1 Monday, 18 June 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Madam Registrar. Good morning,
7 Could you kindly call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, ma'am.
11 For the record, all the accused are present today. From the
12 Defence teams, I notice the absence of Mr. Ostojic and Ms. Condon.
13 Mr. Zivanovic, she was supposed to be here today or --
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Ms. Condon is coming today.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
16 And Mr. Ostojic?
17 MR. MEEK: Yes, Mr. Ostojic should be here today, or he'll be
18 working in the office and be here tomorrow for sure.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
20 And for the Prosecution, I just notice Mr. Vanderpuye. So good
22 I understand, Mr. Bourgon, you'd like to address the Chamber on
23 some preliminary issue.
24 MR. BOURGON: Indeed, Mr. President. Good morning.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you.
1 MR. BOURGON: Before I do so, Mr. President, I'd just like to
2 introduce a newcomer on our team. Mr. Anthony Battah will be doing his
3 articling with our team starting as of 15 June until 15 September.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Welcome.
5 MR. BOURGON: Good morning, Judges. Good morning, colleagues.
6 At this point in time, Mr. President, I would like to make an oral
7 motion regarding Witness 128 which is due to testify in the coming days.
8 Witness 128, Mr. President -- I don't think there is a need to go into
9 private session. I will simply use the number 128 and nothing else.
10 This witness, Mr. President, was met by the Prosecution on three
11 different occasions for interviews. On the first two occasions, while the
12 witness was not a suspect, the interviews were recorded and we have been
13 provided with transcripts of the interviews. The third time he was met,
14 and that was in October of 2002 - I'm into the sure about the date; I do
15 not have the papers with me this morning --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: We can check that.
17 MR. BOURGON: But this -- on the third time he was, that was in
18 Banja Luka, and he was interviewed for a period of four hours by the
19 Office of the Prosecution in the presence of Mr. McCloskey, my colleague
20 from the Prosecution. The exact date, Mr. President, is 29 October 2002.
21 The result of that interview, the Defence has been provided only
22 with an info report which contains three pages, basically a summary of the
23 four hours during which the witness was interviewed. From the info
24 report, we learn that the witness was a suspect from 15.27, or 3 hours 27,
25 until 18.03, three minutes after 6.00. Basically, for a period of some
1 two and a half hours, he was made a suspect, and then the suspect status
2 was then withdrawn. So from witness he became suspect and back to a
3 witness once the Prosecution was satisfied with his answers.
4 Pursuant to Rule 43, of course, whenever a witness becomes a
5 suspect, there is an obligation that the interview be recorded, and in
6 this case, we have asked the Prosecution to provide us with the
7 interview. We have been in contact over the weekend with the
8 Prosecution. We do not have a final answer yet, so it may be that this
9 oral motion is not really necessary. If there was, indeed, an interview
10 and they can give it to us, then it's foreclosed.
11 However, should the interview not be -- should the interview not
12 have been recorded, we believe, Mr. President, that this is a clear
13 violation of Rule 43, and the remedy that we ask for in these
14 circumstances, in order to allow us to do our work properly and to prepare
15 for this witness, is to obtain all the notes that were taken during this
16 interview, at least during the period when the witness was a suspect.
17 Thank you very much, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
19 Yes, Mr. Meek.
20 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honours, thank you very much. The
21 Beara Defence team joins in on that motion wholeheartedly, and even if the
22 notes are available, we still believe that we would like to have the
23 tape-recording or transcript of it. Thank you.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Meek.
25 Mr. Zivanovic.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I'd like also to join this motion. I asked for
2 this transcript from the Prosecution already but I haven't got it.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.
4 Madam Fauveau.
5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is a matter of
6 principle and we also join in the submission of Mr. Bourgon. But the
7 Defence team of Mr. Miletic has already asked for clarification and a
8 transcript from the OTP in case this recording is not available.
9 MR. LAZAREVIC: On principle, we would also like to join
10 Mr. Bourgon's motion.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam Fauveau, and thank you,
12 Mr. Lazarevic.
13 Madam Fauveau, you said have asked already, put in a request to
14 the Prosecution. When was that, and did you have a reply?
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, it was only last
16 Saturday morning.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: And you haven't had a reply, I suppose. Thank you.
18 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
19 MR. BOURGON: If I may add, our request also dates this weekend.
20 That's why I'm not surprised of not having received an answer at this time
21 yet, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Perfectly understandable, Mr. Bourgon.
23 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. And good morning to
25 you and Your Honours.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good morning to my colleagues as well.
3 Mr. President, I don't know that much about this situation. I did
4 have an opportunity to speak to Mr. Nicholls yesterday and my
5 understanding is that he's still looking into the question of whether or
6 not a tape-recording exists of this interview. So it may very well be
7 that the issue would be mooted out to the extent that one might exist.
8 But I would prefer, with your indulgence, to allow Mr. Nicholls the
9 opportunity to address this matter. I think he's in a far better position
10 than I am to address this.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course. I called on you to respond because you
12 happen to be the only one present this morning. So perhaps you could
13 communicate to Mr. Nicholls, actually, the need for his presence at some
14 point in time during today's sitting so that we can clear this up.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: I will do that, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And in case the tape-recording does not
17 exist, then what's your response to the request that has been made by the
18 various Defence teams?
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Well, as I indicated, I'd prefer Mr. Nicholls to
20 address it, but --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: You want Mr. Nicholls to address that, not you.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I'll let him know that as well.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: So I think we can bring the witness -- yes,
24 Mr. Bourgon.
25 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 There is a second issue concerning Witness 128 which I'd like to
2 raise. I will not raise it at this time but it regards the Rule 65 ter
3 summary which was produced for this witness. And I need to speak to my
4 colleague before I do, but it is important for me to put this on the
5 record, that there is something I will be talking to the Prosecution about
6 concerning the information which was used in order to produce the Rule 65
7 ter summary.
8 Thank you, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
10 So let's bring the witness in, please.
11 Yes, Madam Fauveau.
12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I didn't want to
13 interrupt my colleague, but I really have no access to the LiveNote. It's
14 not working on my screen.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll deal with that straight away.
16 Is there anyone else who has got problems with LiveNote?
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Apparently it's okay now.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. Thanks, Madam Fauveau.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I have a problem with LiveNote, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: You've been infected by Madam Fauveau.
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: That's correct.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll deal with it, Mr. Zivanovic. In the meantime,
24 can I swear in the -- can I proceed with the swearing in of the witness?
25 Good morning to you, Mr. Dragutinovic.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I hope you had a restful weekend and that you are
3 fresh, to the extent that you can face another barrage of questions
4 today. Hopefully we'll finish today, but I'm not that sure.
5 So may I remind you that you're still testifying under oath,
6 pursuant to your solemn declaration. They will continue with other
8 I don't know what's the arrangement amongst the Defence teams, who
9 is going next. Have you talked amongst yourselves? Madam Fauveau, please
10 introduce yourself to the witness.
11 WITNESS: MIODRAG DRAGUTINOVIC [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:
14 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, my name is Natacha Fauveau Ivanovic and I
15 appear for General Miletic here.
16 Is it correct that in 1995, you were in charge of security organs
17 of the brigade when --
18 A. No.
19 Q. And General Miletic did not call you at the Zvornik Brigade?
20 A. No, he did not call me.
21 Q. And when in July 1995 you were in the field with your commander,
22 you did not communicate with General Miletic?
23 A. No, I did not.
24 Q. Last Thursday, you spoke of humanitarian convoys, and you
25 mentioned a liaison officer with the UNPROFOR. Is it correct that this
1 liaison officer in fact transmitted information to the duty officer who
2 later put it in his logbook?
3 A. In our command we had an officer for liaising with the UNPROFOR,
4 and his task was to, following orders from the superior command, meet
5 UNPROFOR forces at Karakaj pass and to follow instructions of the superior
6 command, again, in inspecting and checking the convoys in keeping with the
7 inventory announced previously by the convoy as being brought into the
8 territory that we controlled.
9 After that, he would incorporate it into his daily combat report -
10 I think it was item 4 or 5 - saying that the convoy passed at such and
11 such a time and returned at such and such a time. And of course, he would
12 report any problems and sometimes asked for instructions on how to deal
13 with them.
14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to correct
15 the transcript. It's page 6, line 19. I was talking -- I said that the
16 witness was in charge of operations and it's recorded as security.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And the answer now, I think it's the
18 case of putting your question again and the witness answering again,
19 because as it is on the record, he has answered no to a question whether
20 he was in charge of security at the time. So I suggest that -- I don't
21 know, I'm not in a position to know how it was translated, so perhaps you
22 can put the question again, please. Sorry for this, Madam Fauveau.
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Sorry, I have to ask you one question again because there is an
25 error in the transcript. Is it correct that you were in charge of
1 operations in 1995 and, as such, you had no contact with General Miletic?
2 A. I, as an operations officer at the command of the Zvornik Brigade,
3 had no contact with General Miletic.
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Now I would like to go back to the
5 humanitarian convoys and show you 3D -- that is, 5D355. Thank you.
6 Q. Could you please confirm that this is in fact a report from the
7 Zvornik Brigade dated 28 June 1995? It is a daily combat report.
8 A. Yes. It is a daily combat report addressed to the command of the
9 Drina Corps.
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can we show the bottom of the page
11 with paragraph 10.
12 Q. Is it correct that in paragraph 10 we find information concerning
13 the convoys?
14 A. Yes. Precisely in this paragraph we see that. Sometimes, as I
15 said, it could be included in prior paragraphs, but since here we have a
16 lot of such information, paragraph 10 contains data on the convoy that
17 returned from Srebrenica.
18 Q. And, in fact, this convoy returning from Srebrenica had departed
19 for Srebrenica the previous day and now it was returning to Yugoslavia.
20 A. Yes. Every convoy was recorded when it passed on the way to
21 Srebrenica, and the time of its passage on the way to Srebrenica and on
22 the way out of Srebrenica were both recorded.
23 Q. The last paragraph of this item 10 speaks of a convoy that passed
24 on the way to Zepa at 1100 hours.
25 A. Yes. And it includes also the composition of the convoy. It
1 confirms what I just said.
2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can we now show the Witness 5D354.
3 Can we first show the top.
4 Q. Is it correct that this is a regular combat report dated 27 June
5 1995, emanating from the Zvornik Brigade command?
6 A. Yes. It's a regular daily report from that day.
7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can we now show paragraph 10, lower
8 down the page.
9 Q. And, in fact, in paragraph 10 we see the same convoy that was
10 mentioned as leaving the territory of Republika Srpska. In this report,
11 it is recorded as an entering convoy passing on the way to Srebrenica at
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. Is it true that you also indicated in the report when a convoy
15 appeared at a check-point without being announced first?
16 A. All incoming convoys that appeared at the check-point were
17 notified to the superior command, that is, the command of the Drina Corps.
18 Q. Similarly, if some goods were removed from the convoy, that would
19 also be noted in the report.
20 A. Yes, it would be noted. But before the goods were removed,
21 approval was sought and a confirmation from the superior command that the
22 goods may be removed because they were not on the list that they had to
23 submit in advance.
24 Q. So if a report says that a convoy passed on the way to Srebrenica,
25 that means that the convoy, as it presented itself with all its goods, was
1 released towards Srebrenica.
2 A. Yes, unless there were some other problems.
3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I need your advice. I
4 have 48 reports of the Zvornik Brigade from 8th March to 28th June
5 concerning convoys. I consulted the OTP and I informed my colleagues from
6 the Defence. In order to save time, I wanted not to show these reports
7 one by one to the witness; I wanted to tender them in a batch after this
8 testimony. I don't know how the Chamber wants me to proceed. Should I
9 present them one by one?
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: What's your position on that, Mr. Vanderpuye?
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Really, there are two things.
