1 Thursday, 4 November 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning to everybody in and around the
7 Mr. Registrar, will you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
9 everyone in and around the courtroom.
10 This is case number IT-04-81-T, the Prosecutor versus
11 Momcilo Perisic. Thank you.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
13 Could we have appearances for the day, please, starting with the
15 MR. THOMAS: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
16 everybody in and around the courtroom. Inger de Ru, Rafael La Cruz, and
17 Barney Thomas for the Prosecution.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
19 And for the Defence.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Good morning, Your Honour. Good morning to all.
21 Colin Morrison, Chad Mair, Boris Zorko, Novak Lukic, and Gregor Guy-Smith
22 on behalf of Mr. Perisic.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, with the Court's indulgence, we will call
25 our next witness, Mr. Ivan Djokic.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please make the declaration.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
4 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 WITNESS: IVAN DJOKIC
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Djokic. You may take a
8 seat, and good morning to you.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: With the assistance of the usher, we have
12 prepared a binder for Mr. Djokic which I think he'll be needing in short
13 order. So if he could be given the opportunity to have that by his side,
14 I think it might be of assistance in the efficiency of these proceedings.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: And just before you begin, Mr. Guy-Smith, I don't
16 know whether your colleagues on the opposite side might have this
17 document, but I didn't find it in the witness's report, I don't have his
18 curriculum vitae, so I'm not quite --
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay. I'll take care of that.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure how he qualifies.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'll take care of that in quite short order,
22 Your Honour.
23 Examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:
24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Djokic.
25 A. Good morning.
1 Q. Could you please tell us when you were born, sir.
2 A. I was born on the 27th of October, 1951.
3 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ... and where were you born, sir?
4 A. I was born in Stanisinci village Vrnjacka Banja municipality in
6 THE INTERPRETER: Can the counsel please wait for the end of the
7 interpretation. Thank you.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you hear that?
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sorry, I didn't, no.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: The interpreters say could you wait for the end of
11 the interpretation.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: I actually didn't hear anything from the
13 interpreter at all, so there might be something wrong with my system. If
14 we could just double-check with them quickly. I mean, I see it on the
16 THE INTERPRETER: Can the counsel hear now?
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Hello?
18 THE INTERPRETER: Can the counsel hear?
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: Now I can hear, yes. Thank you. And I do
21 Q. Are you currently employed, sir?
22 A. Yes, I work at the state university of Novi Pazar.
23 Q. And in what capacity do you work at the state university in
25 A. I'm a lecturer at the university, teaching four courses.
1 Q. And what courses are you teaching?
2 A. The basics of information and technology, information -- computer
3 networks, computer network protocols, and computer network security.
4 Q. And is that a course for civilians, for military, is it a mixed
5 course? What kind of students are you teaching?
6 A. It's a civilian university and these are postgraduate students
7 from years 1 through 4 of a -- rather, undergraduate students from
8 years 1 through 4 of the state university.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could please have up on the screen
10 65 ter 07001D.
11 Q. And I refer you to -- sir, I refer you to tab B in the binder.
12 It hasn't come up yet. While we're waiting for the document to come up,
13 did you have occasion during your professional career to be employed in
14 the military?
15 A. Yes, I'm a lieutenant-general, a retired lieutenant-general, and
16 I practically spent my entire professional career in the army.
17 Q. I see that the document has now come up on the screen, and I
18 would like you to take a look at this, if you could. I believe this is
19 your curriculum vitae that you presented in relationship to the work that
20 you've done in this case.
21 If we could focus on the fourth entry in this document, it says
22 between 1970 and 1973 you were at the aeronautical military academy in
23 Rajlovac, Yugoslavia
24 A. Once I completed my secondary schooling, I got enrolled in the
25 military academy, and this was the first schooling that I had at that
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could turn the page, please.
3 Q. And starting at the bottom of the page, moving to the top of the
4 page, in between 1978 and 1990 what were you doing, sir?
5 A. Once I graduated from the academy in Rajlovac, and that was
6 between 1970 and 1973, I graduated from a higher level aeronautical
7 academy in Belgrade
8 aeronautical institute in Zarkovo.
9 Q. And after you worked for the aeronautical institute in Zarkovo,
10 what were your next duties with regard to the military, if you could tell
11 us, please?
12 A. My next duty was also with then the aeronautical profession, and
13 I worked as the head of the aeronautical administration within the
14 Main Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia
15 Q. And with regard to that work, when you say that you worked within
16 the Main
17 work in any particular department at the time?
18 A. Between 1994 and 2000, I was the head of the aeronautical
19 administration, and that's the title of this particular body which is
20 charged with the overall maintenance of air force and anti -- or rather,
21 anti-aircraft defence assets.
22 Q. With regard to your work in that area, were you tasked with
23 dealing with issues concerning logistics?
24 A. The maintenance of assets is one aspect of logistics, yes.
25 Q. And with regard to the years 2000 and 2001, could you tell us
1 what your specific duties and tasks were?
2 A. In 2000 and 2001, I worked as the head of the operational and
3 logistics administration which could be said to be the operational part
4 of the logistics in the General Staff and charged with providing
5 precisely that, operational logistics.
6 Q. And when you say "operational logistics," could you please
7 explain to the Chamber what you mean by that particular term,
8 "operational logistics"?
9 A. What I mean by operational or operative logistics is long-term
10 and short-term planning of all segments of logistics. It is in that area
11 that all the elements come together which constitute the logistic support
12 of an army.
13 Q. And what are those elements that constitute logistic support of
14 an army?
15 A. In the report that I submitted, you will have seen that
16 logistical support of the VJ, and previously JNA, was termed rear
17 support, or support for the rear. Which basically means the same thing,
18 it's just a different way of going about it. Elements of that support
19 for the rear include technical support, aeronautical support, naval
20 maintenance support, quartermaster support which includes the provision
21 of food and clothing for troops, then traffic support or transport
22 support, medical support, et cetera. All these are elements of logistics
23 under the rules of the support provided for the rear.
24 Q. With regard to your duties between 2001 and 2003, what were you
25 tasked to do?
1 A. My duties were to co-ordinate the plans of logistic support
2 services to make sure that these plans are consistently applied and to
3 see to it that all these plans are properly implemented in the various
4 logistic support services.
5 Q. And between 2003 and 2004 what were your duties, sir?
6 A. Between 2003 and 2004, I was at a higher step within the chain of
7 logistic support and I was assistant Chief of the Main Staff for
8 logistics, of the General Staff, that is.
9 Q. And then in 2004 and 2005, what were your duties?
10 A. In 2004 and 2005, I worked within the Ministry of Defence of
12 officer to the post of assistant minister for materiel resources.
13 Q. With regard to your knowledge and experience in the area of
14 logistics, have you been involved in any projects that have as a
15 component part logistics issues?
16 A. Well, practically my entire professional career has been spent in
17 the area of logistics and logistical support starting from the
18 aeronautical institute where I worked in the research for the development
19 of the related technology, so that's to say logistical technology. All
20 the subsequent duties that I had within the General Staff also fell
21 within the field of logistics which we call consumer logistics; in other
22 words, all the various issues that are there to make sure that the troops
23 can work properly.
24 As the chief of the aeronautical administration, I also worked in
25 the field of maintenance and repair of various assets and to -- and I
1 also worked in the field of developing new ways of approaching
2 maintenance and service of these assets since technology in this field is
3 constantly updated and upgraded.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: I would move Mr. Djokic's CV for admission.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document shall be assigned
8 Exhibit D505. Thank you.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could we have 65 ter 4001D on the screen.
10 04001D. And before I go any further, to refresh all of our recollection,
11 in a filing by the Prosecution on the 16th of July, 2010
12 indicated that it challenged neither the qualification nor the relevance
13 of the report of Mr. Djokic.
14 Q. Before you is a document which is a -- entitled "Yugoslav Army
15 Logistical Support 1992-1998 Expert Report." Are you familiar with this
17 A. Yes, I produced the document for the purposes of this Tribunal.
18 Q. And the document is both up on the screen as well as I've
19 supplied with you a clean, hard copy of the document in your binder which
20 is the first copy in the binder. You are free to use either one which is
21 easier for your use.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Guy-Smith kindly either speak up or
23 speak into the microphone. Thank you.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: I heard you and I will do both.
25 Q. You've given us a brief introduction with regard to the topic of
1 logistics, and in your brief remarks you use the term "rear support" at
2 one point. And I'm wondering if could you expand on this term or explain
3 the particular significance of that term within the military that you
5 A. In the Yugoslav People's Army and in the early days of the
6 Army of Yugoslavia
7 is synonymous with logistical support. However, the organisation and
8 efficiency of rear support is not on the same plane with that of
9 logistical support. For this reason, in a later period, the Army of
11 efficient concept of logistical support.
12 What is the crucial difference between the two? The rear support
13 is under the command of a commander who has his assistant for rear
14 support. An assistant may propose and carry out commanders' decisions.
15 Under logistical support, you have a logistics commander whose powers are
16 far broader. He may plan, decide, and carry out his decisions. This
17 would be the essential difference.
18 Now, the purpose of both the rear support and logistical support
19 is one and the same.
20 Q. What is that purpose, sir?
21 A. The purpose of logistical support is to enable army units to
22 carry out their tasks and to create conditions for the army's life.
23 Q. I don't want to go through your report with you verbatim, but
24 what I would like to do is just identify a couple of things, if I could.
25 And since we have been talking about logistical support and rear support,
1 I take it that is the topic that is discussed in chapter 2 of the report
2 that you've submitted; correct?
3 And I think it might be of assistance just to take a look at
4 paragraph --
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. Now, you mentioned in a discussion that we've just
7 had, you mentioned the Yugoslav People's Army and the Army of Yugoslavia.
8 Are those two different armies?
9 A. These are two different armies because when the
10 Yugoslav People's Army ceased to exist, the Army of Yugoslavia was set
11 up. The Yugoslav People's Army was the armed force of the
12 Socialist Federal Republic
13 is the armed force of -- or was the armed force of the Federal Republic
14 of Yugoslavia
15 Q. With regard to the issue of logistical support, were the
16 functions of the head of the army different under the
17 Yugoslav People's Army and under the Army of Yugoslavia or were they the
19 A. The concept of rear support was taken over from the
20 Yugoslav People's Army, thus the Army of Yugoslavia also used the concept
21 of rear support rather than logistical support. It was only at a later
22 date that the Army of Yugoslavia introduced certain novelties in the
23 powers of commanders, in the powers of the Ministry of Defence, and the
24 powers of the General Staff. At that point, through a long-lasting
25 transformation process, the concept of rear support was abandoned in
1 favour of logistical support.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: And this has nothing to do with you for the
3 moment. I may have been not speaking into the microphone, I may have
4 misspoke, or I may have spoken too softly, but with regards to the word
5 on line 2 of page 10, I asked the question of "with regard to the issue
6 of logistical" - not "local" - support. The word should be "logistical."
