 correct?

12 A. Yes. Probably so, because if you look at the team that he was

13 part of, he was the only one with a university education.

14 Q. Can you now please now again look at P60, dated the 5th of

15 February, 1993, bearing the number 14/ -- the protocol number in the

16 original, 14/93. I will quote from the document. The following sentence,

17 the second paragraph. Please listen carefully.

18 It says: "Responsibility is indisputable although he's outside

19 the age bracket susceptible for mobilisation as far as regular procedure

20 is concerned, but this is yet another proof that Karadzic had a third

21 mobilisation call carried out".

22 You will agree with me, Mr. Bogilovic, that this passage hardly

23 makes sense. It was obviously written by someone that was not an educated

24 person. Do you agree this makes no sense and that this is gibberish.

25 A. Yes, I agree. An educated man would have drawn up this document

1 differently. It wouldn't be so confused.

2 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, I'm not suggesting that he did this. My question

3 was, whether this part of the text is gibberish and whether it is evident

4 that it was written by an uneducated man.

5 A. Well, a university educated man would write this in a better way,

6 in a more concise way, a more succinct way. Whether Hamed Salihovic wrote

7 this or not, I don't know.

8 Q. You have never seen this document. He did not hand it over to

9 you?

10 A. No, he didn't.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. One moment. Judge Eser.

12 JUDGE ESER: Just when I was going through this exhibit and I

13 found a note in my exhibit from a later hearing, that in document -- what

14 is it -- P19, the handwriting, instead of 3rd of February, could either be

15 the 23rd of February. It's interesting that normally you would not have a

16 zero before February -- just I have a note here in my -- I just wanted to

17 advise you that there is a difference between writing without a zero or

18 with a zero.

19 MS. SELLERS: Excuse me, Your Honour. I believe you might have

20 the note because at one time the Prosecution did say that we had a

21 question as to the date, was that 23rd or not. We were seeing if we had a

22 retranslation from the translation services. I don't want to bring that

23 up here, but I think it is in relationship to the note.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's proceed. Yes, Madam Vidovic, please.

25 Go ahead.

1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is quite clear that

2 this is the 3rd of February. I see nothing that might indicate, at least

3 as far as I'm concerned, that it might be 23.

4 Q. Witness, would you please take a look at it. What would you say?

5 What date is this?

6 A. As regards the date, I think it is up to experts to decide, but in

7 my view it's more like a zero than like a 2, because this turns left and

8 the "2" should turn right when you write it.

9 Q. Thank you. Mr. Bogilovic, I will now move on to a different

10 topic. You can put away these exhibits.

11 The situation in Srebrenica in the summer of 1992 was already

12 terrible, wasn't it?

13 A. Yes, it was always terrible, from the time we returned to

14 Srebrenica. The problems were there all the time: water, food,

15 accommodation, clothing.

16 Q. Thank you. In the summer of 1992, many people were already

17 wandering around Srebrenica without any accommodation. Is this correct?

18 A. Well, of course. Not all those who arrived could be accommodated

19 right away. They were sent to report to the commission, and in the

20 beginning, one family would be assigned one apartment.

21 MS. SELLERS: Excuse me, Your Honour. I do want to state that

22 this was not an area of the direct examination of the Prosecution and I

23 think that I did put on the record yesterday that we did talk about people

24 leaving Srebrenica in April and May and maybe he mentioned, Mr. Bogilovic,

25 mentioned a few coming in. I did not go into this area during the direct

1 examination. I believe that at this point in time it's not relevant to

2 the direct.

3 If it is gone into, I think I will have to therefore raise it in

4 my redirect.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Vidovic, I think Ms. Sellers is correct.

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in my view, this is

7 highly relevant.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: It is not a question of whether it is relevant or

9 not. It is a question of, there are rules governing cross-examination and

10 we have to stick to them.

11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that Rule

12 90(H) makes it possible during cross-examination to examine on those facts

13 that the witness has knowledge of; however, I will only touch upon this

14 topic in order to deal with an issue that has been dealt with in the

15 examination-in-chief and then I will move on.

16 Q. These people who arrived in Srebrenica, many of them had weapons

17 which could not be controlled in any way at all?

18 A. Many of them did not have weapons, but it was not possible to

19 control weapons. That's why we issued all those decisions that checks

20 should be carried out and that all unregistered weapons should be handed

21 over to the competent authorities.

22 Q. Very well. I'll ask you that. Many of these people who arrived

23 had weapons, is this correct?

24 A. No, it's not correct.

25 Q. Do you want to say that some had weapons and some didn't? Or what

1 do you want to say?

2 A. No. It's not correct that many of them had weapons.

3 Q. Very well.

4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Would the usher now please show the

5 witness --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because I hate when I get these sort of

7 answers. The witness still hasn't answered your question, which was very

8 clear and I am getting the impression that he has deliberately avoided

9 answering your question.

10 The question was this: When you said "I don't agree that the

11 majority or the greater number had weapons" and you said "no, I don't

12 agree". You were then asked whether that meant that some did and some

13 didn't. And you haven't given us an answer. So, please, could you answer

14 that question.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's correct that some did and some

16 didn't.

17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Thank you. Attempts were made to confiscate these weapons in

19 various ways, weren't they, weapons that were not being used by the army?

20 A. Yes, such attempts were made.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Would the usher now show the witness

22 document P254.

23 Q. This is also a document that was shown to you by the Prosecutor.

24 It's a document of the municipal War Presidency of Srebrenica, 91/92. It

25 was signed by you and Mr. Hajrudin Avdic and I will quote. It reads:

1 "All those in possession of firearms, ammunition, explosives,

2 communications equipment and medical supplies must immediately report it

3 to the commander of the nearest unit or military or civilian police for

4 verification and utilisation".

5 It's correct, is it not, that the War Presidency attempted to

6 confiscate weapons from persons who were not organised into units. You

7 also tried this as the chief of the SJB, is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And you forwarded this order to both the military and civilian

10 police, is this correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Oric also attempted to confiscate weapons, is this correct? The

13 weapons that were not under control?

14 A. Well, of course, he did. Because his men, his soldiers arrived

15 from other areas, fleeing from where they had been and these weapons had

16 to be registered. And there were individuals who arrived and reported to

17 no one, and they hid their weapons and they hid in various apartments and

18 flats.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Would the usher now show the witness

21 Exhibit P5.

22 Q. This is allegedly a document of the Srebrenica armed forces staff

23 49/92 of the 29th of October, 1992 and I will quote to you only the first

24 part of this document, which reads: "The military police is hereby

25 ordered to carry out an investigation in Krusev Do pursuant to order

1 number 91/92 of the War Presidency and place the seized weapons at the

2 disposal of the Srebrenica armed forces staff, according to available

3 sources the following persons are in illegal possession of weapons". Then

4 there is a list of names.

5 Mr. Bogilovic, if this document is authentic, it represents, in

6 fact, simply a forwarding of the order issued by the War Presidency

7 including details the police needed for their investigation, is this

8 correct?

9 A. Yes. Because it continues on from the 14th of October.

10 Q. Thank you. Do you agree?

11 A. Yes, I agree.

12 Q. Do you agree that the fact that the author calls this an order is

13 simply something that demonstrates his lack of familiarity with the proper

14 way of compiling documents?

15 A. Yes, I agree, because it's a different word, it's not the word

16 "naredba" which is usually used when writing an order. It is "nalog"

17 which is a different kind of order. It is the kind of order, for example,

18 you would use to pay somebody's salary. A payment order.

19 Q. And Mr. Bogilovic, to put weapons under control is something

20 nobody managed to do until the demilitarisation because the refugees

21 followed the army, wherever the army went, and they took weapons for

22 themselves from the Serbs. Is this correct?

23 A. Yes, it is correct. Throughout all the time of the war, while I

24 was there, people were always wandering around. They were always milling

25 about, moving from one place to the next.

1 Q. It's true, is it not, that no one could prevent thousands of

2 hungry people from following the army and stealing weapons and food.

3 A. No. No one could have prevented them. No one had a full stomach

4 and no one was able to provide conditions for others that they themselves

5 did not have.

6 Q. Very well. I will now move on to another topic. Do you agree

7 with me, Mr. Bogilovic, that in Tuzla, in parallel with the staff in

8 Srebrenica, after the outbreak of the war, until the end of the war, there

9 existed a Territorial Defence staff of Srebrenica in Tuzla which also

10 represented itself as the Srebrenica Municipal Staff. Are you aware of

11 this?

12 A. Yes, I was aware of this and on the 26th or 27th of April, when I

13 arrived in Tuzla, I saw that they were calling themselves "the staff". We

14 were wounded and we had no documents, and it was then that they issued us

15 with documents, and that was the first time I had received a document of

16 the armed forces.

17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Would the usher now please show the

18 witness Exhibit P233.

