Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8122

1 Thursday, 12 May 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Madam Registrar, could you call the case,

6 please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number

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

9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. And good morning to you.

10 Mr. Oric, can you follow the proceedings in your own language?

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

12 and gentlemen. Yes, I can.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. You may sit down. And good morning to

14 you. Appearances for the Prosecution?

15 MS. SELLERS: Good morning, Your Honours, I'm Patricia Sellers

16 for the Prosecution. With us today is co-counsel Ms. Joanne Richardson

17 and also our case manager Ms. Donnica Henry-Frijlink. And good morning

18 to the Defence team.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam and good morning to you and your

20 team. Appearances for Naser Oric.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours, I'm

22 Vasvija Vidovic, appearing with Mr. John Jones on behalf of Mr. Naser

23 Oric. We have with us our legal assistants, Ms. Adisa Mehic and our

24 CaseMap manager, Mr. Geoff Roberts.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you and good morning to you and your team.

Page 8123

1 So I take it there are no preliminaries. Let's bring the witness in and

2 start. You have 15 minutes to finish, to conclude, Ms. -- I see. If we

3 leave the transcript as it is it may gave us an indication that I have

4 forgotten your name. So it's Ms. Sellers.

5 [The witness entered court]

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Mr. Hogic. Welcome back. We are

7 going to continue and hopefully finish.

8 Yes, Ms. Sellers, please.


10 [Witness answered through interpreter]

11 Examined by Ms. Sellers: [Continued]

12 MS. SELLERS: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hogic.

14 A. Good morning.

15 Q. I would like to ask you to be brief in some of your answers. I

16 think you understand we are under a little bit after time constraint.

17 Yesterday we spoke a little bit about the military police and I

18 would like to ask you some questions about the security or intelligence

19 service. Was that part of the service that was constructed within 2

20 Corps?

21 A. Yes. The military security service existed as a sector. It was

22 headed by an assistant commander. There was also another sector,

23 intelligence-related issues, also headed by an assistant commander.

24 Q. Would you briefly say what was the function of that service.

25 A. The function of the security service was to carry out measures of

Page 8124

1 a security nature throughout the area covered by the 2nd Corps. I think

2 someone else might be better placed to give you an answer to that because

3 I myself was no member of the security service and it's difficult for me

4 to speak about their full range of task. At any rate, their role was to

5 preserve security and order within the area of responsibility of the 2nd

6 Corps. Security-related affairs constituted an entirely different area.

7 Q. Were there members of this security service attached to various

8 units, companies, battalions, platoons, brigades, within the 2 Corps

9 structure?

10 A. Security officers occupied the relevant positions for security,

11 starting at battalion level and up the chain, brigade, operations group

12 and corps.

13 Q. And would they be subordinated to the commander of a brigade

14 level or whatever level that they were attached to?

15 A. Yes. Yes, they were subordinated to the commander.

16 Q. Maybe you can help us with this. Among their functions, would it

17 be the questioning or interrogation of prisoners, prisoners of war?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Thank you. I'd like to move to my final area.

20 Mr. Hogic, yesterday you testified that you gave advice to

21 commanders who faced situations where members of their units might have

22 or did commit crimes or disciplinary infractions; isn't that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, what steps could a commander initially take if they knew or

25 if they suspected that a member of their unit had committed crimes?

Page 8125

1 A. If there was a commander who learned in some way that one of the

2 members of the unit under his command or those within the 2nd Corps had

3 committed a criminal offence, and this commander would go to the security

4 bodies to ask for an investigation to be opened into what exactly had

5 been done.

6 Having learned whether the case in point was a mere infraction or

7 a criminal offence, further steps would be taken. If it was just an

8 infraction, then there would be disciplinary measures at the level of the

9 unit. If there was a crime that was committed, then the district

10 prosecutor's office would be informed and this district prosecutor's

11 office would then press charges before a the relevant court. And this is

12 the sort of advice that we always gave the commander whenever he faced a

13 dilemma as to what should be done when soldiers under his command

14 committed acts that had an element of criminal offence.

15 Q. Thank you. I would like Mr. Hogic to look at the screen. We are

16 going to show a short video clip.

17 MR. JONES: Your Honour, if we could know which exhibit this is

18 because it may than we have an objection.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Ms. Sellers, please.

20 MS. SELLERS: This is an exhibit, this is part of an interview

21 that was taken by the Office of the Prosecutor.

22 MR. JONES: Yes, we strongly object to this witness being asked

23 to comment on interviews with, particularly if it's with our client,

24 making statements about someone else has said. And Your Honour it may be

25 the witness should stand down because of course this did appear on the

Page 8126

1 exhibit list. We weren't sure if the Prosecution was going to try and

2 show this interview. But the fact is, as Your Honour will no doubt

3 recall, when my colleague sought once to put to a witness that someone, a

4 certain named person had said something, Your Honour intervened and said

5 no no, that's not the way to do it you shouldn't say who said something.

6 You can merely say if someone were to say such and such what would your

7 reaction be. If you show an interview then it's obvious that the person

8 -- it's doing the same thing but in a different way.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: That would be another witness. This is -- this

10 time, as I take it it's the accused himself.

11 MR. JONES: This wasn't another witness. Your Honour, I think

12 perhaps the witness should stand down.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think it's best to ask the witness to

14 leave the courtroom for a short while and we need to determine this.

15 Please, it will only be a couple of minutes. I'm sure you understand.

16 [The witness stands down]

17 JUDGE AGIUS: I take it Ms. Sellers is going to refer the accused

18 to an interview with the accused -- the witness to an interview with the

19 accused.

20 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour. What I'm going to do is --

21 JUDGE AGIUS: That is different from -- the accused is different

22 from any other witness who has or will be taking the stand.

23 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour, may I pass up -- I hope Your Honour

24 won't prejudge the issue before I've made the submission. The last

25 situation didn't involve a witness either. It involved Mr. Deronjic, who

Page 8127

1 isn't a witness in this case. Can I pass up, if I may, with the usher's

2 assistance, pass up extracts from that hearing?

3 JUDGE AGIUS: But you know as much as I do, Mr. Jones, that

4 whatever the witness may have said in whichever circumstances are

5 extremely relevant.

6 MR. JONES: Relevant, but Your Honour, it's a question of whether

7 this witness -- I trust that Your Honour will hear me out on this one but

8 we would hate to see one rule applied against us and one rule --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: It's different. You have enough experience to

10 distinguish between the accused and anyone else.

11 MR. JONES: Well, Your Honour if I may refer to you what happened

12 there, my learned friend asked the Chamber -- she was going to read two

13 brief parts of the interview given by Mr. Deronjic to the Office of the

14 Prosecutor. Again, precisely the same circumstances, interview by

15 someone to the Office of the Prosecutor. You said I'll quote: "No, no,

16 no, this is not the way to do it." The witness stood down. Then Your

17 Honour went on: "I had to stop you because the way to do it is precisely

18 along the lines that was raised by yourselves earlier on. The practice

19 is or shouldn't be or it's not desirable that you tell the witness who

20 said whatever you're going to put to him." And that -- just stopping

21 there, Your Honour, that's a general comment. There is no exception for

22 the accused. "You select whatever you want to put to the witness without

23 telling him who said that. You just put to the witness what do you have

24 to state as regards the following statement or would you agree with the

25 following statement, but you don't tell the witness who has made that

Page 8128

1 statement, on what occasions, et cetera."

2 And then further down at the bottom of the next paragraph, "But

3 you don't tell him this has been stated to us by Mr. Deronjic or

4 whoever." And then when the witness came back --

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Jones I think I have to cut you on this because

6 I absolutely see no similarity at all between the case you're mentioning,

7 any other case which may involve a third person and --

8 MR. JONES: Your Honour may I put it this way: Why does the

9 witness need to know that the accused said something? Why can it not

10 simply be put to him what if someone were to say such and such.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Because you're not the Prosecutor in this case.

12 MR. JONES: But Your Honour, that principle which Your Honour

13 applied in one circumstance against us --

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Listen Mr. Jones, if you don't like it you have a

15 right to appeal later on but this is our decision.

16 MR. JONES: Well, Your Honour --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Whatever the accused may have said on other -- in

18 other circumstances, the Prosecution has a right to bring forward and to

19 put questions to Your Honour.

20 MR. JONES: Your Honour I have two additional points on there

21 subject aside from what Your Honour ruled before, I do fear a double

22 standard is being applied, but I will reserve the right to appeal.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please slow down for the

24 benefit of the interpreters.

25 MR. JONES: Right. I'll slow down.

Page 8129

1 There are two other issues -- well, in fact there are a whole

2 host of issues arising from the interview with the accused. Firstly, the

3 Prosecution so far in this trial has not done what I would expect,

4 really, in any national system as regards the interview. Namely to bring

5 evidence that this interview was conducted, that it was conducted under

6 proper circumstances without threats, coercion, with his rights having

7 been read to him. Rather than just inviting you to look at a piece of

8 paper or a video clip when you've got know assurance whatsoever, no

9 evidence before you that any of the safeguards against abuse that exist

10 in any civilised country, any civilised system, have been observed.

11 That's firstly.

12 Secondly, our client was interviewed for about two weeks. He

13 said a great number of things and of course the Prosecution is going to

14 pick the plum and leave the duff and simply extract one sentence or a few

15 phrases out of this whole mass of material and out of context and ask

16 Your Honours to have regard to that. Now, in our submission, it's not

17 possible for Your Honours only to -- only to have regard to one part of

18 an interview. That means either Your Honours will have to hear the whole

19 interview, read the whole interview, or certainly undertake that you're

20 going to watch the video or read the transcript, which comprises two

21 lever arch files. And we would absolutely insist on that and I'm sorry

22 to have to insist because how otherwise can it be fair to the accused

23 that the Prosecution selects a few random phrases or sentences out of

24 this whole interview and puts that before Your Honours?

25 Thirdly, as far as this witness is concerned, this witness was

Page 8130

1 not in Srebrenica at any time. He wasn't present for this interview. He

2 can't properly say what was going through our client's mind when he said

3 certain things. So in fact, it's clear there is no real desire on the

4 part of the Prosecution to put any meaningful question to this witness

5 which couldn't be meaningfully put by simply say what would you say if

6 someone were to say X. In fact, it's a surreptitious way of getting

7 parts of the interview before Your Honours. It's completely unhanded I

8 would submit and inappropriate way to --

9 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I have to object to any language where

10 the Prosecutor is now being said to be underhanded.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Underhanded. I agree. I agree with you, Ms.

12 Sellers.

13 MS. SELLERS I would ask that learned counsel sell would be a bit

14 more judicious in the selection of his words.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Sellers. You're perfectly right.

16 MR. JONES: That cuts both ways, of course.

17 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour I would object to that refrain.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

19 MR. JONES: Your Honour.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Have you finished?

21 MR. JONES: Only to say this: That if this witness is or if the

22 Prosecution is permitted to put parts of the interview, then obviously we

23 have an equal right to do the same and we will do the same. It will

24 prolong the proceedings but we will put to him selections from the

25 interview as well. We will say here is our client saying X, Y and Z and

Page 8131

1 I'm sure the witness will say I can't say what's going through his mind

2 because that's what any sensible person would say.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I see that out of the about five minutes you

4 have taken, 4 and three-quarters have been gratuitous assertions, Mr.

5 Jones. You ever drawn conclusions based on assumptions and nothing else.

6 The Prosecution have a right to conduct their own case the way they like,

7 provided it's within the parameters of the law. They will be allowed to

8 make use of this video, to put any questions they like. I don't know if

9 the video in its entirety is going to be tendered in evidence or whether

10 it has been tendered in evidence. That much I don't know. Has it been

11 tendered?

12 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour the entire video has been tendered in

13 evidence. The entire transcript, the revised transcript has been

14 tendered in evidence. And I believe that it is part of the

15 Prosecution --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: It makes it instead of 4 minutes and three

17 quarters, it's the entire five minutes were gratuitous assertions on your

18 part, Mr. Jones.

19 MR. JONES: Your Honour --

20 JUDGE AGIUS: So the matter stands. Please sit down and let's

21 close the matter here. The Prosecution has a right and I will not -- we

22 will not interfere with the Prosecution's right to put questions to

23 witness on prior statements of the accused -- in particular prior

24 statements of the accused. It's unheard of in any jurisdiction that

25 there will be objections entertained along these lines. If you then want

Page 8132

1 to make use of this video, do so by all means. We are not going to stop

2 you.

3 MR. JONES: Will Your Honours read -- watch the whole video and

4 read the whole transcript? Will you give that undertaking?

5 JUDGE AGIUS: We will do -- listen, we will not take instructions

6 from you, Mr. Jones, what we will do or not. If it's in evidence we will

7 see it, I can assure you.

8 MR. JONES: The whole of it. Good.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Let's bring the witness in, please. I

10 wouldn't expect you even to hint that we are the kind of judges that we

11 will not review an entire video if it is in the record, as an exhibit.

12 MS. SELLERS: Excuse me, my case manager has just reminded me.

13 We will be putting the transcript, the hard copy into today. The video

14 has been --

15 JUDGE AGIUS: We haven't seen the video, obviously, but we will

16 see it.

17 [The witness entered court]

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Sellers, your question, please.

19 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour I would like to hand up the transcripts

20 at this point. This is Prosecution Exhibit P329.

21 MR. JONES: This is an extract. It needs to be made clear this

22 isn't the whole interview.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Is that correct?

24 MS. SELLERS: Counsel is quite correct. This is an extract just

25 for purposes of today so that we could have the transcript on page 12 we

Page 8133

1 will be referring to for this first part. The entire transcript,

2 certainly, will be furnished. And we agree with our learned friend's

3 submission that we have taken small parts, given our time limit, given

4 what is relevant to this witness, that these are excerpts and we invite

5 any broader view or look at the transcript certainly to be given.

6 Your Honours, if I may proceed.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please. And you've got ten minutes to

8 conclude all this, Ms. Sellers, now.


10 Q. Mr. Hogic you've just testified about steps or measures that or

11 advice that would be given to commanders if they knew or suspected that

12 members of their units had committed crimes. I would ask you now to look

13 at the small clip that will be on the video in front of you.

14 [Videotape played]

15 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover]

16 "UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Because Ramiz was the person who was

17 close to the military structures and he knew what the procedure was.

18 "UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [In English] military structures and he

19 knew the things that should be --

20 "UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER 1: [Interpretation] The same applies to

21 Hamid Salihovic.

22 "UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [In English] [Previous translation

23 continues]... but I just told that that I don't remember, I didn't

24 remember this order and the various things that were in it. But I also

25 signed a lot of things that I didn't even read. I told you at the

Page 8134

1 beginning that as far as paperwork and things were concerned I didn't pay

2 much attention to that, and I wasn't thinking very much about the Geneva

3 Convention or the Tribunal. My main aim was how to save the Muslim

4 people in that area, how to remain -- and how to remain and survive in

5 that area.

6 "UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [In English] Perhaps let me ask him

7 another way."

8 MS. SELLERS: Now, Your Honour, very briefly for questions of

9 time I'd like to show a following clip to which these transcripts

10 pertain. And page 2 will be the relevant part.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Vidovic?

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I really have an

13 objection here. The Prosecutor selected only one limited bit on the

14 video. It's quite clear that he's talking about a document. It is quite

15 obvious that he's not talking about his own order on how his soldiers

16 behave in accordance with the --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop. Finish. Sit down, please. You know what

18 the rules are. You can object but you cannot try to influence the

19 witness.