7 Just so that the record is clear in that regard.
8 Q. You mentioned that there was a shift or a transformation from one
9 army to the other, and I'd like to for a moment focus on one of the
10 statements that you've made.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: And if we could have paragraph 52, which would be
12 in the B/C/S page 18 and in the English page 20, up on the screen, I
13 would be most appreciative.
14 Q. And I'd like to focus on in paragraph 20 -- in paragraph 52 you
15 were discussing the Federal Ministry of Defence in the VJ General Staff,
16 and you indicate here that the legal regulations - I'm about halfway
17 through that paragraph:
18 "The legal regulations were such that the overall management of
19 the army in ensuing conditions for its development and functioning (which
20 includes logistical support of the army) was completely entrusted to the
21 civilian and parliamentary authorities."
22 I'd like to see if you could expand on that and explain to the
23 Chamber perhaps a bit more fully what you mean by that and the following
25 A. In any army there is a degree of overlap between the
1 General Staff or the Main Staff and the Ministry of Defence with respect
2 to logistical support. The issue is who would be the one disposing of
3 the assets reserved for the military and who would have the main say. It
4 was especially pronounced during periods of army transformation.
5 Sometimes the power of decision lay with the ministry, and at other times
6 it was with the General Staff.
7 In 1992, after the formation of the FRY, the entire competence
8 pertaining to logistical acquisition, including any purchase for the
9 needs of the army, as well as development, was handed over in its
10 entirety to the Ministry of Defence. And they were the owner of all of
11 the assets at the disposal of the army.
12 Q. And what is the significance of the Ministry of Defence being in
13 the position to be the owner of all of the assets?
14 A. The importance of it is that the minister of defence, when
15 proposing budgets, is the enforcing agent in terms of that budget
16 vis-à-vis the Assembly. He has the main say on what the annual army
17 budget is going to look like. Once adopted, he is the one supervising
18 the implementation of the budget. He is the one who has a service at his
19 disposal charged with army procurement. Once equipment is procured, it
20 is then delivered to the army for use, and this is where the competence
21 of the General Staff and its units begin with respect to the use of the
22 equipment put at their disposal.
23 Having in mind that formerly the federal secretariat for national
24 defence which was a sort of Ministry of Defence was a solely military
25 organisation, and as of 1992, as of the formation of the FRY, the
1 minister of defence is a civilian. And here we can see the shift towards
2 civilian control over army logistical matters.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the counsel please
4 turn off his microphone when not putting questions. We have a lot of
5 background noise. Thank you.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH:
7 Q. If we could now turn to paragraph 56 in your report.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Which will be B/C/S pages 19 and 20 and English
9 pages 21 and 22.
10 Q. In this paragraph, you discuss the characteristics or logistics
11 in warfare and specifically discuss issues with regard to the dissolution
12 of the SFRY and development in issues that abounded logistics, and I
13 would like to refer you to and pay attention to section A, which will be
14 on the next page in both. And specifically to the statement that you
15 make in about the middle of that section in which you say:
16 "However, the newly formed ministries of defence in the former
18 insight into the status of national resources, no current database, and
19 no developed military co-operation with other countries."
20 I'm wondering if you could explain that particular assertion more
22 A. You see, the logistical needs of an armed force is planned based
23 on its staffing and manning levels, based on the type of organisation,
24 and based on the tasks put before that armed force. In order to plan
25 properly for the needs of the army within a year, that is, a short-term
1 plan, and this is particularly important if you plan long-range, such as
2 four-year plans, you need to have all that data at your disposal. During
3 the break-up of Yugoslavia
4 had formed their armed forces yet. Their organisation was unknown, their
5 manning levels were unknown, nor were the primary tasks of such armies
7 Next, the newly formed ministries lacked information from the
8 previous period on how the reserves were distributed, where they were
9 stockpiled, and what their current status was. All of the initial
10 parameters needed for short- and long-term planning were not in the hands
11 of those ministries. That is why the ministries instead of using
12 specific data had to make assumptions on the size of the army and its
13 tasks. It is very difficult to plan in such situations and frequently
14 results in improvisation and of course mistakes being made.
15 Q. Thank you. With regard to paragraph C which is entitled
16 "dispersed military industry," you state:
17 "With the dissolution of Yugoslavia, a unified system of military
18 industry became dispersed, preventing the manufacture of more complex
19 weapons systems ..." and then you continue.
20 Could you tell the Chamber what was the dispersal, as you put it,
21 of the military industry upon the break-up. What was the situation prior
22 to the break-up and what was the situation after the break-up with regard
23 to the issue of the unified military industry or dispersed military
25 A. The military industry of the SFRY, that is to say, the Yugoslavia
1 before the break-up, for the country of that size was a successful one,
2 one could say. It met up to 80 per cent of the needs of the army in
3 terms of equipment and weapons systems. If one looks at the distribution
4 of locations of the military industry, we could see that it was largely
5 grouped towards the centre of the country in geographical terms. It was
6 ding dated by political agendas and decisions, and it was also -- having
7 in mind the fact that it was more easy, it was easier to defend the
8 country from the centre than it was to put up defence lines right at the
10 It was interlinked in a way that a factory produced, say, the
11 final product, whereas it did not produce all of the components. Those
12 components were produced in other military or civilian factories.
13 Perhaps I can illustrate this by way of an example.
14 The airplanes produced in the Sokol Mostar factory, which is in
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the hydraulic system and steerers were produced in a
16 factory in Trstenik, the engines were produced in a factory called
17 Oro [phoen], the weapons systems were produced in several different
18 locations; once Yugoslavia
19 co-operate. And never again did there come a time when an entire product
20 could be put together.
21 Even to date, the relations are not at such a level so as to
22 enable the production of such a successful product as an airplane or,
23 say, tank T-80 or M-84, which used to be produced in Croatia. We could
24 no longer secure the components for its production. And the same went
25 for most of such factories which produced weapons systems.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: I want to take a brief digression here. And if
2 we could have on the screen 65 ter 632D, which would be tab R, as in
3 "rolling," in your binder. It has not yet come up on the screen in
4 English. It has now.
5 Q. I'd like you to take a look at this document. You were
6 mentioning that there were different factories in different parts of the
7 former Yugoslavia
8 us whether or not you recognise what this list represents and also where
9 those -- let me just do that first. What this list represents.
10 A. This table represents part of the special-purposes factories or
11 parts of the factories which engaged in military production in the
12 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Here we have the name of such
13 factories, their locations, the type of product, the capacity of such
14 factories, and the degree of dependence on the factories located in other
16 Q. You mentioned earlier in your answer, in your previous answer,
17 with regard to where factories were, the centre of the country. Could
18 you kindly focus us here and tell us with regard to special-purpose
19 industrial capacities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, what part of the former
20 Republic of Yugoslavia
21 part, centre part?
22 A. Bosnia and Herzegovina is the central republic of the former
24 of overall production capacity was placed there in terms of military
1 Q. After the break-up of the former Yugoslavia with regard to the
2 facilities that are listed here, where or to what state or republic did
3 those facilities become a part of and under whose control were they, if
4 you know?
5 A. If we look at the list, Igman and Konjic are in what now is the
6 Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bratsvo and Novi Travnik is also in
7 Federation territory. Pretis and Vogosca is in the RS. Slavko Rodic
8 factory in Bugojno and the Popjeda [phoen] factory in Gorazde are in
9 Federation territory. Famos is in the RS. Soko Mostar is in the
10 Federation. Rudi Cajavec is in the RS. That would be it, in terms of
11 where those factories are now within the existing entities in
13 Q. I think we need to go to the --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think we need to go to the next page for one
16 remaining factory.
17 Q. Which is at the bottom of your page, that's the number 10, which
18 is the factory called Pretis Vogosca; where is that located?
19 A. Pretis is in the suburbs of Sarajevo. It is one of the larger
20 military factories. It is now in Republika Srpska.
21 Q. And during the conflict was it located in the Republika Srpska or
22 was it located in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
23 A. I think that throughout the war the Pretis factory in Vogosca was
24 under the control of Republika Srpska, although the separation line
25 between the sides was nearby and it shifted. In any case, to the best of
1 my recollection, I believe it was in Republika Srpska.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: I would seek the admission of this document.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do that, sir, can you tell me, sir, are
4 these all the factories that were in the former Yugoslavia, or were there
5 others in other republics?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is only a part of the total
7 number of military factories. As far as I recall, for a while some
8 80.000 people were employed in the military industry of the former SFRY.
9 The number of military factories is greater than you can see here. These
10 are only those located in Bosnia and Herzegovina. If there -- the
11 production capacity --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ... is there any -- may I
13 interrupt. May I interrupt you, sir, please. Is there any reason you
14 give us only those that are in Bosnia and Herzegovina and not those that
15 are in the rest of the country?
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: That would be my error and not his, Your Honour,
17 because in his report which --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon?
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: That would be my error, not his, Your Honour,
20 because in his report there is a section which is directly related to the
21 issue of distribution of military infrastructure.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let him answer me, then, anyways.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: I just don't want you to believe that the error
24 is his.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have pointed to no error whatsoever. I'm just
1 asking, do you have any explanation, sir? Is there any reason why we are
2 getting factories only in Bosnia and Herzegovina and not in the rest of
3 the other republics? Or are there -- is there other table that explains,
4 that gives us factories in the rest of the republics?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in this expert
6 report, I enumerated all factories involved in military production in the
7 former Yugoslavia
8 are, in which republics after the break-up of Yugoslavia. It is all in
9 the report. And if needed, we can go to those parts to explain.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
11 The document is admitted into evidence. May it please be given
12 an exhibit number.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document shall be assigned
14 Exhibit D506. Thank you.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: Moving but a bit ahead for a moment, if you could
16 go to paragraph 109 of the report, which should be, I believe it's B/C/S
17 page 35 and English page 36.
18 I'm sorry, it's going to be an earlier B/C/S page. It's going to
19 be B/C/S page 34 and English page 37. Getting closer. There we go.
20 Perfect. Okay.
21 Q. Starting on this particular page and then going for the
22 subsequent pages - and I just want to scroll through them so that
23 His Honour is aware of that aspect of your report with regard to the
24 question asked - could you tell us just in the broadest of senses what
25 this part of your report entails?
1 A. In the previous part, I described the distribution of military
2 industry and where those factories lay in terms of the newly created
3 republics of the former Yugoslavia
4 important was to indicate the distribution of the infrastructure used by
5 the military per the newly created states -- state. It is clearly shown
6 in chapter 3.2 under the title "Distribution of Military Infrastructure."
7 If we were to summarise the fate of military infrastructure, I
8 could say that it remained in the locations where it had been and became
9 part of the newly created republics. It wasn't done systematically by
10 the army. As it was withdrawing, it was leaving behind the existing
11 military infrastructure.