19 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I do have to put on the record once

20 again, I believe this is outside the scope of the direct examination.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Sellers.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Prosecutor will

23 have the opportunity to put questions in redirect, but this is very

24 important.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I was keeping my mouth shut, hoping that this would

1 not prolong the issue. The result is that you have completely turned the

2 whole concept upside down. You can't abuse of the procedure to put

3 questions that you shouldn't put and then tell me, Don't worry about it,

4 Judge, because Ms. Sellers will be able to raise the matter in

5 reexamination. Then I am going to ask you, how does this fit in Article

6 90(H), the first part and the second part of 90(H) and if you do not give

7 me a satisfactory answer, you will not -- you will not put the question or

8 I will not allow the witness to answer it.

9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this subject matter is

10 very important for the Defence case, because many of the documents used by

11 the Prosecution were received by this staff and the witness has knowledge

12 of this. He is one of the few witnesses who can have knowledge of it and

13 I only wanted to ask two or three questions about this. If Your Honour

14 feels that this is not relevant --

15 JUDGE AGIUS: No. I don't see the relevance so far. What

16 questions did you want to ask? And the witness, please, don't try to

17 answer any of these questions before I give you the go ahead. Yes, Madam

18 Vidovic, what questions did you want to ask?

19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This staff in Srebrenica received

20 orders from the staff in Tuzla, which the Prosecutor -- well, from the

21 superiors of Mr. Oric, which never arrived in Srebrenica. This witness

22 knows about the communication between the staff in Tuzla and the staff in

23 Srebrenica, and the state organs in Tuzla and Srebrenica, because he was a

24 leading figure in the police. That's why I wanted to put these questions.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bogilovic, do you think you can answer any of

1 these questions?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can answer this. All these listed

3 here as part of the staff in Tuzla, they held leading positions in

4 Srebrenica before then. They left Srebrenica and set up a government or a

5 staff of their own in Tuzla.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: But were they then in contact with the authorities

7 in Srebrenica after they had left and set up sort of a government in

8 Tuzla?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. There was little contact, but

10 we called on them to come back and to perform their tasks, the jobs that

11 they were qualified for.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: You've just told us a few minutes ago that the first

13 time you heard about the existence of this stuff was when you went to

14 Tuzla -- and was when you went to Tuzla. Can you give us a little bit

15 more explanation on this, Mr. Bogilovic.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that the first document I

17 ever received to reflect I was a member of the armed forces of Srebrenica

18 was from that staff in Tuzla. I'm talking about the document, the ID. We

19 each and everyone of us needed to have these IDs because of the checks and

20 controls carried out by the corps.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.

22 I apologise. Maybe we can clarify these matters with some other witnesses

23 at a later stage.

24 Q. Witness, I will ask you some questions about what you know about

25 Mr. Oric. To the people, Naser Oric was a hero, but the only people he

1 could really influence were the fighters from Potocari. Is that not a

2 fact?

3 A. It is quite true that the people loved Oric. They were afraid

4 that something would happen to him.

5 Q. You didn't answer the second part of my question, though.

6 Essentially, he spent most of his time in Potocari, simply because

7 Potocari was a very sensitive spot in the Srebrenica defence line. Is

8 that true?

9 A. Yes. He spent 90 per cent of his time, at least, in Potocari.

10 That was where he slept. And he lived there with his father.

11 Q. Therefore, essentially, it is true that he only had an influence

12 over the fighters in Potocari. Isn't it?

13 A. The greatest influence he could exercise was over his own

14 fighters, his own people, that he represented. And any other fighters did

15 the same in relation to their own commanders. Oric was not known by the

16 entire municipality after all. He was not familiar to everyone.

17 Q. In other words, other local commanders had more influence with

18 their own people, is that what you were trying to say?

19 A. Yes, of course.

20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can I have the usher's assistance

21 now, please. I would like to show the witness 01801625. This is a report

22 from Srebrenica in relation to the 13th of September, 1992.

23 Q. This is a report to the defence ministry in Sarajevo. It was

24 forwarded by the communications, and information service of Srebrenica

25 municipality. I quote, "Srebrenica has been bombed again. Two planes

1 belonging to the criminal Yugoslavia army carried out two air raids on the

2 Suceska area. At 11.30 and 12.50, the killer pilots dropped their deadly

3 cargo on Suceska, cluster bombs".

4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies.

5 Q. My apologies, Your Honours.

6 "Cluster bombs and krmacas devastated large areas, large

7 residential areas in the Zeranjsko, Odzaci and Slatina villages. Material

8 damage is extensive. About 20 civilians were injured. At the other end

9 of the municipality facing Serbia, the enemy began fiercely pounding the

10 Pirici area early in the morning. At around 700 hours, a ferocious

11 infantry attack followed. Life and death battles went on until 1400 hours

12 when the enemy attack was repelled. This was followed by intense

13 shelling, which continues. We have no information on the dead and

14 wounded. The area of Potocari has not been peaceful for a single day".

15 Do you agree with me, Mr. Bogilovic, that throughout September and

16 October 1992, Potocari was a daily target for the Serb artillery and

17 infantry, is that correct?

18 A. Yes. It's correct. Not Potocari alone. There was cross-fire

19 shelling every day from several different elevations at the same time. We

20 were being targeted from the yellow bridge and from Zvezda or whatever

21 they called the elevation.

22 Q. But you do agree that Potocari was a particularly sensitive point

23 in the Srebrenica defence line?

24 A. I do, by all means. Potocari was the point closest to Bratunac

25 and therefore could easily be pounded from there.

1 Q. Thank you very much. Can these documents please be assigned a

2 number.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

4 [Microphone not activated]

5 JUDGE AGIUS: This document is being received and marked as

6 Defence Exhibit D240.

7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can I have the usher's assistance

8 now, please, to show the witness another document. This is 01801627.

9 Q. This is a report of the War Presidency, the number is 89/92. The

10 date is the 10th of October, 1992. Will you please have a look.

11 I will quote a small portion of the document in order to save

12 time. I'm quoting the fourth paragraph on this page. It reads:

13 "However, the situation is particularly critical at the tri-border area

14 between Bratunac, Vlasenica and Zvornik municipalities. The enemy

15 offensive has been going on for five days now. These have been combined

16 artillery and infantry attacks, accompanied by air force activity. The

17 consequences are immeasurable."

18 The date of the document is the 10th of October, 1992. And I wish

19 now to ask you something about this.

20 Mr. Bogilovic, did you know that Oric was on the front line with

21 his fighters trying to defend the enclave where things were really

22 difficult?

23 A. I absolutely agree with that, as far as Potocari is concerned. As

24 for any other place, I wasn't present and I didn't see him at Likari. I

25 did in fact see him and that's when I was wounded myself.

1 Q. I will ask you something about that now. It's true, isn't it,

2 that Oric was with you on the 2nd of July, 1992 when Likari was attacked

3 and you were wounded?

4 A. Yes. He went left and I went right in order to get closer to our

5 trenches, where our wounded were lying.

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] In relation to this matter, can I

7 have the usher's assistance, briefly, please, to show P109 to the witness.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you want to tender this last document, Madam

9 Vidovic?

10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] By all means, Your Honours. I

11 apologise. I've quite forgotten about that.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: This last document bearing ERN number 01801627 is

13 being tendered, received and marked as Defence Exhibit D241.

14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, you saw the document yesterday. It's purported to

16 be a document of the Srebrenica Municipal Staff 11/92, dated the 7th of

17 July, 1992. The battle for Likari, that you mentioned, was a fierce

18 battle and it went on for the entire day?

19 A. Yes. And it took off in the early morning hours.

20 Q. You testified yesterday about this decision and you said: "I

21 don't know how Oric could have signed this document dated the 2nd of July

22 because he was not there". So my question to you is: It's true, isn't

23 it, that on that day, he was at the front line in Likari and not in

24 Srebrenica?

25 A. Yes, indeed. He was in Likari. He went left. I went right. We

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 wanted to spread, because of the shells.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. I want to make sure that this is

3 correct. We have two dates here. The 7th of July and the 2nd of July.

4 If you look at line 4, you see it is the 7th of July. If you look at line

5 9 it is the 2nd of July. Is that correct? Or should we have just one

6 consistent date?

7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it says the 2nd of

8 July, 1992.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] And I --

11 JUDGE AGIUS: But your question on page 29, line 4 states: It is

12 purported to be a document of the Srebrenica Municipal Staff, 11/92, dated

13 the 7th of July, 1992. So that's not correct, is it?

14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, not correct. Probably

15 misinterpretation. I'm talking about the 2nd of July, 1992. Thank you

16 very much, Your Honours, for pointing this out.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: That's what I thought, so I was only trying to

18 correct what was, to me, an obvious mistake. Let's proceed, please.

19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Thank you very much. Mr. Bogilovic, I'm about to ask you

21 something else now. You knew a person named Hazim Omerovic from

22 Voljevica, did you not?

23 A. I met Hazim Omerovic from Voljevica at Akif Ustic's place because

24 he was a member of his unit throughout the war.

25 Q. Thank you. He was close to Akif Ustic, wasn't he?

1 A. Yes. He was a member of his unit. He was there with him.

2 Q. Thank you very much. It's true, isn't it, that the physical

3 resemblance between this person and Naser Oric was, in fact, quite

4 stunning, wasn't it?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. People confused them very often, even those who knew them well;

7 wouldn't that be right?

8 A. Probably so, because --

9 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour that is not within the scope of my

10 direct examination.

11 MR. JONES: Your Honour, the witness is being interrupted.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: And again I mean --

13 MS. SELLERS: Well, I have to address --

14 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, please. Both of you. It is coming from

15 the jurisdictions that you come from, you know that this should not be

16 done. Neither from your side to stand up and start intervening before you

17 are authorised to, and Mr. Jones should know that if Madam Vidovic is

18 cross-examining, he should remain where he is and let her do the talking.

19 And in any case, you are not authorised to stand up and intervene either.

20 So at this point in time, please, I'm not going to hear either of

21 you. Go ahead with your answer. If you don't stick to the rules, I will

22 be tough with you.

23 Mr. Bogilovic, you are being asked to confirm whether very often

24 people confused Akif Ustic with Naser Oric because of their resemblance.

25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, not Akif Ustic.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: What's his name then?

2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm talking about Hazim Omerovic.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, a different name. I see Akif Ustic there.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Hazim Omerovic was in Akif's unit.

5 It is true that the physical resemblance to Mr. Naser Oric was great.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Did people confuse them, or not?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think so. They must have. When

8 you looked at them, they looked so much alike and you couldn't tell them

9 until they got a bit close-up.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: That's not the point. That is not the question.

11 The key question is whether, from your own knowledge, from your own

12 knowledge, not what you suppose or what you imagine or what you believe,

13 but whether from your knowledge you know that people confused one with the

14 other. In other words, in your mind, before you give me an answer, you

15 must rely on facts and not on suppositions.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on peoples' accounts -- for

17 example, Naser Oric was somewhere in a village, when, in fact, he wasn't,

18 but rather, Mr. Hazim was and that was why people confused them and why

19 sometimes people believed that they had seen Naser somewhere.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. If I may just add another question in connection with this, Mr.