13 First, I'm not sure if my colleague is -- I think she sought a
14 translation of all these documents, but they are not translated as yet, as
15 I understand it. The issue with respect to the tendering of all these
16 documents as a batch I had spoken to Mr. McCloskey about previously and I
17 don't think we have a problem with, in principle. The question, though,
18 relates to how the witness's testimony bears upon them and to -- I don't
19 know whether or not my colleague is going to attempt to have the witness
20 verify certain information with regard to the documents as a whole, such
21 as the nature of the reports, I don't think is a problem, but with respect
22 to specific contents of the reports, then it could be. And if she has a
23 specific issue, I think she should address that with the witness.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: That, of course, we will have to wait and see. But
25 on principle, I suppose there is no objection to have them tendered as a
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Later on, if as we go on, as we proceed, there are
4 problems, then of course we will discuss and, if necessary, reverse our
5 decision, if that's the case.
6 So that's the position and you're free to go ahead on that
7 understanding, Madam Fauveau.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Of course, I will ask for these documents to be marked for
10 identification pending these translations and admission.
11 Q. Sir, you spoke last Thursday about how you proceeded in the
12 brigade when you received from the superior command an order to attack or
13 any other order on which you worked. Could you please explain what was
14 your role and the role of your organ, the organ of operations, when the
15 Zvornik Brigade was preparing a military operation.
16 A. The organ called operations that I headed, as an Assistant Chief
17 of Staff, together with the Chief of Staff and my subordinates and with
18 the assistance of other staff organs, prepared all combat documents
19 related to the concept and idea of the commander related to a specific
20 combat mission. Later on, during combat activities, I monitored them, and
21 before that I monitored the degree of preparation of units in relation to
22 that combat mission, before following the combat activities themselves as
23 an operations officer.
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can I now ask for 5D400. This is a
25 document that emanates from the brigade command -- actually, it is
1 relative to the brigade command. Can we please move to page 4 of this
2 document and the same page in the English version, please. Can we move on
3 a bit lower down the page. Actually, the part that I'm interested in is
4 the passage that is now on the screen. Can we actually show the entire
6 Q. Sir, could you please read, on this page, what the role and duties
7 of the operations officer were.
8 A. Do you want me to read the whole of it?
9 Q. Yes. But please read it for yourself. You don't have to read it
10 aloud, actually.
11 A. Well, this is actually what I've just talked about.
12 Q. Can you please explain for the Trial Chamber one very specific
13 sentence, a sentence which reads: "[In English] It is present that the
14 commander takes decision and it shapes them."
15 [Interpretation] Could you please tell us what is the meaning of
16 "shaping decisions"? What does that imply?
17 A. For every activity, the commander has an idea what to do and
18 passes a decision as to what will be done, and the operations officer,
19 together with the Chief of Staff and the assistants of the Chief of Staff,
20 transform into a document that later on will serve to provide for an
21 efficient command and conduct of a certain operation.
22 Q. You personally and the body that you were in charge of, did you
23 play a role in the decision-making process?
24 A. The commander was the one who made all the decisions, as a matter
25 of principle. The assistants and the Chief of Staff could only assist the
1 commander in shaping of the final decision.
2 Q. And when it comes to you and the body that you were in charge of,
3 you came in later, when the decision had to be shaped and elaborated.
4 A. Yes. The decision had to be elaborated, and when this was done,
5 it was forwarded to those units that were referred to in the decision.
6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would like to show the witness
7 5D399, please.
8 Q. Sir, here we have an order for defence and active combat
9 activities, number 7/1, dated 8 April 1994.
10 A. I suppose so.
11 Q. At the beginning of the document it says that this order was sent
12 to the Zvornik Brigade and the Bratunac Brigade.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did you have an occasion to see this order?
15 A. If I could read all of it, then I would be able to tell you.
16 Since I'm not in that position, I can't answer the question.
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, can I please give the
18 witness a hard copy for him to peruse. I believe this would be faster
19 than providing a copy in the e-court. After having done that, maybe the
20 witness will be able to tell us whether he remembers this document or not.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: No problem with that. The only thing that comes to
22 my mind is whether everybody else will be able to follow. If it's put on
23 the ELMO, yes.
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I don't have a problem with the
25 document being shown in e-court, page after page, but I believe the
1 document will be able -- the witness will be able to recognise the
2 document at first glance when he was all of it in his hands.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
4 JUDGE KWON: In the meantime, Madam Fauveau, as for the previous
5 documents, the brigade command and duties of its organs, do you have any
6 idea what the document was? Was it a rule, an order, or anything else?
7 And when was the document dated?
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this document was
9 used in the Blagojevic case, and I found that this document emanated from
10 the Zvornik Brigade, and that it was used at the time. But this is the
11 information that I have based on the Blagojevic case. Actually, it is a
12 book of rules.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've read it, if you will allow me
15 to proceed.
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
17 Q. And did you ever see this document before? Especially, did you
18 see it in 1995 or, to be more precise, in April 1995?
19 A. Since I see here that tasks were issued to the units of the
20 Zvornik Brigade, and I really don't remember that we ever received an
21 order in this form, where the Zvornik Brigade would be tasked with
22 advancing along these axes to reach certain lines which are rather far
23 from the area of defence of the Zvornik Brigade, I really don't know
24 whether the Zvornik Brigade would be capable to move its forces to these
25 lines, along these particular axes. In other words, I'm not familiar with
1 this document at all.
2 Q. Is it true that, as the operations officer, you played no role
3 with regard to prisoners of war?
4 A. No, I didn't play any role.
5 Q. And you didn't have any responsibility with regard to the civilian
6 population in the area where the combat had just ended?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Last Thursday, you told us that the brigade was responsible for
9 the area of defence and the buildings that were mobilised for the
10 brigade. If a building was mobilised, were you consulted as an operations
12 A. As required by the brigade command, certain facilities in the area
13 of defence of the brigade were mobilised through the Assistant Chief of
14 Staff organisation and mobilisation. This was done through a request sent
15 to the Ministry of Defence, and pursuant to these requests, we would
16 either get a building or not, which rather depended on the approval of the
17 Ministry of Defence.
18 Q. But as an operations officer, you did not play any role in the
19 mobilisation of such buildings?
20 A. No. As an operations officer, I did not have a say in that, nor
21 could I request mobilisation of a facility for the brigade.
22 Q. You were responsible to the Chief of Staff of the Zvornik Brigade,
23 Dragan Obrenovic. You reported directly to him.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And when Dragan Obrenovic was not in the area of responsibility of
1 the Zvornik Brigade, you stood in for him.
2 A. No. I never played the role of the Deputy Chief of Staff.
3 Q. Did you exercise these activities when he was not in the area of
4 responsibility of the brigade?
5 A. In case the commander was not in the area of responsibility of the
6 brigade, or the Chief of Staff, in certain cases I would assume the
7 command of the brigade units, but only in those cases when both of them
8 were absent from the area of responsibility.
9 Q. Is it true that actually these were exceptional cases because,
10 according to the rule, it was customary for the most senior officer to
11 assume such responsibilities?
12 A. Yes, that was the rule. However, in our brigade, we somehow
13 changed that rule and I would be the one to assume those responsibilities.
14 Q. And since Dragan Obrenovic was not in the area of
15 responsibility -- when he was in the area of responsibility but not in the
16 headquarters, you did not have to stand in for him; is that correct?
17 A. Only when the commander and the Chief of Staff were not in a
18 position to command over the brigade, in certain cases only.
19 Q. And together with your commander, you would tour the grounds
20 during the Srebrenica operation in June 1995.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you also went with your commander to Krajina in August 1995.
23 A. Yes, I did. I went there as well.
24 Q. Actually, it is absolutely normal. It was normal that the
25 commander took his operative officer to tour the ground when combat
2 A. That was the case in the Zvornik Brigade.
3 Q. Last Thursday, you spoke about the duty operations officer. You
4 told us that in certain situations he had responsibility for the tasks
5 that had to be carried out. I would like to show you a document that
6 you've seen already. This is P699. This is an instruction for the work
7 of commands and staffs.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown page
9 36 in B/C/S and 34 in English. Page 36 in B/C/S, please. Can we show the
10 witness article 65 or item 65, please.
11 Q. Sir, I'm not going to ask you to read the whole paragraph because
12 you already read it. You did it on Thursday. But what I'm going to ask
13 you is to look at the bottom of the page, which is the duties of the duty
14 operations officer.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] That's why I would like to move to
16 the following page, please, where that is contained. Can we go to the
17 very top of the page, please.
18 Q. Sir, can you please read this passage, passage 66.
19 A. Would you like me to read aloud or shall I do it for myself?
20 Q. Please read it for everybody.
21 A. "To follow the course of combat activities and to enter all the
22 changes in subordinated and neighbouring units in the maps; to report to
23 the commander or Chief of Staff about the important changes or the orders
24 of the superiors that require commanders' decisions; to be familiar with
25 the deployment of the elements of the command post, the post where the
1 command is located, the Chief of Staff and assistants commanders as well;
2 to control and maintain connection with the operations duty officer of the
3 superior and subordinated command; to receive and dispatch orders and
4 reports when other bodies are on vacation or when this is ordered to him;
5 to inform about the orders of the subordinated bodies, reports and
6 information by the subordinate neighbouring units, organs and
7 organisations of the DPZ, DPO and OUR, which are relative to the
8 logistics. He informs the PKPO, i.e., the certain organs at the forward
9 command post. He monitors and checks the measures of security and defence
10 of the command post, and in case of attack he sounds alert."
11 These are the duties of the operations officer.
12 Q. This will do. Thank you.
13 Is it correct that, according to this instruction that you have
14 just read out for us, i.e., the book of rules, the duty operations officer
15 was not responsible when it came to the performance of tasks; that he did
16 not have any responsibility in that regard?
17 A. He was responsible for monitoring all the tasks and to inform the
18 commander or the Chief of Staff about the degree to which the tasks were
19 carried out. In the Zvornik Brigade, if he did not have a connection with
20 the commander or the Chief of Staff or the duty operations officer, he did
21 have responsibility to deal with certain situations himself and to assume
22 responsibility in a certain way, i.e., to assume the command
23 responsibility to a certain extent. That was the case in the Zvornik
25 Q. On two occasions, you've told us that this was the case in the
1 Zvornik Brigade, and you were aware of the fact that the Zvornik Brigade
2 was an exception when it came to the responsibilities of the duty
4 A. I can say that we made an exception to the rule because the
5 brigade was outside of the formation and establishment. At every moment
6 we had to know how to deal with the problems if the duty operations
7 officer were not connected to the commander or the Chief of Staff, i.e.,
8 not for a single moment did we leave the brigade without a command. We
9 should not have done that.
10 JUDGE KWON: Madam Fauveau, the document you referred to as rule,
11 was it not a manual of the JNA?
12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Judge, this is a document
13 issued by the JNA originally.
14 JUDGE KWON: You are not arguing that document was in effect at
15 the time?
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
17 Q. Now I would like to show you document number 7D442. This is a
18 document that you have already seen.
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can we blow up the title page,
21 Q. Sir, can you see the document and can you please confirm that this
22 is a document that was issued by the Zvornik Brigade?
23 A. Yes. This is our document.
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] And can we now go to page number 4
25 in this document? Could we please look at the last part of this page.
1 I'm interested in the last three lines on this page.
2 Q. I would like you to look at item 6, but only the last three lines
3 in which you can read that the duty operations officer is subordinated to
4 the brigade commander. Is that correct? Is it correct that this is what
5 it says in the document?
6 A. Yes. It says so in the document.
7 Q. And are you in agreement with that?
8 A. The duty operations officer is subordinated to the brigade
9 command, and the brigade commander can order -- yes, I agree. I agree,
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can we now show the witness page 7
12 of this document.
13 Q. Sir, is it correct that paragraph 4 speaks about reporting?
14 Chapter 4, that is, is it about reporting?
15 A. Yes, that is correct.
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can we now go to the following page,
18 Q. Could you please read the second sentence on that page, the
19 sentence which talks about different types or categories of information.
20 A. What sentence do you have in mind?
21 Q. I'm talking about the third line, the sentence that is in the
22 third line which starts with, "For that reason the information ..." and so
23 on and so forth.
24 A. "That is why the information is divided into command information,
25 information on the situation, information on cooperation, and information
1 on neighbouring units."