12 Q. And in 3.21 thereafter --
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could go to the next page. Thank you.
14 Q. -- you identify the school centres and training centres
15 throughout the region, subsequent to the dissolution; correct?
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: And if we could see the next page.
17 Q. You continue with that identification then you identify the
18 military research institutes throughout the region; correct?
19 A. These were all school centres of the JNA which were located in
20 these towns. I strove to show in which of the republics those school
21 centres remained.
22 Q. Well, you also identified in this chapter of your report the
23 military research institutes that existed in Slovenia, Croatia
24 Republic of Serbian
1 reflection of your report?
2 A. That is correct. Military research institutes are part and
3 parcel of the logistical infrastructure of each of these countries as a
4 matter of fact.
5 Q. You then identified throughout the area, in 3.23, the technical
6 testing centres; correct?
7 A. The technical testing centres within the system of logistics have
8 the role of developing and carrying out verification testing of military
9 equipment. This is their importance and it was for that reason that I
10 issued them in the report. We also have the locations per towns and
11 newly created states.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could move to the next section which is
14 Q. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that in this section of your
15 report you identify the repair and maintenance facilities throughout the
16 region. Is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. And in section 3.25 you identify the military industry throughout
19 the region; is that similarly correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Now, you commented on a couple of things -- or in your earlier
22 testimony you commented on the fact that production satisfied up to
23 80 per cent of the needs, if I understood your statement, with regard to
24 the needs of the SFRY?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. The 20 per cent that was remaining, how was that production or
2 those needs met?
3 A. The remaining 20 per cent needs that could not be met
4 domestically were met by purchasing on the world market. This pertains
5 to the sophisticated, complex systems which were not manufactured in
7 purchased in the USSR
9 blatant examples of what Yugoslavia
10 territory and what it had to purchase internationally.
11 Q. And when you use the term "production" for the 80 per cent, who
12 is engaged in that production? Is that the military -- what you've
13 identified as the military industry, or is that some other sector that
14 you are referring to in that regard?
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please switch off microphone when
16 not in use. Thank you.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The term "military industry
18 factories" means only those factories whose primary production was for
19 the military. However, one has to bear in mind that a large number of
20 factories also produce, as a secondary manufacturing line, certain items
21 for the military. For example, if you had a TV plant, TV and electronic
22 plant, which mostly manufactured televisions, that plant also produced
23 certain electronic plants for the needs of the military. So there
24 existed not only factories which produced primarily for the military,
25 there existed also civilian factories which had some additional
1 manufacturing lines for the military.
2 Q. With regard to the term "military industry" is another term that
3 is used to identify this particular group of production the
4 "special-purpose industry"?
5 A. In the military and in Yugoslavia
6 "special-purpose industry" because that applied to the factory which
7 primarily produced for the military. However, in my report I use the
8 term "military industry" because not everybody is familiar with the terms
9 that we used back then in the former Yugoslavia and in the JNA.
10 Q. Now I'm going to move to another subject which is: For purposes
11 of the report that you have produced, did you attempt to have an
12 understanding of the assets, and by that I mean the military assets, that
13 existed throughout the former Yugoslavia
14 A. My conceptual approach when it came to the distribution of assets
15 was first of all to establish the actual assets before the break --
16 before the break-up. I was unable to find any document which would
17 define precisely what assets existed in the country. This is why I used
18 a document which I believe to be a credible one, a document which was
19 produced for the needs of the international community. I think that OSCE
20 engaged or commissioned an economic institute from Paris to produce this
21 document, and all parties furnished their data to this institute, and all
22 the data was put in the document. I believed those data to be credible.
23 I naturally researched other documents as well, but I believed this
24 international document to be a credible basis for my work.
25 Q. In that regard, if we could take a look at, in your report it
1 would be paragraph 139, which -- and following.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: And I believe that my pagination is accurate for
3 purposes of e-court. I believe for e-court it would be page 47 in B/C/S
4 and page 49 in English. That's perfect. No, I was wrong; it's page 50
5 in English. And we need to move one page forward in B/C/S, if we could.
6 Yes, we need to move one page forward. One page forward in B/C/S.
7 Q. Now, here there is a chart, and if I'm not mistaken, the source
8 of the information on this chart comes from the -- from CREST, Centre de
9 Recherche en Economie et en Statistique - I hope I did that properly -
10 as well as JNA data. So looking at this particular chart, with regard to
11 the informations contained in this chart, is this the information that
12 you were just referring to with regard to the weapons that were left in
13 the former Yugoslavia
14 A. Yes, this is the data that I believed to be accurate and credible
15 about small arms, tanks, APCs, and artillery before the break-up of
17 Q. Now, apart from -- apart from this particular information, if I'm
18 understanding your report, this information is -- comes from the data
19 source of the army; is that accurate? And by that I mean the JNA/VJ data
20 source is one of them; right?
21 A. If you look at the table we are discussing right now, I listed
22 the data provided by the Paris
23 JNA, which the VJ provided officially for the needs of this case. The
24 difference between the first source and the second source of the data
25 went from minus 0.6 and 10 per cent. And then in the following table you
1 see -- or, rather, in the following row, you see my data, and the margin
2 of difference is not more than 10 per cent.
3 And after that I also listed the data by SIPRI Stockholm
4 institute. This is the the last row in the table. And you can see that
5 their data significantly differs from the data of the Paris institute. I
6 believe that they made an assessment; they did not have accurate data to
7 work with.
8 Q. Could you just identify for purposes of the record so we're
9 clear, what is SIPRI?
10 A. Let me find it. It is the Stockholm
11 in my reference materials, but I know that it is the Stockholm Peace
12 Research Institute.
13 Q. Is the information that is contained here inclusive, if you know,
14 of the assets that were maintained by, if they were maintained by, the
15 Territorial Defence locally in the region?
16 A. These are total resources of the SFRY before the outbreak of the
17 conflict. 1.621.000 pieces of small arms, 2.853 tanks, 1.775 APCs, and
18 6.090 pieces of artillery.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The question still stands; it has not been
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: [Overlapping speakers] ... I don't believe --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did this include those of the Territorial Defence?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, as I said, these were the
24 total resources of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, yes,
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you. And I note the time.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll take a break and come back at quarter to
3 11.00. Court adjourned.
4 --- Recess taken at 10.15 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 10.47 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. If you could go just very quickly to the very beginning of your
9 report again, sir, I'd just like to see whether or not we can perhaps
10 clarify aspects of your report and in the process speed up the
11 questioning process. And all I want to do at this point is just to
12 outline for the Chamber the areas and the chapters of your report that we
13 have heretofore not discussed in specific and then we'll return to
14 chapter 3.
15 Chapter 4 discusses the decisions of the Supreme Defence Council
16 relating to logistical support and the provision of logistical assistance
17 to the SVK and the VRS; is that fair?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Chapter 5 discusses issues concerning United Nations
20 Security Council resolutions and attendant embargo matters; is that
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Chapter 6 is an area where you engage in an analysis of the
24 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or FRY military assistance of the SVK and
25 VRS in the period 1992 through 1995; is that fair?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. And Chapter 7 are your final conclusions with regard to the issue
3 of the VJ's involvement in logistical support in the period 1992 through
4 1998; is that fair?
5 A. Correct.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: I've had a brief discussion with Mr. Thomas, and
7 based on that discussion as well as the previous position of the
8 Prosecution with regard to their response to the expert report, I would
9 at this time move the admission of the Djokic expert report.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document shall be assigned
13 Exhibit D507. Thank you.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH:
16 Q. Now, if we could very briefly return to a couple of areas. If we
17 could go back to your report, D507.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could go to page 83 in B/C/S and page 88 in
20 Q. Taking a look at the chart that is contained here, could you
21 please describe and explain to the Chamber what you are discussing with
22 regard to this particular chart?
23 A. This chart shows the overview of possible weapons delivery to all
24 warring parties in the former Yugoslavia
25 United Nations was introduced. In the first column you can see the
1 weapons user, and in the second column you see the weapons source, where
2 the weapons come from. The next column is the secondary assistance. And
3 then the last column represents non-governmental participants
4 participating in the delivery of these weapons.
5 This is a table that I did not produce myself, rather, I took it
6 over from a document which I considered to be credible.
7 Q. And with regard to the weapons source, focusing for the moment on
8 the weapons user of the Bosnian Serb forces, who were the weapon sources
9 that are identified?
10 A. Pursuant to this report, the forces of Bosnian Serbs received
11 their weapons from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Israel, Russia
12 and Ukraine
13 Q. With regard to the issue of non-government participants, who did
14 they receive weapons from?
15 A. The non-governmental participants include various brokers which
16 procured weapons on the legal [as interpreted] market for weapons and
17 military equipment, and they delivered this to the forces of
18 Bosnian Serbs.
19 Q. When you stated "various brokers procured weapons on the legal
20 market for weapons and military equipment," could you explain what you
21 mean by the "legal market"?
22 A. I said "illegal." Illegal market of weapons means that the
23 weapons are being procured from entities which are not authorised to
24 distribute or sell such equipment, just as the brokers are also
25 unauthorised to participate in this delivery of weaponry.
1 Q. Were you able to obtain information to determine the data to what
2 extent or to -- or in what amounts illegal brokers were supplying weapons
3 to the Bosnian Serb republic, and by that I mean the Republika Srpska, or
4 to the Army of Republika Srpska?
5 A. See, the issue of weapons delivery is so complex that anything I
6 can say as an individual would amount to speculation. Therefore, I
7 relied on reports of the United Nations pertaining to the embargo and the
8 influence of the embargo on the flow of weapons. Why? Because the UN
9 used entire teams in researching this issue. They had opportunity to
10 talk to various governments, police officials, authorities in power. So
11 this is why I believe their assessment to be credible.
12 If they say that those were the possible sources for weapons
13 delivery, then I as an individual could only speculate, and it would be
14 pointless for me to do that. This is why I relied on reports that I
15 believe to be credible and that I believe to be a product of a
16 significant effort with a lot of data behind it.
17 Q. Did you make a determination of the change in quantities of
18 weapons during the period of 1992 to 1995?
19 A. We first established the initial amount of weapons held by all
20 warring sides. There was also the UN embargo. And we also had the data
21 about the weapons held by parties after the conflict. So it was normal
22 to do an analysis as to the change from the beginning, how many weapons
23 were held by the warring sides at the beginning, until the end of
24 hostilities. And this is something that would tell us about the
25 logistical support and the delivery of weapons during the embargo period,
1 because we had the initial quantity of weapons and the final quantity of
3 The initial quantities of weapons were also established in a
4 relevant manner because all warring sides took it upon themselves in the
5 peace agreement that they would supply the data about the weapons held by
6 them and that they would allow for inspection of that to be carried out.
