1 Tuesday, 8 July 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Registrar. Good morning to you. Could
7 you call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
9 everyone. This is case number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin
10 Popovic et al.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. All the accused are here from the
12 defence teams. I just notice the absence of Mr. Haynes and Mr. Krgovic.
13 Prosecution, we have Mr. McCloskey, back in form, and Mr. Mitchell. The
14 witness is here. Good morning to you, Colonel.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good
16 morning to everybody else in the courtroom.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, we are going to continue and hopefully finish
18 soon. Mr. McCloskey.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 THE WITNESS: PETAR VUGA [Resumed]
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 Cross-examination by Mr. McCloskey: [Continued]
23 Q. Good morning, everyone. Colonel, good morning.
24 A. Good morning, Mr. McCloskey.
25 Q. With some trepidation, I take you back to the water system. One
1 of the -- Ms. Faveau wanted a document that she found, and it's a
2 document that helps finish up that chapter, so if we could go to 65 ter
3 3501, and I'll show you. I'm not supposed to hands you things directly.
4 I'm not sure how much more we have to say about this, but we can see this
5 is a 21 June 1993
6 the water system, we had a 21 June document requesting for a report of
7 the barbaric acts about the water system, and if we look at this it seems
8 to be just that: A report about the Muslim attack on the water system.
9 Interestingly, you can be -- it can be seen in the top of this
10 document in the handwritten version that it says -- well, it says
11 personally to the Drina Corps commander, and then it says to the GSVRS,
12 personally to General Milovanovic, forwarded at 2340 hours. And we all
13 know that at the time, General Milovanovic was the Chief of Staff of the
14 Main Staff.
15 And we can see from looking at this document, for example, on the
16 third paragraph from the end, Vukota Vukovic actually goes and talks to a
17 major from the Canada
18 during the meeting with the UNPROFOR I protested with the major from K
20 destroy the facilities without disturbances only to accuse us before the
21 world for the so-called vandalism, just like they always do. We couldn't
22 have directed the focus of fire towards this stretch checkpoint river
23 Zeleni Jadar because we didn't want to endanger the UNPROFOR forces which
24 were located at the observation point and which they saw for themselves.
25 They replied positively to my claims, disgusted by the Muslim's
2 Well, this is isn't new in any kind of military, is it, to blame
3 the other side for doing bad things and to present yourself in the world
4 as the great conquerer or the great military force. I mean, we see that
5 when we turn on CNN today. So there's nothing all that unusual about
6 this, is there? How do you react to this? Sorry.
7 A. Mr. McCloskey, in view of the fact that in the materials during
8 my preparations preparing my expert report, I came across statements made
9 previously prior to the completion of my report, and among them there
10 were a lot of them, but I did not find a single trace of what I see
11 before me now. So I have no more in-depth knowledge about this. I have
12 what I'm seeing now, and it is my opinion that this action as described
13 here for the place role and tasks which the people performed is, first of
14 all, outside the functions or remit of security, and the idea of it is
15 very unclear to me in any way. If all these are facts which are correct,
16 then it is my opinion that this action goes beyond the tasks assigned
17 within the Drina Corps zone to the units that executed tasks and what I
18 had to study. This goes beyond that; it's outside that area. So that's
19 all I can say because you would need to have an in-depth analysis of all
20 this, and as a security expert myself, I would like to say that there are
21 things that remain unclear from the idea of the action itself, then
22 allowing it to go ahead and all the rest of it. It goes beyond that
23 area. That's all I can tell you.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Please slow down a little bit, Colonel, please.
25 Thank you.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY:
2 Q. Colonel, one last question on this, and we'll let the water
3 system go. I'm sure you have read and you have heard in the media as we
4 all have of -- well, first of all of what the BiH and the Muslim army
5 talks about their oppressed situation, but that's not what I want to ask
6 you about. We constantly hear from the Serbian media, from the VRS that
7 they are being treated unfairly by the world; they are portrayed -- the
8 VRS or the RS or Serbia
9 group, and that they are being treated unfairly. Isn't this operation as
10 we see it unfolding doing just that, trying to portray the VRS in this
11 context as being the victims of terrorism and thereby putting out to the
12 world that they are the victims when in reality they have created the
13 action and they have manufactured this for world consumption?