23 Bogilovic. Did you ever hear or was this something that people talked

24 about that Hazim played practical jokes with farmers. He would go to the

25 country side and stay with farmers pretending that he was Naser Oric? Did

1 you ever hear anything like that?

2 A. He was not a very serious person. He liked to play these

3 practical jokes. He had a short board at the outset, just like Naser did.

4 Q. Thank you very much. You said a number of times that you knew

5 Zulfo Tursunovic. I want to ask you something about that. It's true,

6 isn't it, that Zulfo's house was not in Viogor at all but, rather, in

7 Spasin Do, a hamlet of Suceska. Is that correct?

8 A. Yes. Spasin Do, quite correct?

9 Q. Vjevodje [phoen] is at least two or three kilometres away from his

10 house?

11 A. Two, yes. Three no.

12 Q. Well then, two kilometres. During your testimony, you mentioned a

13 policeman of yours and you said his name was Zele. Is this Elvir Djozic?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. At one point, he was wounded and lost an arm. Is that the same

16 person?

17 A. Yes, it is.

18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Would the usher now please show the

19 witness document P7. Before the document is brought to the witness,

20 perhaps I can put another question.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, was there another person who was your subordinate

24 called Mevzad Djozic?

25 A. Yes. He was a policeman, an active duty policeman.

1 Q. In the course of 1992, and early 1993, the period of the war, he

2 was a civilian policeman also wasn't he?

3 A. Yes, he was.

4 Q. Thank you. Now we can look at document P7.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: I want to make sure because all of these names do

6 not show up in the transcript and I can understand partly why. But I want

7 to make sure that they did show up later on and that both parties are

8 checking, making sure that they do show up. Madam Vidovic and Mr.

9 Wubben, I mean, I'm referring to the lead counsel because it is your

10 responsibility as far as the teams. Make sure they do show up because

11 otherwise it will be utter confusion for us in due course. All right.

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. The last person I asked you about was Mevzad Djozic. Mr.

14 Bogilovic, before you have document P7, this is an alleged document of the

15 armed forces staff of Srebrenica of the 31st of October, 1992 and the

16 number is 51/92. And it says here: "I order all units of the armed

17 forces of Srebrenica shall be assigned with the following codes". And

18 then there is a list of units. The last of these is the military police.

19 And I want to ask you the following. It's correct, is it not,

20 that such codes did not exist in the units in Srebrenica, never on any

21 document did you see such a code?

22 A. That's correct. This is the first time I've seen this. The units

23 were called after the place where they were stationed.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, because your question you have a habit of

25 putting two questions or three questions in one, Madam Vidovic, and then

1 we get one answer which doesn't cover the entirety of the question.

2 The question contained two questions. The first one is the

3 following: Is it correct that such codes did not exist in Srebrenica?

4 Are you in a position to tell us, to confirm that these codes did not

5 exist, never existed at the time in Srebrenica? Because that's a

6 different question from the other one then. What's your answer? I agree

7 they didn't exist. I don't know. They existed. What's your answer?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In fact I didn't even know about

9 these codes. I was not aware of these codes.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: But do you exclude that they ever existed? The fact

11 that you were not aware of them, does that mean -- or does that bring us

12 to the conclusion or you to the conclusion that they never existed?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I never knew about them. There was

14 no need. Nobody used such codes. We always talked about the places where

15 the units were based.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: And the second question you have partly answered

17 already. Did you ever see those codes used in any document? And your

18 answer is "no"?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No audible answer.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed now Madam Vidovic.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. The military police is listed under number 16. In its

23 communications the military police never used the code mentioned here,

24 1357/7.

25 A. Well, of course not.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: This is a useless question. I mean, why do you put

2 the question if he has already answered -- he has told you he never knew

3 about these codes, never seen these codes.

4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour.

5 Q. Now, please look at numbers 10 to 16 of this document. 10 to 16

6 and look at the titles, please.

7 Did there exist a motor company in Srebrenica?

8 A. I'm not aware of it. We had very few launches but we had no

9 shells.

10 Q. Was there a PVO battery?

11 A. I don't know.

12 Q. Was there an engineer's platoon?

13 A. I don't know.

14 Q. Does that mean you did not know whether they existed, or that they

15 did not exist?

16 A. I don't know, but had these units existed, I should have known

17 about them. There was no company or battery located anywhere.

18 Q. What about an armoured platoon?

19 A. What kind of armoured platoon could we have when we have no

20 armoured vehicles?

21 Q. Did you hear that there was a medical corps company?

22 A. There were medical men, but not a company. There was a butcher

23 who acted as a medical man, or a medic.

24 Q. Your Honour, may we break here? I will only have a few questions

25 after the break.

1 MR. JONES: Your Honour. May I have leave to address, Your

2 Honour?

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, certainly. The witness, I think, can be

4 escorted out.

5 [The witness stands down]

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.

7 MR. JONES: Yes, two matters really. The first is really just of

8 housekeeping. I will have to leave in the course of the next sitting and

9 I trust that will be okay with the Chamber.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I appreciate you --

11 MR. JONES: I will leave discreetly halfway through. Secondly, I

12 apologise if my intervention earlier wasn't welcome. It was really a

13 problem I felt should be made, which is that there have been continuing

14 objections by the Prosecution that matters were not raised during

15 examination-in-chief. And I think it has to be said that it's crystal

16 clear from rule 90(H)i that we are not limited to only matters that have

17 been raised in examination-in-chief. If there is evidence which relevant

18 to the case for the cross-examining party, then of course it can be

19 cross-examined upon and, indeed, it would be absurd and unfair if the

20 witness could give very helpful evidence to the Defence and he was not

21 allowed to give that evidence because the Prosecution had not asked him

22 about it. And that's why the Rule says what it says.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: That's uncontested, Mr. Jones.

24 MR. JONES: The reason why I intervened rather suddenly is that my

25 colleague has been severely reprimanded in the past for interfering with

1 -- intervening when a witness is still giving evidence and, obviously, I

2 would ask for equal treatment in that respect, but especially when you

3 have a witness who is giving evidence about resemblance, about possible

4 evidence relevant to mistaken identity, something that important --

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Jones, come on, I don't need any sermons. You

6 should have noticed that unfortunately your intervention occurred on one

7 occasion when I was jumping on Ms. Sellers to shut her down. So let's

8 leave it at that.

9 MR. JONES: Yes. Surely after all of us --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Because I was actually stopping Ms. Sellers in no

11 unclear terms.

12 MR. JONES: Yes.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: So the last thing I wanted was you to raise up, to

14 stand up then and make matters worse.

15 MR. JONES: Yes. I'm obliged to Your Honour, I simply can't

16 understand why the Prosecution would want to keep evidence of mistaken

17 identity out of the record.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: But that is definitely an issue. There is no point

19 in that. On the other hand, I need to point out something, that if a

20 question is put, which does not, strictly speaking, arise out of the

21 examination-in-chief, then I would expect counsel from the other side to

22 stand up and say: This does not arise out of the examination-in-chief.

23 It's inadmissible and it is of course admissible if it falls under the

24 second part of Rule 90(H).

25 But again, it may and most of the time is expected to be preceded

1 by an objection.

2 MR. JONES: Okay. That's fine. I think we're all clear then.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. What was not clear is why it had to flare up

4 like that. Yes.

5 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, if I might. My apologies, too. I

6 should have proceeded my first comment with "Objection, Your Honour" and

7 then to proceed to state that this wasn't in the scope of direct

8 examination.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Incident closed. 25 minutes and we will

10 resume soon after.

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

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

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Vidovic.

14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I will be brief.

15 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, during your preparations for testifying, or rather

16 during your proofing sessions, the Prosecutor asked you whether you had

17 communicated with your family through a radio station.

18 A. Yes, I had.

19 Q. This means that you had the opportunity of seeing this radio

20 station?

21 A. Yes, I did see it.

22 Q. Please describe for the Chamber exactly what this radio station

23 looked like. What was this about?

24 A. These were amateurs, ham radio operators who used a centre

25 belonging to other ham radio operators and then they got connected to a

1 telephone line and, in this way, they established a connection with the

2 person they wanted to speak to on the other side.

3 Q. And did you see what this radio station looked like physically?

4 Can you describe it? Was it big? Was it small?

5 A. No. It was just small, 30 by 20 by 10, like an ordinary radio.

6 Q. So this was not something that was three metres by two metres

7 large?

8 A. No. It was like this: 30 by 20 by 10.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment.

10 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour might I say objection. I know that we

11 have proceeded in this. I would like to say, clearly as counsel has

12 stated, this has come out of information that they received during

13 proofing. I did not go into the area of communications during my direct

14 examination. Thank you.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Vidovic.

16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am very surprised now

17 by what Ms. Sellers has just said. We received the proofing notes,

18 proofing notes in which --

19 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated] -- wasn't dealt with in

20 the examination-in-chief.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. That is correct, but I am now

22 referring to Ms. Sellers' comment. I feel that this is a very relevant

23 issue for our defence case and that I do have the right to raise it.

24 Your Honour, many witnesses mentioned this issue. Mr. Bogilovic

25 was someone who was in Srebrenica and was able to see exactly what the

1 radio station looked like.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: He's obviously not referring to a radio station.

3 You're obviously referring to some -- one thing and he's obviously

4 referring to another. So there are no more questions on this. Let's move

5 to something else, Ms. Vidovic.

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Microphone not activated]

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour I was just about to ask

9 a question to clarify this, where was this radio station that you have

10 just mentioned and that I asked you about. Where was it located.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Am I supposed to answer this?

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes. Yes.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The radio station was in the post

14 office. When Mr. Morillon arrived he also used it occasionally.

15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no

16 further questions.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Vidovic.

18 Ms. Sellers, do you have a re-examination? I take it that you

19 have. Let's proceed with the re-examination.

20 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour, I do.

21 Re-examined by Ms. Sellers:

22 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, you were not a member of the armed forces in 1992

23 through 1993, were you?

24 A. I was not a member of the armed forces, but of the police.

25 MS. SELLERS: Excuse me, Your Honour.

1 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, you did not --

2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

3 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, you did not partake in any military operations in

4 1992 or 1993, did you?