20 Yes, let's see the next part of the video and then your question,

21 Ms. Sellers, please.

22 [Videotape played]

23 "UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [In English] How can I possibly agree when

24 as I've said I didn't know anything about these cases. The only case

25 that I knew about was the man who died or rather was killed by Mirzet. I

Page 8135

1 have no idea whether there were any of this these prisoners or where any

2 of these prisoners were. This was the responsibility of Hamid Salihovic.

3 "I was -- I was the commander and according to some -- according

4 to some rules, I should have been aware, but I was -- we were being

5 pressed on all sides by the Chetniks and it was much more important for

6 me to be on the front lines, protecting the front lines, than to worry

7 about what was happening down there. There were people there who were

8 responsible for what was happening there.

9 "So I have no idea either who they were or where they were or

10 even if indeed they were these civilians.

11 "The ones that I remember -- the ones that I remember were the

12 one that is I've told you, that is there was Vlade [phoen], in the first

13 instance, there was the three from Podravanje. There was the two from

14 Fakovici. There was the woman with her child who later married Hazim,

15 and then from Kravica there was the two, one who was wounded and later

16 died, and the other who was healthy. Those are the ones I know about."

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, your question.


19 Q. Mr. Hogic, my question is: Based upon the advice that you gave

20 commanders in the past, if they knew or suspected that a member of a unit

21 had committed crimes, in the clips you have seen would there be

22 sufficient information for a commander to take those steps that you've

23 outlined?

24 MR. JONES: Your Honour.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.

Page 8136

1 MR. JONES: This witness is being asked to pronounce on what --

2 essentially on some of the ultimate issues in this trial but on the basis

3 of already an out-of-context extract from an interview, whether that

4 information hypothetically would be enough to put a commander on inquiry,

5 that's eminently a question for Your Honours. It's not a question for

6 had this witness. It's a hypothetical. He doesn't know what information

7 our client possessed. He doesn't know whether -- in fact he knows

8 nothing at all about the situation that's bean described. He's being

9 asked to address a hypothetical. It's for Your Honours to decide.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not hypothetical at all, Mr. Jones. It's very

11 clear. The question is on the basis of what you have heard here in terms

12 of the instructions that you had given to commanders, what would have

13 been the responsibility of the commander. This is basically the

14 question.

15 MR. JONES: Yes, if the commander had only that information,

16 would that be enough, in your opinion; that's a hypothetical.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: No it's not hypothetical at all, Mr. Jones. It's

18 not hypothetical at all. It's like a horse on a carriage, one follows

19 the other.

20 Yes, Mr. Hogic, please.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, having heard what Mr. Oric

22 said, given such information, he should have instituted proceedings or

23 taken measures against men suspected of having committed certain crimes.

24 So that is the advice that I as an assistant commander for legal affairs

25 would have given. I would have given such advice to my 2nd Corps

Page 8137

1 commander if he had asked me about such information or anything in this

2 sense.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Do you have any further questions, Ms.

4 Sellers?

5 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour, now I'd like to show -- I have

6 one question I'd like to show a final clip and a concluding question,

7 Your Honour.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.


10 Q. Mr. Hogic, I just want to ask you, would you confirm that based

11 upon your position as assistant commander for legal affairs, were you --

12 was the advice that you gave your corps commanders and the members of the

13 ABiH army, was it consistent with that they could not contravene the

14 Geneva Conventions?

15 A. Yes, exactly.

16 MS. SELLERS: I would like Mr. Hogic to look at this last very

17 short clip, Your Honour.

18 MR. JONES: For the record we object against that clip for the

19 same reasons. But I know Your Honour will rule against me on that, so --

20 MS. SELLERS: I think it has another P number, just for purposes

21 of identification.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: What's the P number of the clips of the video?

23 Were these last two clips --

24 MS. SELLERS: The last two clips were P329, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

Page 8138

1 MS. SELLERS: This clip is P432, previously tendered into

2 evidence. I'm sorry, yes.

3 [Videotape played]


5 Q. Mr. Hogic my final question is: Was it the position of 2 Corps

6 or, as you described yesterday, other corps, the ABiH army in itself,

7 Bosnia and Herzegovina, but particularly in your capacity as the

8 assistant commander for legal matters, was it the position that a member

9 of the army could choose which provisions or when and where to obey the

10 Geneva Conventions?

11 A. No. It was necessary to fully respect the Geneva Conventions,

12 and I think that the command corps did not change its position from the

13 very beginning and right up until the end of the war.

14 MS. SELLERS: I thank you very much, Mr. Hogic.

15 I have no further questions, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. Ms. Sellers is now going to be

17 followed by Madam Vidovic. Now, you speak the same language and that

18 usually, from our experience, creates problems in the sense that you tend

19 to follow immediately. Sometimes you don't even allow question and

20 answer to be finished. So what I recommend strongly -- Ms. Vidovic knows

21 about this, I don't need to preach to her, but to you I need to. Please

22 allow a short interval of time between question and answer because

23 whatever you say needs to be interpreted in two other languages to us so

24 otherwise you will make it very difficult for the interpreters to be able

25 to follow. Yes, Madam Vidovic. You may sit down.

Page 8139

1 MS. SELLERS: Excuse me, Your Honour, might I just raise one

2 preliminary question and it just might be an oversight on the part of

3 learned counsel but I believe that there are two exhibits on your list

4 that we haven't received yet. So I could just bring that out first. If

5 we could get them during a break prior to their use that would be fine.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: We also, I think -- Registrar, please. These

7 transcripts I think we need to give them a number and the number must

8 relate to the video. So this last one I don't think we have a transcript

9 for it, but these relate to the previous ones. Okay? So it will be

10 point 1 or point 2, I don't know. If you can mark them for me, please.

11 MS. SELLERS: We will convey the time in the clip, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please, thank you.

13 Your responsibility is to answer all questions honestly and to

14 the best of your ability, Mr. Hogic. So let's start.

15 Cross-examined by Ms. Vidovic:

16 Q. Good day, Mr. Hogic. I have a lot of questions I want to put to

17 you, yet time is limited and so I will be grateful if you could answer my

18 questions as briefly as possible. If you agree with me, you could just

19 say yes; if not say no, unless the Trial Chamber requests an explanation

20 or unless I ask you for an explanation. I hope you have understood me.

21 Thank you.

22 Mr. Hogic, from the 10th of June 1992 until December 1992, you

23 were the assistant of the chief of the 2nd Corps of the after the ABiH;

24 is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

Page 8140

1 Q. In that capacity you interpreted the manner in which the legal

2 system functioned and the manner in which the defence of

3 Bosnia-Herzegovina functioned, firstly in the municipal Territorial

4 Defence staff; is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Sir, you were well aware of the way in which the defence

7 functioned and the legal system functioned at that time; is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Up until December, 1992, municipal staffs which were part of the

10 Tuzla district were not organised in the way they should have been

11 organised according to the regulations, am I correct?

12 A. Well, roughly speaking, yes, if I may put it that way.

13 Q. At that time, many units in the Tuzla area were organised on an

14 independent basis, they had organised themselves.

15 A. Yes, that's correct.

16 Q. The citizens had founded them on their own initiative.

17 A. Yes. And often they were given quite cute names.

18 Q. Up until December 1992, there was no system of unity of command

19 and not even in the Tuzla area; am I correct?

20 A. To an extent. I can't fully confirm that claim but you are

21 partially correct, because there were certain differences as far as the

22 functioning of defence concerned with regard to Gradacac, with regard to

23 Brcko, with regard to Sapna and Teocuks [phoen]. There were certain

24 organisational difficulties. And it was only when the corps was

25 established in September 1992 that these difficulties started to be

Page 8141

1 resolved. It was only at the end of 1992 and the beginning of 1993 that

2 these difficulties were resolved when operative groups were formed and

3 municipal staffs were treated as separate from corps units.

4 Q. Thank you. From December 1992 until April 1993, you were the

5 chief of the legal service of the 2nd Corps of the ABiH; is that correct?

6 A. Yes, but the title was -- yes, well the title was chief of the

7 legal service.

8 Q. Thank you for that explanation. So you know how municipal

9 defence staffs should have functioned in accordance with the regulations

10 at the time?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Yesterday you spoke in detail about commanding the military

13 police and about the units in which the military police was present.

14 Today and yesterday you also spoke about commanding in the organs of

15 military security, and I have a few questions for you about this subject.

16 First I will base my question on a document.

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

18 witness document from the Supreme Command staff and we will provide our

19 colleagues from the Prosecution with this document immediately. They

20 said that this is a document that they do not have.

21 This is a document from the Supreme Command staff of the ABiH,

22 temporary formation, number T-412185. It has to do with the municipal

23 defence staff with attached units and the year is 1992.

24 Q. Witness, could you please first have a look at the first page.

25 And would you agree that it concerns a temporary formation for a

Page 8142

1 municipal defence staff with attached units and the year concerned is

2 1992?

3 A. Well, it doesn't have to mean that it's for the entire year 1992.

4 There is a temporary formation which occasionally changes. This may have

5 been in force in 1992 but until the subsequent changes were made, this

6 remained in force.

7 Q. Yes. But you are not aware of the fact that there were some

8 other kind of temporary formation in 1992 apart from this one?

9 A. As far as this formation is concerned, it had to do with defence

10 staffs and attached units, and the personnel sector of the 2nd Corps

11 command was responsible for this.

12 Q. Mr. Hogic, please answer my question. We will get to that but my

13 question was: This is a municipal staff formation; have a look at the

14 second page.

15 A. Municipal staff.

16 Q. It was issued on the 25th of September 1992. My question was:

17 In 1992, there was no other formation established; is that correct?

18 A. No. I know nothing of any other formation.

19 Q. Very well. Could you now have a look at that second page once

20 again. Would you agree that this is an order from the chief of the

21 Supreme Command staff of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

22 A. Yes. That was Mr. Sefer at the time.

23 Q. Thank you very much. I will now quote, here it says "Pursuant to

24 Article 9, temporary military formation will be established." Could you

25 please have a look at this document and in particular have a look at the

Page 8143

1 last part of the document, page 19. And it says -- well, first have a

2 look at page 19, please. It says that -- it consists of 19 pages and Mr.

3 Avdulah Kajevic certified this; do you agree?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Please now say whether, generally speaking, you would agree that

6 a temporary formation is a document according to which you establish the

7 organisation, the strength, the weapons, the rear supply of a unit or a

8 staff?

9 A. Yes, that's quite correct.

10 Q. In other words, a temporary formation is a -- is the basis upon

11 which you bring units up to strength according to what the supreme -- in

12 accordance with what the Supreme Command staff of the army of

13 Bosnia-Herzegovina regulates; is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. As far as the military police is concerned, its internal

16 structure, its strength, and the commands and units within which there

17 will be a military police presence, were these things also regulated

18 through such a formation?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. An integral part of a temporary formation is always plan for the

21 organisation of the unit which determines the structure of the unit in

22 accordance with the regulations and decisions of the Supreme Command

23 staff; is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Please now have a look at page 7 of this document.

Page 8144

1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] In the English version, Your

2 Honours, this is page 10. It's entitled "A Plan for the Organisation of

3 the Municipal Defence Staff, Types 1, 2 and 3." "Municipal Defence Staff

4 Organisation Chart, Types 1, 2 and 3."

5 Q. Witness, could you please take a look at this chart. We have a

6 commander, you can see the little box where it says commander, then chief

7 of staff, assistant for morale, the security organ, assistant for

8 logistics, financial assistant. And then have a look at what comes under

9 the chief of staff. Please have a look at that part.

10 Have you had a look at the chart?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Please now go through the document on the temporary establishment

13 of the municipal defence staff with attached units. Go through the

14 entire document, and please pay attention to the military police. Is the

15 military police mentioned as part of this establishment?

16 A. No.

17 Q. So it would be correct to say that this temporary establishment

18 of the municipal defence staff with support units for 1992 did not

19 include the military police as a part of the municipal defence staff? Is

20 that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Thank you very much. Could we have an exhibit number for this

23 defence document, please?

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Which is the next number, please?

25 THE REGISTRAR: It's D272, Your Honour.

Page 8145

1 JUDGE AGIUS: To so this document is being tendered and received

2 and marked as Defence Exhibit D272.

3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Now if I could have the usher's

4 assistance, please, I would like to show the witness a different

5 document. The ERN number is 01830897, and this is a document of the

6 Defence Ministry, the Sarajevo Territorial Defence staff, or rather the

7 Defence Ministry of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was signed by

8 the then commander of the Territorial Defence staff, Colonel Hasan

9 Efendic.

10 Q. Witness, if you could please have a look. The title of the

11 document is "Organisation of Military Police Units, Order."

12 I will quote a portion of this document to you now. The

13 introduction reads, "In order to more effectively and rationally carrying

14 carry out tasks within the competence of the military police of the

15 Territorial Defence and regional TO staffs of the Republic of

16 Bosnia-Herzegovina I hereby order:

17 "1. Organise TO military police units at the level of the

18 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina TO staff and regional TO staffs."

19 I am quoting the relevant items 3 and 4 now.

20 "3. At the level of regional TO staffs, with the exception of

21 the Sarajevo District Territorial Defence staff, organise a military

22 police unit of the rank of company. It should comprise a command, a

23 section for security -- the security of persons, a section for forensics

24 and investigations, a platoon for securing facilities, and a platoon for

25 anti-terrorist combat."

Page 8146

1 And now comes the part that's particularly relevant to us. It

2 reads, and please pay close attention: "Disband all other TO military

3 police units not organised in keeping with the above items 1, 2 and 3 of

4 this order," which means that military police units of the Territorial

5 Defence of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina must not be established at

6 the municipal level.

7 I want to ask you something about this. Does this document not

8 appear to indicate that at municipal staff levels no military police

9 units were envisaged in this period of time?

10 A. That is quite correct. Even if such units had been established,

11 they were to be disbanded, which means that they would have been

12 established contrary to the existing commands and orders issued by the

13 relevant commands.

14 Q. Thank you. It's true, isn't it, that what was in fact envisaged

15 was for military police units of company level were to be organised at

16 the level of the Territorial Defence staffs, for example the district

17 staff of Tuzla. Isn't that correct?

18 A. Yes. It was already in early June that we had a Territorial

19 Defence unit established and its name was Balta.

20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if we could please

21 have a number for this document.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. This will become Defence Exhibit D273.

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Now if I can please have the

24 usher's assistance I would like to show the witness OTP Exhibit P143.

25 For the sake of the transcript, this is a document by the district staff

Page 8147

1 of the Tuzla Territorial Defence. The date is 14 of October 1992 and the

2 document was signed by Commander Zeljko Knez.

3 Q. Mr. Hogic, now that I've mentioned Commander Zeljko Knez, there

4 is something I'd like to ask you about that before I move on to this

5 document. It's true, isn't it, Mr. Hogic, that the BH army had a

6 considerable number of non-Muslims, that there weren't only Muslims in

7 it?

8 A. Yes, that is certainly correct.

9 Q. It's true, isn't it, that it had a large contingent of people in

10 the leading positions, in its highest level organs, who weren't Muslims?

11 A. Correct, for example Zeljko Knez; then you had Andjelko Makar,

12 who was another Croat. I can't remember all the names now. I was trying

13 to remember a person of Serb ethnicity who also held one of the leading

14 positions in the 2nd Corps.

15 Q. Thank you. Therefore, whether we speak about the BH army, we are

16 by no means fair to speak of this army as a Muslim army?