7 Based on these reports about the quantities initially and at the
8 end of the conflict, I made an analysis about what changes took place
9 during the period of the conflict.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Would the usher are be so kind as to the move to
11 the next page of Mr. Djokic's report.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Thomas.
13 MR. THOMAS: Sorry, Your Honours, I may have misinterpreted, but
14 I wonder if the word "initial" is correct at line 20 -- sorry, page 28,
15 line 23.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, okay, line 20. Okay.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'll ask the witness the question.
18 Q. At line 20, you say:
19 "The initial quantities of weapons were also established in a
20 relevant manner because all warring sides took it upon themselves in the
21 peace agreement that they would supply the data about the weapons held by
22 them and that they would allow for inspection of that to be carried out."
23 And there's a question about the word "initial." Is that the
24 word that you meant to use at that time?
25 A. No, what I meant was final quantities, because the warring sides
1 took it upon themselves at the end of hostilities to allow for a weapons
2 inspection to take place. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue or an
3 interpretation error.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you make any determination of the quantity --
6 the initial quantities?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ... how did you go about
9 making that determination?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The initial quantities were
11 ascertained based on the material provided by the Paris institute, as
12 well as by the VJ and SIPRI of Stockholm. It is based on that that the
13 initial quantities were ascertained as they existed in the former
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH:
17 Q. Looking at the next chart, is -- could you tell us what the
18 significance of this chart is with regard to the discussion we've just
19 had in terms of initial quantities of weapons that were obtained from
20 data from SIPRI, CREST, and the VJ, and the information that was obtained
21 in the last -- the information that was obtained subsequent to the war
22 from United Nations sources as you've identified them?
23 A. I suppose we are discussing table T4?
24 Q. We are.
25 A. Perhaps the best way would be to illustrate this table by way of
1 an example. In column 1 we have "type of weapon," and let's start with
2 tanks. In column 2, under the peace agreement, the Yugoslav number of
3 tanks was limited to 1.025. In column 3, we have the information
4 referred to in the international community report stating that there was
5 a surplus of tanks in excess of 1.025 which were destroyed by the FRY.
6 The amount is 440. That in turn means that at the end of the conflict
8 Let's go on with the "tanks" row. Croatia's number was limited
9 to 410 under the agreement. It destroyed 3 tanks as a surplus, meaning
10 that it had 413 tanks when the hostilities ceased.
11 The Federation of Bosnia
12 It destroyed 40, meaning that at the end of the conflict it had 313
14 And last we have Republika Srpska which, under the agreement, had
15 the limited number of tanks of 137. It destroyed 283, meaning that
16 Republika Srpska at the end of the conflict had 420 tanks.
17 The same principle applies to other weapons categories.
18 Q. Now, with regard to what you've just told us, I take it that if
19 we are to look at figure number 23, since we are discussing the issue of
20 tanks - actually it would be figures number 22 and 23 which would be on
21 the next page for both English and B/C/S - that you have reflected in a
22 graphic fashion, that information which we were just discussing?
23 A. That is correct. If I may, I'd like to use a couple of sentences
24 to explain figure 22.
25 Q. If you would be so kind.
1 A. In figure 22 we can see that the FRY at the beginning of the
2 conflict had 1.530 tanks. When the conflict ceased, it had 1.465 tanks.
3 The Republic of Croatia
4 at the end, 413. The Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina at the beginning
5 of the conflict had 85 tanks; at the end, 313. And lastly,
6 Republika Srpska at the beginning of the conflict had 390 tanks; and at
7 the end, 420.
8 Figure 23 is based on the information contained in figure 22. It
9 states that at the time of the embargo the number of tanks in the FRY was
10 reduced by 65. In the Republic of Croatia
11 Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, it increased by 228. And in
12 Republika Srpska, it increased by 30 tanks.
13 Q. Understood. Now, if we were to take a look at the next page, I
14 take it that you've engaged in the same exercise in giving a graphic
15 description, for armoured personnel carriers in figures 24 and 25,
16 artillery weapons in figures 26 and 27, as specific line items in your
17 analysis; and then ultimately you have graphically produced all of the
18 changes in figure number 28, which would be, I believe, on the next page
19 where it says, "Change in Quantity of Weapons 1992 through 1996."
20 Is that an accurate statement?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 Q. Now, with regard to the issue of the change in weapons, were you
23 able to determine the actual sources of those specific weapons that you
24 have identified in these particular charts? And by specific sources, we
25 understand that you have mentioned both brokers as well as a number of
1 nation states in previous charts. But were you able to obtain
2 information that specifically identified the delivery of any particular
3 weapon by any particular broker or nation state during the conflict
5 A. I did not want to speculate on the sources of weapons, that is
6 why I merely stated that in the media and in serious analyses as well as
7 in the documents of certain governments there is indicia as to the way
8 how the weapons quantities increased with the respective warring parties.
9 An individual alone, I believe, cannot offer a credible analysis of
10 everything that is contained in that information.
11 Q. I want to move on to another issue that exists, I take it, within
12 not only the logistics, but also within your report, and that is the
13 issue of fuel. And were you able to determine where in your report the
14 various parties to the conflict were obtained their fuel?
15 A. The supply of oil was a critical logistical element. Not only
16 was it critical for the warring parties, but it was also a key or a
17 critical issue in Yugoslavia
18 embargo that was imposed prohibited the delivery of crude oil or oil
19 derivatives to Yugoslavia
20 What I was able to ascertain is the following: In the Army of
22 40 per cent of planned reserves, it went down to below 20 per cent of
23 such reserves. I know from the experience of the air force that because
24 of the lack of fuel, the training of pilots was reduced. Out of the
25 usual 100 flying hours a day [as interpreted], they each flew perhaps up
1 to 10 hours every year. It all indicates the very serious issue of fuel
3 I believe the same problem existed with the other warring
4 parties. And they simply found ways around that problem.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it correct that you said "... out of the usual
6 100 flying hours a day"?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Annually. Pilots are trained to
8 fly about 100 hours per year.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. Thank you so much. But the
10 thing is you were interpreted as saying "a day," and I was beginning to
11 wonder how many hours there are in a day. Thank you so much.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Were you able to determine where the Republika Srpska was
14 obtaining its oil supplies and its oil derivative supplies during the
16 A. In the report I referred to a source specifying the smuggling
17 channels of oil into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Perhaps that
18 could be of assistance to answer your question.
19 Q. Okay.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could then go to paragraph 2 --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is figure 31.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Which is right above paragraph 251, which I
23 believe will be on page 95 in the B/C/S and 101 in the English. Yes, if
24 we could go down to figure 30.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we look at figure 31, we can see
1 that from the west the fuel found its way to the FRY from Croatia through
2 the territory of Republika Srpska Krajina, which is marked as 1, as well
3 as from Croatia
4 Banja Luka, and then on to Belgrade. We can hence draw a conclusion that
5 parts of -- certain quantities of that fuel that was supposed to go to
7 I believe I came across a document when compiling this report
8 which stated that the warring sides in Bosnia-Herzegovina mutually
9 exchanged logistical aid. For example, the Army of Republika Srpska
10 provided artillery support and artillery ammunition to the
11 Croatian Defence Council, and the Croatian Defence Council in turn
12 provide the the VRS with fuel.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could have 65 ter 7002D on the screen,
15 Q. First of all, could you tell us what the date of this document
17 A. The 23rd of August, 1994.
18 Q. And with regard to the subject matter that's being discussed,
19 could you tell us what is being discussed in this document?
20 A. As far as I can see from the document, it was pursuant to the
21 request of the General Staff of the Serbian Army of Republika Srpska. By
22 virtue of this order, an approval was given to provide 25.000 litres of
23 D2 fuel and 15.000 litres of petrol to the Military Post 7088 Novi Grad
24 from the reserves of NIK-Dvor na Uni. I believe the order is to the
25 effect that some fuel reserves be provided from the company mentioned for
1 the needs of the VRS.
2 Q. Now, you indicated "the company mentioned," and what company
3 would that be? Is that the company NIK-Dvor na Uni?
4 A. I presume that NIK-Dvor na Uni, although I'm not familiar with
5 that company, was located there. I see that they had their commercial
6 service, and I see that it was not related to the army.
7 Q. When you say that you "see that they had their commercial
8 service," are you able to discern whether or not, from an examination of
9 this document, this was a private contract between a private company in
10 the VRS or the Republika Srpska, or is this some other form of
12 A. Perusing a number of document, I specified in the expert analysis
13 that the logistical support of the VRS as well as of the other armies was
14 not centralised and properly organised. Most of it did not go through
15 the Main Staff, instead a lot of it was done at the local level. Here we
16 see a request which specifies that some fuel needs to be the provided for
17 the needs of the army at a local level. It would logically follow that
18 there is a contract in existence, or at least there should be, specifying
19 that this company was to sell the requested amounts of fuel to the state
20 which would be paid for by the Ministry of Defence. That would have been
21 the normal way to go about it. Whereas this indicates that they simply
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: I would seek its admission.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Its admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document shall be assigned
2 Exhibit D508. Thank you.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH:
4 Q. Going back to the last chart that we were looking at which
5 identified the routes of delivery of fuel, I note that the term on that
6 chart was "oil smuggling routes." And that's -- once again, it's on
7 page 101 of the English and on 99 of the B/C/S.
8 With regard to this particular chart, were you able to determine
9 the universe of parties that were smuggling fuel inter-region, and
10 specifically, apart from what you've mentioned here, in terms of the
11 relationship between Croatians and the Republika Srpska, any other
12 parties that were smuggling fuel to the Republika Srpska or to the VRS?
13 A. I'd rather not go into individual assessments of who was
14 involved, but it is clear that private individuals were involved,
15 companies, as well as states. The smuggling of oil in large quantities
16 is impossible without the participation of different levels, starting
17 with private entrepreneurs, to companies, to governmental bodies.
18 Q. I'd now like to go to Chapter 6 --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you are going to chapter something, can I just
20 ask a question here, please.
21 Sir, I see from this figure 31 that it looks like this oil that's
22 being smuggled seems to be all destined for what is today called Serbia
23 am I right, looking at those arrows?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are correct, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Was there no oil that was going to other areas?
1 Or were you not aware of if?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that the embargo was imposed
3 on all sides, and I know that all sides had oil during the war, which
4 means that, certainly, oil found its way into the other areas that we are
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. But from your research to
7 the -- inasmuch as you've researched that the oil as shown on figure 31
8 was going to Serbia
9 got to other areas and where it came from? Or is there -- is there -- I
10 don't remember seeing it when I read your report, but -- or is there
11 another figure that shows the distribution of oil to other parts of
12 former Yugoslavia
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could not produce a relevant
14 document for that purpose, and I didn't want to present my assumptions.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand. I'm not asking for your
16 assumptions; I'm asking for the results of your research. Inasmuch as
17 figure 31, I suppose, is the result of your research, I'm asking: Don't
18 you have a similar result of your research with respect to other areas?