5 A. Not in 1993, but I did in 1992, in the beginning of course. And I

6 was wounded.

7 Q. Certainly. Did you have any knowledge of the military operations

8 that took place in Rupovo Brdo in the summer of 1992? More specifically

9 June?

10 A. No, I had no knowledge about this. It was far away from us. That

11 was the municipality of Vlasenica which is far away from Srebrenica.

12 Q. Did you have any information or did you participate in the

13 military operation in Suceska [as interpreted] or Uzice in August 8th,

14 1992?

15 A. I couldn't have gone anywhere. I couldn't even walk around

16 Srebrenica yet alone go to Jezestica. I have never been in that village

17 either before the war or during the war and I don't even know where it is.

18 Q. Isn't it also true that you have no knowledge and didn't

19 participate in military operations that took place in Fakovici in October

20 and Bjelovac in December and in Kravica in January of 1993?

21 A. Yes. It's a hundred per cent sure, certain. Certainly never

22 during the combat activities was I either in Fakovici or Bjelovac or

23 Kravica.

24 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, isn't it also true that you didn't receive orders

25 from the military to undertake actions because you were part of the

1 civilian police?

2 A. Yes. We received orders to collect, but this was done through the

3 staff, through War Presidency and we had to collect sheets for the wounded

4 because there were no bandages available.

5 Q. Now, Mr. Bogilovic, it's been your testimony that other than on

6 the three occasions when you were in receipt of written orders or

7 instructions or information from Naser Oric, you never received written

8 orders or instructions from him at any other time pertaining to military

9 activities; isn't that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, back in May, 1992, when you and the others were at

12 the meeting in Bajramovici, is it your testimony that both Akif Ustic was

13 suggested to be the commander and Naser Oric, and Naser Oric was selected

14 to be the commander?

15 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment because --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The two of them were

17 nominated. And then a vote was taken and Mr. Naser was elected commander

18 and Ustic his deputy. And this was on the 20th of May, 1992.

19 Q. No matter how the other representatives of the regional groups

20 were selected and were present, isn't it true that Naser Oric assumed the

21 command of those regional groups that were present?

22 A. This irritated the local villages and their representatives.

23 Their representative of Potocari was Mr. Oric. Of Suceska, Mr.

24 Tursonovic. Of Bajramovici, Mr. Fejzic. Of Dzozici, Mr. Djozic. And

25 Ustic in Srebrenica.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 At the proposal of Mr. Ustic, I was appointed to organise the

2 police, because the refugees had started arriving as he said at the

3 time --

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Will you answer the question, please.

5 MS. SELLERS:

6 Q. Wasn't Mr. Oric selected by those regional representatives as the

7 overall commander of those groups present? Yes or no, Mr. Bogilovic?

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Vidovic.

9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. The witness

10 never, in fact, stated that these were regional representatives. He

11 talked about the representatives of the following villages: Suceska --

12 MS. SELLERS: Might I say geographical, Your Honour. I don't want

13 to mislead in any way.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Perhaps you can rephrase it in a way which will make

15 it reflect the reality.

16 MS. SELLERS:

17 Q. Of the leaders that were present from the different villages,

18 towns and areas of the Srebrenica municipality, didn't Mr. Naser Oric

19 assume to be the commander, the overall commander of those groups present?

20 Yes or no, Mr. Bogilovic?

21 A. Yes. He presided at that time.

22 Q. And in presiding, did he ever, to your knowledge, resign from

23 presiding over the command of those groups that were present?

24 A. I know that there were difficult times ahead, so I don't think he

25 could really find his bearings himself.

1 Q. That's not --

2 JUDGE AGIUS: He is trying to avoid answering your question, Ms.

3 Sellers.

4 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, then I will move.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: And the Trial Chamber will reach its own

6 conclusions.

7 MS. SELLERS:

8 Q. Mr. Bogilovic --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, one moment, one moment. Mr. Bogilovic,

10 because I can assure you you're not the most intelligent one in this

11 courtroom.

12 When the members present at that meeting had an option of two

13 persons to choose from as commander, what did they really have to choose

14 about? A person who would then do what? Be what?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were several persons who made

16 up the staff.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bogilovic, don't try to avoid answering my

18 question. The delegates there had two persons to choose from, Naser Oric

19 and the other one, Ustic.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: And they chose Naser Oric. They chose him as what?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To be the commander.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Commander of what?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of the staff of the Territorial

25 Defence.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Which would include whom?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Which would include the villages

3 that were there. Present.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So the suggestion that was put to you by

5 Ms. Sellers, that actually Naser Oric was appointed commander of these

6 villages, is a correct one, isn't it?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. That's okay.

9 MS. SELLERS: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I think if we included dentists amongst lawyers in

11 certain cases in the case of certain witnesses, it would work better.

12 MS. SELLERS:

13 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, isn't it true that throughout 1992 up until 1993,

14 the self-organised groups that subordinated themselves to Mr. Naser Oric

15 as commander, expanded, meaning it grew, they became more numerous. Isn't

16 that true?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And isn't it also true that neither in 1992 or in 1993, until you

19 left Srebrenica, to your knowledge Mr. Oric never resigned, refused to be

20 the commander of those groups?

21 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Yes, answer your question first. And

22 then we will see what the objection is.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not to my knowledge.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Yes, Madam Vidovic.

25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Ms. Sellers keeps

1 using the term "subordinated to Naser Oric". We were speaking about the

2 staff throughout, weren't we, not about Naser Oric?

3 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I thought that we were also speaking

4 about self-organised groups.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

6 MS. SELLERS: That came under the command. Now the word should be

7 "put under his authority", or something to note that he is now -- has

8 overall command. I certainly don't mind a change of words.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead. Try to restrict it to what we are

10 familiar with, but I don't think there is any confusion in our minds what

11 we are talking about.

12 MS. SELLERS: Thank you.

13 Q. Now Mr. Bogilovic, I just want to go over with you very briefly a

14 couple of the documents that we've already seen and one or two documents

15 that are new. Could we please have P254. If we put that on Sanctions, I

16 don't know whether -- Sanctions in English, and we will give it to Mr.

17 Bogilovic in B/C/S?

18 JUDGE AGIUS: This is the document signed by him and Hajrudin

19 Avdic?

20 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour. I'm also going to ask that

21 document P5 be shown to the witness at the same time, please. They're

22 interrelated documents.

23 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, you've testified that this document, the document

24 P254, wherein an order, where you say that anyone who is in possession of

25 a firearm must turn the firearm over to the military or civilian police.

1 Isn't that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. You note in this order, you're saying that this order must be

4 carried out by the 25th of October, 1992. Isn't that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. You issued the order along with Mr. Avdic on the 14th of October,

7 1992, correct?

8 A. I signed it. Yes.

9 Q. Right --

10 A. It was made, the decision and signed.

11 Q. And as a member of the civilian police -- well, I'm sorry, as the

12 chief of public security service, you certainly can tell ordinary citizens

13 what to do in relationship to arms and to weapons that are in the public.

14 Isn't that correct?

15 A. Yes. That's correct. I believed I had those powers.

16 Q. As a matter of fact, you had those powers pursuant to a law

17 because at the top of this order you do quote the law on general

18 administration procedures, the law on acquisition, possession and bearing

19 of firearms. Isn't that correct? You will have to vocalise your yes or

20 your no in the microphone, Mr. Bogilovic, so that --

21 A. Yes, yes.

22 Q. Certainly. Now, Mr. Bogilovic, the order that we've -- we're

23 looking at was not directed -- it was not a direct order to the military

24 police. You will agree with that won't you?

25 A. No. Because that's not what it says.

1 Q. No, you do not agree that that's what it says? Or would you

2 please answer again more clearly. Is this a direct order to the military

3 police --

4 A. I agree with you that it was not to the military police, because

5 that is not what the document reflects.

6 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Bogilovic. Now I would ask you to look

7 at P5. Mr. Bogilovic, this document is from October 29th, 1992. Is that

8 correct?

9 A. That's what it says, but I can't say.

10 Q. And this document, the date on this document, certainly seems to

11 be outside of the scope as to when you set the deadline on document P254,

12 which is that order must be carried out by the 25th of October, 1992.

13 Isn't that correct?

14 A. Yes. But this order 0123952 is not in reference to my area. This

15 is 40 kilometres away from where we were at the time.

16 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, thank you for that information, but my question is:

17 Isn't the second document, what I'm referring to now as P5, isn't that a

18 direct order to the military police?

19 A. It says "order" here.

20 Q. Yes. And it says in the first line: The military police is

21 hereby ordered to carry out the investigation pursuant to a document that

22 refers to your order. Isn't that correct?

23 A. There is a reference to an order by the War Presidency here.

24 Q. Now, Mr. Bogilovic, you did not write this order to the military

25 police, did you?

1 A. No, I didn't.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: He has avoided even trying to confirm to you that

3 order number 91/92 of the War Presidency is the order that he was shown

4 before, which carries his signature. Could you show him again now the

5 previous document and he will confirm to us that that previous document is

6 a War Presidency order which carries a number of 91/92 and also carries

7 his signature.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I stand by this order or naradba.

9 As for this other order, or nalog, I really don't know. This order is

10 signed by myself and Mr. Avdic. I stand by it.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. And in the other order that you have, when it

12 refers to -- pursuant to order 91/92 of the War Presidency, what order are

13 they referring to?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This order here named nalog was only

15 made a good deal later and it was in reference to these persons.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bogilovic, read the second line of that nalog.

17 What does it say? 91/92. And before it says: "Naredbom Ratnog". I

18 can't see it all. But "predsjednistva 91/92".

19 What is it referring to? Is it referring to the previous document

20 that you saw which carries your signature as well as that of Hajrudin

21 Avdic?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Both these documents refer to the

23 14th of October when the War Presidency and the staff held a meeting.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bogilovic, I cannot accept that this is what you

25 really understood from my question. I will ask you to read the first and

1 the second line of this nalog, this order of the 29th of October, 1992.