17 A. Certainly not.

18 Q. Thank you. Now we'll move on to this document. Please have a

19 close look. I will quote item 1 of this order. It reads:

20 "In the municipal defence staffs of Zivinice, Banovici, Kalesija,

21 Zvornik, Celic, Vlasenica, Srebrenica, Bratunac, and Olovo, and as part

22 of the brigades in the remaining municipalities, military police units

23 shall be set up to the level of a company comprising 105 conscripts. The

24 units shall have a company command, a commander; an assistant for moral

25 guidance, who is also the deputy; a company supplies officer; a driver; a

Page 8148

1 courier; a signals man; and sufficient personnel organised in platoons

2 which shall represent the following, securing features and persons;

3 patrolling; checkpoints; on-site investigations; a crime-prevention

4 service, or unit; an anti-terrorist unit attached to the staff or the

5 brigade."

6 In relation to this, I have several questions to ask you. It's

7 true, isn't it, that on the 29th of September 1992, pursuant to a

8 previous decision of the Presidency dated August 1992, the chief of the

9 supreme -- commander of the supreme staff had ordered the 2nd Corps to be

10 established. Would I be right in saying that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Until as late as the 14th of October 1992, the 2nd Corps had not

13 yet been established. The order you have just seen - if you could please

14 look at the final part of the order again - was signed by commander

15 Zeljko Knez in his capacity as what was still the district staff of the

16 Tuzla Territorial Defence. Wouldn't that be a fair statement?

17 A. Yes and no. If I may be allowed to clarify briefly. We received

18 this order by radio link right away to establish the corps. It took

19 effect on the same day, this order and the establishment of the 2nd

20 Corps. Why was the stamp of the district staff of the Territorial

21 Defence used? Or why did Mr. Knez sign this document without explicitly

22 stating his position as commander of the 2nd Corps? Believe me, I don't

23 know the answer to these questions but one thing I can assume is that

24 they had run out of stamps with the -- the official stamps of the Army of

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was for purely bureaucratic reasons that they

Page 8149

1 close this course of action. But there is nothing to suggest that this

2 order or there signature are not authentic.

3 Q. Very well. Thank you. Based on the document that you have in

4 front of you, one might conclude that this commander is giving an order

5 to set up a military -- set up military police units in the brigades, in

6 all the municipalities with the exception of those explicitly mentioned.

7 Wouldn't that be a fair statement?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. That would seem to imply that on the 14th of October 1992 these

10 municipalities already had brigades established. I'm talking about the

11 one where he ordered the establishment of military police units at

12 brigade level, to be quite precise.

13 A. Yes, that's exactly what it means in these municipalities there

14 were brigade level units but there were probably other units too.

15 Q. Very well. Thank you. If you could please go back to the

16 document. The commander is providing in this order for an exception in

17 terms of the municipal staff of Kalesija, Zvornik, Celic, Vlasenica,

18 Srebrenica, Bratunac, and Olovo. And I'm about to ask you something in

19 relation to this. The municipalities of Zvornik, Vlasenica and Bratunac

20 were municipalities where the Muslim population had been expelled in its

21 entirety.

22 A. Yes, unfortunately that was the case.

23 Q. If we talk about the town of Kalesija itself, the Muslim

24 population had been expelled to Dojsic [phoen]. Would I be right in

25 saying that?

Page 8150

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. These municipalities therefore had some sort of improvised

3 authorities and the soldiers from these municipalities were fighting

4 elsewhere, in other municipalities. Would I be right in saying that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. The municipality of Celic was, in fact, besieged to the extent

7 that the surrounding Serb lines were at a distance of one or two

8 kilometres.

9 A. I think even nearer than that.

10 Q. Absolutely besieged, yes. Zivince had an open communication to

11 Srebrenica on one side only and the remaining sides of Zivince were also

12 under siege.

13 A. Excuse me, Zivince had no communication with Srebrenica at all.

14 Q. Therefore Zivince too was under siege?

15 A. No, no, no. If you go back to the map, you can have a look and

16 see for yourself. Zivince is next to Tuzla.

17 Q. I apologise. Witness, yes, you're entirely right. What I meant

18 was that there was only one side to Tuzla that was open and the front

19 line was just next to Zivince municipality. Isn't that the case?

20 A. Yes that precisely was the case.

21 Q. And the same applied to Banovici?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And Srebrenica was entirely surrounded on all sides. Would I be

24 right in saying that?

25 A. Yes, unfortunately you would be very right.

Page 8151

1 Q. These municipalities that we have considered now, on the 14th of

2 October 1992, had no brigades, no established brigades, which was the

3 reason why the commander of the territorial staff of the municipal staff

4 of the Territorial Defence ordered military police units to be set up

5 that were attached to the staffs. Would I be right in saying that?

6 A. Yes, precisely.

7 Q. If you could please have a look at this document, have a close

8 look, please, and look at the right upper corner. Look at the incoming

9 stamps, please. Witness, you will agree, won't you, that what this

10 document shows is that it, the document, on the 23rd of October 1992 was

11 received in Kladanj and on the 27th of October 1992 it was received by

12 the Kladanj Municipal Assembly. Am I right?

13 A. You're right. That's precisely what the document confirms but it

14 says Municipal Assembly and then there is a caption saying Territorial

15 Defence staff.

16 Q. Precisely but there is nothing on this document that appears to

17 indicate that it was ever received in Srebrenica; is that right?

18 A. No. Aside from this remark indicating that it was probably

19 delivered to all the municipal staffs and brigades. You see that at the

20 end of the document.

21 Q. Yes. What I'm asking you is there anything in this document to

22 indicate that it was ever received.

23 A. No.

24 Q. Thank you.

25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can you please leave the document

Page 8152

1 with the witness.

2 Q. This is a very important document and I'll be quoting further

3 sections of this document to have your comment. If you could please look

4 at item 2 of this order, I quote:

5 "The chiefs of security and municipal defence staffs or brigades

6 shall exercise control over military police units in professional terms.

7 While the chief of security of the Tuzla district defence staff or

8 another person he appoints shall check their work and the completion of

9 tasks, and take complete control over the military security service."

10 Item 3 reads: "The selection of military conscripts for the

11 military police units will be carried out by the chiefs of security in

12 the municipal defence staffs and brigade, taking into account the fact

13 that the candidates should first and foremost be those who have served in

14 the army as military policemen. The tasks of the military police and its

15 authorities will be defined by a special instruction from the security

16 organ to the municipal defence staffs."

17 Witness, I have a question to ask you in relation to this. First

18 of all, do you agree that this order draws a distinction between the

19 authority of the chief of the municipal security defence staff on the one

20 hand and the authorities of the chief of the security staff of the Tuzla

21 municipal staff over military police units?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. In other words, it draws a distinction between its own superior

24 coming from a superior command and on the other hand the military police

25 unit whose establishment has just been ordered.

Page 8153

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. If we go back to item 2 of this order, the security chiefs in

3 municipal defence staffs were to be in control of the military police

4 units in professional terms, but their work, the execution of their tasks

5 and everything else, was to be assumed by the Tuzla district defence

6 staff chief of security as a superior on the Territorial Defence

7 municipal level; is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we leave the document aside

10 for a moment, please. I will be going back to that document later on but

11 now if I can have the usher's an assistance please I would like to show

12 the witness OTP exhibit P324.

13 Q. This is the rules governing the work of the armed forces security

14 of the army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina from September 1992.

15 You were shown this document by the Prosecutor yesterday for a brief

16 while.

17 Witness, I'm about to ask you a general question about this. You

18 will agree with me, won't you, that these rules governing the work of the

19 military security service were binding for all members of the military

20 security. Would I be right in saying that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. If you could now please go to this page that bears the number

23 01837240, so the last four digits are 7240. You will find the chapter

24 marked by the Roman numeral two, in the English version, this is page 5.

25 In the Bosnian version, Mr. Hogic, it's page 4. Have you found that?

Page 8154

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. The title is, "Commanding the military service department." Now,

3 please have a look at item 11 in these rules. I will quote: "Officers

4 of the military security service in a superior command or staff shall in

5 technical matters control members of the military security service of

6 subordinate command and staffs and shall assist, direct, and coordinate

7 and control their work."

8 Have you read that now, Witness?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. My question is: Although members of the military security

11 service were officially accountable to -- or rather first of all I will

12 ask you the following. Would you agree with me if I said that the rules

13 regulate the relation you have to superior commands, up to the rank of a

14 corps, and to lower level commands when it comes to the work of the

15 military security? Would you agree with me?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Now my question is as follows: Military security officers,

18 although they were officially within the unit and had to report to the

19 commander of the unit within which they were integrated, these rules on

20 controlling the military security service in fact state that the security

21 organ in the lower level units is controlled by an organ from a high

22 level commander. Am I correct?

23 A. Well, I wouldn't agree with what you said when you said that they

24 were officially responsible to the commander of the -- a military

25 security organ is always materially responsible to its command, its unit.

Page 8155

1 Q. Very well. We will deal with that.

2 A. But in any event, there is this relation of subordination that

3 concerns the security organ.

4 Q. The commander of the municipal territorial staff according to the

5 regulations in force on the way in which the security service functioned

6 at the time did not fully control the organ of military security,

7 although he was part of that body. Would you agree with me that the rank

8 of the commander of a municipal Territorial Defence staff is not the same

9 as the rank of a corps commander in relation to the work of the military

10 security service?

11 A. I think this way of putting it is a little complicated. The

12 commander of a municipal staff, when controlling the bodies that are

13 under him, has to make sure that they are used in the best possible say

14 so the Staff Commander had to engage the military security officer as

15 well.

16 But there is another problem, an a factual problem or a legal

17 problem, and that concerns the way in which the security organ functioned

18 in relation to its commander. It is a matter whether it reported more to

19 the commander or to the superior organ of military security.

20 Q. Very well. In accordance with the rules that you have -- that

21 you had a look at and in accordance with the order of Commander Knez for

22 Tuzla -- you still have it before you, and you could have a look at it.

23 The commander of a Territorial Defence staff did not have the authority

24 to control the way in which the security organ functioned and carried out

25 its tasks. This was the responsibility of superior military security

Page 8156

1 commander; am I correct?

2 A. Yes, but look, in terms of control, the commander of the

3 municipal staff had the right to control and govern the military security

4 service. But in professional terms, when we are talking about the way in

5 which methods were applied, when we are talking about how the military

6 security functioned, instructions were received from his superior

7 security organ.

8 Q. From the higher level command?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you very much. Would you agree with me if I said that only

11 certain levels of command, from the level of a corps commander and above,

12 had the right to have full access to the way in which the military

13 security organ functioned, and this includes the methods it used and the

14 way in which it functioned? This is what you have mentioned. You say

15 certain measures were taken if there were intercepts, if they had

16 recourse to certain other methods when investigating matters. They --

17 it's only the high level commands that had the right to gain access to

18 such information; would you agree with me?

19 A. Yes, again only partially. Think I that certain details

20 concerning the work of the military security were not even details that

21 the commander of the corps was aware of.

22 Q. Yes. In other words, as far as the military security service is

23 concerned, it's only the high level commands that had access to knowledge

24 on the way in which though functioned because it's the centre in Sarajevo

25 that was able to gain access to such information and that governed such

Page 8157

1 matters; am I correct?

2 A. Yes. As far as I can remember, this was Mr. Jasarevic.

3 Q. Yes. And this is the system of so-called vertical subordination

4 when it comes to commanding the organs of military security. And this

5 was a specific system in relation to other organs and sections of the

6 ABiH; am I correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Please have a look at a page of the document on rules that you

9 have in front of you. The number is 7247, or that's the last part of the

10 number. On that page, you can see Section 5, the way in which the

11 military security service functioned in criminal proceedings.

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the pages in the

13 English version are 9 and 10.

14 Q. Witness, I'll quote the relevant provisions, but please first

15 have a look at Article 39, where it says that "the authority in the work

16 of the organs of internal affairs are regulated by the law on criminal

17 procedure, also concerns taking over the actions of authorised officials,

18 in pre-trial and trial proceedings within their field of work."

19 And then we have Article 41. I'll show you item 1. "On the

20 basis of the information gathered, officers of the military security

21 service in the command of the brigade or a corresponding or higher

22 ranking officer in the military security service shall submit a criminal

23 report to the competent military prosecutor's office."

24 I will now read out Article 42. "When the perpetrator of a

25 criminal offence is unknown or when in other cases envisaged by the law,

Page 8158

1 the competent military prosecutor requests preliminary information and/or

2 the taking of other measures, the officers of the military security

3 service to whom the request is addressed is bound to act on it."

4 Would you agree with me if I said that these rules on the way in

5 which the military security service should proceed when criminal

6 proceedings are instituted quite clearly state that communication between

7 authorised officials from the military security service with the

8 prosecutor was direct? So there was direct communication between

9 military security service officials and the Prosecutor; is that correct?

10 A. Yes, that's correct. That's what it says.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher now show the

13 witness document 02622027. That's the ERN number. This is a document

14 from the district military Prosecutor's office in Tuzla, dated the 25th

15 of April 1995, signed by the district military prosecutor, Mr. Alisa

16 Salihodzic.

17 Q. Witness, please have a look at the document and first have a look

18 at the person to whom this document was addressed.

19 A. It's addressed to the security department.

20 Q. So it's addressed to the security department, to Colonel Mehmet

21 Zivit [phoen]. Would you agree with that? And it was signed by the

22 district military prosecutor. You can see in this document that the

23 district military prosecutor addressed this document to the security

24 department and this is confirmed -- or rather this confirms that the rule

25 that we had a look at a minute ago, about communication between the

Page 8159

1 military prosecutor and the security organ in fact took place in Tuzla.

2 A. Yes. That's what I said in response to a question put to me by

3 the Prosecutor.

4 Q. Thank you. At levels of command that were lower than the level

5 of a corps, the security organ could but did not have to inform the

6 commander of the unit of which he was a part about action that he took

7 with regard to criminal proceedings; am I correct?

8 A. Yes. To a large extent, if I can put it that way. I can't fully

9 confirm that, but you are mostly right because in accordance with these

10 rules, they had the right to investigate certain matters without the

11 commander being aware of the fact because certain matters could be used

12 against the commander himself.

13 Q. Thank you very much. So an officer from the security organ did

14 not need authorisation from the commander of let's say the brigade or

15 from the staff in order to file a criminal report with the prosecutor, if

16 he suspected that a crime had been committed. Am I correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And these rules are quite clear as far as this is concerned; is

19 that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please give this document

22 an exhibit number, Your Honours? I believe that perhaps we should

23 correct something. I believe that in the English language the date is

24 not correct. The date of the document should be the 25th of April 1995.

25 It seems -- I seem to remember that the date was not recorded correctly.

Page 8160

1 Thank you.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I thank you for pointing that out to us, Ms.

3 Vidovic. In the English version, upper-left corner, where it says Tuzla

4 25th April 1005, obviously should read 25th April 1995. And this

5 document in its original and its English version, will be marked as

6 Defence Exhibit D274, the English version carrying an E after the number.

7 You have more or less four or five more minutes. Choose yourself

8 whether you prefer to stop now or to continue for the next five minutes

9 and have a break after.

10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I only have two or three brief

11 questions for the witness.

12 Q. Witness, you often present at various meetings in the corps

13 command; is that correct?

14 A. As the assistant commander of the corps, I was present at all the

15 morning meetings when I was in the command.

16 Q. Thank you. You know, do you not, that the security organ of the

17 Tuzla district territorial staff and the -- until -- and then later the

18 same organ from the 2nd Corps, did not issue instructions or direct the

19 way in which its subordinate organs in Srebrenica functioned; am I

20 correct?

21 A. Well, I don't know. I don't know how this functioned. Could you

22 be more precise, perhaps?