19 You can say, Yes, I have it, No, I don't have it. I just want to know if
20 you have that information.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't come across documents
22 similar to the one I have discussed.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
24 Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith, you may proceed.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: Moving on to chapter 6 of your report which
1 discusses the issue of FRY military assistance to the RSK and RS, 1992 to
2 1995, I would first of all like to take a look at the chart that exists.
3 It's figure number 32, which would be -- I believe it's page 106 in the
4 English and 106 B/C/S.
5 Q. And with regard to this particular chart, could you explain to
6 us, as a result of the research and analysis you did, what this chart
7 graphically shows?
8 A. This chart shows that the units of the Army of Republika Srpska
9 received their supplies in three different ways: The first way was when
10 the government of the Army of Republika Srpska procured materiel for the
11 needs of the army. The materiel was supplied to the Main Staff of the
12 VRS, and then Main Staff distributed this materiel to local units.
13 The second way was for the Main Staff of the VRS to use the funds
14 from the budget, or other funds, to procure materiel and to distribute it
15 to its subordinate units.
16 And the third way, which was the predominant one throughout the
17 period of the conflict in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, was for
18 the units to receive their supplies locally. Which means that materiel
19 was supplied to them by municipalities, local companies, institutions,
20 and so on. They would procure the materiel and directly distribute it to
21 the units locally.
22 Q. With regard to this issue of the municipalities, local companies,
23 and institutions procuring the materiel and distributing it, were you
24 able to determine any percentage amount which the local municipalities
25 and companies were responsible for in giving logistical aid and
1 assistance to the VRS?
2 A. The Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska which was tasked by
3 the government to provide supplies for the logistical needs of the army
4 did an analysis about local supplies coming in from municipalities.
5 Based on that research that they conducted, 55 per cent of municipalities
6 which had sent in their data to the ministry provided about 70 per cent
7 of the supplies needed by the army. Which says that the predominant way
8 of supplying the army was done at the local level, not in a centralised
9 way, which is contrary to the rules of logistical supplies.
10 If we were to take into account all municipality with a margin of
11 error of about 2 per cent, we could say that 80 per cent of the needs of
12 the army were met at the local level, whereas the ministry and the
13 Main Staff provided the remaining 20 per cent of the supplies needed by
14 the military.
15 Q. I'd like to discuss with you, if we could, the issue of
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: And if we could take a look at figure, I believe
18 it's 37 in report, which is on -- I believe it's on page 111 in English
19 and 110 in B/C/S.
20 Q. Could you explain to us what you are discussing here with regard
21 to the issue of ammunition supplies in figure 37?
22 A. This is the data from the VRS. They provide this data in their
23 report on combat readiness. And we can consider their reports on combat
24 readiness to be reliable, credible documents. It says here that the
25 Army of Republika Srpska, in 1992, received 72 per cent of ammunition
1 from materiel reserves. They received from the war booty 4 per cent,
2 1 per cent from the repair sources, 2 per cent from production sources,
3 and 21 per cent from assistance.
4 Q. With regard to the percentages that you've just described to us,
5 could you tell us - and I think you discuss this in your report in
6 paragraph 281 which would be on the preceding page in both languages -
7 the sources of these percentages?
8 A. The reports on combat readiness of the Army of Republika Srpska.
9 Q. I understand that, but I'm asking a little bit more textured a
10 question here for the moment which is, you said 72 per cent was received
11 from reserves; where did those reserves come from?
12 A. The Yugoslav People's Army had been stationed in Bosnia
14 were also transferred to the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. These
15 units which were in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina
16 reserves in warehouses. The Territorial Defence, which also existed
17 there, had its own ammunition warehouses. The Yugoslav People's Army,
18 upon its withdrawal, left part of its reserves in the territory of Bosnia
19 and Herzegovina
20 also in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Therefore, the Army of
21 Republika Srpska took over everything that was in the territory under its
22 control and thus created its own materiel reserves.
23 Therefore, when we say materiel reserves, this is -- these are
24 the reserves that come partially from the Territorial Defence and
25 partially from the Yugoslav People's Army's reserves and partially from
1 the reserves held by the state at that point in time.
2 Q. With regard to the figure of 21 per cent, could you kindly give
3 us an explanation with regard to what does that 21 per cent -- what is
4 that 21 per cent comprised of in terms of sources?
5 A. This assistance was not accurately defined in the report, but I
6 suppose that this implies local sources.
7 Q. And I think you also indicate that it implies military assistance
8 from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as well?
9 A. As for the reserves remaining after the withdrawal of the JNA and
10 could be identified as assistance coming from the Federal Republic
12 which represents 21 per cent.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just get clarification here. Reading
14 paragraph 281 of your report, you make a clear distinction between
15 assistance and reserves. Now -- you are now saying the reserves are part
16 of the 21 per cent. From your paragraph you said the reserves formed
17 part of the 72 per cent, and the 21 per cent is made up of purchases by
18 local authorities, individuals, as well as military assistance from the
20 Am I -- am I interpreting your paragraph correctly?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps I wasn't
22 clear enough. I will try to clarify.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ... please do.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Yugoslav People's Army withdrew
25 in May. It withdrew from the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The
1 materiel belonging to the JNA that remained at that point in time went
2 into the reserves. However, from May until the end of that year, there
3 also came in assistance from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, that is
4 to say, this happened after the withdrawal of the JNA, and this is part
5 of the assistance of 21 per cent.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: And do you say that assistance came from after May
7 to the end of that year?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, correct.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. That clarifies.
10 Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith, you may proceed.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could now turn to -- if we could now turn
12 to table T6, which would be -- it's over -- it's going to be over one
13 page in both languages. Page 112 in the English and 106 in the B/C/S.
14 Q. In this chart here, the chart here, T6 is the chart that
15 explains, as I believe you were referring to earlier, the estimated
16 quantities of weapons, ammunition, and fuel that remained in the
17 Republika Srpska and the Republika Srpska Krajina after the withdrawal of
18 the JNA; is that correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Okay. Now I'd like to go to the next page, page 28 -- which is
21 paragraph 289 in which you make some conclusions with regard to the issue
22 of ammunition.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: And I think what's going to happen, Your Honours,
24 is you'll see there's a graph on the bottom of his page, which we don't
25 have yet, but that will be on our next page in English. But we'll be
1 dealing with that momentarily.
2 Q. Could you please explain to us the figures that are represented
3 in 289(a), (b), and (c).
4 A. In order to make an assessment of the amount of assistance in
5 ammunition, I used the following approach: First of all, to establish
6 what was the usage of ammunition by the Army of Republika Srpska, and
7 also to use all the available documents to establish the delivery of
8 ammunition by the Army of Yugoslavia. Based on the documents from the
9 analysis of combat readiness of the Army of Republika Srpska, in 1994,
10 they used 2 --
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the number.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- of small arms ammunition. We
13 don't have data from 1993 and 1995, and I assume that the usage then was
14 the same in 1994 because there wasn't a significant change in the
15 strength of the army.
16 And I also used the data on what was the usage in
17 Republika Srpska.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH:
19 Q. Let me interrupt you. Apparently the interpreters did not hear
20 the number that you had indicated. You said:
21 "Based on the documents from the analysis of combat readiness of
22 the Army of Republika Srpska, in 1994, they used ..." what amount?
23 A. 2.864 tons.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay. If we could go to the next page in English
25 and remain on the same page in B/C/S.
1 Q. Looking at figure 39, could you please explain to the Chamber
2 what that chart represents?
3 A. On this figure we see the usage of ammunition, which is defined
4 here as the needs, 2.864 tons. And then at the bottom we see the
5 assistance that came in from the VJ. How did I receive the data on the
6 VJ assistance? I added up the quantities of ammunition that was
7 mentioned in the order to provide assistance, also materiel lists on
8 issuing assistance, materiel lists on receipt of ammunitions, as well as
9 materiel lists on the transport of ammunition. So anything that
10 indicated that some ammunition was given to the VRS was added up. And
11 this is how we arrived at the quantities mentioned here.
12 Therefore, in 1993, based on that data, they provided 232.4
13 tonnes. In 1994 they provided 193.8 tonnes. And in 1995 the Army of
15 Q. Just to make sure in terms of what you just said because of the
16 kinds of data that you relied upon, were you over-inclusive or
17 under-inclusive with regard to the information that you relied upon? Did
18 you reject any information that showed in any sense whatsoever any form
19 of delivery to the VRS by the VJ because it may have suffered from some
20 other impediment or concern that you have, or did you include all
21 documents that you saw in this regard?
22 A. In order to avoid any contention when it comes to quantities, I
23 used all of the documents that indicated that something was provided by
24 the VJ to the VRS. I even used the documents that had not been signed
25 and that had not been stamped but did have some information about
1 supplies. So I used them as well and added up all figures. So this is
2 the worst-case scenario, that namely everything mentioned in the
3 documents was indeed implemented.
4 Q. And with regard to figure number 40, what does figure number 40
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: And that's going to have to be the next page
7 in -- thank you so much.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Doesn't figure number 40 reflect the same thing as
9 figure 39 but this time with respect to artillery, as against small arms?
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. With regard to -- that it does,
11 Your Honour.
12 Q. And with regard to His Honour's helpful suggestion which was
13 contained in the question that he asked, did you come to a conclusion
14 with regard to the scope of assistance in regards to small arms
15 ammunition and artillery ammunition? And I'm referring you specifically
16 to paragraph 290(a) and (b).
17 A. If we look at the usage of ammunition in the VRS and what the
18 Army of Yugoslavia
19 small arms weapons, the maximum of assistance was 8.11 per cent of the
20 ammunition used for 1993, whereas for artillery ammunition, the maximum
21 assistance amounted to 12 per cent of the ammunition used.
22 Q. And finally in paragraph -- I'm sorry, chapter number 7, you draw
23 a series of conclusions, from paragraphs 333 through and including 344,
24 with regard to the information that's contained in your report.
25 Do you stand by those conclusions?
1 A. I do.
2 Q. Thank you very much, General Djokic.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Mr. Thomas.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Thomas.
5 MR. THOMAS: Your Honours, I note the hour. Do you wish me to
6 start for five minutes, or shall we break and I can recommence?
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you going to finish today?
8 MR. THOMAS: No. I will go into tomorrow I think, sir.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. We'll take a break and come back at half
10 past 12.00. Court adjourned.
11 --- Recess taken at 11.51 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Thomas.