2 Q. And I would like to ask you to read paragraph 3, the paragraph
3 that talks about information on the situation.
4 A. "Situation reports have the purpose of familiarising with the
5 combat situation concerning units, providing more or less detail. Those
6 are reports and briefs or information."
7 Q. Can we say that the daily combat report fell under the category of
8 situation reports?
9 A. Yes, because daily combat reports also contained an item covering
10 the situation both on the front line and in one's own units.
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can we now move to page 10 of this
13 Q. You have already seen this page last Thursday, and you said it
14 contained instructions on how to compile regular combat reports. I would
15 now like you to tell me, point by point, who provided duty officers with
16 such information. For instance, who provided the duty officer with
17 information concerning the enemy?
18 A. At the Zvornik Brigade, enemy-related information usually went
19 from the Chief of Staff, the operations officer or the commander, or
20 rather came from these, Chief of Staff, operations officer or the
21 commander, or anybody else who was able to monitor the activities of the
22 enemy, and it flowed in at the desk of the operations officer.
23 Q. You said that it came from the operations officer, but he also had
24 to receive it from somebody. From whom?
25 A. It's usually battalion commanders, artillery battalion commanders,
1 and other unit commanders that were in touch with the enemy, in contact
2 with the enemy, who provided this information.
3 Q. And who provided information on point 2?
4 A. State of combat-readiness, usually the Chief of Staff and the
5 operations officer provided that information, because it was the Chief of
6 Staff's responsibility to monitor the combat-readiness of units at all
7 times, together with the operations officer.
8 Q. And, in fact, it was a responsibility that falls under the
9 responsibility of the operations organ.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Could you tell me who provided you with information on the
12 situation in the territory of your zone of responsibility?
13 A. The situation in the area of defence, although the term often used
14 was "area of responsibility," but it was not in the spirit of our rules,
15 since that was the area of deployment of units, all that information
16 flowed in from commanders of battalions, artillery battalions, and other
17 subordinated units.
18 Q. And concerning irregular, extraordinary events?
19 A. Concerning extraordinary events, information would be provided by
20 security organs, and such events are precisely linked to the security
22 Q. And on point 5, state of security and morale?
23 A. Assistant commander for morale, religious and legal affairs
24 provided that information.
25 Q. And how about logistics?
1 A. From the assistant commander for security.
2 Q. I'm not sure whether it's a transcript error or something else,
3 but I have to ask you again. Concerning logistics, who provided your
5 A. Oh, sorry, sorry. It was the assistant commander for logistics.
6 It was my slip of the tongue.
7 Q. What about point 7, losses?
8 A. Assistant Chief of Staff for organisation and mobilisation,
9 because all the information on losses flowed in to him, and he received
10 assistance from the organ for morale, religious and legal affairs.
11 Q. How about conclusions, provisions and decisions? Who provided
12 that to the duty operations officer?
13 A. The commander, Chief of Staff or the operations officer could
14 provide that, or the duty operations officer himself could write that, if
15 he was unable to receive that information from the commander, Chief of
16 Staff or the operations officer.
17 Q. And if he receives that information from the operations officer,
18 how does the operations officer himself get it?
19 A. The operations officer, Assistant Chief of Staff for operations,
20 follows the situation, and if the Chief of Staff or the commander are not
21 there, the operations officer, together with the duty operations officer,
22 can make some conclusions, can anticipate, if he is in a position to do
24 Q. When you say that the commander or Chief of Staff are not there,
25 you mean that they are completely outside the area of responsibility of
1 the brigade?
2 A. They may be in the area of responsibility of the brigade without
3 being accessible as a result of combat operations or any other elements
4 that make it impossible for them to communicate, and we have to send our
5 report nevertheless.
6 Q. But in any case, when the commander and the Chief of Staff are
7 present at the brigade, it's not up to the operations officer to determine
8 the conclusions, to anticipate, et cetera?
9 A. No, no. This only happened in situations when there was no other
11 Q. And the last point, requests or requirements, who determined that?
12 A. Requirements were identified by the commander or the Chief of
14 Q. I would like to go back to point 2. We said that it was one of
15 the responsibilities of the operations officer, but isn't it true that the
16 operations officer always received his information from battalions on the
18 A. Battalion commanders were duty-bound to provide the duty
19 operations officer with reports on the situation within their battalion or
20 any other change that occurred within a certain time interval. Commanders
21 of battalions or artillery battalions did not have to wait a certain set
22 time in order to send their reports. They would send their reports when
23 some changes occurred and when a report was called for.
24 Q. Is it true that if the persons who were required to provide
25 information to the duty officer did not provide that information for some
1 reason, the duty officer could not write up an exact and accurate report?
2 A. Well, certainly, if he does not have at his disposal information
3 that reflects the actual situation, he could not write a proper report
4 reflecting what is actually happening within the brigade, and it would not
5 be a valid report.
6 Q. So if one of the organs or the units who were supposed to provide
7 the information to the duty officer provided inaccurate information, isn't
8 it true that this inaccurate information would find its way to the
9 superior command through these reports?
10 A. It could happen that inaccurate information is included in the
11 daily report, if the duty operations officer is unable to verify the
12 information, if he has any suspicions he wants to check. But if he's
13 unable to check, it can easily happen that an inaccurate report goes up to
14 the superior command.
15 Q. When you say that the duty officer could verify information
16 received, what were his actual capacities to verify?
17 A. Since the duty operations officer has communication with
18 subordinated units, both radio and wire communications, he could always
19 check the accuracy of the information if he has any suspicions.
20 Q. But if the person on the other end confirms that the information
21 is accurate, although it isn't, the report would then go as such to the
22 superior command?
23 A. Yes, it would. But then also an interim report could be made to
24 correct that information.
25 Q. You said last Thursday that in your organ, you were abreast of all
1 the developments within the brigade. Isn't it true that in fact you
2 received only information that was necessary to discharge your functions,
3 that is, information concerning planning, preparation and execution of
4 combat activities?
5 A. Basically, yes, but in the command of the Zvornik Brigade, in view
6 of its establishment and all the other factors we mentioned, the
7 operations officer actually had much more information than strictly
8 prescribed by regulations.
9 Q. But in any case, you did not know, and you were not supposed to be
10 aware of, the quantity of fuel in your brigade or the fate of the
11 prisoners who were in the area of the brigade?
12 A. Correct. I did not have to know that.
13 Q. You said last Thursday that you heard that an officer from the
14 superior command, and that's something you heard when you returned to the
15 headquarters in July 1995, you heard that an officer named Trkulja had
16 come to the brigade.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And you also said that he had taken the information he needed and
19 then returned to his command?
20 A. Yes. That's what I said.
21 Q. Is it true that you were not present when Officer Trkulja visited
22 the brigade?
23 A. No, I was not present. I just know, I have information, that he
24 had been there.
25 Q. And in reality, you personally don't know if he had obtained the
1 information he had come for.
2 A. I don't know, but I suppose he did.
3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I ask for your
4 leave to consult with my colleagues. Just a minute. With my client,
5 sorry. It will take only a minute.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly.
7 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have no
9 further questions.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Fauveau.
11 I have on my list the Nikolic Defence team, who requested about
12 one hour. Madam Nikolic, if you could introduce yourself to the witness,
14 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
15 Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Dragutinovic. My name is
17 Jelena Nikolic and I appear for Mr. Drago Nikolic. I would like to ask
18 you some questions concerning your earlier testimony. You testified about
19 the way the brigade was organised, how responsibilities were divided, and
20 about the role of certain sectors. In 1995, were intelligence and
21 security affairs in the brigade divided between two different sections?
22 A. No. That was only one section that was subordinated to the Chief
23 of Staff.
24 Q. Were these two affairs taken care of by two different persons,
25 Mr. Drago Nikolic and Mr. Dusko Vukotic?
1 A. Security was the responsibility of Drago Nikolic, and intelligence
2 was the responsibility of Dusko Vukotic.
3 Q. You testified about the relationship between Mr. Drago Nikolic and
4 Mr. Vinko Pandurevic in the period of 1994 and 1995, on the first day of
5 your evidence, and you mentioned certain vague elements in the functioning
6 of security.
7 A. Yes.
8 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Can we now show in e-court 3D124.
9 These are instructions issued by the General Staff and signed by General
10 Mladic about the work of security organs. The document is from 1994.
11 Could we scroll down a little so that Mr. Dragutinovic can see
12 paragraph 2, below the subheading, "Instruction." That is paragraph 1 and
14 Q. You will agree with me, Witness, that in the first paragraph, and
15 I will allow you enough time to read it, we read that depending on the
16 situation, around 80 per cent of their total activity -- so the first
17 paragraph says:
18 "The purview of security intelligence organs of VRS focuses on the
19 linkage between intelligence and counter-intelligence tasks, which,
20 depending on the situation, account for around 80 per cent of their total
21 engagement. The remaining 20 per cent of their activities relate to
22 administrative staff, military police and criminal-legal affairs."
23 Is this correct?
24 A. That's what is written.
25 Q. Concerning your particular brigade where intelligence and security
1 affairs were divided, in other words, they were led by two officers, two
2 assistant commanders, can we say that 40 per cent of activities and
3 engagement were accounted for by intelligence?
4 A. Well, I cannot go into percentages and how much of the activity
5 was accounted for by one or the other.
6 Q. But what about the remaining 20 per cent from this paragraph that
7 speaks of administrative staff, criminal-legal affairs and military and
8 police affairs? Do you agree that these affairs are under the command
9 responsibility -- under the commander's responsibility and Chief of
11 A. Yes. It's less than what is accounted for by intelligence organs
12 and security organs.
13 Q. All right. I would now like to move to another area, the role and
14 position of duty operations officer and the books that he kept.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You will agree with me that the duty operations officer entered
17 all information into records, and that information flowed into his office
18 while he was on duty.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And that information came directly from sources.
21 A. Yes.
22 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Can we show the Witness P377. It's
23 a Prosecution exhibit from the 65 ter list. P377. Page 131. And it's 12
24 in the English translation. Thank you.
25 Q. Mr. Dragutinovic, would you be so kind as to look at a little
1 asterisk in the first line and we see the word "Premier." Can you read
3 A. "Premier is our radio reconnaissance centre that performed
4 surveillance on radio communications of the enemy."
5 Q. And then there is a dash and some text follows. Can you read it
6 for us.
7 A. Scroll it up, please, the top of the page.
8 "Premier - entered and removed two mines, penetrated our positions
9 between dugouts."
10 So our radio reconnaissance centre says that somebody, supposedly
11 the enemy, entered and removed two mines and penetrated our positions
12 between dugouts.
13 Q. So Premier is the source of this information?
14 A. Yes.
15 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Can we now show page 132 of the same
16 exhibit. For those who are following in English, it's page 13. Further
17 down, please. That's all right. Thank you.
18 Q. Mr. Dragutinovic, we see something similar here. It says, "Palma
19 2 -" followed by some text. Further below, "Premier -" followed by some
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. My question is, does this also reflect that Palma 2 and Premier
23 were the sources of information recorded by the duty operations officer?
24 A. Yes. They are the sources of information, and on that basis the
25 duty operations officer recorded the information that follows.
1 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Just another page, 130, please, in
2 B/C/S, and page 11 in English. The top of the page.
3 Q. Mr. Dragutinovic, could you be so kind as to read, if it's
4 legible. It says, "Security officer forward command post," that
5 is "IKM -"
6 A. Yes, it says, "Security officer IKM - behind our back at
7 Krizevic. Shooting is directed at Potocari."
8 Q. So you will agree with me that the source of this information is
9 some security officer located at the forward command post in Kitovnice.
10 A. Yes. That could be somebody who is either a security officer or
11 performing the duties of duty operations officer at the forward command
12 post, according to a plan, a roster. So he cannot be there by accident.
13 This information tells us that he's a security officer. That's how this
14 text should be interpreted.
15 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Could we go back to page 127, to
16 conclude this series of questions, and to confirm that the date is 14 July
17 1995. Page 127 on this exhibit. Can we enlarge it a bit, please. Zoom
19 Q. In the top left corner, we see the date.
20 A. Yes. This comes from a notebook where everything was recorded in
21 order to be copied later into the logbook of the duty operations officer.