2 Could you please read it. And then when I ask you to stop. Stop. Stop

3 after 91/92. Read it out loud, please.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Pursuant to order of the War

5 Presidency, number 91/92, the military police is hereby ordered to carry

6 out an investigation".

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop, stop. What do you understand that this

8 document refers to? When it says, "predsjednistva 91/92". Are they

9 referring to the previous nalog that you saw which carries your signature?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so, because eventually

11 a decision was adopted on the 14th of October. You have it on the record.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: What is --

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To take this action.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Please, usher, give him back the previous one, 254.

15 Yes. What is the protocol number or the reference number of that

16 document, Mr. Bogilovic?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 91/92, the date is the 14th of

18 October, 1992.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: And is it a decision and order of the War

20 Presidency?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you look at the first part here,

22 it's the War Presidency. But we are members of the War Presidency and,

23 therefore, we are authorised, Mr. Avdic as the president of the War

24 Presidency and myself as chief, we are authorised to issue this order.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: So when in the other document, which is supposedly

1 signed by Mr. Oric, there is a reference to "order of the War Presidency

2 91/92", is it referring to the other document that you've just seen which

3 carries your signature, or not? It's unbelievable.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really can't confirm that.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Would there be another document issued by the

6 War Presidency bearing protocol number 91/92?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. And the decision of my

8 appointment as well, I think it was also adopted on the 14th of October.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: But would it have the number 91/92? Because when

10 you were asked questions as to --

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in terms of the numeric order.

12 Every document should have its own number.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: So when it says 91/92, I suppose that there can only

14 be one document issued by the War Presidency bearing that number, 91/92.

15 There cannot be another one, according to you.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In order for the staff of the armed

17 forces to issue an order like this, ordering the military police to

18 confiscate weapons from these persons, in order for that to happen, it

19 should first have obtained approval which it did on the 14th of October,

20 1992.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: And I am not going to ask you any more questions and

22 I hope very few more questions will be asked to you because I am not

23 believing you, that little bit, Mr. Bogilovic. There cannot be such

24 confusion in your mind. You know exactly what my question was and you

25 have been trying for the past 15 minutes to avoid answering it. And you

1 will not be given any further opportunity to answer it now. Madam

2 Sellers, please, if you could proceed and conclude.

3 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour, I will try to go as rapidly as

4 possible.

5 [Microphone not activated]

6 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, have you seen Exhibit 150 that he looked at

7 yesterday during the cross-examination.

8 Mr. Bogilovic, as a member of the chief of public security and a

9 member of the civilian police, are you familiar with giving out both

10 written orders in the time you give out oral orders that must be

11 followed? Is that part of the procedure, normal procedure?

12 JUDGE AGIUS: I think there is a problem with interpretation if I

13 read his eyes and his gestures correctly.

14 MS. SELLERS: Yes.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, I understand. I am going to keep on

16 talking and when you -- when you are receiving interpretation, please give

17 me a sign, a signal. Are you receiving interpretation? He is not

18 receiving interpretation.

19 MS. SELLERS: Now he is.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but in the meantime I want to -- Mr. Oric, you

21 are not receiving interpretation?

22 THE ACCUSED: No.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Vidovic are you receiving interpretation?

24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: There is a technical problem that we need to solve

1 before we proceed. Please attract my attention straight away when there

2 is this problem.

3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you receiving interpretation now? It seems that

5 interpretation is not reaching the witness and the accused. I will ask

6 again the same question.

7 [Trial Chamber confers with registrar]

8 JUDGE AGIUS: In the meantime, are you receiving interpretation

9 now?

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Vidovic. Yes.

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Witness, are you receiving interpretation now?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: And Mr. Oric?

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I am, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Vidovic.

18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you, we can proceed. And I lost

20 track now.

21 MS. SELLERS:

22 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, I believe I asked you, as the chief of public

23 security and formerly as a police officer, sector leader, did you at times

24 give orders that were written or oral -- or orders that were oral and that

25 they were expected to be followed?

1 A. I ordered, in both kinds of ways. I would put my orders in

2 writing, or I would issue oral orders by megaphone.

3 Q. I would like you now to look at the document in front of you, P

4 150. You have looked at it before. Could I please draw your attention to

5 the sentence that comes under the first wording of "order".

6 Would you agree with me that it basically reads: "Following an

7 oral order by the commander of Srebrenica, that it was necessary to

8 collect 5.000, 7.62-millimetre bullets. I hereby order."

9 Mr. Bogilovic, do you agree that that is what it says?

10 A. I've never seen this before. I can read out to you exactly what

11 it says, but I'm not aware of what it states.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm sorry, Mr. Bogilovic. You were asked questions

13 about this document, something like six questions and you gave six answers

14 to this -- to the questions that were put to you on this document. I

15 can't help you, Ms. Sellers.

16 MS. SELLERS: Then, Your Honour, I will just try to ask one

17 question. Would you look at the document.

18 Yesterday, you testified that commanders in the field were able to

19 use their own analysis or evaluation, or a word similar to that, in

20 carrying out this order.

21 Now, would you agree with me that that evaluation and analysis

22 comes because they are following an oral order by the commander of

23 Srebrenica, according to this document?

24 MR. JONES: Surely that is speculation.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: To an extent, yes, but not completely, Mr. Jones.

1 Move to another question, Ms. Sellers. We're getting nowhere.

2 MS. SELLERS: Could the record reflect that he is nodding his

3 head, Your Honour?

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. He's still looking at the document which

5 he has seen before which he keeps saying he has never seen before.

6 MS. SELLERS: I will move on, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think we better.

8 MS. SELLERS:

9 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, you were asked questions on cross-examination

10 regarding the records of Hamed Salihovic.

11 Now, Hamed Salihovic preceded you as chief of intelligence and

12 security. That's correct isn't it?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. How did you remain in your function of chief of intelligence and

15 security?

16 A. From the 18th to 25th, but I didn't really do anything, I didn't

17 perform any tasks.

18 Q. And including the things you didn't do, you really didn't review

19 the records that Hamed Salihovic had left for you, isn't that correct?

20 A. The records that he gave me, I did review and the others that he

21 didn't give me, I would not have been able to review. Would I?

22 Q. Did you review the working facilities that he had and the staff

23 that worked with him, did you review their work, their input? Yes or no,

24 Mr. Bogilovic?

25 A. No.

1 Q. So therefore, you're not familiar with any type of secretarial or

2 clerking assistance he might have had, in typing or drafting any of these

3 documents, are you?

4 A. No.

5 Q. While you stated that you do know the educational level of Mr.

6 Salihovic, you're not familiar with the educational level of the clerks or

7 the typists or his administrative assistants, are you?

8 MR. JONES: If he had any.

9 MS. SELLERS: I'm asking if he -- yes, excuse me.

10 Q. Do you have any knowledge about the level of education of the

11 clerks, the secretaries or assistant who helped Mr. Salihovic?

12 A. Mr. Salihovic was a teacher. Mr. Masic was a teacher too.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Did he have any clerical assistance that you know

14 of?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not aware of that. I didn't

16 know who helped whom or if there was any clerical assistance to anyone.

17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That exactly is what I was about to

18 say, the witness has expressed the fact that he was not aware of any

19 assistance, clerical assistance being there.

20 MS. SELLERS: Thank you, Your Honour. I will accept that.

21 Q. I would now like to ask you to look at document P143.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Perhaps in the meantime while the usher is finding

23 the document, when you took over from Halilovic -- Salihovic, sorry, not

24 Halilovic. When you took over from Salihovic, did you occupy at any time

25 his office?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. We were in a small room

2 where -- Mr. Makic resided there and I went straight to the president of

3 the War Presidency.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: So you never sat in the same chair that Mr.

5 Salihovic used to sit on in his office?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Never. Because I remained with

7 the police.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: That clarifies exactly his ignorance of whether

9 there were staff, supporting staff for Mr. Salihovic. That explains the

10 situation. Yes. Ms. Sellers.

11 MS. SELLERS:

12 Q. Yes. Mr. Bogilovic, right now you're looking at document 143.

13 And for sake of brevity and efficiency, I would like to say that this is a

14 document that apparently appears to have come from commander called Zeljko

15 Knez and the document is dated the 23rd -- I'm sorry, the 14th of October,

16 1992 and the content of the document relates to the reorganisation of the

17 military police.

18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we be given a copy

19 of this document. We have not received the B/C/S original.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

21 MS. SELLERS: Your Honours, might I just check with the case

22 manager.

23 [Defence counsel and case manager confer]

24 JUDGE AGIUS: How come they don't have B/C/S version of the

25 document?

1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: I apologise to you --

3 MS. SELLERS: I'm sorry, it's P143. I assumed we informed you

4 during the break about the documents. I don't know if they're included

5 within your documents that you have. Our apologies. I will get that for

6 you right away.

7 I will move on to another document in the meantime.

8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Exactly. We were informed during

9 the last break, but we can't always bring all the documents we have ever

10 received from the OTP and I would like to have this one in front of me.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I'm sure there ask an extra copy. Usher,

12 could you please hand it over to Madam Vidovic.

13 MS. SELLERS:

14 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, my question is rather simple. Were you in receipt

15 of this document from Commander Knez during that time period around

16 October 14th, 1992 in that it concerns the reorganisation of the military

17 police?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Thank you. Your Honours, the document may be removed from him.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.

21 MS. SELLERS:

22 Q. I would now like to go to document 158. Mr. Bogilovic, you

23 testified in cross-examination about the appointment of commanders. And

24 if I understood correctly, you stated that most commanders were elected by

25 the local population. Is that correct?

1 A. Yes. 99 per cent of them.

2 Q. I would like to ask you to look at the document in front of you,

3 Mr. Bogilovic.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Please take your time and look through particularly that which

6 comes under "order."

7 Mr. Bogilovic, would you agree that in this document they talk

8 about the formation of an independent group, the Glogova independent

9 battalion, under section 1? And under section 2, it says "I hereby

10 appoint Ejub Golic." Would you agree that that's what is written in the

11 document, Mr. Bogilovic?