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Nikolic.
15 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] I'd like my learned friend to tell
16 us who the "they" is, which media, what period of time he is referring
17 to, what are the grounds for this type of question, and what is the
18 object of this line of questioning.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey. Again, we are pretty much in
20 the same waters as we were yesterday when we told you we can draw our own
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I think this document that we've
23 just seen that was offered by Ms. Faveau exposes the myth of Serbian
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but that's an argument. Stop. Stop. Stop.
1 That's an argument. This is a precisely what I was try to convey to you,
2 that but let me consult with my colleagues first to make sure that they
3 are in agreement with me before ...
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Faveau.
6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Just to say that this is precisely
7 the document that I wanted to cross-examine upon. Indeed, I'm not quite
8 sure that it was properly interpreted by Mr. McCloskey within the context
9 of other documents.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Let me consult with my
11 colleagues, please.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. With a 2:1 majority, let's move on to your
14 next question, please.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. All right. Can we go to another document, Colonel. It's 65 ter
17 number 453, and let me give you a Serbian version that you'll see a
18 little highlight on. This is a document dated 17 July and is signed by
19 the UNPROFOR, the Muslim representative, and Miroslav Deronjic. And it
20 talks about on 12 July in the Fontana Hotel in Bratunac, "At our request
21 negotiations were conducted between the representatives of our civilian
22 authorities and the representatives of the Republika Srpska civilian
23 authorities, and the army regarding the evacuation of our civilian
24 population from the Srebrenica enclaves." Gives the names of the
25 representatives, says from our side, and it's the Muslims. Then it says
1 the people from the Serbian side, and we can see Deronjic and Mladic and
2 some people from the Bratunac municipality. And it goes on, and we can
3 see General Krstic, Bosic, and then it says chief of the corps security,
4 Mr. Popovic, and Colonel Kosovic.
5 Where does being a representative in a situation like this fit
6 into the job of Drina Corps security? But -- I'm sorry, let me first ask
7 you. Have you had a chance to see this document before?
8 A. I read this document during the preparation of my expert report,
9 so I do know; I am familiar with its contents.
10 Q. Okay. And then can you tell us how, if it does, would this
11 particular task that he was engaged in on the 12th of July that is
12 reflected in this document, how does that fit into his job as the Drina
13 Corps chief of security?
14 A. Mr. McCloskey, an answer was provided to that question in the
15 expert report. In the part relating to Judas, the operative action, and
16 the additional dossier for the protection of General Mladic from the
17 ordered killing was in the Drina Corps command in the security
18 department, or more specifically, it was with Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic.
19 And with respect to that action, he had to be engaged directly in the
20 area and along the facilities where at that point in time Ratko Mladic
21 was located when the risk existed which could lead to the implementation
22 of this order issued or this killing that was commissioned. So he had to
23 coordinate broader security directly as well as counterintelligence with
24 -- by -- and provide direct security. Nobody else could do that instead
25 of him in that place and at that time, and that is why he happened to be
1 there, not as a member of the delegation for negotiations but in his
2 capacity as a security organ and the protagonist, the sole protagonist of
3 the job in hand with respect to the Judas operative action.
4 Q. Well, did he tell you that, or are you just gleaning that from
5 your knowledge of the regulations and the materials you've looked at?
6 A. Mr. McCloskey, I spent my entire career working on operative
7 actions and things connected to them. The documents that I had in my
8 hands without a doubt speak to the fact that there was information upon
9 which the security organs of the Army Republika Srpska in every section
10 of area under their authority had to react --
11 Q. All right.
12 A. -- without reservation.
13 Q. Okay. Now, I'm going to go to a few paragraphs in your report,
14 which would be 65 ter number 1D1175, page 20 in the English, page 18 in
15 the B/C/S. I want to give to you the portions of the report so you can
16 read it. It starts on Section 2.116, and just to start off with, these
17 are paragraphs that I actually agree with you on but I just want to ask
18 you a couple of things about.