23 Q. Yes, but you have no information according to which they received

24 instructions from Tuzla, according to which instructions from Tuzla were

25 received in Srebrenica?

Page 8161

1 A. Yes, that's correct.

2 Q. Thank you. At this -- during this period of time before the

3 demilitarisation, the legal service that you worked in did not issue

4 instructions of any kind on the way in which the organs of the municipal

5 Territorial Defence staff in Srebrenica should function; am I correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Given the fact that Srebrenica was isolated, this was quite

8 simply impossible; is that correct?

9 A. Yes, and it was also because communications with Srebrenica were

10 almost non-existent.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this would be a good

13 time for me to end my cross-examination.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll have 25 minutes. We'll start at five minutes

15 to 11. Please try to be as punctual as possible so we try to gain a

16 little bit of the time lost.

17 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

18 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's proceed. Yes, I see Mr. Wubben. What's

20 your problem?

21 MR. WUBBEN: I have no problem.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: You just wants it attract my attention.

23 MR. WUBBEN: Just for the record my name is Jan Wubben, lead

24 counsel for the Prosecution. Co-counsel, Ms. Patricia Sellers has a

25 short notification.

Page 8162

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Yes, Ms. Sellers.

2 MS. SELLERS: Defence counsel has graciously given me a couple of

3 seconds just to inform you that in terms of the exhibits used last time,

4 P329, it was tape 5 and at that point we were at 39.37 through 41.03

5 minutes and seconds on the record.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

7 MS. SELLERS: I have two other very briefly. Also at P.329 we

8 were at 7.09 through 9.35 seconds -- minutes and seconds; and that the

9 last tape, which was P432 we were at 22.27 through 22.48 minutes and

10 seconds. Thank you, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. Yes, Madam Vidovic.

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Mr. Hogic, you testified about the order to apply the provisions

14 of the international law of war that was adopted by the Presidency of

15 Bosnia-Herzegovina. You said that those provisions were binding for all

16 soldiers of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, didn't you?

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 Q. But you did not deliver those rules and provisions to Srebrenica

19 before the beginning of 1995, if at all. Would I be right in saying

20 that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. You confirmed, didn't you, that General Knez had issued an order

23 on the application of the international law of war?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You have no information to the effect that this order was in fact

Page 8163

1 ever delivered to Srebrenica. Would I be right in saying that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. You said that you advised the 2nd Corps on the application of the

4 international law of war and that this information eventually reached all

5 the units of the 2nd Corps. But you can by no means claim, can you, that

6 your instructions ever received Srebrenica or at least prior to the first

7 half of 1994, which is when you said you eventually established

8 communication with them; is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Yesterday, you testified that there were some old laws from

11 before the war in Srebrenica to do with the Criminal Code, as well as

12 some provisions from before the war. In fact, you said probably they had

13 those. I'll ask you something about that. You do know, don't you, that

14 Serb military units occupied Srebrenica between the 17th of April and

15 around the 20th of May, 1992, and that the Serb units devastated the

16 town. You do know that, don't you?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. They torched at least 80 houses and homes, they took whatever

19 they could; you're aware of that, aren't you?

20 A. Yes, I am.

21 Q. As soon as the Muslim population returned to Srebrenica following

22 the 20th of May 1992, the refugees occupied all public buildings,

23 including the Court and the Prosecutor's office. Is this something you

24 know about?

25 A. Yes, unfortunately that was the case.

Page 8164

1 Q. They told you themselves, didn't they, that the archive had been

2 destroyed?

3 A. I know that from a number of different sources, in fact.

4 Q. Therefore, you have no reliable information to suggest that there

5 were in fact any criminal provisions from before the war in Srebrenica,

6 and I mean that the military command had any of these provisions and

7 rules.

8 A. I was speaking about that as a possibility yesterday, because the

9 Court and the prosecutor's office always had some of the literature in

10 which these provisions were published, such as official copies of the

11 Official Gazette. It was an assumption. They may have been there had

12 they not been destroyed by the aggressor. It's only logical to make that

13 assumption. I'm not sure if they actually had any to consult right there

14 and then. This is not something that I can say.

15 Q. Thank you. In your testimony you explained the sort of

16 information or, rather, how information on criminal offences passed

17 through the chain of command.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Let us try to keep this simple. When you testified about that,

20 what you had in mind was the military structure of the corps. I mean

21 when you talked about the chain of reporting on possible criminal

22 offences from company level to brigade level, operations group and up to

23 the level of the corps. Would I be right in saying that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Do you agree with me when I say that the structure of the

Page 8165

1 territorial -- of the municipal Territorial Defence staff was in no way

2 like the military structure of the corps which you had in mind when you

3 talked about this?

4 A. Yes, of course. The functions of the corps as a military unit

5 are different and the military defence -- the Territorial Defence -- the

6 municipal Territorial Defence staff has different functions. It is a

7 territorial body.

8 Q. Once the corps was established in late 1992, the municipal

9 Territorial Defence staffs continued to exist?

10 A. Yes, in fact they continued to exist throughout the war.

11 Q. However, they did not comprise any brigades, did they, within

12 their composition?

13 A. No, they didn't.

14 Q. You saw the provisional structure of the municipal Territorial

15 Defence staff. You realise, don't you, that they only had attached

16 units, support units, and the so-called territorial units which, for

17 example, might have included an antisabotage unit?

18 A. Yes, that is precisely so.

19 Q. They had no battalions, they had regional staffs that comprised

20 the municipalities, didn't they?

21 A. Yes, they covered the municipal territory in terms of military

22 issues and security issues. They secured the territory at the rear of

23 the units that were in operation.

24 Q. Thank you very much. These regional staffs provided security for

25 the local communes. Would I be right in saying that?

Page 8166

1 A. Yes, roughly speaking they would cover one or more local communes

2 each.

3 Q. Thank you.

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

5 now, please? I would like to show the witness a document. The ERN

6 number is 04033830.

7 Q. Witness, this is an order by the command of the 3rd Corps

8 governing the work of military police security bodies. The date is the

9 4th of February 1993. If you could please have a look. Please have a

10 look at the first line under the word -- under the words, "I hereby

11 order."

12 Do you agree with me that this document is in reference to the

13 order of the Main Staff of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina dated the

14 28th of January 1993 speaking about the work of military police security

15 bodies? If you could please have a look at the title of this document.

16 A. The work of military police security organs. There is a

17 distinction between drawn between the intelligence and security related

18 matters on the one hand and --

19 Q. If you could please look at item 2 and I have a general question

20 to ask in relation to this. Yesterday, you confirmed that the corps were

21 all applying the same regulations.

22 A. They had no choice. There were no special regulations that

23 applied to any individual corps.

24 Q. Thank you. It's true, isn't it, that the decisions by the Main

25 Staff of the Supreme Command were binding for all the corps including the

Page 8167

1 2nd Corps?

2 A. Yes, that's correct.

3 Q. I will now quote item 2 of this order. It reads: "In the

4 organisation establishment of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina army,

5 military police units are attached to brigades and corps commands. A

6 military police battalion attached to a corps command has territorial

7 jurisdiction in the area of responsibility of the corps, and the brigade

8 police in the area of responsibility of the brigade."

9 I would like now to go on and quote a different portion of this

10 document that's relevant. Item 4: "All members of the military police

11 attached to municipal defence staffs are to be resubordinated to

12 brigades, and if military police brigade units have been fully manned,

13 their military occupational specialty must be changed and they must be

14 reassigned to other manoeuvre or territorially based units."

15 And item 3, which is also relevant: "There must be no military

16 police members in the municipal defence staffs. Regarding military

17 police matters, the municipal defence staffs are to address brigade

18 commands whose military police has been assigned jurisdiction over the

19 municipal territories."

20 Let me ask you something about this. It's true, isn't it, that

21 this document appears to indicate that as of the 28th of January 1993, in

22 terms of the structure and organization of the BH army, there could only

23 be military police units that were attached to brigades and corps

24 commands. Of course when I say brigades, that includes battalions and so

25 on and so forth.

Page 8168

1 A. Yes, you're entirely right.

2 Q. Thank you. From that point onwards, pursuant to an order by the

3 Main Staff of the Supreme Command of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

4 members of the military police could not be attached to municipal

5 Territorial Defence staffs if -- even if they had previously been

6 attached to one of these; is that correct?

7 A. Yes, that's the way it should be.

8 Q. The order of the Main Staff of the Supreme Command of the armed

9 forces of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina dated the 28th of January

10 1993, as far as concerns the work of military security bodies was

11 complied with, wasn't it?

12 A. Yes, absolutely, at least as far as the command of the 2nd Corps

13 was concerned. This is a document from the 3rd Corps but I can use it as

14 an example. It jogs my memory about the other order. But as to how

15 these documents were applied by the 2nd Corps, I can tell you that these

16 documents and orders were fully complied with.

17 Q. You are familiar with the position of the Main Staff when I spoke

18 about the military police, what they said in relation to that, and you

19 fully complied with that, didn't you?

20 A. Yes, that's right.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if we could please

22 have a number for the exhibit. Again we have a correction to be entered.

23 It's about the date shown here. The date is the 4th of February 1993 in

24 the English and not 1998. Your Honour, it was a quite unclear, the

25 original Bosnian version was somewhat unclear in this respect.

Page 8169

1 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Vidovic but you have to

2 acknowledge we've made an improvement. Before we were thrown back 990

3 years and now we have advanced five years. So this will be D275.

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

5 Q. Witness, you mentioned a number of times the Srebrenica

6 Operations Group during your testimony. Can I have the usher's

7 assistance now, please. I would like to show you another document.

8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not clear about

9 whether this previous exhibit has been assigned a number or not. If so,

10 thank you very much.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, there one is 275, D275.

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

13 Your Honours, in fact I'm talking about P31. It already bears the OTP

14 number, which is P31.

15 Q. Mr. Hogic, for the sake of the transcript I will say that this is

16 an order of the Main Staff of the Supreme Command of the armed forces of

17 the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina regarding changes in organisation and

18 the date is the 1st of January 1994. I quote, it says:

19 "Order, Organisational Changes," and then "Establishment. Set up

20 the 8th Srebrenica Operations Group in Srebrenica (the former Srebrenica

21 Armed Forces Main Staff and some of the attached units.)"

22 I want to ask you something about this. If you could have a look

23 please, this order was signed by the deputy brigadier general, Stjepan

24 Siber, on behalf of the commander. And what I want to ask you about this

25 is the following. This is an order of the Main Staff of the Supreme

Page 8170

1 Command on the establishment of the 8th Operations Group and its brigades

2 and it was only issued on the 1st of January 1994. Does this document

3 not appear to indicate precisely that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. In fact you don't know how long it took under the conditions that

6 prevailed in Srebrenica at the time which you spoke about yesterday for

7 this operations group to be set up and you do not know whether it was

8 ever in fact established in full compliance with the provisions.

9 A. I'm not able to say that, the first reason being I was informed

10 about this order and I know that it was produced by the Main Staff of the

11 Supreme Command. I have no idea, though, how it was ever delivered to

12 Srebrenica and whether it was executed. I really don't know. Later,

13 there was an exchange of letters. One thing you must not forget is we

14 are looking at a demilitarised area at this point in time.

15 Q. We will be asking you questions about that. We'll get to that

16 later on Mr. Hogic. Thank you. I was just about to ask you a similar

17 question. You do not in fact know what the military structure was in

18 Srebrenica prior to the demilitarisation, if any such thing was in place

19 at all.

20 MS. SELLERS: It's basically for the transcript. I think that

21 the answer that Mr. Hogic was about to give and then I believe when Madam

22 Vidovic started to speak -- it looks as if it might have been part of his

23 answer, relating to the demilitarisation.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, you are right. We are referring to line 17

25 basically. Or rather line 16. Or not even that. Anyway you need to

Page 8171

1 look into this later because there a mistake here. Your intervention is

2 included in what he was saying. All right.

3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, Your Honour. The

4 witness said we must not forget about the demilitarisation and my next

5 question was rephrased in order to ask the witness about the

6 demilitarisation so my question is:

7 Q. Witness you do not in fact know what the military structure was

8 in Srebrenica was prior to the demilitarisation, if any such thing as a

9 military structure was in fact in place.

10 A. I know to the extent that there was information at the level of

11 the command of the 2nd Corps, but that's all I know. I know that there

12 was such a thing as the municipal staff of the armed forces of

13 Srebrenica, that was their name or at least that's what we were told

14 their name was. We always wondered how we should get in touch with these

15 armed forces, how to establish communication and how to get in touch with

16 those units.

17 Q. But you were not familiar with their structure or how the whole

18 thing operated?

19 A. I don't think the corps commander himself knew.

20 Q. Thank you very much. I'd now like to show you another document,

21 which has to do with the work of the military police in Srebrenica during

22 the period that we have been referring to. I would like you to comment

23 on the document.

24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we show the witness an

25 extract from P84. 02115050 is the page number, and could we also show

Page 8172

1 the witness the page 02115051. It's dated the 14th of October 1992, Your

2 Honour. The pages in the English version are pages 7 and 8.


4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Witness, I'm going to read out part of the document. The

6 handwriting is not easy to read. I'll read you out part of the page

7 02115051 and have a look at the part that says "Osmanovic opened the

8 meeting."

9 A. I apologise, Ms. Vidovic, I have another document in front of me.

10 Q. 5050 is the number. The last part of the number on this page

11 should be 5050. Have you found it, Witness?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Thank you, Witness. Have a look at this part of the document and

14 it says: "The meeting was opened by O. Osmanovic and he said that we

15 were facing problems the functioning of the War Presidency, two staffs -

16 the civilian protection."

17 And I will now read out what follows below that part. "Ramiz

18 intervened and he said the following. The War Presidency replaces the

19 Assembly," and then he said what sort of tasks they had to carry out and

20 then you have the hierarchy referred to. It says, "the War Presidency

21 discusses and assesses the war situation and takes decision. It is the

22 supreme authority and the supreme command. Its command function is

23 carried out through the staff. It is directly under the command of the

24 military police but at the same time the military police are subordinated

25 to the armed forces staff."

Page 8173

1 Witness, I have something I would like to ask you about this.

2 I'm not going to ask you much about Srebrenica, about the situation in

3 Srebrenica. My question is of a legal nature and concerns the field that

4 you were involved in. Throughout the wartime period, you were at the

5 head of the legal service of the corps; is that correct?

6 A. Yes. I was the assistant chief from December 1992.

7 Q. The control and command of certain bodies, for example, of the

8 military police, also required that competence or responsibility for the

9 military police be clearly defined. Would you agree with me?

10 A. Yes, that's correct.

11 Q. In order for command to function properly, it is necessary to

12 determine the hierarchy, to determine who is under whom and who is above

13 whom; is that correct?

14 A. Yes. That is a main principle that has to be respected.

15 Q. This part of the document, of the record from the meeting of the

16 War Presidency of the armed forces staff, it says that the War Presidency

17 has direct command over the military police but the military police is

18 also directly subordinated to the staff. Would you agree with me if I

19 said that here we don't clearly see who is in command of the military

20 police?

21 A. Naturally. There is a dual relationship. There are two bodies

22 that have competence, that are responsible, and there is a question or an

23 issue of seniority here.

24 Q. If a body has two commands, then it is difficult to determine the

25 responsibility of those commands for the acts of their subordinates. Am

Page 8174

1 I correct?

2 A. Yes, you are.

3 Q. Thank you very much. Please have a look at the next page now.

4 The last part of the number is 50 and 51. Have a look at the page on

5 which Osman speaks. And then in the middle of Osman's speech, you can

6 see certain names that are listed and there are certain numbers. Have a

7 look at number 7. It says, "the chief of the Public Security Service,

8 Becir," and then in brackets we have "(Mirza-military police)" and then

9 it says "Civilian Police, Nurija."