12 A. Ejub Golic had been the commander of the Glogova unit even before

13 this. They were from Bratunac and they had their own political and

14 military structure of the territory of Srebrenica municipality, except for

15 the police. In the Bratunac area, the Muslim policemen were with me.

16 Q. Well then, Mr. Bogilovic, would you at least confirm that this

17 document officially appoints him as commander of the Glogova independent

18 battalion?

19 And I would now draw your attention up to the top of the document,

20 the paragraph that says: "Pursuant to article 18, paragraph 1. Isn't

21 this his legal and official appointment?

22 A. If everything is legal, I don't know. I do not know much about

23 the military legislation. In paragraph 2 it says I hereby appoint Ejub

24 Golic commander of the Glogova independent battalion. But he was

25 certainly the commander there, elected by the people, but their seat was

1 in Srebrenica. Their headquarters. In fact -- excuse me, the name of the

2 village escapes me now.

3 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, excuse me. Then you have just testified that

4 really you didn't know very much about military appointments that took

5 place pursuant to the law; is that correct?

6 A. Yes, that's correct. I didn't know about this either, about this

7 written document.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MS. SELLERS: We can have the document removed, please.

10 I would now like the witness to see document 155.

11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if the Prosecutor has

12 an extra copy, could I have the version in Bosnian, if it's available.

13 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour, my apologies. We will have that

14 right away.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you, Madam Vidovic.

16 MS. SELLERS:

17 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, I would ask you to look over the document. You

18 have testified previously that Osman Osmanovic was the chief of staff and

19 that he was on the military side of the organisation, Srebrenica. Isn't

20 that correct?

21 A. Yes. Osman Osmanovic. Yes.

22 Q. Now, this document seems to reject the appointment of Hamdija

23 Fejzic as commander of the Bajramovici company. And if you look at the

24 second line, what is written is that the commander of the Srebrenica

25 independent battalion is hereby ordered to urgently appoint a commander of

1 this unit.

2 Are you familiar with the fact that the OS staff seems to have

3 redirected the appointment of the commander from the Bajramovici company?

4 A. As the people had elected Hamdija Fejzic the first time around as

5 their superior, on the 1st of July, Hamdija was elected the president of

6 the executive board and became part of the civil structures. The people

7 again asked that Hamdija be restored to them and that's when, according to

8 this document, Mr. Osman Osmanovic ordered that the commander of the

9 Srebrenica independent battalion urgently appoint Bajramovic -- or rather

10 appoint a commander, so that Hamdija would remain in the executive

11 board.

12 Q. So even though Mr. Fejzic had been appointed, elected, selected or

13 somehow placed in the position by the people of that geographical area,

14 the OS staff could overrule and ask that its commander appoint someone

15 else, isn't that correct, according to this document, Mr. Bogilovic?

16 A. But in the meantime, Hamdija had performed the duty of president

17 of the executive board.

18 Q. I understand that, Mr. Bogilovic. My question is just simply:

19 Did Mr. Osmanovic from the OS staff, in his capacity, as chief of staff,

20 ask that Mr. Fejzic not remain the commander and that the commander of

21 Srebrenica appoint someone else? Yes or no, Mr. Bogilovic. That's what

22 I'm asking.

23 A. Yes.

24 MS. SELLERS: Thank you. The document may be removed from the

25 witness. I would now like to go to Defence Exhibit 238. And at the same

1 time, I would ask that the witness be shown Prosecution Exhibit 60, that

2 was used in the cross-examination. I believe this was used in the

3 cross-examination.

4 Q. I'm going to ask that the English --

5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

6 MS. SELLERS: Pardon me.

7 Q. Yes, I just wanted to have D238 placed on the ELMO, if possible.

8 Mr. Bogilovic, I would ask you to just briefly glance at the document. I

9 believe that you saw it yesterday. And you confirmed that the person

10 whose name appears at the bottom, Nedzad Bektic, is someone that you were

11 familiar with, aren't you?

12 A. I know Nedzad Bektic.

13 Q. He's the person who succeeded you as chief of intelligence and

14 security after you left Srebrenica?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. He wasn't the commander of the Territorial Defence to your

17 knowledge, was he?

18 A. He was at Kragljevode.

19 Q. Yes. But was he the commander of the defence staff, to your

20 knowledge?

21 A. I'm not sure. He was the commander of the Kragljevode unit.

22 Q. So he was more like a sub commander, if one could use that phrase,

23 meaning not the top commander, but maybe a sub commander. Would that be

24 correct?

25 A. At Kragljevode, he was the top commander.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Vidovic.

2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This was a leading question, Your

3 Honours, but the witness has answered.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Now leading questions are permissible at this stage.

5 They weren't permissible during the examination-in-chief, but they are

6 permissible now. Just like you in cross-examination can put leading

7 questions.

8 MS. SELLERS:

9 Q. So, Mr. Bogilovic, if I understand you correctly, you're saying

10 that he was the commander in his geographical area.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And he was also a member -- a member as a commander of the

13 Territorial Defence staff, is that correct?

14 A. Yes. On the 15th of June, I think, that was the first time I saw

15 him.

16 Q. My question goes to section 2 of this document. I'm sorry section

17 1 and 2. And if I could read it into the record. This appears to be a

18 general mobilisation order and it says: "Men between the ages of 18 and

19 55 are required to respond to this mobilisation and women between the ages

20 of 18 and 50 are required to respond to this mobilisation".

21 Are you familiar with those types of terms of or conditions of

22 mobilisation, Mr. Bogilovic?

23 A. No.

24 Q. What is the normal age that someone would be asked to join the

25 army, within your understanding, Mr. Bogilovic?

1 A. As for the army, I don't know. But I do know that in the police,

2 if they were 18, they could join the army.

3 Q. And in your knowledge, do people usually join the army after 55

4 years old?

5 A. I don't think so. There was a case where a child came to apply to

6 me, asking to join the police. And I asked him, Where is your father.

7 And he said, At home. And I said, Well, bring your father. And he

8 brought the father and I asked the father why did you send this child to

9 me? What can I do with the child?

10 Q. Do you agree that there is usually an age limit in terms of people

11 serving in the army, isn't that correct, Mr. Bogilovic? An upper limit.

12 A. I think it's in the military documents.

13 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, I would like to ask you to look at P60. You have

14 looked at this document during your cross-examination. As was stated to

15 you during cross-examination, this document concerns a Bogdan Zivanovic.

16 Would you look at the first line in the first full paragraph. You confirm

17 that it says: "Bogdan Zivanovic was born on the 14th of October, 1930 in

18 Stublovi". Would you confirm that, Mr. Bogilovic, for the record?

19 A. I can't, because I don't know this man and I don't even know why

20 this place, Stublovi is.

21 Q. Would you confirm that appears to be what is written in the

22 document?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now someone who was born in 1930, in 1993, would you agree with me

25 that they would be about 63 years of age?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. I would like to ask you to look at the last full paragraph in this

3 document. I believe this paragraph was read out to you during

4 cross-examination.

5 If I might read it in English translation, it says: "His", and I

6 think we can make the assumption that "his" refers to Mr. Zivanovic,

7 "responsibility is indisputable. Although he is outside the age bracket

8 eligible for the regular call up, but this is just one more piece of

9 evidence that Karadzic carried out a third call up".

10 Would you agree that it appears that Mr. Zivanovic was older than

11 the normal age for military recruits?

12 A. As for the law governing military obligations, yes. But there

13 were people on both sides who were older and who had volunteered, but

14 these people were all volunteers.

15 Q. And would you agree that this is possibly a reference that a Mr.

16 Karadzic, who is a quite well-known figure on the other side of the armed

17 conflict on the Republika Serb side, might have had a mobilisation order

18 that extended beyond the ages of 55 as an age limit, if you know Mr.

19 Bogilovic?

20 A. I'm not aware of that. As for him and his opinions, I don't know.

21 Q. Mr. Bogilovic --

22 A. I don't know what his positions were.

23 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, assuming that his position was at a certain time

24 we'd call people over 55, this paragraph or the sentence we read out,

25 appears to make more sense than you thought when first cross-examined.

1 Would you agree with that, Mr. Bogilovic?

2 JUDGE AGIUS: I would leave it, Ms. Sellers.

3 MS. SELLERS: Fine. Your Honour, I'm coming up to the last final

4 documents and area. Mr. Bogilovic, could you --

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. One moment. Madam Vidovic, yes.

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I simply wish to draw

7 attention to the translation of this document. In this document, as in

8 other documents of this type, the translators, for some reason, added what

9 they thought should be included. In the Bosnian language, there is no

10 mention of "his" not "his responsibility". Just "responsibility" is

11 indisputable.

12 Also in the third line, this person is -- is missing in the

13 Bosnian text. It is not there. These documents should be checked before

14 being used. Everything that is added by the translator alters the meaning

15 of the document. That is why we showed this.

16 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Mr. --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: I think there is clear enough indication in the

18 English text that these are added by the translators. And I don't see how

19 the meaning or the import of the original text is altered, because if

20 there is responsibility but not his, it's certainly his responsibility

21 that is being referred to.

22 If it says "of no more interest" but doesn't say this person is of

23 no more interest, it's obviously about this person that the document is

24 talking. And later on, "little help and testified investigation, as

25 printed," that I don't understand to be honest with you. So I don't

1 Anyway it is not in question. Let's move to the next question.

2 MS. SELLERS:

3 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, you worked in Srebrenica municipality for over 20

4 years. Could you please tell the Trial Chamber the kilometres, the miles,

5 the distance between Potocari and the town of Srebrenica.

6 A. Five kilometres.

7 Q. In your estimate, how long would it take if one were in a car or

8 any type of motor vehicle to get between Potocari and the town of

9 Srebrenica?

10 A. Potocari is stretched out and it would depend from where in

11 Potocari they're going to Srebrenica, because it stretches for 5 or 6

12 kilometres.