19 So just to start off with, if we look at section 2.116, you cite
20 the instructions on the use of the service regulations of the military
21 police, and you state "The military police provide security only for
22 certain categories of prisoners of war and when this is ordered by a
23 special order." And then you go on to explain in paragraph 2.117, "This
24 refers only to certain categories of prisoners of war or, concretely, to
25 important prisoners of war. That is not a regular prescribed duty of the
1 military police but a special case. It should be noted that only the
2 commander of the unit in which the military police unit is placed or a
3 person authorised by him may issue an order for the military police to
4 provide security for prisoners of war."
5 And then if we go on in your report to paragraph 4.30, which is
6 on page 47 in the English, and page 39 of the B/C/S, you say: "Prisoners
7 of war and war booty are not a threat to security in the Drina Corps zone
8 in such a way or to such an extent as to require the engagement of the
9 most professional part of the security system for this task."
10 So these -- well, on the 13th, 14th of July, these thousands of
11 Muslims, if they were to just be shipped up for exchange really didn't
12 present the kind of security issue that would require the time and effort
13 of, as you say, the most professional part of the security system,
14 Popovic, Beara?
15 A. This question demands a fuller explanation because it's a
16 simplistic view if we compare it to the problems that existed in the zone
17 of deployment of the prisoners of war. We are not dealing here with a
18 threat itself, a threat from the prisoners of war or the threat that the
19 prisoners of war might have presented. What we are dealing here is a
20 security situation in the area of the brigade in which there were a large
21 number of armed people and a certain number of infiltrated armed groups
22 in the rear, and they had the task and, indeed, the ability, and we saw
23 that they were interested in the places of incarceration, and they had
24 the possibility -- or, rather, because not sufficient security could be
25 provided for the prisoners of war, they could have been liberated. So
1 one had to assess all the possibilities to hand, and another one -- there
2 was a very realistic threat, as well, and that was that through the
3 corridor in other ways arms could be infiltrated to those who had been
4 released, and then the balance of forces would have been upset in the
5 area of responsibility of the brigade, so much so that the defence of the
6 zone was no longer tenable.
7 Q. So are you saying we can expect that Colonel Beara would be
8 directly interested in all these prisoners to be present in and around
9 them? Are you now -- is that what you are now testifying to?
10 A. What I want to say is what I in fact said, and that is that the
11 danger was a serious one and that as such it demanded that all
12 possibilities be dealt with to prevent this development of events. Now,
13 to what extent that was the role of the security organs to provide, this
14 was decided among other things, by the command that had its assessments
15 and decided on the basis of those assessments how to react, what steps
16 were to be taken; and from the work that I had in hand, I found that the
17 situation was as we see in a document a borderline case that --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Not a borderline case.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- but that it was on the brink of
21 Q. Do you stand by your statement in paragraph 4.30, that the
22 prisoners of war and war booty are not a threat to the security of the
23 Drina Corps zone in such a way or such an extent as to require the
24 engagement of the most professional part of the security system for this
25 task? The key part of that is "require the engagement of". Does what
1 you are talking about require the engagement of the security people,
2 Beara, Popovic and others?
3 A. Mr. McCloskey, I answered very precisely. I said why the danger
4 existed, and it absolutely coincides with this assertion made in this
5 paragraph of the report. They coincide fully, not because I wanted that
6 to be the case but because the actual situation was such. The danger
7 wasn't from the prisoners of war themselves and of themselves, but the
8 danger came from the fact that for the -- there was interest in the
9 prisoners of war being released and then as military able men to be
10 transported to territory under the control of the Muslim forces and to be
11 dealt with further as military able males, men, when the general
12 mobilisation was proclaimed in the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
13 That is the crux of the matter and the substance of my answer as to what
14 dangers existed and what threats existed, so there is a clear delineation
15 between the prisoners of war themselves per se and the fact that there
16 was the -- a danger looming. That is to say that they would be released
17 and then would even be provided with weapons. So that was the problem,
18 the security problem that had to be resolved.
19 Q. So are you now saying that the danger that the Muslims would be
20 released was to the extent that it would require the engagement of the
21 most professional part of the security system?