10 Witness, I have a question about this. If - please pay attention

11 to what I'm saying - if the military police was part of the Public

12 Security Service, and it was under the civilian authorities, then

13 according to the rules in force at the time, the commander of the

14 municipal staff could not command the military police. Am I correct?

15 A. Yes. He could not command the civilian or the military police or

16 the Public Security Service. The commander of the Territorial Defence

17 staff could not have command over such units.

18 Q. Thank you. The assistant commander --

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Sorry to interrupt you, but I think we need to

20 clear this up.

21 If you look at line 8 of the transcript, page -- line 8 of page

22 51 on the transcript, which is of course a continuation of line 7. Your

23 question was according to the transcript, "The commander of the municipal

24 staff could not command the military police." His answer refers to the

25 commander of the Territorial Defence staff and not the commander of the

Page 8175

1 municipal staff.

2 So I think we need to clear this because the two don't tally. I

3 don't want to let the transcript give the impression that you asked one

4 question and he answered another. You didn't ask him about the commander

5 of the municipal staff. You asked him about the commander of the

6 territorial staff, no?

7 MR. JONES: Municipal TO staff.

8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, I will repeat my

9 question. There is very important. Please allow me to repeat my

10 question.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: That's why I interrupted you.

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. If the military police was part of the Public Security Service

14 and was under the civilian authorities, according to the rules in force

15 at the time, the commander of the municipal Territorial Defence staff

16 could not have command over the military police; am I correct?

17 A. Yes, you are quite right. That's the only answer I can give to

18 your question. I want to be quite clear.

19 Q. Thank you very much. The assistant commander of the municipal

20 staff or Territorial Defence could not command the military police in

21 accordance with the rules for this service and in accordance with the

22 order issued by Colonel Knez on the 14th of October 1992, if it was under

23 the civilian authorities; am I correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. The assistant commander for security could not influence the

Page 8176

1 selection of individuals who would perform duties in the military police

2 if the military police was part of the civilian body; am I correct?

3 A. Yes, it wasn't the military police any more.

4 Q. Thank you. I have another question for you now. A different

5 question. You would agree with me if I said that regardless of the

6 structures that the military police was part of, the civilian or military

7 structures, in order for it to function at all, it was necessary to have

8 the right personnel and equipment; is that correct?

9 A. Yes, that's quite correct.

10 Q. My question is of a general kind about the military police. In

11 order for it to function it had to have the staff and equipment as

12 prescribed in the regulations; am I correct?

13 A. Yes you're quite right.

14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher now show the

15 witness another extract from P84. 02115086 and 5087 are the pages I

16 would like to show the witness. And I just want to quote something from

17 the document. Could you just show the witness page 5086 and under Roman

18 4 we have Atif Krdzic speaking who says that the military police hasn't

19 been brought up to strength; many have given up because of accommodation;

20 there are no weapons, only two rifles and two pistols; there are three

21 persons missing. And my question is, if the military police is to

22 function properly it was necessary for them to have weapons, insignia,

23 accreditation; would you agree with me?

24 A. That would be ideal that's how things should have functioned,

25 you're quite right.

Page 8177

1 Q. In order for it to function, it had to have a sufficient number

2 of professional and trained men, organised in platoons, for example, a

3 crime police platoon. Am I correct?

4 A. Yes, you are.

5 Q. It would have had to have equipment and all the other materiel

6 and technical equipment required to carry out investigations, to question

7 individuals, to ensure that communications functioned. Am I correct?

8 A. Yes, you are.

9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The usher can remove this document

10 now. We won't need it any more. But as far as this subject is

11 concerned, I have another question for you.

12 Q. As far as you're aware, the district Territorial Defence staff in

13 Tuzla, in the course of 1992 and right up until the demilitarisation in

14 April 1993, cannot have done anything to make the military police unit in

15 Srebrenica function properly, as far as staff and professional men are

16 concerned? The security organ of the 2nd Corps couldn't have done

17 anything?

18 A. That's quite right. They couldn't have done anything.

19 Q. They couldn't have done anything or rather the military security

20 administration from Sarajevo, as the superior organ, couldn't have done

21 anything either; is that correct?

22 A. Well, naturally.

23 Q. In the course of your testimony, you mentioned how various stages

24 of the investigation would be reported after a crime had been committed

25 and a criminal report had been filed with the military prosecutor or with

Page 8178

1 any other prosecutor. When you spoke about this, you were bearing in

2 mind the fact that commander -- as a commander and a subordinate

3 commanders, had the equipment that they needed to detect crimes, to carry

4 out investigations, and you had in mind the existence of state bodies

5 that would direct the investigation about which report would be filed

6 with the prosecutor?

7 A. Yes, naturally.

8 Q. If what was called the military police was not sufficiently

9 equipped and trained, was not sufficiently professional, and was part of

10 the civilian structures, then the assistant for security didn't have the

11 means required to detect crimes and to carry out investigations; am I

12 correct?

13 A. Well, yes. Given all those assumptions, your conclusion is quite

14 logical.

15 Q. Given the assumptions I have mentioned?

16 A. Given the assumptions you have mentioned, yes, that's quite

17 correct.

18 Q. Thank you very much. When they receive information of crimes

19 committed in a given territory -- whether he would receive such

20 information depended on whether such information would be received from

21 someone else, from other sources. Am I correct?

22 A. Yes, but information can also -- always be received from other

23 sources.

24 Q. Yes. Exactly. That's what I'm talking about, from someone else?

25 A. Yes. It doesn't have to be received from the security organ.

Page 8179

1 Q. Yes. It just depends on that and not on the organ of security.

2 Similarly, would you agree with me if I said that this very much depended

3 on the possibility of such information being relayed in the field itself?

4 A. Yes, that's correct.

5 Q. You're aware of the fact, are you not, that up until June 1993 in

6 Srebrenica, there was no prosecutor, nor was there a court with any kind

7 of jurisdiction?

8 A. Yes, I'm aware of that fact. I also know that there was a

9 decision from the Presidency on relieving judges of their duties, judges

10 who had left Srebrenica and also on relieving prosecutors of their

11 duties. I know that Mrs. Akagic stayed on in Srebrenica. At the time

12 she was either the deputy Prosecutor or the Prosecutor of the municipal

13 prosecutor's office. I know that the judge Hajrudin Halilovic before the

14 aggression itself, left Srebrenica and stayed in Tuzla. Later he was the

15 president of the military court. Now he is again the president of the

16 court in Srebrenica.

17 Q. But let me just ask you the following. Would you agree that

18 there was no prosecutor's office or court until June 1993 there?

19 A. I'm not even sure that they were present there after that date

20 either.

21 Q. Very well. But they weren't present there before that date?

22 A. I have no precise information on that.

23 Q. Thank you very much, then. If in 1992 and up until the time of

24 demilitarisation in 1993, there was no prosecutor, there was no court,

25 there was no investigative judge present in the area, would you agree

Page 8180

1 with me that it makes no sense to talk about carrying out investigations

2 in terms of the law on criminal procedure that was in force at the time

3 given the conditions that prevailed?

4 A. Yes, I would fully agree with you, but if you remember some of

5 the documents that we had a look at yesterday signed by assistant

6 commanders, these documents referred to certain investigations being

7 carried out and they referred to investigative measures being taken

8 against certain individuals.

9 Q. Mr. Hogic, I'm talking about the time before the

10 demilitarisation. Let me be clear. I'm referring to the period before

11 the demilitarisation. I'm referring to the period 1992 and 1993 up to

12 the demilitarisation. You had no information on investigations being

13 conducted, did you?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Thank you.

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

17 now. I would like to show the witness the following document. This is

18 the agreement on demilitarisation.

19 Q. Mr. Hogic, please have a look.

20 This is the agreement on demilitarisation. It was signed on the

21 18th of April 1993 by General Sefer Halilovic and General Ratko Mladic.

22 The ERN number is 01857842.

23 Witness, if you could please look at the relevant section, which

24 is Provision 4 of the document, on page 1. I quote: "The

25 demilitarisation of Srebrenica will be complete within 72 hours of the

Page 8181

1 arrival of the UNPROFOR company in Srebrenica. 1100 hours, 18th of April

2 1993. If they arrive later, this will be changed. All weapons,

3 ammunition, mines, explosives and combat supplies except medicines inside

4 Srebrenica will be submitted/handed over to UNPROFOR under the

5 supervision of three officers from each side with control carried out by

6 UNPROFOR. No armed persons or units except UNPROFOR will remain within

7 the city once the demilitarisation process is complete. Responsibility

8 for the demilitarisation process remains with UNPROFOR."

9 You have confirmed that you're familiar with the fact that the

10 demilitarisation took place. I have something to ask you about this.

11 This item 4, Provision 4 that I have just read out, implied that the

12 Srebrenica area, the demilitarised Srebrenica area was to be abandoned by

13 all units that could have been described as military units, including the

14 military police and the military security bodies. Would I be right in

15 saying that?

16 A. Yes, that's right.

17 Q. From the moment the agreement on demilitarisation was announced,

18 there could only be a formal presence of any army in the Srebrenica area?

19 A. Yes, that is indeed correct, but they would not be allowed to

20 carry weapons.

21 Q. Yes. That was my point exactly. They would have had to be

22 disarmed. From that moment on, any military presence was illegal in the

23 town itself?

24 A. They weren't allowed to be there.

25 Q. Thank you. UNPROFOR would seize weapons; they even went as far

Page 8182

1 as to search homes in order to find and seize any weapons that were still

2 around; isn't that correct?

3 A. Yes, if you look at a later report, you can see that they even

4 stopped one soldier to seize his weapons.

5 Q. Any military activity was strictly forbidden with win this

6 demilitarised area; isn't that a fact?

7 A. Yes, that's correct.

8 Q. All in all, if any military presence remained, its function would

9 have been reduced to a bare minimum. Do you agree with that?

10 A. Yes.

11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have a number for this

12 exhibit, please, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, this is being received and marked as Defence

14 Exhibit D276. Thank you.

15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Now if I can have the usher's

16 assistance please to show the witness a different document. The ERN

17 number is 01838964. This is a document produced by the command of the

18 8th Operations Group or, more specifically, its security body. The

19 number is 13013-6/194. It was signed by Nedzad Behtic, assistant

20 commander for security and the title of this document is, "Instructions

21 requested." I will quote a portion of paragraph 1 to you in order to

22 save time.

23 It reads: "As you know, Srebrenica was demilitarised on the 18th

24 of May 1993." Truth to tell, it actually states the 8th of May here.

25 "From that moment on, the Srebrenica public security station and the

Page 8183

1 lower court in Srebrenica have assumed responsibility for taking measures

2 against the perpetrators of crimes and misdemeanours. These are military

3 conscripts (members of the 8th Srebrenica Operations Group, military

4 security service) and the military police have not been able to perform

5 their duties as there is no military Prosecutor's office and no military

6 justice in this area and also because it is territorially separated from

7 Tuzla. I would like to point out that cooperation with the Srebrenica

8 public security station is not adequate."

9 In connection with this, Mr. Hogic, does this document not appear

10 to indicate that the military police and the military security service in

11 the Srebrenica area, on account of the demilitarisation, were simply not

12 able to perform their functions as of the 18th of April 1993? Isn't that

13 what the document appears to be saying?

14 A. Precisely.

15 Q. You agree with me, don't you, that under these conditions, with

16 no military police or military police security functioning properly, the

17 commander of the TO staff simply had no means at his disposal, no bodies

18 to use, in order to track down perpetrators of potential crimes or to

19 launch any investigations?

20 A. Yes, precisely. No weapons, no equipment, no manpower. He would

21 have been unable to do anything about it.

22 Q. Thank you very much. To all practical intents, whatever remained

23 of the armed forces of Srebrenica, which had for the most part been

24 disarmed during the demilitarisation, remained stuck in a very small area

25 outside Srebrenica, between Srebrenica, the demilitarised zone and the

Page 8184

1 Serb forces besieging the area. Is this something you're familiar with?

2 A. Of course I am.

3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we please have a

4 number assigned to this document.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, the last document made use of by the Defence

6 is being received and marked as Defence Exhibit D277.

7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Mr. Hogic, I'm about to show you yet another document now. This

9 is 130-13-17/94 and the date is the 5th of May 1994. This document was

10 also signed by Nedzad Behtic, and it bears the title "Information

11 Necessary For Future Work." This is a limited document, and I quote --

12 this is about the Tuzla security sector, and it says:

13 "We would like to inform you that we are unable to complete the

14 tasks you gave us in your communication number SP dated the 24th of April

15 1994. As you know the Srebrenica enclave is physically severed from the

16 2nd Corps and members of the military security service do not have any

17 documents or other papers. Likewise we do not have the rules governing

18 the work of the security bodies in the armed forces or any other

19 enactments or decrees governing the work of the security departments in

20 the armed forces. In order to overcome the difficulties in our work and

21 in order to be able to work more effectively, please use the same route

22 to send us copies and amended texts of the said documents and rules.

23 Please send also the forms for identity cards for members of the SVB

24 immediately so that we can start producing these and carry out all of the

25 above orders and tasks."

Page 8185

1 Mr. Hogic, let me ask you this. This document shows that members

2 of what was supposed to be the military police or the military police

3 security in Srebrenica in fact had no documents, had no IDs, or any other

4 decrees or enactments governing the work of all security bodies within

5 the armed forces. Would I be right in stating that?

6 A. Yes, that is indeed what this document appears to indicate.

7 Q. Mr. Hogic, it's true, isn't it, that at least until the 5th of

8 May 1994, these people in Srebrenica had not received any rules or

9 provisions that they might have used in their work in terms of security

10 and the security bodies, is that not a fact?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. In other words they simply didn't know what to do or how to go

13 about their duties?

14 A. Yes, that is very probable.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Sellers.

16 MS. SELLERS: There has been a series of speculative questions

17 that no objections were made to asking him did he know things which he

18 said that he didn't have knowledge of the condition in Srebrenica. And I

19 think that counsel should not be permitted to continue that type of

20 speculation. If the document is clear on its face, and we are just

21 commenting on a document, yes; but to ask him did he know about that

22 condition when he stated clearly on the record he didn't know exactly

23 what happened in Srebrenica.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: But let him testify. He said that is very

25 probable. He didn't exclude it. He didn't speculate. He just said that

Page 8186

1 is very probable. He did give his judgement on this, or his opinion

2 anyway. Let's proceed.

3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

4 Q. Mr. Hogic, what should have been the military police security,

5 according to the regulations that you're familiar with, if we bear in

6 mind this document, all they had in Srebrenica was the name itself, they

7 were called security body; isn't that a fact?

8 A. Yes, and maybe they had a couple of people too.

9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can this document now be assigned a

10 number, please.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, this last document is being received and

12 assigned the following reference number. It's Defence Exhibit number

13 278. D278, obviously.

14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, can the usher please show the

15 witness Defence Exhibit D210. The ERN number is 01838620. It's another

16 document signed by Mr. Nedzad Behtic. The security body, the 10th of

17 September 1994, and it was sent directly to Mr. Enver Hogic.

18 Q. If you could please have a look, Mr. Hogic.

19 A. I apologise. What I have in front of me is an order to a

20 battalion. It says P210.

21 Q. I said D, D210, not P210. Thank you very much for drawing my

22 attention to this. D.