14 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours. One procedural matter,
15 Your Honours. Exhibit P1214 has what can be described as currently an
16 incomplete English translation. I've discussed the matter with my
17 learned friends of the Defence who agree that this is -- this can be
18 replaced with a complete English translation which is available. I've
19 discussed that with the senior Legal Officer, Mr. Registrar, my learned
20 friends don't object, and I'm seeking an order, Your Honours, to make
21 that -- make that replace.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: That is correct, and we join in Mr. Thomas's
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is P1214?
25 MR. THOMAS: P1214, Your Honours. It's a VRS document annexing a
1 number of tables and accounts. And what's happened is that the title to
2 some of the tables has been translated without the table itself being
3 reproduced, so the new version of the English simply has the table
4 included as well as the title. At the moment, all we have on some pages
5 is a title of the table without the table itself on the page.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: What are you you asking for? What is your request
8 MR. THOMAS: A replacement of the existing English translation
9 with the one that includes the numbers.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Everything. Okay. Fine. It's so granted. May
11 it please be replaced.
12 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honours. It has been replaced.
15 Thank you.
16 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours. Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Thomas:
18 Q. General Djokic, good afternoon. My name is Barney Thomas. I am
19 a lawyer for the Prosecution. I have the opportunity at this stage in
20 the proceedings of asking you questions about your testimony and about
21 your report. I will endeavour to ask questions that are easily
22 understandable, but please let me know if there's anything that you don't
23 understand or anything that you are not sure about and I will rephrase my
24 questions to you. Please, sir, listen carefully to my question and only
25 answer the question that I'm asking and we will be able to conclude this
1 much faster than otherwise. Is that all clear, sir?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. All right. Thank you.
4 General, I'd like to begin, please, with a document which you
5 have already referred to; it is D506.
6 MR. THOMAS: And I wonder if we could have that on the screen,
8 Q. You will recognise this, sir, as your table of -- I'm sorry, a
9 table of FRY special-purpose industry facilities -- I'm sorry, SFRY
10 special-purpose industry facilities which were located on the territory
11 of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
12 the dissolution of the SFRY.
13 Do I understand this table correctly?
14 A. You do.
15 Q. In the table, you have identified those republics upon which
16 certain facilities were dependent. For example, if you look at the first
17 entry, the Igman facility, we have a recognition there that it was
18 dependent upon Serbia
19 What's -- what is antimony, sir?
20 A. The factory called Igman is in Konjic in the territory of the
21 Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Its production programme
22 encompasses --
23 Q. Sir, just pause. Please just listen. I apologise, it was a long
24 question and it may have been my fault. Please listen carefully to my
1 Sir, what is antimony, first of all?
2 A. Antimony is a material used in the production of ammunition.
3 Q. All right. Prior to the break-up, the Igman facility was
4 dependent upon Serbia
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. After the break-up, the Igman facility found itself on territory
8 occupied by the forces of the ABiH; is that right?
9 A. Yes, it is.
10 Q. I take it, sir, that from that point on, it was no longer
11 supplied by Serbia
12 A. I suppose so.
13 Q. All right. So -- and that would apply, sir, would it not, to
14 each of these facilities which found themselves outside of territory
15 control by the VRS?
16 A. I suppose it is so, unless they managed to procure materiel
17 through brokers. For example, a broker could go to Serbia and purchase
18 such materiel destined --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Buy such materiel
20 and then sell it to a factory, say, in Konjic.
21 MR. THOMAS:
22 Q. All right. Sir, I'd like to --
23 MR. THOMAS: That deals with that document; it can be taken off
24 the screen. I'm sorry, just before it disappears ...
25 Q. You mentioned that --
1 MR. THOMAS: Now, it can be removed from the screen,
2 Your Honours. Thank you.
3 Q. General, I'd like to move now to your report. And I will spend
4 most of this afternoon and maybe some of tomorrow dealing with various
5 matters that you have raised in your report, so keep a copy of it handy;
6 we will be referring to it a lot this morning.
7 The first paragraph I'd like to look at is paragraph 4, please,
8 where you set out the methodology that you have adopted in compiling this
10 MR. THOMAS: That is found, Your Honours, on page 4 of the
11 English and also page 4 of the B/C/S.
12 Q. Now, I'm interested, sir, with the very first thing that you
13 mentioned in support of your methodology which you applied, which is that
14 you had had conversations with participants of events. There's no
15 further reference to those conversations in that paragraph. Can you tell
16 us, please, who you had these conversations with?
17 A. A number of officers of the former JNA worked in the VRS at the
18 time of the conflict. They now reside in Serbia and are familiar with
19 the events which took place at the time. Some of them participated in
20 logistics, and I believed it wise to make use of those people who were
21 within the logistical system of the VRS in order to consult with them
22 about what perspired [as interpreted].
23 Q. Well the difficulty, you see, general, is that when you do that
24 you have to identify the sources of your information and identify in your
25 report when you have relied on any information that they may have
1 supplied you. And there are no references such as those anywhere in your
2 report, are there?
3 A. There are no such references for the simple reason that I decided
4 to use only credible documents as sources of information rather than
5 making use of any information gained through conversations. I did not
6 use a single piece of information for such conversations because I
7 believe in such delicate matters we should base our research only on
8 documents that are credible and available to all.
9 Q. Did conversations with -- or did these conversations result in
10 notes being taken by you, sir?
11 A. I gathered information from those conversations that I was
12 interested in with a view to carrying out this analysis in order to
13 compare them with the other information I had. I used that for my
14 internal work as a control parameter to make sure that I have not made a
15 mistake or omitted something in the course of drafting of the report.
16 Q. Just pause, sir, and listen to my questions carefully. Did you
17 keep notes of these conversations?
18 A. I have no official notes.
19 Q. Did you record any of these conversations?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did you list anywhere the individuals that you have spoken to?
22 A. No.
23 Q. What did you do in situations where the information they provided
24 to you conflicted with other information?
25 A. I then double-checked everything, which means that I had to
1 locate at least two published documents which would confirm the same
2 figures. I never relied on a single oral piece of information to leave
3 it as such and include it in the report. If there was a doubt anywhere,
4 I went back and located a double source to confirm what I entered into
5 the report.
6 Q. Again, sir, the difficulty is we don't know when in your report
7 you're required to do that. We can't tell from your report when you have
8 discovered something that conflicts with other information you have been
9 provided. How is a reader supposed to make that assessment, sir?
10 A. Conflicting information that we seem to be discussing now did
11 exist at the time of the drafting of the document. Once such information
12 found its way into the report, they were no longer conflicting because
13 further corroboration was sought.
14 Q. Again, sir, I repeat my question. Listen to my question. It is
15 not clear from your report when that happened. It is not clear from your
16 report when you were required to conduct further investigation because
17 you had conflicting evidence. It is not clear from your report how you
18 resolved that conflict. How is a reader supposed to make that
20 A. I will cite an example which may clarify this.
21 Q. No, pause. I'm not asking for examples, sir.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, excuse me, with regard to the question that
23 you've posed, you've indicated that there's a failure of clarity in the
24 report when that happened. His example may or may not be specific with
25 regard to the assertion that has been made. And since the assertion that
1 has been made contains multiple conclusions, the specific example the
2 gentleman may be able to give may clarify your concern -- may clarify
3 Mr. Thomas's concern. Because I don't want to get involved in a
4 discussion that goes back and forth.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The witness can answer the question as put. And
6 then if he wants to elaborate, he can also do so.
7 MR. THOMAS:
8 Q. So, General, how is a reader supposed to draw their own
9 conclusions as to whether how you resolved the conflict in evidence was
10 the correct way to resolve it?
11 A. [No verbal response]
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, that -- that's a -- first of all, it's a
13 different question.
14 MR. THOMAS: It is. I can phrase the question in exact terms
15 again, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you would try to ask one question at a time, it
17 would be very helpful.
18 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.
19 Q. My question, General, was this: It is not clear from your report
20 when that happened. It is not clear from your report when you were
21 required to conduct further investigation because you had conflicting
22 evidence. It's not clear from your report how you resolved that
23 conflict. How is a reader supposed to make that assessment?
24 A. Dear sir, item 4 is the answer to that question. And I'm trying
25 to answer it orally again. Any potential conflicting information could
1 only have existed at the stage of gathering available information which
2 would be 4(a). As of the point in time when I carried out the selection
3 of data with the highest degree of credibility, there was no conflict.
4 The data contained in the report presented to the reader present no
5 dilemma or no conflict.
6 Q. Well, General, that's because, with all due respect, you present
7 it in such a way as to make it seem that there is no conflict. So do I
8 understand that effectively you're asking us to take --
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Your Honours.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
11 MR. THOMAS: Oh, I'm sorry.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, I certainly don't object to a vigorous
13 cross-examination but I do object to an argumentative one. And there is
14 an argument contained in Mr. Thomas's last question, which is with regard
15 to "as to make it seem there is no conflict." Now, that particular
16 language assumes that there is a conflict.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Thomas.
18 MR. THOMAS: I can ask the question a different way, sir.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a question which I need to ask in order to
20 follow what you two are talking about.
21 General, item (a) of paragraph 4, you tell us that the data you
22 collected included conversations with participants and events. At
23 page 51 starting from line 1 of today's transcript, you are recorded as
24 saying the following:
25 "There are no such references for the simple reason that I
1 decided to use only credible documents as sources of information rather
2 than making use of any information gained through conversations. I did
3 not use a single piece of information for such conversations because I
4 believe in such delicate matters we should base our research only on
5 documents that are credible and available to all."
6 Was that your answer?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, if that is your answer, then it conflicts
9 with item (a) of paragraph 4. In other words, you are saying now, today,
10 that you didn't rely on conversations with participants, you relied only
11 on documents that are credible and available to all. Now, therefore,
12 conversations with participants -- now I'm putting it to you and I want
13 you to say I'm wrong if you say so: Conversations with participants
14 could not have been part of your methodology if we follow what you are
15 saying today; am I right?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the document before
17 you, there isn't a single piece of information that comes from any
18 conversation with the participants of those events. They were eliminated
19 in the preliminary phase.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ... therefore, am I
21 therefore right to say that conversations with participants never formed
22 part of your methodology? Because, in fact, you are telling me now that
23 in this document there isn't a single conversation with any participant.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I, may I clarify my answer?
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, I -- I just want you to confirm that I'm
1 asking you: Am I correct in my interpretation? And if I'm not, just
2 tell me, No, you are wrong. Then you can -- I'll ask you how, Am I
3 wrong? Then you'll explain.
4 Am I wrong to say conversations with participants did not form
5 part of your methodology; yes or no?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are partially wrong.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, explain to me how wrong am I.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Such conversations were part of the
9 methodology, but not a single piece of information obtained in such
10 conversations was used in the course of the analysis. That is why there
11 isn't a single reference to any of those conversations.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do I understand you to say that having had those
13 conversations when you final drafted your report, you discarded all the
14 information that you got from conversations?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which means then that this report, it does not
17 comprise any conversations, even though you may have used conversations
18 when you collected your data; the data from conversations does not form
19 part of this report. So the methodology for drafting this report
20 excludes conversations?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Completely correct.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then paragraph (a) of 4 is not absolutely correct.