22 It does look a bit fuzzy, but it's legible. It's the 14th of July.
23 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, this was page 8 in
25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Dragutinovic.
1 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] I think, Your Honours, it may be
2 time for a break.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, indeed, Madam Nikolic.
4 We'll have a 25-minute break, starting now. Thank you.
5 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I just want to make sure that there are no further
8 problems with your computer system. You are okay, all of you? I mean you
9 are able to follow what's happening without any problems with your
10 monitors? Okay. Do let me know immediately if there are problems,
11 please. All right.
12 Yes, Ms. Nikolic.
13 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Nikolic.
15 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. Again, good morning, Mr. Dragutinovic.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. Let me go back to some more questions with regard to the duty
19 operations officer in the brigade. Tell me, please, the assistant
20 commander for security and the other assistants, did they regularly assume
21 the duties of the duty operations officer in the brigade and elsewhere,
22 according to the rota system?
23 A. There were no exceptions in the Zvornik Brigade. In other words,
24 everybody had to do it. They could serve as duty operations officers at
25 the command or at the IKM, obviously not at the same time.
1 Q. Thank you. As regards the entries in the duty operations
2 officer's notebook, if somebody asked for the commander or the Chief of
3 Staff --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- would the duty operations officer have to enter that, whether
6 this was entered, whether the entries of such type were made?
7 A. What do you mean? If somebody asked for the commander or the
8 Chief of Staff?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. As a matter of principle, yes, it was recorded, who was it who
11 asked for them, in order to be able to inform the commander or the Chief
12 of Staff who had asked for them.
13 Q. If something urgent happened and if that person insisted on
14 several occasions to speak to the commander or the Chief of Staff, would
15 that be registered, if that person insisted on several occasions on
16 talking to them regarding an urgent situation?
17 A. The duty operations officer always recorded the name of the person
18 who wanted to talk to the commander or the Chief of Staff. He had to know
19 exactly who it was all about.
20 Q. Would that also have been the case if somebody arrived at the
21 building, if he came to the duty operations officer's office to ask for
22 the commander or the Chief of Staff on the condition that the person did
23 not belong to the brigade?
24 A. Yes. The same would apply. His name would have to be entered.
25 Q. And especially if that person talked to the duty operations
1 officer asking for the commander or the Chief of Staff.
2 A. Absolutely.
3 Q. I would now like to ask you something about the reporting by the
4 commander. You have testified about the existence of the so-called
5 regular morning briefing where the commander, the Chief of Staff and the
6 assistant commander were present. In addition to that, did you also have
7 monthly briefings or biweekly briefings which would involve a larger
8 number of people?
9 A. No. There was the so-called briefing of the battalion and
10 division commanders that could have been attended by the assistants of the
11 commander, and obviously the Chief of Staff and the operations officer
12 were there as well. But this didn't happen every two weeks. It happened
13 as per requirement, when necessary.
14 Q. Would that briefing be also attended by the assistants to the
15 commander and commanders of the company of signals, police, so on and so
17 A. No, no. Just the commanders.
18 Q. Only the commanders of those special units?
19 A. Yes, the commanders. If those units were independent, if they
20 were companies, then their commanders could attend as well.
21 Q. And then they would brief the commander directly about the
22 situation in their respective units and they would convey the orders that
23 had been carried out.
24 A. Yes. Everybody participated in such briefings and they would
25 brief the commander on their own.
1 Q. And the commander of the military police unit was Miomir
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And he was the commander of the military police company?
5 A. Yes, he was.
6 Q. The use of that company for certain purposes, for certain
7 operations in terms of their number, was something that he would advise
8 the commander on?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And finally, the order of the engagement of this company would be
11 passed by either the commander or the Chief of Staff?
12 A. Yes, if the police units participated in an operation within the
13 framework of the brigade command.
14 Q. In that sense, the chief of security was the advisory organ to the
15 commander when it came to the use of this unit.
16 A. Yes. But I've already explained that there was another aspect
17 involved in that, and that the chief of security had a different role with
18 regard to the police -- military police company.
19 Q. Thank you very much. With regard to the organisation of the
20 brigade, did any of the assistants to the commander or Chief of Staff
21 issue any orders to the battalion commanders? Were they in a position to
22 do that?
23 A. Save for the commander and the Chief of Staff, nobody could do
24 that, save for in very exceptional situations.
25 Q. You were not in a position to issue any orders to the battalion
2 A. Only if the commander and the Chief of Staff were not there and
3 the situation required an urgent order to be issued to a battalion
5 Q. And that would have been considered a very special extraordinary
7 A. Yes. That was the only case. Otherwise, I was not in a position
8 to issue any orders.
9 Q. Which also applied to other assistants. They also were not in a
10 position to issue any orders.
11 A. You're right. They could not have issued any orders to the
12 commanders of battalions or divisions.
13 Q. I would like to ask you something about the activities that took
14 place in September 1995, when you testified on Friday, on pages 12791 and
15 further on about the establishment of the Drina Corps Brigade and its
16 activities in the area of responsibility of the 2nd Krajina Corps.
17 A. Yes.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the number of
19 the page.
20 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. The brigade that was under the command of Mr. Pandurevic returned
22 from Krajina in mid-September 1995.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And it was replaced by a new Drina Brigade.
25 A. Yes. A new brigade had been established from the units of the
1 Drina Corps.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Nikolic and Witness, please slow down because
3 you are creating problems for the interpreters. Thank you. Particularly
4 you, Mr. Dragutinovic. You need to allow a short interval of time between
5 question and answer. Thank you.
6 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I
7 apologise for that.
8 Can the witness please be shown Exhibit number 3D165.
9 Q. Before the document appears on the screen, I would like to tell
10 you that this is an order by the Drina Corps ordering the establishment of
11 a new Drina Brigade, dated 9 September 1995, which was to replace your
12 brigade in the area of responsibility of the 2nd Krajina Corps.
13 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Can the document please be enlarged
14 as to enable Mr. Dragutinovic to read it.
15 Q. Can you please look at the document and tell me whether this is
16 indeed the document that we have just discussed?
17 A. I've not seen this document before, but, yes, it originates from
18 the command of the Drina Corps, obviously, and it is addressed to the
19 Zvornik Brigade, amongst others.
20 Q. Before the words, "I hereby order," it says, "With a view to
21 provide for the time of rest of the 2nd Light Infantry Brigade."
22 A. Yes, I'm aware of that, and the change-over was carried out
23 pursuant to this order.
24 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Can we move the document upwards so
25 we can see the whole of it.
1 Q. This brigade was under the command of Major Mirko Ostojic.
2 A. I don't know. I can't remember, but I suppose so.
3 Q. It says: "The command of the brigade," under A.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Can you please look at line 7. It says that "NBN, the
6 intelligence will be in the hands of Lieutenant-Colonel Drago Nikolic from
7 the 1st Zvornik Brigade."
8 A. Yes, that's what it says. And we also had an occasion to see each
9 others on the ground in Krajina.
10 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have page 4 of this
11 document, the last page there, that is.
12 Q. Mr. Dragutinovic, could you please read under bullet number 12.
13 Can you see what it reads there?
14 A. "The change-over of units and the take-over of the position should
15 be carried out on the night between the 14th and the 15th September 1995."
16 Q. Does this mean that this unit arrived in order to replace your
17 brigade during that night between the 14th and 15th of September, 1995, in
18 the village where you met them?
19 A. The unit arrived in the village of Ramici, and on the 15th, in the
20 morning hours, it took up the positions. This is when it happened.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown Exhibit
23 P379. This is the second part of the notebook of the duty operations
24 officer. I would like to look at page 115. I don't think that we have
25 the English translation of that as yet.
1 JUDGE KWON: Madam Nikolic, can I draw your attention to line 22
2 of page 37. Is "Lieutenant-Colonel" right?
3 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'd like to
4 thank Judge Kwon for the correction.
5 Q. What was Mr. Drago Nikolic's rank at that moment? Was he a
6 lieutenant-colonel or second lieutenant?
7 A. He was a second lieutenant, not lieutenant-colonel.
8 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] We have corrected the mistake in the
9 transcript in this way.
10 I apologise. Can we go back to the document that we had on the
11 screen a minute ago, in order to answer Judge Kwon's question. I would
12 like you to tell us what it says in the document with regard to Mr. Drago
13 Nikolic's rank. The document is 3D165.
14 Q. Can Mr. Dragutinovic now read what it says on line 7.
15 A. It says, "Second Lieutenant Drago Nikolic."
16 Q. And that is the same person from the Zvornik Brigade, Drago
17 Nikolic from the Zvornik Brigade?
18 A. Yes, that is.
19 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Can we now go to the document that I
20 called for after this one. We said that it was the notebook of the duty
21 operations officer. The number of the document is P379, and the page
22 number is 115. Can this be enlarged to make it easier for the witness to
23 read the page. Could we move the page up. Thank you.
24 Q. Mr. Dragutinovic, it is indeed the 14th of September, 1995, isn't
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. This document has been shown to you before, in cross-examination.
3 Could you please read the line that begins in the manuscript, "Replacement
4 units ..." are the first words. Could you read it aloud.
5 A. "Replacement units, 2nd Krajina Corps," I think it says, "departed
6 at 11.20 from the perimeter." The perimeter of the barracks is meant.
7 And then a telephone number and so on. If it's of the 14th, that means
8 the unit departed at 11.20.
9 Q. The unit we discussed.
10 A. Yes, if the date is the 14th September.
11 Q. The unit that went to replace your brigade, commanded by Mr. Mile
12 Kosoric and that was established by virtue of the document dated 9
13 September 1995.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In the past few days, you also testified about a report made on 18
16 July 1995 --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- by the commander. Several questions were asked concerning the
19 large number of prisoners that were located in the area of the Zvornik
20 Brigade in July. Today, in response to a question from my colleague, you
21 answered that the issue of prisoners was not within your purview as an
22 operations officer.
23 A. No, it was not.
24 Q. However, what I would like to know is this: If there is a plan of
25 activities for the brigade for the period that follows, and if a large
1 number of prisoners are scheduled to be brought into the area of the
2 Zvornik Brigade, you would have been informed because that is a fact that
3 you had to be aware of for the purposes of planning any other operation or
4 activity in the brigade.
5 A. You'll have to repeat this.
6 Q. If there was a plan for bringing a large number of prisoners into
7 the area of your brigade --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. -- in order to plan further operations, would you, as an
10 operations officer, be informed that something like that would happen?
11 A. First of all, the commander or the Chief of Staff would be
12 notified, and then only me, if there is no way of informing the commander
13 or the Chief of Staff.
14 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] May I suggest something concerning
15 the transcript, page 40, line 19. The word "if" is missing from my
16 question. I asked "If there was a plan for bringing a large number of
17 prisoners ..." Could the record be duly corrected.
18 Q. In this report of the commander, the commander expresses his anger
19 and concern because a large number of prisoners were brought into the area
20 of the brigade.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Because the brigade had no resources for caring for such a large
23 number of prisoners because everybody was on the front line.
24 A. First of all, the command of the brigade did not receive any
25 assignments regarding the accommodation or care for these prisoners, and
1 it wasn't involved in any activities on that issue as a command, from what
2 I could see. Plus the command did not decide on any resources necessary
3 to accommodate the prisoners.
4 Q. You will agree with me that such a large number of prisoners posed
5 a great threat to the security for the area of the Zvornik Brigade in case
6 they started a mutiny or attempted to escape.
7 A. A large number of prisoners could result in all sorts of
8 unpleasant circumstances for the civilian population, not only the
10 Q. I would like to go back to one issue related to the duty
11 operations officer. Can I ask you, in view of your experience, in case
12 superior officers from the superior command visit the duty operations
13 officer, is the duty operations officer required to obey them and meet
14 their demands unquestioningly?
15 A. First of all, the duty operations officer would have to notify the
16 Chief of Staff and the commander of the brigade of the presence of these
18 Q. And if they were not there?
19 A. Then he would receive orders from the superior commanders and he
20 would take the necessary steps.