22 A. Mr. McCloskey, I did not directly participate or observe. I was
23 merely an analyst trying to see all of the facts objectively so as to
24 arrive at a conclusion, and that conclusion is contained in the document.
25 The conclusion was that the threat, the danger was such that the
1 situation was at the brink of disaster, and I cannot interpret it in any
2 other way.
3 Q. I'll try one more time. Colonel, you say in this document, in
4 your report that this threat would not require the engagement of the most
5 professional part of the security system.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I believe that this particular part of report is
8 related just to one particular document, not for all events, not for all
9 events, but Mr. McCloskey presented --
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's a very nice answer for the witness. Thank
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No, no. You took just one part -- just one page
13 of --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop, stop, stop, stop. Please, let's keep --
15 stick to the basic rules of procedure. No cross-table argument.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: I can move on to a related but similar area.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Yes.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY:
19 Q. So Colonel, in your view --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, Your Honour. May we provide the witness
22 with his report? His binder -- yeah.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I was under the impression that he had his two
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No. No.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Sorry.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: He had it yesterday, but he was not able to find
3 anything in it.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Yeah, but it's fair enough. He should
5 have -- he should have the documents.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Of course. Now he can refer to the document you
7 referred to.
8 Q. Colonel, it should be page 18 in the B/C/S for those first two
9 things and page 39 in the B/C/S on that last part that I read to you.
10 Section -- paragraph 4.30.
11 And the question I want to ask for you now is that -- I think I
12 understand your answer, so was it more important in your view based on
13 the documents and the materials of this case that Beara and Popovic were
14 present in and around these thousands of prisoners; it was more important
15 for them to be there with them than it would be taking part in providing
16 operational security and other important counterintelligence matters and
17 the ongoing operations of Zepa and the areas -- and the Krajina and other
18 secure areas, areas of security issues?
19 A. Mr. McCloskey, I was about to answer your question previously,
20 which had to do with some additional circumstances and insight they had,
21 which now I cannot interpret from the point of view of importance. A
22 decision on the situation and the importance and urgency is made by a
23 person directly involved. An expert cannot offer his interpretation on
24 the circumstances involved. He can only draw conclusions based on the
25 documents received. Therefore, what I can tell you is that, yes, there
1 was something or, no, there wasn't, but that would be speculation. I'm
2 not here to speculate. What I conclude on the basis of this is that the
3 events were very traumatic. This is what we find in the documents and
4 from the situation in the field. This is what I based and formulated my
5 conclusion on.
6 Q. So based on everything you've looked at, you conclude that it
7 would be more important for Beara and Popovic to be around these
8 prisoners than doing their security job in Zepa or the Krajina or
9 wherever else security issues arose?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Nikolic.
11 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this question has
12 already been asked and I believe answered.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: I agree with half of that, but I don't think he
15 has gotten anywhere near an answer.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, we agree with you. We are perfectly in
17 agreement with you. Colonel, could you answer the question in a complete
18 manner, please.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm responsible here
20 as an expert. I cannot tell you whether for Beara and Popovic it was
21 more important for them to be there than to deal with certain other
22 tasks. It was their assessment, their decision, and I do not want to
23 speculate. That is all I have to say. As for the rest of what I said, I
24 observed the facts and I based my conclusions on them as well as my
25 assessment, and I offered my view and my explanation.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY:
2 Q. It's a very simple question, Colonel. Based on everything you
3 have read and according -- you've been giving opinions all throughout
4 your five days of defence testimony, was from your knowledge of the
5 documents was the -- their need, was it greater in the Zvornik area or in
6 the Bratunac area around the prisoners or the need that you understood
7 for operational security for Zepa and the other security matters, and I
8 would ask the Court to order him to answer that particular question.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's keep it cool. I mean, don't take that -- we
10 know when to intervene, and we do.