13 Q. So from the closest point, how long would it take to get between

14 Potocari and Srebrenica, Mr. Bogilovic?

15 A. The Potocari river is -- Potocari Rijeka is halfway between

16 Bratunac and Srebrenica and it's 5 kilometres to Srebrenica.

17 Q. How much time would it take in a motorised vehicle such as a car

18 to get from the shortest distance from Potocari, down to Potocari to

19 Srebrenica, Mr. Bogilovic?

20 A. Depending on the vehicle and the driver. How fast he was driving.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

22 MS. SELLERS: Mr. Bogilovic --

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ten, fifteen minutes.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's finish it there, Ms. Sellers.

25 MS. SELLERS:

1 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, I would like to ask you --

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Next thing he will tell us is how much pressure he

3 puts on the accelerator.

4 MS. SELLERS:

5 Q. -- I would like to ask you, in terms of your seeing Naser Oric --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: How much traffic there is on the road.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour.

8 MS. SELLERS:

9 Q. -- In terms of you physically seeing Naser Oric, in the fall of

10 1992, and in the winter of 1993, would you estimate that you saw Naser

11 Oric more than three or four times?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Would you estimate also that Naser Oric was present at meetings,

14 at least three or four times when you also were present?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did you only see Naser Oric in meetings or did you have the

17 occasion to see him outside of meetings?

18 A. Rarely outside meetings. Anyone who was out on the ground, I

19 would only see at the meetings I attended.

20 Q. But Naser Oric did come and visit you in the summer of 1992 and

21 you went to Naser Oric in April of 1993; isn't that correct?

22 A. He was then in a flat in Srebrenica.

23 Q. And did he stay in the flat in Srebrenica on occasion, to your

24 knowledge?

25 A. I know that his headquarters was in Potocari, at his father's.

1 Q. Would you answer my question, please, Mr. Bogilovic.

2 A. Would you please repeat your question.

3 Q. Yes. Do you know whether Naser Oric stayed at the flat in

4 Srebrenica on occasion?

5 A. I don't know.

6 MS. SELLERS: Mr. Bogilovic, I would like to use document P80.

7 Your Honour, this will be extremely brief. I do not need him to read it

8 out, but to let you know what I'm referring to.

9 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, I would like to ask you to look at document P80.

10 We have seen it many times, in particular in connection with ERN number

11 02115044. In the English translation I'm referring to page 3.

12 If you would go down numerically it says -- 1, 2, 3, and next to 3

13 it says "plans/actions."

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. After"plans/actions" it says "Analysis of the action, Naser."

16 Would that conclude you to the belief that Naser Oric was present at that

17 meeting?

18 A. At this meeting? I cannot confirm this, because I wasn't there.

19 Q. Would you confirm that the only person named Naser that was on the

20 operations staff is Naser Oric? You confirmed that in your direct

21 testimony. Can you confirm that for the Trial Chamber again?

22 A. Yes, that's correct.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 A. That's correct. He was the only person called Naser. That was

25 Mr. Oric.

1 Q. Now, this meeting, if one looks above number 1, it does not have a

2 date. It says: "Second meeting of the armed forces staff. I'm sorry.

3 "Armed forces operation staff."

4 If you would go to ERN number, now, that terminates in 5046,

5 English page 4.

6 Mr. Bogilovic, if you look under that ERN number you see "Minutes,

7 3rd October, 1992." Do you see where I'm referring to?

8 A. Could I have some assistance about the date?

9 Q. Where it says 3 October 1992. Next to that it should say

10 "Minutes."

11 A. What page?

12 Q. It is number 4 in the English translation. It would be the part

13 that precedes ERN number 02115046.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Usher, what page does he have in front of him?

15 THE USHER: This one.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: 5846. That seems to be the right page.

17 MS. SELLERS:

18 Q. Yes. Is that the right page, ERN 5046?

19 JUDGE AGIUS: No. It's 5846 that I saw, not 5046. The English

20 page, I don't know what is the corresponding.

21 MS. SELLERS: English page, page 4, at the bottom of page 4.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may of assistance.

23 The Prosecutor was wrong in saying that P80 should be placed in front of

24 the witness, because it caused confusion in our camp too.

25 I think he is simply being shown the wrong document. So if you

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 could please give us the ERN number again, the one that is supposed to be

2 please give us the ERN number again, the one that is supposed to be shown

3 to the witness.

4 MS. SELLERS: Excuse me. This is P84. I'm quite grateful for

5 that.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Vidovic. You've saved

7 the day.

8 MS. SELLERS: I would remind Mr. Usher again: The ERN number

9 would be on page 02115046. If you could turn to the beginning of the

10 document.

11 Q. Again I would just simply direct Mr. Bogilovic to look at where it

12 says 3 October 1992.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And we've just testified that a Naser, Naser Oric presumably, was

15 present at the second meeting of the armed forces operations staff. Would

16 you agree that second meeting took place before the 3rd of October, 1992?

17 A. I am unable to confirm the date. I can't recall the date. You

18 have the minutes, if that's what it says.

19 Q. Would you agree that the prior meeting then took place either in

20 early October or sometime in September or before then; is that correct?

21 A. As for prior to the 14th of October, there is nothing that I can

22 confirm. The same applies to any other meetings. I can't confirm. I

23 believe it was probably written down somewhere, but I can't just talk

24 about it off the top of my head.

25 MS. SELLERS: I would like the witness now to go to -- using the

1 same document. ERN number ends in 5489 and in the English version we have

2 page 6. You will note there is a phrase right under that number, it

3 says: "A meeting of the expanded staff, 7 October, Wednesday."

4 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, do you see that date, 7 October, Wednesday?

5 A. I see it. It's in the right-hand corner.

6 Q. Thank you. If you would just go down to the second full line, it

7 says, "Naser: We did all we could, but we did not manage to take out the

8 food. How to dismantle the mines and provide protection".

9 Would you agree that this document tends to confirm the presence

10 of Naser Oric at the meeting on the 7th of October, 1992?

11 A. I don't know. I'm unable to confirm that. I don't know whether

12 he was or whether, based on the information that he had, he confirmed. I

13 can't confirm that.

14 Q. Now, we'll move to the meeting of October 14th, 1992 and, Mr.

15 Bogilovic, you testified on many occasions that you were present at that

16 meeting. Isn't that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Now, Mr. Bogilovic, we've already gone over portions of that

19 meeting where Naser Oric was reported to speak. Would you just confirm

20 for the Trial Chamber that Naser Oric was present at the meeting on the

21 14th of October, 1992? That's the meeting of both the War Presidency, the

22 operations staff and the civilian protection where you were present. Mr.

23 Bogilovic, I believe you testified --

24 A. Yes. I think most of them were actually there.

25 Q. I would now like to stay with document P84. I would ask the usher

1 to go to the ERN number that ends in 5060, and in the English it is page

2 14.

3 Mr. Bogilovic, do you see where it says: "Minutes of the meeting

4 of the Srebrenica armed forces staff held on the 30th of October, 1992"?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. I would ask you to read down, prior to the next ERN number, prior

7 to the number that says 5061. In the English version, it is page 15, Your

8 Honours. I might direct your attention to the last two written lines

9 prior to the number 5061. Would you confirm -- I'm sorry, Mr. Bogilovic,

10 have you found where we are?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, would you please confirm that it says "Naser, the

13 staff, Osman will work out the details". And then Osman concludes by

14 saying, "The second part of the action will be without reconnaissance".

15 Would you confirm it appears that Naser Oric was physically

16 present at that meeting on October 30th, according to the document before

17 you?

18 A. According to the document, yes.

19 Q. Thank you. We might remove P84 from Mr. Bogilovic at this point.

20 Mr. Bogilovic, you've testified that there was a person called Hazim

21 Omerovic. Is that the correct pronunciation of his name, sir, this person

22 who resembled Naser Oric?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, I would like to know, did this person ever fool you into

25 thinking that he was Naser Oric?

1 A. No. Not me.

2 Q. Did this person ever present himself to you and say "I'm Naser

3 Oric"?

4 A. No. Not to me, because I knew the man's identity.

5 Q. The persons who knew Naser Oric, such as you, you could assume

6 that you've been fooled by the person Hazim Omerovic who looked like Naser

7 Oric, is that correct?

8 A. No, not from close-up.

9 Q. Have you ever seen Hazim Omerovic riding a horse?

10 A. I've never seen Hasim horseback.

11 Q. Mr. Bogilovic, I would like to show you a picture. It's in

12 Sanctions now on the monitor. Mr. Bogilovic, do you recognise the person

13 in this picture?

14 A. No.

15 Q. This person is not Hazim Omerovic?

16 A. I think not.

17 Q. Would the person in the picture ever fool you that he were Naser

18 Oric?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Your Honour, I have no further questions.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you. Judge Brydensholt. One moment.

22 One moment. Yes.

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have one very brief

24 question that stems from Ms. Sellers' re-examination, if I may be allowed

25 to put this one brief question.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not normal that there are further questions

2 from the Defence after the re-examination. What question do you want to

3 ask?

4 Further cross-examination by Ms. Vidovic:

5 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my understanding is

6 that I have the right to examine a witness in redirect in case the

7 Prosecutor touches upon something that I had no opportunity to address in

8 my cross-examination. I would just like to ask Mr. Bogilovic about the

9 road between Potocari and Srebrenica.

10 Q. I'm talking about wartime 1992 and the first part of 1993. It is

11 my submission that the road was -- could not be used for travel on account

12 of the heavy and frequent shelling. Is that correct?

13 A. That is quite correct. Many people were killed near the bend

14 behind Camil's Cafe, because you could see the road from Zvezda, the

15 elevation that was being used to shell the road.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Judge Brydensholt.

17 Questioned by the Court:

18 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: I understand that the staff that had your

19 defence unit which existed before the war in March, April 1992, left

20 during April and was present in Tuzla. Is that rightly understood?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct.

22 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: But as far as I understand, Srebrenica was a

23 mixed town in the way that both Muslims and Serbs lived there before the

24 war. Were there Serb members of this Territorial Defence unit staff?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

1 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Did they stay in Tuzla as well?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

3 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: I understand that in April a Serb company came

4 to Srebrenica and they left again, as far as I understand, in -- later in

5 April 1992. Why did they leave Srebrenica? Do you have any idea?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They left in early May. Why, I

7 don't know.