21 Q. Especially if the commander and the Chief of Staff were absent?
22 A. Yes, and if he is not able to communicate with them. They could
23 issue orders in writing or verbally, and he would have to take some steps
24 and activities in keeping with those orders.
25 Q. Thank you. Let me go back to your testimony of 14th June this
1 year before this Court. On pages 12648 and 649, when you were talking
2 about the map where all the operations of the brigade were marked - that's
3 P1463 on the Prosecution's 65 ter list - you said you made that map
4 together with Major Mihajlo Galic.
5 A. Yes. It's a map dated 1993 and it says "Assistant Chief of Staff
6 for Operations and Training." For a while it was Galic and for a while it
7 was me. So that provided for continuity in developing the map.
8 Q. Major Galic continued to work on that map with you until the end.
9 A. No, I worked on it after him.
10 Q. He signed his part.
11 A. Yes. He signed the part that he did and I signed the part on the
12 map that I did.
13 Q. Thank you. You also testified that on 15 July 1995 Major Galic
14 came to see you in Zlatne Vode, in the field, and transmitted to you the
15 order on further engagement issued by the commander.
16 A. Yes. It was the afternoon of the 15th.
17 Q. Did he also inform you then on the combat activities led on the
18 14th and on the 15th involving units led by the Chief of Staff, involving
19 losses, and did he tell you what else happened in the brigade in that
21 A. In the time that we had, of course we discussed those combat
22 activities and the reasons why we went back, so I did receive a summary of
23 developments in the area of defence of the 7th, 4th and 6th Battalions.
24 Q. So Major Galic visited positions in the field and also performed
25 other duties, not only his own duties connected to personnel.
1 A. Every officer could perform other duties on orders of the
2 commander or the Chief of Staff, if the circumstances required it.
3 Q. Major Galic also went to tour the battalions and occasionally
4 involved himself in operational tasks.
5 A. The operations section regularly planned activities of the brigade
6 command to inspect battalions, artillery battalions and subordinate units,
7 and all officers were required to tour battalions and other subordinated
8 units individually or as part of a team. The same is true with Major
9 Galic. He was no exception.
10 Q. Thank you. Working in the brigade, you had regular contacts with
11 Second Lieutenant Drago Nikolic.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did Drago Nikolic sometimes stand for the commander?
14 A. No. His position would not allow him to do that. No, no, he did
16 Q. Would Drago Nikolic represent himself as an officer standing in
17 for the commander to any persons visiting the command?
18 A. I know Mr. Nikolic very well and I am certain he would never do
19 any such thing, unless the commander authorised him to do so.
20 Q. Do you remember that happening on any occasion?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Drago Nikolic would never hold himself out to have powers greater
23 than given him by the regulations, because those regulations were honoured
24 in the brigade and observed.
25 A. No. Drago Nikolic would never do that.
1 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Could we please move into private
2 session, Your Honours, for a couple of questions --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly.
4 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] -- where I would have to mention the
5 names or the name of a protected witness.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
7 [Private session]
4 [Open session]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session, please.
6 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. If a civilian showed up asking for the commander or the Chief of
8 Staff, like the person we just mentioned, would the duty officer record
9 such a visit in his book?
10 A. If the commander was absent, yes. If the commander was there,
11 then he could have ushered the person into the commander's office without
12 recording anything, but of course he would first inform the commander that
13 the person was in the duty officer's room.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] I have a problem with a translation,
16 with the interpretation, actually. Could I have a minute to review page
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
19 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Just two or three more questions, Mr. Dragutinovic. Did it ever
21 happen, did your commander ever tell Drago Nikolic to execute some Muslim
22 prisoners and did he say, at a meeting in the command, that some officer
23 came from the superior command transmitting Mladic's order to execute
24 Muslim prisoners?
25 A. I was never present if such a thing ever occurred, so I couldn't
1 tell you. I don't know.
2 Q. I would like to question you about an event of 21st July 1995. Do
3 you know that the forces of the 2nd Corps reinforced by manoeuvring forces
4 had attempted an attack at Zvornik with strong artillery support resulting
5 in a lot of civilian casualties but the positions of the brigade remained
7 A. Yes. It was on the 21st of July, and the attack was on the area
8 of defence of the 7th Battalion. On that occasion, they also shelled
9 Zvornik town itself, causing civilian losses.
10 Q. Do you know that on that occasion three women were killed and
11 around 11 civilians were wounded?
12 A. Yes. I remember that. I remember even the last name of one of
13 the women. I believe it was Nezarevic.
14 Q. Thank you. Prior to 1995, do you remember any negotiations led by
15 Vinko Pandurevic with Muminovic concerning a cease-fire and exchange of
16 prisoners, and these negotiations were attended by Drago Nikolic?
17 A. I know that there were some negotiations about a cease-fire and an
18 exchange of prisoners, but I'm not sure Mr. Drago Nikolic was present
19 because I wasn't present myself. But I know the negotiations did happen.
20 In view of his position, maybe he was involved. I'm not sure. I don't
22 Q. Just one more question: Do you remember that on the 18th of July
23 in the area of Baljkovica, while a column was passing, there was a special
24 agreement between commanders to let through a group of young men in the
25 area of the 4th Battalion?
1 A. I found that out when I came to the command of the brigade, when I
2 returned to the brigade command.
3 Let me also add, on the 18th, in the course of the day, passage,
4 unhindered passage, was allowed through the area of defence of the 4th
5 Battalion more broadly, and there was even an officer who was assigned to
6 call out to stragglers and groups of stragglers to tell them that they may
7 pass through in keeping with an agreement.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Just a few minutes so that I can
10 check the record. I may have another couple of questions.
11 [Defence counsel confer]
12 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Just two more questions, Mr. Dragutinovic, to clarify some things
14 in the transcript.
15 On page 34, line 7 to 13, when we were talking about the meetings
16 which were attended by the unit commanders of the special units, would
17 Mr. Jasikovac also attend those meetings? He was the commander of the
18 military police unit.
19 A. No, not in such cases, because the chief of security would be
21 Q. Maybe this has not been recorded. I asked you about the monthly
23 A. Yes, with the commanders of battalions and divisions attending,
24 but the staff units were not there. The military police unit, engineers
25 unit, the signals unit, they were not represented, save for in the cases
1 when the situation so required. Those were the so-called staff units, and
2 the commanders of those units were not required to attend the meetings of
3 the commanders of divisions, battalions, assistants commanders, assistant
4 chiefs of staff. They were not required. There was no room for them to
5 attend such a meeting.
6 Q. Were there any meetings which they did attend, the commanders of
7 these units, I mean?
8 A. There were no specially organised meetings of that kind.
9 Q. Would they have had such meetings with the Chief of Staff?
10 A. Since they were subordinated to the staff, that would have been
11 the case.
12 Q. And then the commanders of those units would brief the chiefs of
14 A. Yes, the Chief of Staff could have asked for certain information
15 from them, if that had been the case.
16 Q. And then Jasikovac, as the commander of the military police unit,
17 would debrief the Chiefs of Staff.
18 A. Yes, because his unit was also subordinated to the staff directly.
19 Q. Just one more question. With regard to the schematic that we have
20 seen during your evidence, I understood it that the military police unit
21 is a unit that was directly reporting to the brigade commander.
22 A. Then you did not understand the schematic correctly.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Dragutinovic. I have no further questions for you.
24 A. You're very welcome.
25 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Dragutinovic, you said that the commander of the
1 military police unit would not attend the meetings, usually. Can I take
2 it that what has been discussed or ordered, decided, at the meeting would
3 be communicated to the military police unit through the chief of security?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank, Judge Kwon. Thank you, Mr. Dragutinovic.
7 Mr. Krgovic, please introduce yourself to the witness.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
10 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Dragutinovic. I am Dragan
11 Krgovic and I represent General Gvero in this case. I'm going to have a
12 few questions for you in order to clarify some answers that you have
13 already provided during your testimony.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
15 7D442. Can we have the first page.
16 Q. You've already discussed this document with my learned friend
17 Mrs. Fauveau.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness now please be shown
19 page number 10 of this document.
20 Q. Sir, in answering Mrs. Fauveau's questions about item 5 of these
21 elements for the regular combat reports, you have told us that the
22 situation of security and morale was the issue that pertained to the body
23 of morale. I am suggesting to you that two items have been incorporated
24 under one part, the security and the morale.
25 A. This must be a mistake which I did not notice before. You can't
1 have the situation with security and the situation with morale. One is
2 security; the other is morale. The security situation has to do with the
3 security of the unit, the organs and commands, whereas the morale is the
4 morale in the units which can be either good or bad, and so on and so
6 Q. And the security pertained to the organ of security.
7 A. Yes. Security pertained to the security and morale pertained to
8 the organ for security -- rather, religious issues and morale.
9 Q. And these have to be separated.
10 A. Of course. They can't be together.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness now be shown Exhibit
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel and witness please observe
14 pauses between questions and answers and slow down, please.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Sir, could you please look at this part that is relative -- under
17 item 5.
18 A. Yes, I can see that. Can it be enlarged, please? Never mind, I
19 can still read it.
20 Q. And here we see the morale, which is a separate part of the combat
22 A. Yes, I've already explained that. The previous document that we
23 saw, that we drafted in 1993, we must have made a mistake there.
24 Q. So this item number 5, when it comes to morale, this is within the
25 purview of the organ for morale.
1 A. Yes. It has nothing to do with the security.
2 Q. Whereas the security pertains to the organ of security.
3 A. Of course.
4 Q. And one more clarification, please. When combat reports were
5 drafted, the information that they were -- that they were based on came
6 from the subordinated units, from their combat reports; is that correct?
7 A. Yes. This is information that was received from the grounds, from
8 the subordinated units, units that were subordinated to the commands of
9 the battalions, divisions, or the bodies of the command themselves.
10 Q. But they were mostly based on the combat reports of the
11 subordinated units.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And the reports received from the duty operations officer.
14 A. All these reports came to the duty operations officer, and from
15 there they are taken and they form the base of the combat reports.
16 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Dragutinovic.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions for this
18 witness, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: That leaves the Beara and the Popovic teams,
21 Mr. Meek -- yes, Mr. Zivanovic, go ahead.
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. All my questions have
23 been asked, so I will not cross-examine this witness. Thank you.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
25 And Mr. Meek?
1 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honours, we have no questions for
2 this witness.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
4 Is there re-examination? Yes, Madam Nikolic.
5 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, I
6 would have two or three questions that arise from Judge Kwon's questions.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, Madam Nikolic.
9 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
10 Can the witness please be shown Exhibit number 7D622. Can we have
11 the document in B/C/S for the benefit of the witness.
12 Further Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dragutinovic, do you have the document in
14 B/C/S, in a language that you understand?
15 A. Yes, I do. I have the schematic, but the words are in English.
16 Q. Just a moment. Please bear with me.
17 A. No, no, it is in B/C/S. In Serbo-Croatian, actually.
18 Q. So now you have it.
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. You agree with this diagram. You've seen it before and this is
21 the situation as it was in the brigade.
22 A. Yes. This is how the brigade functioned.
23 Q. Could you please look at the right-hand side, corner, where you
24 see the military police company under the command of Miomir Jasikovac?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And we have a full line leading leftward to the commander, which
2 shows a direct subordination of that unit to the commander.
3 A. This is a mistake. This unit was a staff unit, just like the
4 signals unit was or the engineers unit. This is where the unit of the
5 military police also belongs to. But the red line from the commander to
6 the security organ and the dotted line, green line, to the military police
7 unit, they are both okay.
8 Q. In other words, the commander was in a position to issue direct
9 orders to the military police unit, and you don't agree with that.
10 A. The commander could command any unit, without any exceptions.
11 Other members of the command could not command any other units but those
12 that they were in charge of, that were in their authority; or, by the
13 function that they performed, they had some connection to that respective
15 Q. And you will agree with me that the dotted line that follows the
16 fields where you see Drago Nikolic's name, towards the military police,
17 shows the professional part of the work of the security organ and his
18 advisory function.