11 Colonel, please, could you answer the question.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can only repeat what
13 I've said. These decisions were made by the officers tasked with making
14 those decisions. I don't know what my position would have been had I
15 been in their shoes, but from this position I don't have the insight into
16 the security situation in other parts of the area. However, the fact
17 remains that the area of defence of the Zvornik Brigade was overburdened
18 by serious security issues, and the role of the security organs was to do
19 their utmost in order to avoid any loss of control in the area of the
20 Zvornik Brigade, and that must have been more important than going to
21 some other areas where the security in question was in less of a danger.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY:
23 Q. Okay. Thank you, Colonel. Now, you've talked a lot about the
24 importance of operational security. We've seen in the Drina Corps plans
25 and other plans how important secrecy was for these military operations
1 to keep the VRS intentions away from the enemy, away from the public; and
2 you've emphasized that this was an important part of the security
3 officer's job. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes, that is true, and it was ordered by the command structures.
5 Q. Absolutely. And so the best professional minds and officers for
6 operational security in the VRS should have been Tolimir; Beara; and for
7 the Drina
8 Drago Nikolic; and for the Bratunac Brigade, Momir Nikolic, correct?
9 A. That is correct, Mr. McCloskey. That is correct.
10 Q. Now, in 1992, the military prosecutors office of the VRS talked
11 about potential crimes against humanity and war crimes and that --
12 acknowledged that that could happen in any war. And I want to ask you -
13 and we don't need to put this to the VRS; let's say VRS, maybe BiH - but
14 if the ruling commanders in either of those armies made the horrific
15 decision to murder many hundreds of prisoners in an operation that would
16 involve detention, transportation, execution, and burial, what branch of
17 the military service would best serve the operational security of such an
18 operation that needed to be done quickly, quietly, and efficiently?
19 A. When secret operations of the service are involved, that's what I
20 can talk about. As regards the planning of such activities, it would
21 indeed entail the existence of a secret way to carry out those tasks. As
22 for the service itself or any service, for that matter, it could not have
23 been handled by one service alone because this goes beyond the measures
24 of security and secrecy involved. It begins with the plan and all of its
25 elements and implementation as intended. That is why I cannot weigh that
1 as to -- or assign it to any particular service. In any case, if such a
2 plan were to take place, each of the participants would have to have a
3 clearly defined role in this secret operation. It is impossible for one
4 side to protect the secrecy of the operation without all the other
5 elements being fully acquainted with it. That is what I can say about
6 planning and secrecy in terms of operations.
7 As for the service, the counterintelligence aspect of it, that is
8 what I can address in detail. Otherwise, all I can say is that it is a
9 very sensitive, encompassing plan to do something of this scale secretly.
10 It cannot be done by a single service alone.
11 Q. Thank you, Colonel. I have no further questions.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. McCloskey.
13 Mr. Zivanovic, do you have redirect, or Ms. Nikolic? Do you
14 have, Mr. Zivanovic?
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: You have as well. Okay. Ms. Faveau?
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, before my colleagues
18 start this additional cross-examination, I would like to ask your leave
19 to put a few questions that come directly from the cross-examination
20 we've just had by the Prosecution. The fact, for example, that the
21 Prosecutor used the document that I said I would like to use proves that
22 this is essential.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I didn't let him use that document.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Ms. Faveau, you remember what we had said at
1 the beginning when we were approaching the beginning of the Defence case,
2 namely that we would take this on a case-by-case basis. We wouldn't like
3 to see it happening on a regular basis. Before taking a decision, we
4 would like to know what the questions are, and then we'll decide. I know
5 that yesterday you indicated that you had three documents that you meant
6 to make use of, two of which we are aware of, the other one we haven't
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Two documents on the water tower
9 and the aqueduct, and I would like to prove that the dates do not
10 correspond and that the interpretation of the Prosecutor may be faulty.
11 The third document is a document sent by General Tolimir to
12 General Miletic, and I only have two questions on this document. First
13 question is, who could approve General Tolimir's proposal; and the second
14 question is as far as the witness knows whether these proposals were
15 adopted and the actions undertaken on the basis of those proposals made.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Colonel, can you take off your headphones, please.
19 Thank you.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think I'll stay out of the water system
23 controversy, but those last two issues could very well have been brought
24 up on cross. I don't -- by herself. I don't see -- you know, they are
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but the question had not arisen during -- had
2 it arisen during the direct? Yes, Ms. Faveau.