8 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Okay. Were there any fight, resistance going

9 on before they left? Or did they just leave?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Akif told us, informed us when they

11 started burning houses, he put up a defence and his cousin was killed.

12 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Then I understand that a lady citizen in

13 Srebrenica went to the police -- not to you but to another policeman --

14 and complained that she had understood that her house was to be burned

15 down by the Serb company. Could you tell us who was that lady? Have you

16 any name? Was it at all in Srebrenica?

17 A. Yes. Yes. In Srebrenica Muniba Mujic, that was the lady's name.

18 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: And I understand that the police officer was

19 able to inform her that her house was not on a list of houses which were

20 to be burned down. Is that rightly understood?

21 A. Yes, yes.

22 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: You mentioned during your cross-examination

23 that sometimes the War Presidency members and local commanders did

24 something Naser Oric was not happy about. Could you give us some

25 examples, if you know, what kind of action could that be? Where you know

1 that Oric, who was a commander, was not happy.

2 A. The first mistake he made was a protesting when Akif went on his

3 own, without telling anyone. Akif Ustic. He left of his own accord. He

4 should have told someone, if he had known that attacks had been carried

5 out over there, he should have helped other people. From where his house

6 was and on to Skenderovici.

7 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Are there examples where you know that there

8 was taking decision by members of the War Presidency which were against

9 the will or wish of the commander?

10 A. There was, of course. The greatest problem was the ignorance, not

11 knowing who was senior to whom. The staff to the Presidency, or the

12 Presidency to the staff. That was a cause of difficulties. And logistics

13 had to be supplied but no one was able to supply anything at all.

14 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: But you have no concrete examples, except that

15 of Ustic, where local commanders took action against the will of Naser

16 Oric? Well, if nothing appears to you, I have another question.

17 You mentioned that in a meeting, I think it was on the 23rd of

18 December, 1992, a man called Ramiz, which was a representative of the Red

19 Cross, expressed a wish that the premises of the prison should be secured.

20 Is that rightly understood?

21 A. No. Ramiz Becirovic was with the staff. Before the war, he was

22 with the staff, too. He was not an employee of the Red Cross at any

23 point.

24 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Why -- in what capacity or why did he ask that

25 the premises of the prison should be secured? Had he anything to do with

1 the prison?

2 A. The situation involved soldiers and, of course, if he was with the

3 staff he had something to do with that.

4 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: That is unclear to me. Could you try to

5 explain that in a bit more in detail?

6 A. Ramiz, Ramiz Becirovic was a member of the staff with the army.

7 And this probably irritated and that he should secure it.

8 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Did Red Cross at all have any premises in

9 Srebrenica?

10 A. No. The Red Cross, before the war, had part of that room.

11 Another part was held by the kit man at one of the local teams, sports.

12 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Last question. In the police building, you

13 had your offices, your premises on the first floor, whereas the military

14 police was on the ground floor. That's correct, isn't it?

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Could it be that you had no idea whether there

17 was a secretary or any assistance to the head of the commander of the

18 military police before you took it over as responsible also for military

19 police? You passed the ground floor when you visited your own police

20 force, didn't you?

21 A. Yes, yes. I was wounded on the 2nd of July, 1992. Following my

22 leave of absence, that's when it was set up and that's when the old police

23 station was moved into.

24 I didn't go at first, but then later on I did pass by. But only

25 rarely and not every day. As for secretaries, no one ever had any.

1 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Thank you.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Judge Eser.

3 JUDGE ESER: I will restrict myself to one question. It was

4 submitted to you that Naser Oric was a hero for the people who entered.

5 You described too that the people loved Oric. They were afraid that

6 something would happen to him.

7 Now, what was the reason for holding Naser Oric a hero? Why have

8 the people been afraid that he may be wounded?

9 A. It wasn't only for Naser Oric's sake. It was all the commanders.

10 They were sung by the people. Every village had a song, a hymn to praise

11 their own commander and Naser had songs sung to his name too.

12 As far as I'm concerned, if you ask me, my opinion is that the

13 number 1 man should not move about as they see fit, for the sake of their

14 own personal safety.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. I have got a final question

16 for you before we finish. During your stay in Srebrenica, which meetings

17 did you attend? War Presidency? Correct? Any other meetings?

18 A. Meetings were only for the War Presidency and for the staffs.

19 There were no other meetings, because all the decisions to be implemented

20 by myself, the civil protection unit, the committee, the housing people --

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Which meetings did you attend? You attended the

22 meetings, or some of the meetings of the War Presidency. Did you attend

23 any other meetings?

24 A. I attended the first meeting on the 20th of May, the second

25 meeting on the 2nd of July and the rest whenever invited by the president

1 of the War Presidency. That's when I was there.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Did you attend any other meetings not of the War

3 Presidency, but of other meetings?

4 A. No. Because everything, all the problems were tackled by the War

5 Presidency.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And from your recollection, during these

7 meetings of the War Presidency, was anyone taking minutes?

8 A. Yes.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Who would that person be?

10 A. The first time, on the 20th of May, minutes were taken by Hamdija

11 Fejzic. I believe this was also the case with the minutes of the third

12 meeting.

13 As for all the other meetings, that's following my return from

14 sick leave. First Residefendic was in charge of the minutes, but then he

15 fell ill and then another person was appointed, someone from Poljaci. The

16 name escapes me. Nukic, that was the person's name.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: And how were the minutes kept? Were they kept in a

18 proper minutes book? Or -- that you know of?

19 A. There was a notebook that was used for this purpose.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you describe that notebook?

21 A. Just a regular notebook, really. Once it was filled, they would

22 get a new one. It wasn't always the same kind. One was bigger. One was

23 smaller. It really depended.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Could the witness be shown again P84, please.

25 And that is a photocopy, of course, Mr. Bogilovic. Is that

1 familiar to you? Did you ever see that war diary or war log, call it

2 whatever you like, before you were interviewed by the Office of the

3 Prosecutor?

4 A. No. Never. Just Mr. Nasir. He showed me some documents back

5 then. And when I came here.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's make it clear: Mr. Nasir and not Mr. Naser.

7 A. Yes, precisely. No, no. No. Nasir, Nasir.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's okay. Let's not confuse it any further.

9 So during the war you never saw that document or the original of

10 that document?

11 A. No.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Now you have been referred to several pages from

13 that document. While you were doing that, did you ever at any time

14 recognise the handwriting on that document as belonging to someone you

15 know?

16 A. It is the one that is the most familiar to me, because most of my

17 calls came from the president of the War Presidency, Hajrudin Avdic. I

18 had no other contacts and no one sent me anything, except for three

19 signatures. The two first ones that I saw when they were sent to me by

20 the police, the two police officers and the third signature on the 18th of

21 April, I had a quick look. I went through the document, and I just went

22 on my way as soon as possible to see whether I could get anything sorted.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Vidovic.

24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may be of

25 assistance. We might be straying in the wrong direction.

1 My understanding of your question was, you asked the witness about

2 the War Presidency minutes.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: But we've spent four days speaking at a tangent,

4 Madam Vidovic. So be patient with me. I am going to repeat the question

5 to him.

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, but Your Honour, if you can

7 please hear me out.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] What the witness is looking at now,

10 I'm afraid, is something that is supposed to be the minutes of the staff

11 and not of the War Presidency. Because this might mislead everyone.

12 These are minutes of the staff and of their joint meetings.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly.

14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I may be wrong but then again, just

15 to make sure.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: We asked the first questions, which meetings he

17 attended in fact.

18 Looking again at that document, looking at the handwriting, does

19 that appear familiar to you?

20 A. No.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: So you wouldn't --

22 A. No. No.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: You wouldn't be in a position to tell us who could

24 have possibly written --

25 A. No, no.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

2 A. I couldn't say really.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.

4 That brings us to the end of your testimony. You've been here

5 giving evidence for four days. It must have been very tiring for you.

6 And Mr. Bogilovic, I'm sure that you are not used to this kind of

7 testimony, long testimony, going over a weekend as well.

8 On behalf of Judge Brydensholt, Judge Eser and on my own behalf,

9 and also on behalf of the Tribunal, I should like to thank you for having

10 been kind enough to come over and bear with us and give testimony for such

11 a long time. You will receive all the assistance you require now from our

12 staff - as soon as Mr. Usher escorts you out of the courtroom - all the

13 preparations that are necessary to enable you to return back home will be

14 put in place.

15 Once more, I thank you and I wish you a safe journey back home.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. May I be

17 allowed to say something? I wish to thank you too. I wish you every

18 success with your investigation so that justice may be restored to the

19 extent possible.

20 My question would be, when does my oath, my declaration cease to

21 apply? And do you think I could possibly be allowed to greet the accused,

22 that is my only request? I thank you, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Your solemn declaration finishes here and I can't

24 give you any authorisation to greet the accused, no. That goes beyond our

25 jurisdiction and our powers.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. Once again, my thanks to

2 all of you and my best regards.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

4 Yes. That brings us to an end. We will resume soon after, after

5 Easter as you know. In the meantime, I have had some discussions with my

6 legal officer and I would like you to convey to Mr. Wubben our wish that

7 you try to articulate by the 4th of April the complete list of the

8 witnesses that you still wish to produce, names plus what you're supposed

9 to -- what you are expected to prove by means of these witnesses, so that

10 we try to plan ahead with a little bit more sense and based on more

11 information. Okay? Thank you.

12 I know that there won't be a third session, but I -- it's my duty,

13 my responsibility to thank all of the staff of this Trial Chamber. I wish

14 to thank the interpreters for bearing with us and for overstaying. I wish

15 to thank the technical staff and all of those who, security and everyone,

16 who have been of assistance throughout the day. I thank you and I wish

17 everyone who celebrates Easter between now and the 4th a happy Easter.

18 Thank you.

19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.44 p.m.,

20 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 4th day of April,

21 2005, at 9.00 a.m.

22

23

24

25