19 A. Yes. That part is okay. That part is absolutely okay.
20 Q. In other words, Drago Nikolic could not create orders or issue
21 orders to the military police unit.
22 A. No. You didn't understand me properly.
23 Q. He could not do it on his own. He could not issue orders without
24 the participation of the commander or the Chief of Staff.
25 A. Yes. In any case, the military police company, Drago Nikolic
1 could issue orders to it, but when it came to the use of that unit within
2 the brigade, the commander or the Chief of Staff had to be aware of that.
3 It would not have made sense if, at certain moments, Drago Nikolic or
4 anybody else, without any consultations with the commander or the Chief of
5 Staff, could not have used the military police unit. Drago Nikolic could
6 not have used the logistics battalion, for example. He could not have
7 used a company -- signals company. By the same token, the military police
8 company could not have been put into use by any other commander, save for
9 those that were in charge of that unit.
10 Q. But this could have taken place only in exceptional cases. In all
11 the other cases, the order came from the command.
12 A. Yes. Only in exceptional cases, where there was no other way to
13 go about things, when things could not have been done differently.
14 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Dragutinovic.
15 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I don't
16 have any further questions for this witness.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. That basically leads me back to
18 Mr. Vanderpuye.
19 Do you have redirect, Mr. Vanderpuye?
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do, as I indicated yesterday, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Not yesterday, last Friday.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Last Friday, sorry. It will be, I think, a
23 little bit more than the half an hour that I had anticipated, in light of
24 the cross-examinations that have also occurred, but I'll get started.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: We will have a break at 12.30 anyway.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Re-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
3 Q. Good morning, Mr. Dragutinovic.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Could I please have P02840 in e-court. Maybe we
5 could just blow up, I think, the caption and the first paragraph, up to
6 the top of the page, please.
7 Q. Sir, do you recognise this document?
8 A. Yes. It's from the Zvornik Brigade, from the command, but I
9 couldn't identify each and every document. It is from the command,
11 Q. All right. Well, if you would just have a moment and read the
12 paragraph just below where it is indicated, "Personnel Department." That
13 would be on the paragraph immediately preceding the underlined portion on
14 the right.
15 A. "Pursuant to the order of the commander of the Main Staff ..."?
16 Q. Yes, that paragraph.
17 A. Aloud?
18 Q. Yes, if you would.
19 A. "Pursuant to the order of the commander of the Main Staff of the
20 VRS, strictly confidential number 25-222, dated 7 July 1994, and the order
21 of the commander of the Drina Corps, strictly confidential number
22 05/1-266, dated 23 August 1994, and with a view to reducing the strength
23 of the brigade to establishment, ensuring efficient command and further
24 combat build-up of the units, I hereby order ..."
25 Q. And would you just read what's in paragraph numbered 1, designated
2 A. "1: Reorganise the 1st Zvornik Light Infantry Brigade [of
3 battalion composition], establishment number 111978, into 1st Zvornik
4 Infantry Brigade, according to establishment number 111979."
5 Q. Now, Mr. Dragutinovic, does that conform with your recollection as
6 to when it was that the Zvornik Brigade Light Infantry became the 1st
7 Infantry Zvornik Brigade?
8 A. I don't remember this document very well. But this reorganisation
9 or reforming of the brigade was never implemented, or I don't remember it.
10 Q. All right.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could just go over to ERN ending page 787 --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
13 Yes, Madam Nikolic.
14 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just had to check.
15 To the best of my knowledge, this document has not been disclosed to us
16 and it's not on the 65 ter list. We had no notification it would be used
17 in redirect, so I would appreciate it if our colleague could give us a
18 basis for using this document.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
20 Mr. Vanderpuye.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I think we've been
22 over this issue on a number of occasions with respect to the use of
23 documents on redirect examination. This document is directly relevant to
24 the testimony that was elicited by my colleague, Mr. Haynes, with respect
25 to the characterisation of the Zvornik Brigade in and around 1994 and
1 1995, specifically with respect to its characterisation as a light
2 infantry brigade. That's the basis of its use, and I think it certainly
3 clarify identifies the issue with respect to the testimony that was
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We can safely proceed. I don't need to say much,
6 but basically we are at the redirect stage, which is kind of a different
7 exercise than the direct or cross-examination. One cannot always
8 anticipate what documents are going to be used on redirect; most of the
9 time you can't. You can't even anticipate if you're going to have the
10 redirect in the first place. So let's proceed.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 If I could just briefly turn to ERN ending -- on this same
13 document, ERN ending 787. It's just two pages ahead. And in the English,
14 I believe that's page 3. In both. I think it's page 3 in both. And if
15 we could just go down to the bottom.
16 Q. Mr. Dragutinovic, do you recognise that signature at the bottom of
17 that page?
18 A. It's the commander's signature.
19 Q. And the commander you're talking about is Commander Pandurevic?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And, in fact, this document indicates that the brigade was
22 transformed for the very purpose of ensuring the efficient command of the
23 brigade; isn't that true?
24 A. Yes, but we did not succeed in following entirely that order from
25 the corps command. Our brigade continued to be somewhere in between the
1 infantry brigade and an armoured mechanised brigade, if I can put it that
3 Q. All right. Well, just so that we are clear, the document that
4 I've shown you now is, in fact, an order that's issued by your commander,
5 as you've said; right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, you --
8 JUDGE KWON: Can I ask the witness this question, out of common
9 sense: To transform a brigade into another one, the order should have
10 come from the higher command. The commander of the brigade himself can
11 order -- issue such orders?
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Would you like me to put it to the witness?
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I'm asking the witness.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It can only be done on orders of the
16 superior command. A unit can be transformed following orders.
17 JUDGE KWON: So I take it that there should have been another
18 order coming from the superior command.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There should have been another
20 order, and it seems to me, if you showed me again the beginning, it says
21 something like "Pursuant to ..." an order of the superior command.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I now see it. Thank you.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE:
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Dragutinovic. You were shown and asked some
25 questions about regular combat reports by my colleague, Ms. Fauveau
1 Ivanovic. Now, in particular, you were asked some questions about whether
2 or not those daily reports could contain erroneous information that might
3 be passed on to the superior command. Are you aware of any such
4 information, erroneous, being passed on to the superior command in a
5 systemic way?
6 A. I don't remember any cases of erroneous information passed on to
7 the superior command that might have resulted in any adverse consequences,
8 but I still believe, and assert, that it's possible to include in daily
9 reports passed on to superior commands information that has not been
10 verified, but that information would later be corrected in interim
12 Q. And so if erroneous information were passed on in these reports,
13 is it your view that, to the extent that they were erroneous, corrections
14 could be made later on, and in fact would be?
15 A. Once information is verified and found to be inaccurate, it could
16 be corrected in an interim report.
17 Q. All right. Thank you for that, Mr. Dragutinovic.
18 A few questions were put to you regarding the role of the Zvornik
19 Brigade in the liberation of Glodjansko Brdo in 1993. Do you recall that
21 A. I do.
22 Q. And with respect to that operation, was it the case that the
23 liberation of Glodjansko Brdo was among a series of campaigns that were
24 undertaken by the VRS involving the liberation of several other places?
25 A. With the liberation of Glodjansko Brdo, there followed an
1 operation of the units of the Zvornik Brigade that resulted in the
2 liberation of other places and features.
3 Q. And did those other places include Liplje, Kamenica, Konjevic
4 Polje, Kravica, in 1993?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Mr. Dragutinovic, what happened to the mosques in those towns and
8 A. I will emphasise that in the operations of the Zvornik Brigade
9 related to the second liberation, that is, the capture of Glodjansko Brdo,
10 there had been prior combat that resulted in the damage or destruction to
11 some religious buildings, office buildings, residential buildings.
12 Q. And was that pervasive through all the towns that I have named,
14 A. I couldn't remember because I cannot be certain anymore in which
15 village, because they were not towns or cities, they were villages, I
16 cannot recall anymore which of them had churches or mosques or places of
18 Q. What happened to the Muslims that were living in those villages,
19 Mr. Dragutinovic?
20 A. If we are talking about 1993, these population centres did not
21 have any civilian population. They had already left. There were only
22 remaining elements of the combat elements of the 4th Operative Group of
23 the BH army, if we are talking about the places you enumerated.
24 Q. So is it your testimony that you liberated a village that didn't
25 contain any civilian population?
1 A. Up to the area of Konjevic Polje, there had been operations before
2 that necessitated the withdrawal of the civilian population, so that in
3 1993, when there were combat operations towards Kravica and Srebrenica,
4 this territory was covered exclusively by elements of the 4th Operative
5 Group of the BH army.
6 Q. Well, thank you for that, Mr. Dragutinovic.
7 You indicated, I think, Friday that you first heard that there
8 were 3.000 prisoners in the area of your brigade on or about the 18th of
9 July 1995. In fact, the 18th of July 1995. Do you recall that testimony?
10 A. Yes, I said that.
11 Q. And you found out about that from your commander while you were
12 drafting a report for him; is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And is it your testimony that you had no idea about that many
15 prisoners being in your area prior to that date?
16 A. I didn't know because I was not in a position, in view of all that
17 was happening, to learn about prisoners, especially such a large number of
18 prisoners taken from the 28th Division or the civilian population,
20 Q. Well, 3.000 people is a lot. That's about -- a little bit more
21 than half of the strength of your entire brigade; isn't that right?
22 MR. HAYNES: That's not a question. That's a comment. And he's
23 gone really too far now with his own witness. He's asking leading
24 question after leading question and that is just a comment.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. On redirect, you cannot ask direct questions
1 unless, of course, there are no objections, and in this case, there are.
2 Second, I think we are on a borderline here. If you rephrase the question
3 and keep it within the limits of the redirect, that will be better.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE:
5 Q. Do you know when your commander found out about these 3.000
7 A. Not from the commander. But after my subordinate officer, who had
8 been at the forward command post, returned to the brigade command, I
9 learned about a conversation the commander had with the former president
10 of the municipality, Branko Grujic, who had visited the forward command
11 post. My clerk, Ljubo Bojanovic, who later moved to the section for
12 morale, religious and legal affairs, confirmed to me that on that day the
13 commander dictated that interim report, or maybe it was a daily report, I
14 don't remember.
15 Q. Sorry, what day are you referring to?
16 A. The 15th.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Could I have 65 ter 962, please, in e-court. I
18 think if we could just scroll down a little bit. Is it two pages? All
19 right. What I'm looking for might be on the next page, if we could go to
20 the next page, please, on the B/C/S version.
21 Q. All right, Mr. Dragutinovic, I'm just going to refer you to what
22 appears to be the third paragraph from the bottom of this document. I'm
23 just going to ask you to look for and let me know if you see a sentence
24 that begins with the words, "Additional burden ..." or "A burden ..."
25 related to prisoners. If you don't see it, let me know also.
1 A. What you have just shown to me, I cannot find. I've read this
2 but --
3 Q. Okay.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Perhaps we can page up a little bit.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. I can see it now.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE:
7 Q. Okay. Could you just read that into the record, please.
8 A. If I manage, with this handwriting.
9 "An additional burden to us is the large number of prisoners put
10 up in various schools in the area of the brigade, as well as the
11 obligation to provide security and sanitise the terrain."
12 Q. Do you know when it was that your commander was provided with this
14 A. According to my sources, the commander received it on the 15th,
15 when he was at the forward command post.
16 Q. And from whom did he receive this information, Mr. Dragutinovic?
17 A. As I've said before, according to my sources - and that's my
18 former clerk, Ljubo Bojanovic - the number of the prisoners was notified
19 to the commander by the president of the municipality.
20 Q. Now, the treatment of prisoners, was that something that you were
21 trained on or had knowledge about before the 15th of July, 1995?
22 A. In the order from the corps command, there is one paragraph that
23 says explicitly that prisoners were to be treated in keeping with the
24 Geneva Conventions and other provisions, so that all the units involved in
25 combat operations had that order at their disposal.
1 Q. And the manner in which prisoners were to be handled, was that
2 something that was known to all of the members of the command?