23 Have you had a look now? The document appears to have been sent

24 to you. It's a very short document and I will quote it. "Pursuant to

25 document number dated the 9th of September 1994, we hereby inform that

Page 8187

1 you we do not have the decree law and special military courts and are

2 therefore asking you to send it to us with its accompanying forms. The

3 names of superior officers to be appointed judges of the military

4 disciplinary court shall be submitted subsequently. Finally we are

5 requesting information on those responsible in cases where a soldier was

6 found to commit an offence outside his line of duty. Whether he would be

7 prosecuted for disciplinary liability or would be a civilian -- would be

8 up to a lower court to decide."

9 Do you recognise this document, Mr. Hogic?

10 A. Yes, I believe we received this document in the corps command and

11 it was delivered to me.

12 Q. Does this document not show in no uncertain terms that as late as

13 the 10th of September 1994, they still had no idea what their competence

14 really was?

15 A. Yes. The document does demonstrate that in no uncertain terms.

16 Q. Thank you very much. Also if we look at the document, it shows

17 that they faced a great deal of trouble with soldiers who committed

18 infractions outside their line of duty or what is here referred to as

19 their military duty.

20 A. Yes, that is the case.

21 Q. If you look at this document dated the 9th of September 1994, it

22 appears to show that they were not even aware of the existence of any

23 decree laws. They are calling it decree orders or instructions for some

24 reason. Can you see that?

25 A. Yes. That was probably warped [as interpreted] by the

Page 8188

1 information they received so this might have been a misinterpretation on

2 their part. It is quite clear in fact that they did not have a clean

3 text to use.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Here, I would go back to the objection that Ms.

5 Sellers raised a few minutes ago, even though she didn't raise one now.

6 But can anyone explain to me how reading the last paragraph of this

7 document, D210, means that the security organ were facing a great deal of

8 trouble with soldiers who committed infractions outside their line of

9 duty? Where does it come out from? I mean -- they are just asking a

10 simple question. What's the position when a soldier commits an offence

11 outside his military duty? It could for all intents and purposes it

12 could be just one case that they had they didn't know how to handle. So

13 this great deal of trouble --

14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may address the

15 issue. Thank you very much for this suggestion.

16 Q. In fact, I've only just noticed that there is a whole chunk of

17 the sentence that was simply left out in the English translation. In the

18 Bosnian - and if you could please follow what I'm saying, Witness - in

19 the Bosnian original, it reads, and that's precisely the reason I'm

20 asking these questions. "We are requesting information on the respective

21 competencies in cases where a soldier has committed an infraction outside

22 his line of duty. Are disciplinary measures to be taken or would this be

23 up to the lower civilian court?"

24 Which is where my question stems from. They are not familiar

25 with their respective jurisdictions and it appears to be clearly defined

Page 8189

1 in this case. Am I right, Witness?

2 A. Yes, you're entirely right. If I may clarify the situation just

3 for very general purposes.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's move forward.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So no clarification is required, is

6 that what you mean?

7 JUDGE AGIUS: If you think you owe us a clarification, you may

8 proceed. But to be honest with you, I don't think we need a

9 clarification. It's pretty obvious that there is no indication in the

10 text that the security services there were experiencing a lot of trouble.

11 Yes, Judge Eser has a question for you or for the witness.

12 JUDGE ESER: For the witness. Now, if these documents and also

13 other documents which we had before talked of decree laws and different

14 regulations and so on, did this refer to the applicability of the

15 Criminal Code or only did it only deal with jurisdictional questions,

16 which means which court, which instance, which organ should deal with

17 these questions? Did it somehow affect in any way the applicability of

18 the criminal provisions?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. There could have been

20 two different courts dealing with the application of the criminal

21 provisions. On the one hand you had the regular court and on the other

22 the district military court. As long as we are talking about criminal

23 offences, of course. And this -- in the case of military persons, it

24 could only have been the district military court but not the civilian

25 court.

Page 8190

1 Based on this document it seems that the people in Srebrenica

2 were not clear about this. What precisely does this phrase mean, "a

3 soldier acting outside his line of duty"? This probably means that at

4 this point in time the soldier was not in the unit. He must have been

5 resting or on leave or visiting his family, and during this time he

6 committed a criminal offence. So the question is that is raised at this

7 point is who is responsible for taking further action in this case.

8 JUDGE ESER: My question was a completely different one. I

9 wanted to distinguish between the validity of the Criminal Code, whether

10 the Criminal Code had to be obeyed to -- even if there might have been a

11 problem with regard to the jurisdiction which would be at place if a

12 Criminal Code, if a criminal provision, has been violated. I mean, does

13 the question of jurisdiction, which court will have to deal with it,

14 affect at all the validities, the applicability? I mean the question

15 whether you have to obey to the Criminal Code or not.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Quite right. It was necessary to

17 respect the provisions contained within the Criminal Code.

18 JUDGE ESER: Thank you.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Vidovic.

20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Witness, let's clarify something. You have no information

22 according to which in the course of 1992 and at least until the time of

23 demilitarisation in 1993, the decree law adopting the law on criminal

24 procedure was forwarded to Srebrenica; am I correct?

25 A. Yes, you're correct.

Page 8191

1 Q. You also said you had no information according to which anyone

2 had the Criminal Code in their hands over there.

3 A. Well, that's what I know and that's my opinion.

4 Q. Thank you. I now want to go back to this document. The document

5 quite clearly shows, does it not, that these people from Srebrenica tried

6 to organise themselves? They requested instruction, they tried to

7 establish a military disciplinary court. Am I right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. In such conditions, they tried to ensure that there was order and

10 they tried to prosecute soldiers that -- who had committed offences.

11 A. Yes.

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher now show the

13 witness another document, 04120119. It's a document from the 2nd Corps

14 command, the legal affairs section, dated the 21st of November 1994.

15 Q. It's also addressed to you. Could you please have a look at the

16 document and please have a look at item 6, which I believe to be

17 relevant. It's on the second page. And I'll read it out to you. "In

18 relation to submitting regulations, we are informing you that for the

19 needs of your operations group and the 1st Zepa brigade" -- in fact,

20 Witness, I apologise, this is a document that you drafted and forwarded

21 to Srebrenica. I made a slip of the tongue.

22 Item 6 reads as follows: "In relation to submitting regulations,

23 we are informing you that for the needs of your operations group and the

24 1st Zepa Brigade, we provided you with a set of official gazettes of the

25 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina starting from 1992 until the most

Page 8192

1 recent issue in 1994 which was the 32nd issue which we thought to submit

2 to you by radio. However we have been informed that it is not possible

3 at this moment, due to technical reasons. Therefore we have decided to

4 send you printed material through the UN liaison offices or any of the

5 other humanitarian organisations. We have been informed that this is not

6 the most secure method but we have to try. If we do not succeed in this

7 way then we will send you all the regulations that you need by radio in

8 succession."

9 So this shows that on that date in 1994, they did not have those

10 official gazettes in Srebrenica; is that correct?

11 A. Yes, that's quite right.

12 Q. You can also see that these documents could have been forwarded

13 over the radio or rather they could not have been forwarded over the

14 radio given the communications problems, Witness, and the energy supply

15 problems?

16 A. Yes, the energy supply problems.

17 Q. Do you remember that in November and December 1992, after this

18 document was drafted, you weren't able to receive instructions nor were

19 you able to send them to you, given the technical problems that existed?

20 Do you remember anything about this?

21 A. November 1992?

22 Q. I apologise, in 1994.

23 A. Naturally. That was the main problem, the communications

24 problems were the main problems at the time we had these official

25 gazettes and they had been downloaded on to the computer's hard disc and

Page 8193

1 we tried to forward them over radio link but it wasn't possible.

2 Q. Thank you very much. Yesterday you said that UN officers and

3 officers from international organisations would not agree to delivering

4 military mail for security reasons; am I correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we assign an

7 exhibit number to this document, please.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, this last document that has been made use of

9 by the Defence is being assigned the following exhibit number, D279.

10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher show the witness

11 another document, please. It's a document from the Prosecution. The

12 exhibit number is P540. It was shown yesterday, if that is of any

13 assistance to you.

14 Q. Mr. Hogic, please have a look at the document. It's from the

15 command of the 8th Operations Group in Srebrenica dated the 1st of

16 February 1995, and it was shown to you by the Prosecutor yesterday. It

17 has to do with the analysis of the application of the law for the month

18 of January 1995, and Mr. Hogic please, just have a look at the last part

19 of the document and I will read it out to you.

20 "We would like to request again that you find a way to send the

21 collection of legal regulations concerning the HR, that probably ARB --

22 and service in the army as many requests in that connection are coming in

23 every day from the brigade commands." It was signed by the assistant

24 Hakija Mehmedovic.

25 Mr. Hogic, this document shows that the legal provisions that

Page 8194

1 concerned the ABiH in Srebrenica -- that these provisions were not

2 available in Srebrenica up until 1995.

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. Thank you. Mr. Hogic, this also includes documents on the

5 military prosecutor and the military court?

6 A. Yes.

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

8 witness another document. This document has the number 01837506, and it

9 is a document from the 8th OG, from the security body. It's dated the

10 18th of April 1995. Again it was signed by the commander for security

11 Nedzad Behtic and it's called "Overview of the Security Situation." This

12 is the title of the document.

13 This is a lengthy document and I don't have much time so I will

14 read out part of the second paragraph which reads as follows -- It

15 follows on the first paragraph, have a look at it. "Up until this point

16 in time we have received no information from the Srebrenica SJB by

17 demonstrates their attitude and cooperation in this matter." And then

18 there is part of the third paragraph which I will quote. It says -- it

19 starts with the word the process. Can you find that part? It reads as

20 follows. "The process of reorganisation has not yet been completed."

21 Mr. Hogic, could you please have a look at the beginning of the

22 document again? It says the Army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

23 the Command of the 28th Division. And then in third paragraph, it reads

24 as follows: "The process of reorganisation has not yet been completed."

25 The security section, the military police company and other internal

Page 8195

1 organs of the 28th Division have not been fully manned, which if one

2 takes into account the fact that there is no military court or military

3 prosecutor's office in these parts, makes work much more difficult. When

4 one adds to this the fact that many of the officers are not professional

5 and are appointed to inappropriate posts, all this means that the

6 functioning of the RIK system, the commands and control system, has been

7 disabled.

8 A. The command and control system.

9 Q. Yes, the command and control system. The document shows that the

10 public security station did not respond to the request received from the

11 armed forces; is that correct?

12 A. Well, that's what it says in the document.

13 Q. Since the demilitarisation had taken place, the public security

14 station did not have the duty to provide information to the military

15 command; is that correct?

16 A. Yes, that's quite correct.

17 Q. Thank you. And finally, this document shows that the

18 organisation of the command and of the units of the 28th Division had not

19 been completed until at least the 18th of April 1995; is that correct?

20 A. Well, that's what it seems that one could infer from the

21 document. It seems that they were in the process of carrying this task

22 out but it hadn't been completed.

23 Q. This document also enables one to draw the conclusion that the

24 28th Division was still just a name on paper. It didn't have the

25 relevant bodies that had been organised in accordance with the

Page 8196

1 regulations; am I correct?

2 A. Well, it's difficult for me to say anything about that. I can

3 confirm what the document says.

4 Q. Yes, that's what it says on paper.

5 A. Yes. That's what the document says. But as for the way this was

6 actually organised, so the actual facts, well others could confirm this.

7 Q. Thank you. Does this document show that the organ or security

8 section of the military police company hadn't been brought up to strength

9 and that was the case for other bodies within that division? The

10 officials were not -- or rather the officers were not professional,

11 that's what it says in the document; is that right?

12 A. Yes, that's correct, that's correct.

13 Q. And I have another question for you. When you contacted -- when

14 contacting the corps, the command in Srebrenica mentioned the fact that a

15 military Prosecutor's office and a military court wasn't present in the

16 area; is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. They also mentioned the fact that the officers were not in

19 appropriate posts and were not professional.

20 A. Yes, that's correct.

21 Q. And in this document, they also pointed out that it was not

22 possible for the system of command and control to function; is that

23 correct?

24 A. Yes, that's right.

25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Your Honours, could we

Page 8197

1 assign an exhibit number to this document, please.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, that will be D280.

3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this might be a good

4 time to have a break because I'll be moving on to another subject. If

5 this is not a problem.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay, how much more do you have?

7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe that I will need another

8 half an hour, Your Honours, but I really will try to complete my

9 examination as soon as possible.

10 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, yes, there will be redirect. I will

11 try to make it as concise as possible.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Can I ask everyone to cooperate and

13 make a little bit of a sacrifice and we will have a 20-minute break,

14 instead of the usual break, try to recover a bit of the lost time. I

15 know, but the ones who are working most are the ones behind the -- apart

16 from Madam Vidovic at the moment, yeah, okay. And the technicians?

17 Okay? Yeah, all right. So it will be 20 minutes from now. It's at the

18 moment it's 12.22. So it will be at 12.43. Thank you.

19 --- Recess taken at 12.22 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 12.46 p.m.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Mr. Hogic, I have a few more questions I would like to put to

23 you. Yesterday when you testified about torching, you said that

24 according to the regulations of Bosnia-Herzegovina, setting fire to

25 property was explicitly prohibited; is that correct?

Page 8198

1 A. That's quite correct.

2 Q. You would agree with me if I said that any guide books on the

3 armed conflict and the instructions you have mentioned make a distinction

4 between so-called policy of scorched earth and destruction including

5 torching facilities that is justified if this is a military necessity.

6 Would you agree with me?

7 A. Yes, I would.

8 Q. Can you destroy a building that is sniper is using or if there is

9 a tank which is opening fire from the immediate vicinity of such a

10 building; am I correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't answer that question, please. We've had

13 constant complaints from the Defence while we had the

14 examination-in-chief that the witness is not here as an expert. Madam

15 Vidovic, please.

16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Q. In the course of your testimony, you mentioned Ramiz Becirevic,

18 who was in fact someone who completed secondary administration school and

19 had no military knowledge of any sort. Are you aware of that?

20 A. According to the information I had, he was a reserve officer. As

21 to his educational background, his civilian educational background, I

22 know nothing, believe me.

23 Q. You certainly do not know the sort of training he completed as a

24 reserve officer, and you said that you did not know the rank he held.

25 A. As far as I know, upon arriving in Tuzla I was told that he had

Page 8199

1 the rank of captain or major.

2 Q. Would you agree with me if I said that the rank -- one's rank

3 depends on one's level of training?

4 A. Naturally.

5 Q. So you do not know the sort of level of military training that he

6 had obtained and I'm also referring to training in international

7 humanitarian law.

8 A. Yes, I know nothing about that.

9 Q. Thank you. Mr. Hogic, can we now please go back to P329. It's

10 an OTP exhibit. This was, if you remember, an excerpt from an interview

11 that was conducted with our client. The video number is 2920. The tape

12 number is 18. And the page is 2. There is a total of 39 pages.

13 I will read the relevant portion to you. This is P329. I believe the

14 witness will remember, but I will still quote the relevant portion in

15 order to save time.

16 "How am I supposed to agree when I know nothing about this? The

17 only thing I agree on, the only thing I know about, is the killing of

18 that prisoner. I mean Mirzet. What I said about these things, I can't

19 remember if they were in fact captured or where they were captured. All

20 these issues were being dealt with by Hamid Salihovic. According to some

21 rules, I was the commander and I was supposed to know. In view of the

22 problems faced by the Srebrenica enclave at the time it was much more

23 pressing for me to be at the front line and to take care of issues on the

24 ground. They had another person down there who was in charge of these

25 issues. So I don't know who they were or where they were or indeed if

Page 8200

1 there were any civilians there. What I do remember is that people were

2 captured, that Radi was captured, three persons from Podravanje, two from

3 Fakovici, this woman from Bjelovac with a child. There was another man

4 who had been brought over from Kravica. One was healthy and the other

5 was wounded and this man later died. And that's as much as I can

6 remember."