23 JUDGE DAVID: Mr. Thomas, I --
24 MR. THOMAS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I'm sorry.
25 JUDGE DAVID: Following the questions of Judge Moloto, I have
1 another question. During the course of your research, did you rely only
2 on public documents or, as you said here, military and state
3 documentations, report by international institution, books, newspaper
4 articles, and special reports, legal regulation, et cetera. Then you
5 mention (b), selection of data, expert evaluations, verification of
6 expert assessments, and conclusions.
7 My question is: Have you ever come during your research into
8 secret type of documents? Were you privy to those secrets during your
9 functions of the General Staff? First, did you come during the course of
10 your research into secret documents, documents of secret nature? Yes or
11 no, or I don't know; these are the three options.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly I came across such
13 secret documents, but those documents were officially forwarded to the
14 Defence team by the army, i.e., its office for the co-operation with the
15 Defence team. There isn't a single document that I used that had not
16 been obtained by the Defence through legal channels.
17 JUDGE DAVID: If I understand well your answer, you had not been
18 privy to any document because of your functions, documents of secret
19 nature, in your experience?
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, Your Honour, perhaps -- I'm confused,
21 and I think that's because you're asking questions on two equally
22 interesting lines of inquiry, and I'm not sure which line of inquiry
23 we're on.
24 JUDGE DAVID: The witness has replied that all of the documents
25 of secret nature were obtained by the Defence, you know, have been sent
1 to you. Out of that answer comes another question: In the nature of
2 your functions during the time you had in your curriculum said you were
3 from 2000 to 2004 director one technical officer, did you come ever in
4 your functions through state secret documents related specifically to the
5 help given by the Army of Yugoslavia either to Republika Srpska or to the
6 Republic of Serbian
7 I don't know.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in the course of my career I
9 did come across such documents. But at the moment when I retired, I was
10 duty-bound to return to the military all such documents that were put on
11 the list. I was not allowed to keep a single such document in my
12 possession after retirement.
13 JUDGE DAVID: These documents were used in your report, those
14 documents that you had been aware of even though you had returned later
15 on to -- when you retired?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They are documents that I obtained
17 from the archives of the Army of Yugoslavia by way of regular channels,
18 by asking the Defence team to request such documents from the archive of
19 the Army of Yugoslavia
20 to be provided to me in this manner.
21 JUDGE DAVID: An additional question: When you report on the
22 sessions of the Supreme Defence Council - and I'll give you an example:
23 Session number 21st of the Supreme Defence Council, at page -- decision
24 of 7 June 1994
25 21st Session, 7 June 1994
1 "An explanation of the report on current problems in relations
2 between the Yugoslav Army, the Army of Republika Srpska, and the Army of
3 the Serbian Krajina was given by Colonel-General Momcilo Perisic."
4 You said that?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
6 JUDGE DAVID: This conclusions or this summary represent exactly
7 what has been said by Colonel-General Momcilo Perisic at that time in
8 that session according to your knowledge?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I copied this from the transcript
10 from the minutes of that session.
11 JUDGE DAVID: Do you exclude the possibility that there were
12 other transcripts of that session that were of secret nature and that you
13 had not access to it?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know anything
15 about it. All I know is that I received the first transcripts with some
16 pages darkened, so I couldn't see what was written on them. This is why
17 I asked the Defence team to provide me the transcripts without any parts
18 of them being redacted. I don't know who and why darkened certain pages
19 of the transcript initially.
20 JUDGE DAVID: [Overlapping speakers] ... are you aware that the
21 help given to the Republika Srpska and to the Republic of Serbian Krajina
22 in words of former President Milosevic were a state secret and as such
23 were not disclosed? Were you aware of that or not? Or you don't know?
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, Your Honour, your -- the beginning of
25 your question was missed apparently, and just so we have it.
1 JUDGE DAVID: Yes. I am saying that are you aware, are you
2 cognizant, were you cognizant that in your experience, or as an expert,
3 the state secrets cover all help given by the Yugoslav Army to the
4 Republika Srpska and to the Republic of Serbian
5 of that or not? Or you don't know?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I know about that being a
7 state secret comes from the transcripts that I saw, because at one of the
8 sessions, when discussing these issues, they said this has to remain a
9 state secret. I'm not sure exactly at which session it was said, but it
10 was during one of those sessions.
11 JUDGE DAVID: Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. I'm sorry we interrupted.
13 MR. THOMAS: Not at all, Your Honours. Thank you.
14 Q. General, just going back to paragraph 4 again - we needn't have
15 it on the screen - His Honour Judge Moloto had listed the various items;
16 included amongst the collection of data was, for example, newspaper
17 articles. Are you suggesting now, sir, that you did or did not use
18 newspaper articles as a basis for your report?
19 A. In my report I refer to several newspaper articles from the
20 US press. There is not a single article used from the press from the
21 territory of the former Yugoslavia
22 Q. And can you assist us in how you determined that US press
23 articles were reliable enough to support your investigations or
25 A. In the reports of the international community, they frequently
1 make reference to the New York Times articles. And I used the articles
2 referred to by the international community reports, SIPRI institute and
3 so on. I only used the articles referred to in their reports and work.
4 I would go back to check those articles. Also, in a book I saw that they
5 said that the CIA had warned early on about the possible outcomes of the
6 crises in Yugoslavia
7 CIA information initially looked like.
8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... just pause. All right. I'm
9 sorry. I interrupted you prematurely.
10 Sir, that is an example of telling us, the reader, how it was
11 that you came to place certain reliance upon certain sources above
12 others. My question to you, sir, is why the answer you have just given
13 doesn't appear in your report? Why have you not shown us in your report
14 why you accept some articles and not others, why you accept some hearsay
15 information and not others?
16 A. Paragraph (b) of item 4 answers your question, Mr. Thomas. It
18 "Selection of data with the highest degree of credibility."
19 Whatever I considered to be of low level of credibility was not taken
20 into account in my report.
21 Q. Well, I can see that, General. My point is this: We don't know
22 how you assessed that. We don't know you, sir. You are asking us to
23 accept your triage and evaluation of the documents as being reliable
24 based on credibility, but you have given us no means to assess how you
25 have done that.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Once again, I find that Mr. Thomas's question is
3 perhaps more suitable for a closing argument than it is for a factual
4 examination of a witness. He has a matter of fact told us that he --
5 this witness has told us repeatedly that he has used objective data.
6 If Mr. Thomas is suggesting that the testimony this witness has
7 give within regard to such data as the data from CREST, the data from
8 SIPRI, the data from other international organisations which is contained
9 in his report is not credible, then he can ask him those kinds of
10 questions; but that doesn't affect whether or not he himself is credible,
11 it affects the issue of whether or not the data upon which he relied was
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Thomas.
14 MR. THOMAS: Sir, that is exactly my point. Is how do we know
15 how he assessed the credibility of the data. And what I'm asking him to
16 provide is an explanation as to why the methodology for that assessment
17 of credibility does not appear in his report.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Objection overruled.
19 MR. THOMAS:
20 Q. So, General, my question is, as I've just said to His Honour
21 Judge Moloto: Can you give us an explanation as to why the methodology
22 for your assessment of credibility of individual sources does not appear
23 in your report?
24 A. There are several aspects explaining why is that so. The first
25 aspects is that what was published in the media of the warring sides --
1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... just pause, sir --
2 A. -- is something that I considered.
3 Q. Just pause, sir. I'm not asking you to give us your methodology
4 now. I'm asking you to explain why your methodology does not appear in
5 your report.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Once again, we're shifting -- we're shifting the
7 question and, I understand, in an attempt to cast doubt upon the
8 credibility of the report itself. However, the question now asked, which
9 is why your methodology does not appear in your report, is not accurate.
10 That is a misstatement of the facts. Whether or not it is to his liking
11 or to anyone else's liking, there is a very clear indication of the
12 methodology which is used by this particular gentleman in the
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Thomas.
15 MR. THOMAS: Sir, the question I was permitted to put to
16 General Djokic following Your Honours' ruling on the last objection was
17 to ask him for an explanation as to why the methodology -- not for his
18 report, but why the methodology for his assessment of credibility of
19 individual sources doesn't appear in his report. And that's -- that's
20 what I'm asking him. Why does that methodology not appear in his report.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I thought that was the question you asked. You
22 may put the question, sir.
23 MR. THOMAS:
24 Q. Now, General, do you understand the question? Can you give us an
25 answer. Why does your methodology as to your assessment of credibility
1 of individual sources not appear in your report?
2 A. See, this methodology of assessing the reliability of data used
3 in this report has a theoretical aspect and a practical aspect.
4 Q. Pause, sir. Sir, I'm not asking you to give us now your
5 methodology. I'm asking you to explain why you haven't put it in the
7 A. Because it is too broad of an issue to be explained here, and it
8 is well known how such things are done. For example, you can reject the
9 highest and the lowest data and only use the data from the middle
10 section. This is one methodology of ensuring that you're using reliable
11 data. There are other methodologies too that I can explain. But for the
12 this particular expert report, and we wanted it to be of reasonable
13 volume, I didn't think it necessary to include that piece of information
14 into my report.
15 Q. Sir, so we have a report that runs, at least in the English
16 version, to 130 pages, and your methodology is contained in paragraph 4.
17 And perhaps, by specific extension, to paragraph 5 as well. Is that a
18 fair comment?
19 A. In paragraph 4 I explain the methodology used, but I do not
20 describe it in detail because I believed that not to be necessary. It is
21 a theoretical issue.
22 Q. Well, sir, let's look, for example, at paragraph 142.
23 MR. THOMAS: Which is at page 50 in the English and 48, I think,
24 Your Honours, in the B/C/S. I'm sorry, I'm a long way from the
25 microphone. Page 50 in the English and page 48 in the B/C/S.
1 Q. Now, in paragraph 142, sir, you are discussing the expert
2 estimate, which is the bold entry we see in the chart above. We see that
3 in the English version on the screen. I see you have it above -- in
4 front of you in hard copy. And in paragraph 142 you are explaining how
5 you've reached this expert's estimate. And beginning at line 4, you say:
6 "To obtain this data, the author of this report made use of
7 dozens of sources, estimates by other experts, estimates by international
8 institutions which were present in Yugoslavia, newspaper articles, books,
9 and his own data recorded at the time of the conflict."
10 Now, sir, you use that expert estimate as a basis for a number of
11 graphs and conclusions that you then present throughout your report. And
12 my question, sir, is how can we evaluate those sources? You haven't
13 referred to them except in the very limited sense by referring to the
14 CREST report, the information provided to you specifically for this
15 purpose by the VJ, and SIPRI, whom you discounted effectively. How do we
16 evaluate your assessment of these dozens of sources?