3 A. Pursuant to the order of the corps command and that specific
4 clause, all members of the command should have been aware of that. As for
5 prisoners of the enemy army, the superior command was responsible, so that
6 subordinate commands had to follow orders from the corps command regarding
7 the prisoners. It was explicitly said how they were to be treated, where
8 they were to be taken, and to whom they were to be turned over.
9 Q. All right. And was that known to the members of the command?
10 A. Well, the order was there at the brigade command, so it should
11 have been familiar to all of them.
12 Q. All right.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could have 65 ter 1309, please --
14 JUDGE KWON: Before we move on --
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Oh, I'm sorry.
16 JUDGE KWON: -- Mr. Dragutinovic, could you take a look at the
17 sentence again which refers to the additional burden.
18 Last week you dealt with Mr. Haynes, who represents your
19 commander, with various military terms relating to areas of responsibility
20 of zone of defence, et cetera. But from the sentence you're looking at,
21 it says, "Various schools in the area of the brigade ..." as you read it.
22 Can we take it that those schools were in the brigade area? Could you
23 elaborate on that?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will try.
25 The command of the Zvornik Brigade - and I checked this when I
1 returned to the command as an operations officer, because all the orders
2 are kept in my operations section - did not receive any orders from the
3 superior command regarding the prisoners and their accommodation in
4 Zvornik municipality. And none of these buildings that are mentioned
5 later were in the area of defence of the Zvornik Brigade.
6 So what did the commander mean here by "the area of the brigade"?
7 He probably didn't even know which buildings were concerned. Therefore,
8 these prisoners were not taken by the Zvornik Brigade and they were not
9 put up in buildings requisitioned for the Zvornik Brigade, nor did any
10 superior officers in the command of the Zvornik Brigade conduct or manage
11 any activities involving the prisoners.
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And concerning this obligation to
14 provide security, the commander probably meant parts of the military
15 police company, and they were superior security organs from the superior
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The military police
18 company that was used by superior security organs and assigned to secure
19 these buildings.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be my answer to your
21 question, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Dragutinovic.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye, I think it's time for a break.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. One moment while I finish this annotation,
1 please, because it comes at the wrong moment.
2 Okay. Twenty-five minutes starting from now. Thank you.
3 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
8 Mr. Haynes.
9 MR. HAYNES: I wonder if I might just raise a little matter. It
10 might be better if the witness slipped off his headphones.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Dragutinovic, thank you.
12 Yes, Mr. Haynes.
13 MR. HAYNES: After we rose for the short break, I became aware of
14 a document which had been served by e-mail at 12.03 p.m., which was a list
15 of documents which the Prosecution proposed to use in redirect. I'm not
16 quite sure when 12.03 p.m. was in the scheme of things. I think it was
17 about five minutes after Mrs. Nikolic made an objection to new documents
18 being produced in redirect, but there it is. But amongst those documents
19 that Mr. Vanderpuye proposes to use, and I think one of them he proposes
20 to use with his next question, are records of intercepted communications.
21 Now, as I understand the position, there is an unresolved issue as
22 to the admissibility of those documents, and speaking for my part, I have
23 studiously avoided using them in cross-examination so far because of the
24 sensitivities of others to their admissibility in this case. It seems to
25 me it would be inappropriate for those documents to be put to this witness
1 whilst their admissibility is unresolved.
2 There is a second point, which is this: From what I can see, they
3 are not communications in which it is alleged this witness played any
4 part, and so one envisages that the form of the question is: Comment upon
5 this and what these two people are alleged to be saying to one another,
6 which seems to me in itself to be a wholly improper way of phrasing a
7 question to your own witness.
8 I just thought I'd raise those two points now. Firstly, in my
9 view, the use of the intercepts in the examination of this witness is at
10 the moment inappropriate because their admissibility is unresolved; and
11 even if that point does not find favour, then simply asking him to comment
12 on what two people may have said to one another when he is no party to the
13 conversation is of itself not a proper way of questioning the witness.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Haynes.
15 Mr. Vanderpuye -- Mr. Bourgon.
16 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 On a related matter, I did not rise to my feet earlier on when the
18 Trial Chamber rendered a ruling concerning the use of that document,, but
19 with your leave I would like --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Which document?
21 MR. BOURGON: The document to which we complained earlier on, we
22 raised an objection, that it was a document that was not on the 65 ter
23 list. The Trial Chamber rendered a ruling.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
25 MR. BOURGON: I did not intervene at that time because Ms. Nikolic
1 is responsible for this witness. However, with your leave, Mr. President,
2 without wanting to interrupt this testimony, after he's finished I would
3 like to address the Trial Chamber, with your leave.
4 Thank you, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye, can you restrict yourself to
6 Mr. Haynes's remarks or objection? Thank you.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 First, with respect to the use of intercepted communications, I
9 think the admissibility question is a relevant issue. However, I think
10 also that Mr. Haynes is well aware that the documents in fact have been
11 marked for identification. To the extent that they have been marked for
12 identification, they are an appropriate subject matter for examination as
13 regards a purely evidentiary question. Aside from their admissibility,
14 since they have been marked and they have been identified, authenticated
15 in this case ostensibly by the intercept operators, I don't think there is
16 much of an issue with respect to that argument.
17 However, with respect to the use of the document as concerns this
18 witness and him not being a party to the conversations that have allegedly
19 transpired in these communications, it seems to me to be a perfectly
20 appropriate question to ask him, A, if he's familiar with the subject
21 matter of the conversation, particularly given the nature of his position
22 in the brigade, given the information that he says he has which has come
23 out on cross-examination, and given the nature of the information that he
24 says the commander is supposed to receive from the various units,
25 subordinate organs and other members of the command. So I think it's an
1 appropriate subject matter to ask the witness about. Certainly, if the
2 witness doesn't know anything about the subject matter, then the question
3 would be answered.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes, do you wish to respond to that?
5 MR. HAYNES: No. I've got nothing further to say.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We do not see any problem with the use
9 of these documents, even though they are still marked for -- I think it's
10 okay now, but let's finish this. Thank you, Mr. Bourgon, for pointing
11 that out to us.
12 We don't see any particular problem or legal problem with the use
13 of these documents, even though they are marked for identification
14 purposes, perhaps if only for the time being. The rest of your objection,
15 after having heard what Mr. Vanderpuye had to say, I think it all depends
16 on the kind of question that he puts and then we will take it up from
17 there. My understanding is that they have -- such documents have also
18 been used with other witnesses that had nothing to do with the intercepts
20 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye, you may proceed.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 WITNESS: MIODRAG DRAGUTINOVIC [Resumed]
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 Re-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]
25 Q. Before we broke, Mr. Dragutinovic, you had commented on the 15th
1 July interim combat report that was prepared by your commander, referring
2 to the large number of prisoners distributed throughout the schools in the
3 brigade area.
4 Now, if there were such a large group of prisoners distributed in
5 the schools in the brigade area, such as Kula or Rocevic, Petkovci,
6 Grbavci, whose soldiers would come to assist the innocent Serb civilians
7 should they, these prisoners, have escaped?
8 A. I did not understand your question. Could you please repeat it.
9 Q. Okay. I think I can. It was very long so I'll try to break it
11 If there were a large group of prisoners, 3.000 of them, in the
12 schools in Kula, in Rocevic, in Petkovci, in Grbavci, if they had escaped,
13 whose soldiers would address the situation on behalf of the Serb civilians
14 in those places?
15 A. You are putting me in a situation in which you are asking for my
16 opinion as to who would have had to protect the population outside the
17 area of responsibility of the brigade. It should have been the civilian
18 police, first and foremost, because they are the ones with
19 responsibilities in the parts outside the control of the brigade, i.e.,
20 where the brigade units were not deployed.
21 Q. All right. Thank you for that, Mr. Dragutinovic.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could have, please, 65 ter 1309 in e-court,
23 please. If we could not broadcast these because these are still under
24 seal. I just want to have that up here for a minute.
25 Q. You're familiar with the brigade structure, as you've testified
1 before, Mr. Dragutinovic. The 4th Battalion, is that anywhere near the
2 vicinity of Orahovac?
3 A. The 4th Battalion had its defence sector which was in the
4 Baljkovica village sector.
5 Q. And how far was the command of the 4th Battalion from Orahovac?
6 A. At least 4 kilometres.
7 Q. And the 6th Battalion, is that in the vicinity of Petkovci?
8 A. The defence sector of the 6th Battalion was in the village of
9 Petkovci, or partly in the village of Petkovci.
10 Q. And the 5th Battalion, is that in the vicinity of Rocevic?
11 A. The 5th Battalion was rather far from Rocevic, some 10 kilometres
12 or so.
13 Q. About 10 kilometres, you said?
14 A. Yes, we are talking about the 5th, aren't we?
15 Q. Okay. And the 1st Battalion, how far was that from Kula?
16 A. Also about 4 kilometres.
17 Q. And if prisoners had escaped from schools in those areas, is it
18 your testimony that that would not be something that your brigade would
19 respond to?
20 A. Certainly, if the civilian population was threatened and the
21 civilian police could not protect the civilian population, then the
22 brigade command should have taken measures in order to protect such
24 Q. Did prisoners -- let me rephrase the question. Would prisoners at
25 a distance, at most, of 10 kilometres from these brigades, as we've just
1 discussed, represent a threat to the defence lines held by those
2 brigades -- I'm sorry, battalions?
3 A. The prisoners themselves accommodated in the facilities were not a
4 threat for the brigade itself, i.e., its battalions. However, they did
5 pose a threat for the civilian population.
6 Q. Thank you for that, Mr. Dragutinovic.
7 I'd asked you previously some questions about the handling of
8 prisoners and the rules or understandings related to that. I'd like you
9 to take a look at 65 ter number 1309, which should be on the screen in
10 front of you now. The time we are looking for on the printout will be
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: I believe it's at ERN 03216257. So if we could
13 go down to the bottom of the page, we might see it. All right. Can we go
14 to the next page, please. Thank you very much.
15 Q. I just want to direct your attention to the first part of this
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Page 2, please. Just a moment. Bear with me.
18 I'm sorry. All right. It's page 3. And if you could -- okay.
19 Q. It's at 8.00 a.m. Do you see that reference in the document in
20 front of you now, sir?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. And it purports to be a conversation between Vinko Pandurevic and
23 somebody else; is that right?
24 MR. HAYNES: I think, out of fairness to the witness, it ought to
25 be explained to him what this document is, since I think it's highly
1 unlikely he's ever seen it before, and I think the time and the date
2 should be put to him.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: We fully agree, Mr. Haynes, actually. It's as if
4 you were reading our minds.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: That is a perfectly fair objection. I will
6 address it. Thank you, Mr. Haynes.
7 Q. This document purports to be an intercepted communication
8 involving your commander, dated the 23rd of July, 1995, at 8.00 a.m. And
9 I'd like you to read down this document to the point where you see what
10 purports to be your commander asking about where to send them.
11 A. I've never seen this document before. I've never had an occasion
12 to see it. I would, therefore, like to ask you what the date of the
13 document is and I would also like to know the time. It says here 8.00,
14 but I would like to ask you about the time and date in order to be able to
15 place this document in a certain time. I've never seen this document
16 before. And the only thing I can do with it is to comment upon it, I, as
17 Miodrag Dragutinovic, the operative officer in the brigade. I can
18 interpret it for you the way I can and in no other way.
19 Do you want me to read the document for myself or maybe aloud?
20 Q. Maybe I can put some questions to you and then you can tell me if
21 you can answer.
22 A. Okay. Go on.
23 Q. This document is dated the 23rd of July, 1995, purports to be that
24 date, at 8.00 a.m., and purports to involve your commander. In the
25 document, it is attributed to your commander that he said on that date
1 that, "We are still catching Turks. I have some prisoners, I have some
2 wounded, and I don't know what to do with them, where to send them."
3 My question is, relative to that statement: Why would your
4 commander be saying that he doesn't know what to do with prisoners if that
5 was something that was known to the command?