7 What I wish to ask you about this is the following: The fact in

8 itself that there were prisoners of war is not in itself a crime. It

9 does not constitute a crime, does it?

10 A. No. Well, prisoners of war, in the midst of a war, are something

11 that you should only expect, to put it that way.

12 Q. Therefore the existence of prisoners of war does not constitute a

13 crime in itself or the fact that anyone knew of their existence?

14 A. Yes, that can by no means be defined as a crime.

15 Q. There is a reference here to a person named Mirzet. If back in

16 1992 and all the way to 1993 in the Srebrenica area there was no

17 prosecutor or court, would you agree with me that in that sort of

18 situation, there was no one that could have passed on information

19 concerning the death of this prisoner that is referred to here? There

20 was no court and no prosecutor to pass this information on to.

21 A. That's quite correct. There was no court. Therefore you

22 couldn't inform a court.

23 Q. Or a prosecutor for that matter.

24 A. There was no way to pass on information. If indeed there was

25 another body, it would have been anyone's obligation, anyone who found

Page 8201

1 out about this, according to the laws of Bosnia-Herzegovina, for a

2 criminal offence like this to be reported, regardless of the fact whether

3 the perpetrator was known or unknown.

4 Q. But given the situation on the ground and in this area there was

5 no prosecutor to speak of, you would agree with me that in the absence of

6 a Prosecutor there was no one to pass this information on to?

7 A. Well, that strikes me as only logical, no prosecutor, no one to

8 pass the information on to.

9 Q. If this potential perpetrator, this man referred to as Mirzet,

10 died within a time period of three months, do you agree with me when I

11 say that our criminal law did not provide for a criminal proceedings to

12 be initiated against someone who is dead?

13 A. Yes. You are absolutely right. Guilty or not, you can't try a

14 dead man.

15 Q. Thank you very much. You testified about the communications with

16 Tuzla. You said that between the corps and Srebrenica, such

17 communications barely existed before the time of demilitarisation. Or

18 you said perhaps the second half of April 1994.

19 A. Yes, or rather June 1994. I prefer to set that time frame. At

20 any rate there were no communications?

21 Q. Thank you very much. If in Srebrenica itself, the highest level

22 body was the War Presidency, the highest authority was the War Presidency

23 and if the War Presidency was informed about this incident at the time it

24 occurred, do you believe that this would have meant that the highest

25 possible authority in the area was in fact informed?

Page 8202

1 A. At the time the War Presidency of Srebrenica municipality was

2 indeed the highest form of civilian government, of civilian authority.

3 And if this body was informed, this would have accounted to complying

4 with one's duty to report on a possible criminal -- to report a possible

5 criminal offence or the possibility that a criminal offence was

6 committed.

7 Q. Thank you very much. Witness, I would like now to read out a

8 different section of this interview conducted with our client.

9 If we could just please have this relevant portion distributed,

10 if I could have the usher's assistance in distributing the document.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: While we are waiting, can you give a specific

12 indication which part --

13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I'll be reading this out.

14 Your Honours, this is V 02920. The tape number is 20 and the

15 page number is 21. It's down towards the bottom of the page and as we

16 are waiting for this to be distributed, I'll just start.

17 Q. Witness, what we have here is the English version of the text and

18 if the interpreters could please follow. We can have the English version

19 displayed on the ELMO. If that helps. If that's of any assistance.

20 Please if we could have the English version on the ELMO and I'll be

21 reading the statement to the witness in the Bosnian.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move, please.

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Please, Witness, it's down towards the bottom of the page. But

25 what I wish to read you is the following -- "Jezercica [phoen] and

Page 8203

1 Kravica, just for example. I'm just talking now about the part where I

2 -- where we attacked the lines while we were fighting here in these

3 trenches along the lines. The slope of the mountain is so steep and down

4 at the bottom there is a plain, a clearing. It is flat land. We hadn't

5 even taken half of this area and we could see that the civilians had

6 already moved into the village. So please, if you can explain to me how

7 I was supposed to exercise control over the people who were in the midst

8 of these houses. If there is an expert alive anywhere in the world who

9 could show me how this should have been done, then they might as well

10 hang me right away. Please bear in mind the fact that Chetniks were all

11 over the place and surrounding the enclave. I had to hold the line right

12 there to prevent them from coming in and killing our civilians."

13 And then we'll move on to a different portion.

14 "When you bear this in mind please also bear in mind the lie of

15 the land and the very area in which this attacked occurred. Then you

16 have to calculate how many soldiers I should have needed for this. They

17 needn't necessarily have been armed. They would just be standing there

18 without weapons, linking hands, to form a cordon to prevent civilians to

19 leaving. In the meantime the combat was going on. What idiot is going

20 to stand in front of a line like that to prevent people from coming in

21 when they simply could have been shot from the back? Please bear in mind

22 the fact that there was cannibalism at the time. People were starving.

23 I wonder if there is anyone alive who could tell me how I was supposed to

24 run this. If there is they might as well lock me up for 300 years and

25 shoot me."

Page 8204

1 Witness, -- witness, in relation to this, did you ever hear that

2 there was cannibalism in Srebrenica in early January 1993, that there

3 were incidents of cannibalism? Is this something that you were aware of?

4 Did you know that people were starving there?

5 A. Yes, indeed. We did know. There was some information that

6 seeped through the information channels and this is the sort of

7 information that reached Tuzla generally speaking, which was the -- where

8 the headquarters for this district was based. As well as the corps

9 command. This is the type of information that did eventually reach us.

10 We knew that people were serving, that there was a general shortage of

11 just about everything and that it was a question of bare survival.

12 If you ask about the lie of the land, the terrain is very

13 difficult. I'm familiar with the area. I was there -- I used to go

14 there for a couple of years before the war so I'm familiar with the area.

15 It's very difficult terrain. Very forbidding and the winters are severe,

16 if I may put it that way. You usually get deep snow and extremely low

17 temperatures.

18 So whenever this sort of information reached us, we would just

19 hold our heads in despair, not knowing what to do because we ourselves

20 were short on what was necessary and what we needed to send them, and we

21 didn't know how to deliver this to Srebrenica.

22 The nearest point after the fall of Cerska and Konjevic Polje,

23 the nearest point inside the free territory under the control of the BH

24 army and the part of territory under control of the Srebrenica OG, the

25 nearest point, I'd say, was at a distance of 36 kilometres. In

Page 8205

1 wintertime conditions, you needed to cover all that ground. It was next

2 to impossible. Your trail could be seen and our opposition was a very

3 powerful forms on to their teeth and no courier would have stood a chance

4 because they were in a position to catch up with anyone and track down

5 anyone. There were situations where couriers went missing on the way to

6 Srebrenica and were never found again.

7 If the Chamber could forgive me for this elaboration, but there

8 was a whole squad of reconnaissance officers who were killed until a bid

9 to get through to Srebrenica. The period of time when Cerska fell, I

10 believe that was on the 8th of March 1992, we tried something like that

11 but the plan fell through on account of the deep snow, on account of the

12 winter temperatures, and on account of the very few fighters that we had

13 who were available for a mission like that. And there was a problem

14 taken is very seriously. What we were trying to do is to preserve the

15 Srebrenica, to make sure it could at least survive.

16 Ms. Vidovic, if we go back to the did agreement on

17 demilitarisation, do you know what that meant? That amounted to

18 capitulation, to surrender. And this would have turned the enclave to a

19 prisoner camp in no time at all. You know yourself all too well what

20 happened later on in 1995.

21 Please forgive me for being so extensive.

22 Q. Thank you very much but I do have a question in connection with

23 this. Just one question. It's true, isn't it, that our regulations did

24 not require that any commander should try to do the impossible; would I

25 be right in saying that?

Page 8206

1 A. Yes, of course, that's a very fair statement.

2 Q. Thank you very much for your cooperation. I have no further

3 questions.

4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before my learned

5 friend from the OTP resumes her examination, can I please ask that this

6 witness not be asked any leading questions on re-examination.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: What are we going to do with this extract? Shall

8 we give it a number?

9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, please, Your Honours. My

10 apologies. Thank you very much for drawing my attention to that. Can we

11 please have a number assigned.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: [Previous translation continues] ... Defence

13 number D281.

14 Yes, short re-examination, Ms. Sellers, please.

15 Re-examined by Ms. Sellers:

16 Q. Mr. Hogic, you've been asked questions concerning the chain of

17 command of the military police during the re-examination by learned

18 friend Madam Vidovic. And among the things that you stated was that you

19 need to have a clear chain of command and the ability for a police office

20 to function.

21 The first question I'd like to put to you is that if there were

22 police units or officers operating in Srebrenica, even outside of the

23 regulations that you're familiar with from 2 Corps, would those police

24 units -- or is it possible those police units would form among themselves

25 some type of command structure?

Page 8207

1 MR. JONES: Civilian police or military police?

2 MS. SELLERS: Let me clarify, the military police. But there was

3 discussion on both.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: I take it -- I noticed precisely what you raised,

5 but I take it that it was clear from the beginning of the question that

6 we are talking of military police and not civilian police.


8 Q. Mr. Hogic, excuse me. If we can answer the question. Would it

9 be possible those police units could form among themselves some type of

10 command structure?

11 A. I'm not sure I understand your question. Are we -- are we

12 looking at military police units or civilian police units?

13 Q. I'm talking about military police units. And even if they

14 operated outside of the regulations of 2 Corps, is it possible that the

15 police units formed some type of structure among themselves?

16 A. Mr. President, Your Honours, I simply don't understand the

17 question. If there is a unit, then the unit presumably has a commander.

18 I'm not sure about this term, "among themselves," what exactly you mean

19 by "among themselves." So this is the specific part of your question

20 that I'm not clear about.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Sellers, if you are aware of any such informal

22 command structure created by military police units amongst themselves

23 that you could ask the witness about, then go ahead with your question.

24 MS. SELLERS: Right.

25 Q. Mr. Hogic, in the summer of 1992, the formation of some of the TO

Page 8208

1 structures -- or some of the TO structures, you testified, operated

2 outside of the regulations of 2nd Corps. And within the formation of

3 some of those TO structures is the possibility that police units were

4 also part of the structure. Would you agree with that?

5 A. It's possible. It's a possibility. The whole of Srebrenica and

6 the entire defence structure was a matter of improvisation, I'd say, to a

7 large extent.

8 Q. I'd like to show Mr. Hogic Prosecution Exhibit 11, please.

9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if we could please at

10 least have the document placed on the ELMO so we can follow.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly. Thank you, Madam Vidovic.

12 MS. SELLERS: The document is on Sanction, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: It is on Sanction.

14 MS. SELLERS: I'm going to ask Mr. Hogic to look over the

15 document.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.


18 Q. Mr. Hogic, does this document reflect what could be a structure

19 between the TO and the military police in Srebrenica?

20 A. It talks about the organisational structure of the military

21 police from battalion level up.

22 Q. And would you look and see the person's position who signed the

23 document. Would you agree with me that that's a person who is related to

24 the military structure, to the TO structure or the armed forces

25 structure?

Page 8209

1 A. Yes. The signature belongs to the Chief of Staff of the armed

2 forces.

3 Q. Right. Thank you.

4 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, we can remove the document. I'd like

5 now in that same vein to show Mr. Hogic Prosecution Exhibit P80, please.

6 Your Honour, I believe that will be coming up on Sanction also. Your

7 Honour, might I ask, there was a word that appeared in the transcript.

8 I'm not certain of what it meant. It says "provakas." I didn't

9 recognise it in English. That was with Mr. Hogic's answer to my question

10 prior to showing him the previous document.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Which line?

12 MS. SELLERS: It is now off our current screen. And it was his

13 answer to my question in terms of the structures. And I assume that the

14 word he meant was improvisation but it was in -- a bit indiscernible. I

15 just want to draw the attention to that.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: If you are referring to page 84, line 4, that's

17 what I have, "improvisation."

18 MS. SELLERS: Thank you.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know if you are referring to some other

20 line.

21 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I can't see it at this moment. I

22 think improvisation is correct.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you asked, then, to have Exhibit 11 shown to

24 the witness so it must be it.

25 MS. SELLERS: Thank you very much.

Page 8210

1 Q. Mr. Hogic, the document you have in front of you comes, and you

2 can see on the signature page, from Nedzad Behtic, the man we have been

3 discussing in prior documents. It's dated the 19th of September 1993 and

4 addressed to the 2nd Corps command. And if you look through the document

5 it seems to be a resume of structures, whether the structures are within

6 or without the legal framework. I would like to point you to, in the

7 English it would be page 3, and it follows from the first formation

8 structure. And under Section 10, there is a line that says "OS

9 Srebrenica Military Police, 67 Conscripts Commanded by Mirzet Halilovic."

10 Would you agree that the document appears to reflect that that's

11 part of the Srebrenica Territorial Defence formations?

12 MR. JONES: Your Honour, the nature of these questions are all

13 leading, essentially. I mean they are also speculative because we are

14 talking about possible structures and things which this witness isn't

15 being asked about his own knowledge, but to show parts of documents and

16 say do you agree that this reflects, and then putting a proposition is

17 clearly a leading way of conducting the re-examination. My learned

18 friends can say does this --

19 JUDGE AGIUS: You are right, Mr. Jones. Please rephrase the

20 question, me. There is an easy way of putting it.

21 MS. SELLERS: Yes.

22 Q. Mr. Hogic, after looking through that part of the document what

23 would that reflect to you in terms of the military police?

24 A. This is a document talking about the formation structure or

25 establishing a structure of the armed forces of Srebrenica. The first

Page 8211

1 time this occurred was on the 20th of May 1992. That's what the document

2 says. And the next time was on the 3rd of September 1992. I haven't had

3 time to go through the entire document to see if there is anything else.

4 The third establishment was in mid-December 1992, it appears to suggest.

5 Q. Mr. Hogic, if I might, thank you, now draw your attention under

6 the first establishment, under number 10. "Services Attached to OS

7 Srebrenica," where it says "OS Srebrenica, Military Police 67 conscripts,

8 Commander Mirzet Halilovic."

9 A. Yes, I see that.

10 Q. And your comment on that in relationship to your understanding of

11 the document?

12 A. This means that at this point in time, at least based on this

13 document, there was a military police unit that had been organised

14 comprising this number of conscripts. That's in as far as the document

15 is accurate and I have no reason to assume otherwise.

16 Q. I would ask you to stay with us in the same document, it would be

17 page 7, in the English version, it is now under what you have previously

18 testified to being the second formation structure of the 3rd of September

19 1992, and there is a number 9, starting a paragraph, and then in that

20 paragraph, we go to number 15. If you would read number 15.

21 "Military Police Commander Mirzet Halilovic" and then the

22 paragraph under it, "Units 9 through 15 including members of the staff

23 total 323 conscripts." "The Srebrenica armed forces of the 2nd formation

24 structure number 53, 5.312 conscripts," your comment on what that would

25 indicate, please.

Page 8212

1 A. Well, at the time there was some kind of a military police unit

2 commanded by Mirzet Halilovic at the time.