17 A. In table T1 that we are discussing now, we have source -- we have
18 data from two sources which are credible and which do not have a
19 difference greater than 10 per cent.
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... just pause, sir.
21 A. The data that I obtained as an expert --
22 Q. Just pause, sir. We know about the two sources that you spoke of
23 this morning. You don't in paragraph 142 or anywhere else in your report
24 assist us to determine for ourselves whether the two sources you chose
25 out of the dozens of sources you reviewed are actually the two most
1 reliable. There's no explanation of how you reached that conclusion in
2 your report, is there?
3 A. That is not true because when explaining how the CREST data was
4 used, I say, I give reasons why I believe that data to be credible and
5 why it was used. And since you asked me how are you supposed to verify
6 whether the expert data is accurate, let me put a question back to you.
7 Let me give you an explanation, please.
8 Q. I think we can agree on this, sir: Is it fair to say that you
9 conducted your own assessment, you reached your conclusion as to what
10 information you thought was the most reliable, and that is the
11 information that you have presented in your report; is that right?
12 A. Yes, however, the data I presented are in accordance with the
13 data that have the highest level of credibility.
14 Your Honour, may I answer the previous question of the Prosecutor
15 concerning the reliability of the data in table T1?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may do so, sir.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We have two sources here, and I
18 explained why these sources are credible. My data is somewhere in
19 between these two credible sources which do not differ more than
20 10 per cent. Even if I had made a mistake, that mistake is not greater
21 than 10 per cent. Every assessment necessarily involves a possibility of
22 an error. Here we explain that that error cannot be greater than
23 10 per cent because the data from these two sources are significantly
24 less than 10 per cent. The difference is 0.6 per cent, 2.2 per cent,
25 et cetera.
1 So, yes, there is a possibility that there's a mistake here, but
2 not a large one.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me see if I can try and help you. I think
4 that there is a miscommunication between you and the Prosecutor, sir.
5 What the Prosecutor is trying to find out from you is that on table T1
6 you use those two estimates of CREST and SIPRI, or CREST and somebody;
7 however, in paragraph 142 you mention a whole lot of other sources which
8 are not tabulated in T1. You, in writing the report, looked at all those
9 sources and you decided you are discarding those sources, the dozens of
10 sources that you are talking about, estimates by other experts, estimates
11 by other international institutions which were present in Yugoslavia
12 newspaper articles, books, okay. You've discarded all those. And he
13 says you are not explaining in your report on what basis you discarded
14 those except for -- you say -- you're not explaining how you determined
15 that they should be discarded. That's his problem.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have
17 understood it. I can explain that detail and then that will hopefully
18 correct the misunderstanding. May I?
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, you may, sir.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the methodology of looking for
21 relevant values which was used here, one always discards the highest and
22 the lowest values. And then for the remaining ones, one looks for middle
23 values. And then you compare that to other data. This is the most
24 acceptable methodology used when one is trying to make assessments.
25 I, here, discarded all of the data that was outside of the limits
1 defined by CREST and the JNA, the divergent data which was normal to
2 discard, because nobody using the data in their literature could verify
3 that. This is why I discarded the divergent data, and I only used the
4 middle-level values in order to reach my assessment.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'll leave it at that. You may continue,
6 Mr. Thomas.
7 MR. THOMAS:
8 Q. Sir, in answering a question a moment ago --
9 MR. THOMAS: And this, Your Honours, is at page 66, line 10.
10 Q. -- you said: "Every assessment necessarily involves a
11 possibility of an error. Here we explain that that error cannot be
12 greater than 10 per cent ..." and so on.
13 My question, sir, is: Who is "we"? You say "here we explain,"
14 in the context of talking about your report. Who is "we," sir?
15 A. I don't remember using that term we. Maybe that's how it was
16 interpreted. But if you want to repeat the entire sentence to me so that
17 it is within the context, then I could perhaps answer your question. If
18 I can have the exact interpretation of what you are referring to now.
19 Q. That's a perfectly fair request, sir. What you said was:
20 "Here we explain that that error cannot be greater than
21 10 per cent because the data from these two sources are significantly
22 less than 10 per cent."
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me. Mr. Thomas and I both know that in
24 common English usage plurals and singulars are often times interchanged.
25 I don't know if the same is the case in the Serbian language, and I don't
1 know whether -- and I don't want to go further with regard to --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, indeed don't go further. Let the witness
3 answer for himself. Thank you so much, Mr. Guy-Smith.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: But my question was going to be whether we
5 perhaps should get some assistance from the interpreters.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, the witness will tell us if that assistance
7 is necessary, Mr. Guy-Smith. Let the witness answer.
8 Have you finished your question, Mr. Thomas?
9 MR. THOMAS: I have, sir, yes.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you remember the question, Mr. Djokic?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Your Honours, in the context
12 we are discussing now, if I said "we are explaining," then the following
13 persons are participating in this discussion: Myself, the Prosecutor
14 putting the question, and you, yourself, as the mediator; these are the
15 three parties participating in the discussion about the methodology. If
16 I said "we," then I meant us involved in giving this explanation.
17 If I have to narrow it down, then I will tell you that I'm the
18 one giving an explanation about the work that I have done.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, General.
20 MR. THOMAS:
21 Q. General, did anyone assist you in the analysis for and
22 preparation of your written report?
23 A. I did everything absolutely alone.
24 Q. Now, did you provide your report for anyone to review or to
25 anyone to review before it was filed?
1 A. Only the Defence team.
2 Q. All right. General, if we go to paragraph 154 --
3 MR. THOMAS: Which I think is on page 54 of the B/C/S,
4 Your Honours, and 56 of the English.
5 Q. -- you reach a conclusion as to sources, or how weapons were
6 redistributed following the JNA withdrawal. And if you look under (e),
7 sir, we have "traded among the warring parties (to a lesser extent)."
8 Now, during your testimony, sir, you referred to one occasion where the
9 VRS provided artillery pieces and artillery ammunition to the Army of
11 conflict or post-JNA withdrawal; is that right?
12 A. From the document of the VRS which I saw and as far as I recall,
13 that trade between the warring parties took place after the withdrawal --
14 Q. Just pause. I'm sorry. Are you talking about the trade for oil?
15 A. Trade of oil and artillery ammunition.
16 Q. I'm sorry, General. I owe you an apology. I interrupted you
17 prematurely. So, do you confirm --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: But your question required a yes or a no answer.
19 MR. THOMAS: It could have been a yes or a no answer. Exactly,
21 Q. Do I understand, General, that the answer is yes, that happened
22 after the JNA withdrawal?
23 Sir, I'm sorry, did the trade of artillery for fuel occur after
24 the JNA withdrawal?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. If you look at paragraph 154(e), you have no citation to any
2 authority supporting your conclusion in subparagraph (e). Now, my
3 question, sir, is do you have a citation anywhere in your report as
4 support for that proposition?
5 A. I didn't specify that in the report, but there is such -- there
6 are such documents in existence and they could be presented.
7 Q. Just pause, sir. You need to listen to my question and answer
8 only my questions. That was another yes/no question. Is it cited in the
9 report; no. Okay.
10 MR. THOMAS: Can we go to paragraph 162, please, which is at
11 page 61 of the English and expertly found in the B/C/S. I'm looking,
12 Mr. Registrar, for subparagraph (e).
13 Q. Paragraph (e), sir, you state -- you draw a conclusion as to how
14 the the VRS was able to equip forces numbering about 200.000 soldiers.
15 And, again, the starting point that you took as to manpower and how it
16 was equipped forms a key element in your analysis as to the overall
17 assistance that was provided subsequently. You'll see, sir, that you
18 say: "According to the estimates of the majority of military
19 analysts ..." Now, I think you can see the difficulty with that comment,
20 sir. Do you list anywhere those analysts?
21 A. I do but not in here.
22 Q. Do you provide anywhere in your report variations on their
23 assessment of the initial asymmetry that you discuss?
24 A. I directly conveyed the positions of the analysts which took
25 participation in the discussion at the American Institute for Peace
1 whereby they proposed measures on how to deal with that.
2 Q. Just pause, sir, and listen to my question. Is that articulated
3 in your report?
4 A. Absolutely.
5 Q. With their differences?
6 A. The differences in what?
7 Q. Well, you refer, sir, to estimates, first of all. You refer to a
8 findings of a majority of the military analysts. There exists in that
9 one sentence a large margin of error on its face. So where do you
10 provide any reference that assists us in evaluating your conclusion based
11 on that sentence with a large margin of error?
12 A. Dear sir, in this report of mine, there is a chapter entitled
13 "The Balance of Forces." In that chapter, it is specifically stated that
14 all analysts claimed that there was an imbalance of forces. They agreed
15 on that, but they did not take the same approach to how that imbalance
16 should be addressed. I'm merely conveying what they said.
17 Q. All right. General, you can accept, I think, that those military
18 analysts aren't named nor their estimates given?
19 A. If you will bear with me, I will locate that for you.
20 All right. I've found it. It is Article 217. Paragraph 217.
21 Q. All right. Sir, that is one source; I agree. Where are the
22 estimates of the rest of the military analysts?
23 A. If one looks at that paragraph in detail, one realises that the
24 discussion was organised by the United States Institute of Peace in which
25 several people participated, different positions were presented, and for
1 that purpose one would need to read the whole report of that event.
2 Q. All right. So the reference that you have in subparagraph (e) is
3 a reference to this one report that is footnote 72; is that right?
4 A. The footnote 72 is related to paragraph 217 so as to avoid any
5 confusion about what is included. Paragraph 217 confirms what I stated
6 in -- under (f).
7 Q. Sir, I'm just trying to be clear. You refer in subparagraph (e)
8 to the estimates of the majority of military analysts. When you say
9 that, are you referring to this one report that is footnoted as
10 footnote 72? Are these the majority of military analysts that you are
11 referring to?
12 A. At the meeting mentioned in footnote 72, it wasn't only the
13 author who participated. There was a great number of military
14 analysts --
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... just pause, sir.
16 A. -- present there who put forth their positions.
17 Q. Sir, just pause. Listen to my question. The majority of
18 military analysts, that term that you use, are you referring to those
19 associated with this one report that is in footnote 72?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would that be a convenient time?
23 MR. THOMAS: It would, sir, thank you.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: We are not done with you, Mr. Djokic;
25 unfortunately you'll have to come back tomorrow. I must just warn you
1 that now that you have taken the witness-stand, you may not discuss the
2 case with anybody, least of all the Defence, until you are excused from
3 further testimony.
4 Can somebody tell me, are we sitting in the morning tomorrow or
5 in the afternoon? In the morning I'm told. So we'll come back at 9.00
6 tomorrow morning in the same court. Okay. Court adjourned.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.
8 to be reconvened on Friday, the 5th day of
9 November, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.