6 MR. HAYNES: I think he ought to be allowed to read on a little
7 further. This is just a misleading question.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Witness and usher, if you could slowly --
9 Mr. Dragutinovic, I would like you to read what you can see on the screen
10 for the time being, and then as you read through, we will continue
11 scrolling the text up so that you can -- or down so that you can continue
12 reading the entire document.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't be able to claim for a
14 fact. For example, there are some names here that I'm not familiar with.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE:
16 Q. Do you know anything about the circumstances that are being spoken
17 about here?
18 A. I only know that on the 22nd or the 23rd, there were talks about
19 an exchange of prisoners. This was initiated by the other side because
20 there were people missing on our side for whom it had been established
21 that they were on the BiH army side. And as we scoured the terrain, we
22 also came across some imprisoned members of the 28th Division that we
23 brought to our barracks. We established communication between their side
24 and they wanted an exchange to take place at the local level.
25 But I believe that the brigade commands did not have the right to
1 exchange prisoners at a local level and I believe that this is the context
2 of this document. That's why the commander wonders what to do with the
3 prisoners, whether to wait for the commission that existed in the superior
4 command and that was in charge of exchanges.
5 I believe that I authored a similar document, actually part of a
6 combat report, in which we asked the same question; namely, what to do;
7 how much longer should we wait for the commission?
8 If the document that you showed me a few days ago, bearing a
9 similar date, then I believe that these two documents cover the same
10 event, I would say, because the commander certainly knew how to treat
11 prisoners of war. Those that we had brought to the barracks, we would
12 keep them there for a day, and then from there we would send them to the
13 collection centre in Batkovici. This is a well-known fact.
14 Q. Now, with respect to another part of this same conversation, your
15 commander refers to a problem of sending wounded to the Zvornik hospital.
16 Are you aware of what problem it is that he's referring to?
17 A. I wouldn't be able to say. At our command we had an out-patients
18 clinic for the slightly wounded. They were our soldiers who were kept
19 there for a while and then discharged to go home. This did not provide
20 any room for prisoners of war. No wounded prisoner of war could be
21 treated at our barracks, so I really don't know what this could be all
23 Q. Thank you for that, Mr. Dragutinovic.
24 A. I suppose that's why the question is being posed, the question
25 being what to do with them.
1 Q. Now, are you aware of whether or not there were wounded prisoners
2 that were housed and kept in the barracks at your brigade in July of 1995?
3 A. I don't remember.
4 Q. Is that something that you would have known about had it, in fact,
5 been the case, given your position?
6 A. I should know but I don't. I don't know whether there were any at
7 what time. I really am not able to say anything to that. I can't comment
8 upon that.
9 It says here in one sentence whether the letter has arrived for
10 the wounded to be sent to the hospital in Zvornik. "We have a problem and
11 we need a solution today," so on and so forth. This is what it says in
12 the document. In other words, either the commander thinks that a letter
13 has arrived or somebody tells him that a letter should arrive about the
14 wounded being sent to the hospital. My interpretation would be that, yes,
15 there was a problem, and a solution is being awaited.
16 Q. All right. Now, if I could, let me just refer you to 65 ter
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Also, this is another intercept and I would ask
19 it not be broadcast. I'm told it should be 1310C for the B/C/S printed
20 version. This one should appear at 8.05 a.m. Okay. It's at the bottom
21 of the page.
22 Q. This is an intercept at 8.05 a.m. on the 23rd of July as well.
23 It's at the bottom of your screen there, Mr. Dragutinovic. I wonder if
24 you could read that.
25 A. Yes, I can.
1 Q. Okay.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: I just want to make sure the whole thing is
3 there. Could we check the next page, please. I think it continues.
4 Q. Have you had a chance to read those first two lines on the top of
5 the page, Mr. Dragutinovic?
6 A. Just a moment, please. I've read it.
7 Q. This is a conversation that follows the one that I previously
8 showed you at 8.00 a.m., and in this conversation, one of the speakers
9 says, "What Vinko and I were just talking about will arrive at your place
10 by 1700 hours. The boss, Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic, will arrive and say
11 what needs to be done regarding the work we talked about."
12 My question to you is: Have you any idea what this intercept is
14 A. No.
15 Q. Do you know whether or not Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic actually
16 appeared at the brigade on that day, the 23rd of July, 1995?
17 A. No, I wouldn't know. I don't know about that day. I don't know
18 that Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic was in the brigade on that day at all.
19 Q. Relative to some questions that were put to you by Judge Kwon, I
20 believe it was, you had mentioned that the superior security -- superior
21 security involvement, security organ involvement in these 3.000 prisoners
22 that were being kept at the school. What information do you have about
23 that? Where did you learn this information?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
25 MR. BOURGON: Can my colleague say exactly what he's referring to
1 in terms of what part of the witness's testimony he's referring to?
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
3 Can you be more specific? And I also notice Mr. Haynes.
4 MR. HAYNES: He has been asked this question before the break and
5 he answered it in some considerable detail, about how he first came to
6 know about the 3.000 prisoners and how he thought his commander first came
7 to know about the 3.000 prisoners. We are going over ground that's been
8 extensively covered in this re-examination.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think Mr. Haynes is mistaken because I don't
10 think a single question has been put to the witness regarding the superior
11 command or superior security organ's involvement in the retention of these
12 3.000 prisoners, and that is my specific question, not the number of
13 prisoners or where they were housed.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. I think you can go ahead.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm afraid I don't have a specific reference.
16 I'll find it.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Once it has been raised, you need to look into that.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Page 65, lines 21 through 24, it was in
19 completion of an answer that the witness had given in response to a
20 question put by Judge Kwon. The witness stated concerning this obligation
21 to provide security, "The commander probably meant parts of the military
22 police company, and they were superior security organs from the superior
24 Q. So my question to you is: What information did you have with
25 respect to the involvement of the superior command in providing security
1 at these schools?
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you receiving interpretation or not?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to information that's
4 available to me, according to information that was available to me, that I
5 had access to, namely, the notes of the duty operations officer and the
6 logbook of the duty operations officer which contain several references to
7 prisoners and their accommodation in various buildings in Zvornik, there
8 are only several names mentioned, names of officers from the Main Staff
9 and the superior command. I had no other information regarding prisoners
10 and their accommodation.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE:
12 Q. What information did you have with respect to the officers is
13 attached to the question of whether or not they were from the superior
15 A. From their names and positions, I see they were from the superior
16 command. And if you took those notes to read, you would see an entry
17 saying that the duty operations officer from the superior command is
18 looking for such and such an officer of the brigade via the duty
19 operations officer of the brigade. The logical inference is that the
20 person is not currently there.
21 Q. When did you come into this information?
22 A. Upon returning to the brigade command, when I had occasion to
23 review the operations logbook and the notes of the duty officer.
24 Q. And was that around the 23rd or so of July? Can you be more
1 A. I can't tell you the date, but that's when I returned. As an
2 operations officer I was able to review all the documentation that had
3 come in, to sort documents, to place them in my files that I kept in my
4 office. So I did have insight into all this information.
5 Q. All right.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Can I show you 65 ter 341, please.
7 Q. All right, Mr. Dragutinovic, do you recognise this document? It's
8 dated 23rd July 1995 and it's a regular combat report.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. This document would be dated the same day as the intercept that I
11 last showed you referring to prisoners. I want to give you a chance to
12 read it, but if it doesn't contain any reference to prisoners, can you
13 explain why that would be the case.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
15 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, I believe that we are going
16 completely beyond the scope of both my colleague's own
17 examination-in-chief and the cross-examination. There was one issue
18 raised concerning 23 July, and in the end the witness provided an answer.
19 Now he's been asked to clarify it. He's also provided what he knows about
20 the 23rd of July. And now on this basis, my colleague is doing a
21 completely de novo examination-in-chief. The logbook was used in the
22 examination-in-chief. My colleague had all the time in the world; in
23 fact, they used double the time that they were supposed to use with this
24 witness. They've had the chance to use the operational logbook. They've
25 done that. And now he's coming back again with the operational logbook,
1 and then, on this basis, to new documents again.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
3 MR. BOURGON: There has to be a limit to what my colleague can do
4 in re-examination, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
6 What is more relevant is which section of the cross-examination
7 prompts this question on redirect.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Well, Mr. President, there was a very specific
9 question that was put to the witness by Mr. Haynes. In particular,
10 Mr. Haynes put to the witness the question concerning the treatment of
11 prisoners and whether or not the treatment of prisoners conformed with the
12 requirements of the Geneva Conventions. This relates specifically to the
13 treatment of prisoners to the extent that is the subject of an intercept
14 that is dated 23rd July, in which the commander himself says he doesn't
15 know what to do with the wounded prisoners that he has. And the witness
16 has also said that he recalls that that information was entered in a
17 combat report of about the same day date. This is a combat report of the
18 exact same date. So the foundation and relevancy, I think, is clearly
19 established from showing the witness this document as well as the question
20 that was put to him.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Witness, can I ask you to remove your headphones.
23 He understood me in sign language.
24 Did the witness actually say that he recalls having seen this
25 information in the regular combat report or in a logbook, operations
1 logbook, and notes of the duty officer?
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm going to check the record just now, but I
3 believe he specifically referred to a report.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Because the two are not the same, in the first
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 I believe it's on page 74, line 24.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: 74?
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, it's a fairly long answer but on that
10 particular page and line you'll find the reference to combat report.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. One moment.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Yes. You may proceed, provided you limit
14 yourself to the combat report that you are referring the witness to.
15 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
16 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, I just note for the record that page
17 75 referred to by my colleague is part of redirect, or 74 is redirect, so
18 it's a question that -- something that came out in redirect and not
19 something that comes from the cross-examination.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Our reasoning is this: He's just stated a couple of
21 minutes ago, looking at the purported intercept, in answering a specific
22 question, that he also recalls -- it's being put to him that he recalls
23 the same subject matter being inserted in a combat report. My problem was
24 whether it was a combat report or a logbook, as you had indicated, but I
25 think we can move ahead now. So go ahead.
1 Your question, Mr. Vanderpuye, because we've lost track of it
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. I think it was --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: It hadn't arrived as yet because you were
6 interrupted. The question was put: "This document would be dated the
7 same day as the intercept that I last showed you referring to prisoners.
8 I want to give you a chance to read it, but if it doesn't contain any
9 reference to prisoners, can you explain why that would be the case." And
10 that was your question.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Indeed, Mr. President. Thank you.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: And I want to make sure that the witness has a
13 combat report, because it's in Serbian and I can't read it and I don't
14 have the English translation readily available. It is a combat report.
15 Mr. Dragutinovic, is what you're looking at a combat report,
16 regular combat report?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm looking at a daily combat
18 report, but I didn't actually say it was just a combat report. It's a
19 combat report that I wrote in longhand and that contains almost the same
20 thing that is contained in the intercept. That's written in longhand, in
21 my handwriting. I wrote that together with the commander and our demands
22 from the corps are the same, almost the same.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: We have to stop here for today.
24 How much longer do you have, Mr. Vanderpuye? Because you said
25 half an hour --
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: -- and we've gone beyond that considerably. And
3 it's not fair with this witness.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: I understand that, Your Honour. I think that a
5 rather substantial cross-examination was conducted by my colleagues and I
6 think that some very important and salient issues have arisen from that.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: What we want to know is how much longer.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Assuming I'm not bogged down by objections
9 tomorrow, I think I can do it in probably about half an hour.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: We started with half an hour and we've gone past an
11 hour and a half almost and you need another half an hour. I think you are
12 leading us into a position where we will just block you in an alley with
13 the consequences that what applies for the goose will apply for the
14 gander, and I don't think either side will like it. But unless you use
15 self-restraint and self-discipline, I think you are going to force our
16 hands and we will intervene.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'll bear that in mind, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: But I said this again last Friday.
19 I'm sorry, Mr. Dragutinovic, we haven't finished. But you won't
20 be here for long tomorrow. We will reconvene tomorrow afternoon. The
21 same advisory applies: Please do not contact anybody or discuss with
22 anybody the subject matter of your testimony.
23 The sitting stands adjourned.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 19th day of June,
1 2007, at 2.15 p.m.