3 Q. Thank you. And then could I ask you, it would be page 8 in the

4 English version. It is an English version prior to the signature page,

5 and it deals with, as you've testified before, a subsequent formation,

6 from mid-December 1992 under section 3. And then I would ask you to go

7 to the last paragraph prior to section 4. Towards the bottom of that

8 paragraph it says, "The staff appointed Akif the commander of Srebrenica

9 OS military police on the 22nd of November 1992."

10 And if you would glance just above that paragraph in reference to

11 the staff, it appears to be "members of the Srebrenica OS increased in

12 the third formation." Your comment on that, please.

13 A. Well, here it says that all the units remained organised in

14 accordance with the previous organization. They continued to function

15 but certain changes were made. It also refers to the number of men et

16 cetera, and then believe me I can't read everything, but it says that

17 from the 5th of February 1993, certain people in certain posts were

18 changed. This Mandic Smaijlo [phoen] was in a certain post and

19 Mehmedovic was also the assistant chief of training and operations, and

20 as of the 16th of April 1993 there were some new individuals. Then there

21 was Bogilovic Becir, who was the assistant -- the chief of intelligence

22 and security issues and from the 29th of April 1993 that position was

23 taken by Nedzad Behtic. So these were the positions that members of the

24 staff of the Srebrenica armed forces had. They had been appointed to

25 these positions by virtue of certain documents. I assume issued by the

Page 8213

1 commander of the armed forces.

2 Q. Mr. Hogic, you see where there is reference to Atif Krdzic, the

3 commander of the military police on the 22nd of November 1992, a little

4 further down in that paragraph?

5 A. Just a minute. Yes. The staff appointed Atif Krdzic the

6 commander of the Srebrenica OS military police on the 22nd of November

7 1992. That's what it says in the document, which means that as of that

8 time he probably held that position.

9 Q. Now, I'd ask you just to turn back to the beginning of the

10 document and noting the date the 19th of September 1993. Was that prior

11 to or was that after the demilitarisation of the Srebrenica area?

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't we know it all? He's not the only witness

13 who has come here to tell us what the demilitarisation took place. We

14 all know when it took place.

15 MS. SELLERS: Certainly Your Honour, but this leads to the

16 cross-examination.

17 Q. Would you agree that this document tends to indicate that the

18 military police was still in formation or existed after the

19 demilitarisation date?

20 A. Naturally.

21 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Hogic, also you've testified that it's

22 difficult for a police, military police force that didn't have many

23 resources to function. And would you agree with me that they might not

24 be able to function to their top ability or they could only function or

25 not function?

Page 8214

1 MR. JONES: It's a completely again it's a leading question. The

2 formula, "Will you agree with me," and then a proposition is put and a

3 proposition which isn't open. It's a very specific suggestion to the

4 witness. The witness is only going to answer yes. It only invites a yes

5 answer. I would request my learned friend to rephrase in a non-leading

6 way.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think you need to rephrase the question

8 because as it is, you even asked the witness to suppose, to make

9 suppositions too. But anyway, please rephrase the question, Ms. Sellers.


11 Q. Mr. Hogic, if a police unit did not have all the means, would its

12 choices be either completely -- it could be completely non-functional or

13 that it would function at different levels or otherwise?

14 A. Well, a unit in such a situation within the context of

15 demilitarisation could have functioned very inefficiently. If a unit has

16 no weapons, if it couldn't move around the zone where there were UNPROFOR

17 units, well, then how could it have functioned? I think its functioning

18 had been reduced to a minimum, and it's difficult to believe that the way

19 in which it functioned was effective. It functioned more on paper than

20 in reality.

21 Q. And in terms of predemilitarisation, could it function more

22 effectively then?

23 A. That's an assumption, naturally. It could have if it had been

24 armed. If it had all the resources that such a unit required, then it

25 certainly could have functioned in a more effective manner.

Page 8215

1 MS. SELLERS: I'd like to show Mr. Hogic Prosecution Exhibit 458,

2 please. In the English version, while I would like him to glance through

3 the entire document, it's quite lengthy, but in the English version I'm

4 looking particularly at pages 25 through 30 on up to 33, and the ERN

5 numbers in the B/C/S version would be 03593159 to 03593172.

6 Q. Could you just take a minute, please, to glance through those

7 pages.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: The English version, pages 30 to 33.

9 MS. SELLERS: No, I believe it's 25, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: 25 to 30 on up to 33.

11 MS. SELLERS: Yes, thank you.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: 25 we start from.

13 MS. SELLERS: It's in Sanction also. We are on page 25 in

14 Sanction.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Vidovic?

16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm really trying to

17 understand what is going on here, naturally we don't have all the

18 Prosecutor's documents at hand and I can't understand what sort of a

19 document this is. Could the Prosecutor inform us of the nature of this

20 document. It probably has a title and I would like to know whether this

21 is a document the authenticity of which we have put into question.

22 Please could you inform us of the nature of this document.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Having mentioned the document number, isn't that

24 enough? We are talking of Prosecution Exhibit 458. If you don't have it

25 available, we can make it available. There is no question about it.

Page 8216

1 But --

2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's not on the list.

3 We don't have it at all.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in re-examination. What I'm saying is that

5 if you need it to be made available, we can put it on the Sanction, on

6 the -- we can actually divide the page on the monitor, if it is at all

7 possible, or else we can put the B/C/S version on the ELMO and you can

8 watch it from there. And the witness can watch it from there.

9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it would be of

10 assistance now and in the future if we could always be informed of the

11 title of the document so that we can know which document is in question.

12 That's all I'm saying.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Sometimes even mentioning the title of the document

14 is not the correct way of proceeding, Ms. Vidovic, and I think I don't

15 need to explain why.

16 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour I can certainly mention the title of

17 the document if that would assist our learned friends. This document is

18 "Military Police Records from Srebrenica." We refer to it commonly as

19 the military log. I believe that Defence counsel has seen the original

20 version and were using what is already previously been entered in as an

21 exhibit.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Any way, let's move as fast as we can. Let's put

23 the B/C/S version on the ELMO and the witness can follow from there and

24 Madam Vidovic can follow from there. We start from page 25 or sorry, on

25 we start from -- I now miss the -- the ERN number of the first page.

Page 8217

1 MS. SELLERS: ERN number of the first page -- I'm sorry --

2 JUDGE AGIUS: 3159.

3 MS. SELLERS: That's correct, Your Honour.

4 Q. Mr. Hogic, when you glance through this document, could you

5 please comment on the level of functionability that you see illustrated

6 or not illustrated in the document.

7 A. What I have just had a look at consists of records made by

8 someone. It looks like a sort of notebook rather than an official

9 document. It looks like the notebook of someone who performed security

10 duties. I'm not familiar with the signature that I can see here. I

11 don't know who this person is. I can see that Nazif Krdzic is mentioned

12 on the first page. And the date the 26th of December 1992 is referred

13 to. But I can't read it very clearly.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move with the pages, please. Let's see the

15 next one. And no comments on your part, Witness, please. We'll just ask

16 the question at the end.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Next page, please.

19 Next page.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But Your Honour, it's impossible

21 for me to read this.

22 MS. SELLERS: I believe the witness is supposed to be looking at

23 the B/C/S on the ELMO, Your Honour, and I believe he might be looking in

24 Sanction.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Look -- I don't know what mode -- he's looking at

Page 8218

1 the ELMO, yeah. Yes, I mean take them in your hand and we can follow on

2 the -- on Sanction. And you don't need to go through the details, just

3 skim through what you have there because the question is a very simple

4 one, what does that document or the parts of that document that you are

5 reading tell you about the functionability of the unit at the time.

6 MR. JONES: And obviously Your Honour, if anything and if what it

7 states is true. This is one of the documents that we have not --

8 JUDGE AGIUS: That wasn't put to the witness.

9 MR. JONES: But it obviously it shouldn't be suggested to him

10 that this is a genuine article in any sense and that he should take --

11 JUDGE AGIUS: But it cannot be suggested -- the opposite or the

12 contrary cannot be suggested to him.

13 MR. JONES: Yes, exactly. It has to be open.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: The question is a very simple one. What it shows

15 on the face of it, that document, what does it tell you about the

16 functionability. There was, as I understood it, the question that Ms.

17 Sellers was asking.

18 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour that is exactly the question.

19 MR. JONES: What if anything does it tell him.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is not an official document.

21 It's a record --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Assuming that what you see there is what the

23 document contains, that's what the document says. It's none of your

24 business whether that is correct or not correct, whether the information

25 is full, false, entire, or whatever. The only question is this: Looking

Page 8219

1 at what you have there, what does that tell you about the functionability

2 of the unit at the time?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All I can see from this document is

4 that one member of the military police recorded the way in which that

5 unit functioned. It tells me nothing else. I hope that I've been clear.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: So basically what is being put to you by the

7 Prosecution is, does that tell you that, indeed, the military police were

8 functioning? This is basically the question. Now, whether it's true or

9 not, that is another matter. That will be seen by us. But according to

10 what you see in that document, would that mean that the military police

11 was functioning or were functioning or not?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was probably functioning.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

14 MS. SELLERS: I would go now to my last --

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please because --

16 MS. SELLERS: I go now to the last question.

17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since the Prosecutor

18 has introduced a number of new documents, and this did not relate to the

19 questions that we put, I would have a few brief questions that I would

20 like to put to the witness.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Ask your colleague whether that is regular or not.

22 Let's finish, Ms. Sellers, please.

23 MS. SELLERS: Thank you.

24 Q. Then the last couple of questions, Mr. Hogic you indicated,

25 testified in your cross-examination that when the military police is

Page 8220

1 under two bodies, it might be difficult to have a clear command

2 structure. Do you agree?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. I would like to read out something from tape number 17. I

5 understand that we have handouts that we can provide for expediency's

6 sake. This is tape 2920, videotape 2920 of the interview. It's on page

7 20 in the English version that I will be reading. Tape 17. It's P329.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: What page, Ms. Sellers, please?

9 MS. SELLERS: It is page -- I have page 19. It is the videotape

10 9. I understand we are going to go from 19 to 20.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Sellers, please.

12 MS. SELLERS: Indicated to me it's page 20.

13 I will read:

14 "Question: Was it military police that were in charge of the

15 prison?

16 "Answer: N-O. Of course this was the duty of the head of the

17 military police and what the military police were doing there. This was

18 also the duty of Hamid Salihovic who was carrying out the interrogation

19 of these prisoners. I had much bigger problems elsewhere, protecting

20 villages from Chetnik attacks and from Chetnik breakthroughs.

21 "Question: There is no question that those are big problems. Is

22 the military police a branch of the military under which -- of which you

23 were the commander?

24 "Answer: Yes."

25 Now, does that indicate, Mr. Hogic, a clearer chain of command

Page 8221

1 and subordination?

2 MR. JONES: Yet again it's being put in a leading way. What my

3 learned friend should ask is what if anything does it indicate about the

4 chain of command.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, you are right, Mr. Jones.

6 MS. SELLERS: I'll rephrase and we can use Mr. Jones' question.

7 Q. What if anything does that indicate about the chain of command,

8 what has just been read out to you, Mr. Hogic?

9 A. Yes. It does indicate something about the chain of command. It

10 indicates something about the relation between the superior, between a

11 superior and his subordinate.

12 Q. Does it indicate that the military police were subordinated to

13 the commander?

14 A. Yes. It would have had to be subordinated to the commander.

15 MS. SELLERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Hogic.

16 I have no further questions, Your Honour.

17 MR. JONES: Your Honour, may I just say one thing?

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes are we going to give this a number or shall I

19 -- I think we will need to -- we already have two from these, the

20 previous ones that I gave you. Yes, Mr. Jones in the meantime -- all

21 right. I mean we need to give it a number? We can compile together with

22 the others and give them a number but the Defence must know what the

23 reference number is.

24 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour we will provide the Bench and Defence

25 with complete copies.

Page 8222

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.

2 MR. JONES: Simply to sigh this, Your Honour: That Your Honour

3 referred my colleague to me on the issue of questions after

4 re-examination and I told her that of course if new matters come up in

5 re-examination, we are allowed to ask questions, otherwise it would be a

6 denial of our right to cross-examine and I'm sure that's what Your Honour

7 has in mind.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: But there are no new things that have ace arisen,

9 Mr. Jones, and that's quite clear. What has arisen are questions that

10 you would have put yourself on cross-examination.

11 Do you have any questions, Judge Brydensholt? Do you have any

12 questions, Judge Eser?

13 Questioned by the Court:

14 JUDGE ESER: I'm still in need of clarification with regard to

15 this issue of having knowledge of certain decrees, laws and so on. I

16 would like to demonstrate my question with regard to an exhibit which has

17 been produced both by the Prosecution and by the Defence. That is P54

18 [sic]. I don't need -- I think that we need it on the ELMO. It's

19 dealing with reports that have been disciplinary measures taken,

20 pronounced in certain months. And this document, at the end, they would

21 complain and request again to send collections of legal regulations.

22 Now, my question is: At the same time or before that request, they had

23 pronounced quite a few measures, disciplinary measures, like reprimands,

24 warnings, military detention.

25 Now, how do I have to understand this? Did these measures, have

Page 8223

1 these measures been taken without having any legal material at hand? Or

2 was it possible to decide because there was still some sort of material

3 available to base decisions, sanctions, and things like this on?

4 MR. JONES: I note the witness answered the first question yes.

5 It wasn't interpreted. He actually nodded and said DA when Your Honour

6 said did these measures, have these measures been taken without any legal

7 material at hand. The witness responded. For some reason it wasn't

8 picked up.

9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not hear the witness's

10 answer.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I did not hear him. But he's here and he can

12 confirm it any way.

13 JUDGE ESER: My question was had this decision been taken without

14 having any material or what else has been the basis of taking these

15 decisions?

16 A. If you remember, I said that this was probably done without there

17 being a real, legal basis, but it was probably on the basis of certain

18 experience that lawyers in Srebrenica had at the time or they perhaps

19 improvised at the time. If you have a look at the kind of punishment

20 meted out to the soldiers, you will see that it's different from the sort

21 of punishment provided for by the provisions on discipline within the

22 ABiH at the time.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. I thank you, Judge Eser.

24 Mr. Hogic, we've come to the end of your testimony. On behalf of

25 the Trial Chamber, I would like to thank you very much for having come

Page 8224

1 here to give evidence in this case against Naser Oric. You will receive

2 all the assistance you require now to help you return back home at the

3 earliest opportunity, and on behalf of everyone present here I wish you a

4 safe journey back home.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, and I wish you all the

6 best in your work.

7 [The witness withdrew]

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, very quick matter that we need to be resolved

9 because I need the courtroom reorganised for another sitting that I have

10 which has three accused. So we need to do this very quickly. Next

11 witness, number 46. You say five hours here and then you indicate 17th

12 and 18th of May.

13 What are your intentions? Because I don't see how we can finish

14 this witness in two days if you are requiring five hours for yourself.

15 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, that witness's testimony now will be

16 scaled back quite a bit and we believe that that can be presented

17 certainly by the Prosecution within a day.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. And the other day will be

19 reserved for the Defence. Is would that be okay with you?

20 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So we stand adjourned until --

22 MS. SELLERS: I do have one matter that refers to Judge Eser's

23 question related to document, Prosecution Exhibit 54. I believe he --

24 JUDGE ESER: 540.

25 MS. SELLERS: Thank you.

Page 8225

1 JUDGE AGIUS: You were right to point this because I too thought

2 it was 54 at the beginning. We'll meet on Tuesday, and on Tuesday also

3 please there will be a meeting in my Chamber between the first and the

4 second session. And that will be housekeeping mostly. All right? But

5 it will include also matters related to Rule 98 bis. Thank you. Have a

6 nice weekend.

7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

8 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 17th of May,

9 2005, at 9.00 a.m.