3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Well, this was a document that was
4 absolutely new, that had not been used during the in-chief.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I am under the impression that was used by Mr.
6 Zivanovic, actually. Wasn't it? The letter from Tolimir to Miletic?
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm not sure which document she means, but ...
8 JUDGE KWON: 3499.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: As I understand you and her, actually, because once
10 you eliminated the water tank, then you were necessarily talking about
11 the letter from Tolimir to Miletic. That's how I understand it, anyway.
12 That matter was raised by you on cross-examination and not by Mr.
13 Zivanovic during direct.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: I am sorry.
15 JUDGE KWON: 131.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: We still haven't found that, and I'm sure you are
17 right, SO if that's the case ...
18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Document P2517. This is a
19 document dated July 21st from General Tolimir and dealing with Zepa.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, and we are in agreement that that was used
21 during cross-examination and not during the direct, correct?
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. And of course, that document has been used
23 many, many times.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course, but forget that.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I will then object to the violation
1 of the rules. Let's stick by the rules we've been living by.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. What we are going to suggest for the time
4 being is that we proceed with the redirect of Ms. Nikolic; and during the
5 break, Ms. Faveau, see if you can discuss a little bit with your two
6 colleagues, Ms. Nikolic and Mr. Zivanovic, and see if they can take on
7 board your queries, which would save us having to find a legal formula
8 either to accept or reject your request to put further questions to the
11 Re-examination by Ms. Nikolic:
12 Q. Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning, Colonel.
13 A. Good morning, Madam Nikolic.
14 Q. I have a few questions for you necessary to clarify a few things
15 after the cross-examination by my learned friend.
16 In your yesterday's testimony, you were asked by Mr. Haynes at
17 page 23359 of the transcript. You were talking about when the military
18 police can be used outside of the scope of their tasks and competences.
19 When the military police is used in such a way, on the approval of the
20 army commander or another senior officer in such a case, does the army
21 commander or the senior officer can issue an order directly to the
22 security organ circumventing the unit commander, the part of whose unit
23 the military police unit is?
24 A. The regulation that there is does not envisage such a possibility
25 that the security organ can be issued orders by the second or two levels
1 up in terms of command because the military police is under the command
2 of the commander of the unit, the part of which that military police unit
3 is. When commanding the military unit, a request needs to come down the
4 chain of command. This is what the regulation requests, and only in very
5 exceptional circumstances can such a circumvention take place. However,
6 in my career I have not come across such an example. It would have been
7 a precedent. That is why we have the regular way of communication
8 prescribed by the regulation.
9 Q. Sending the military police into combat, does that fall within
10 the remit and tasks of the military police?
11 A. If you read the documents carefully, you can see straight away in
12 the reports that it says the military police tasks, and then they are
13 enumerated; the military police tasks are set out, and then as a separate
14 part it says participation in combat operations. So the military police
15 does not take part in combat operations when it comes to its remit.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, if the military police is nonetheless used in
17 combat, in combat operations, who decides on the deployment of the
18 military police in combat operations and whether the security organ is
19 consulted in making that decision?
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. I don't recall dealing in these
21 details with the military police, and combat is something that was dealt
22 with on cross in any detail, and if it had been it's already been dealt
23 with. It's just fundamental material.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: And if I remember, I may be wrong, but if I
25 remember well, during the examination-in-chief by Mr. Zivanovic, he was
1 even shown the provision of the law which precisely deals with the
2 deployment of military police in combat operations, and the questions
3 were asked to whom, who would decide certain questions, certain issues,
4 and who would decide others and to whom they were answerable. So I think
5 we can safely move to your next question, Ms. Nikolic. Unless I am
6 wrong, but I think the Colonel himself can confirm this.
7 You have already been asked about this, haven't you, Colonel?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I was asked questions about
9 that and it was discussed, although I wasn't able to see what else there
10 was in the question, so that's the crux of the matter just as you noted,
11 Your Honour.
12 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'd just like to ask
13 one sentence, the basis for my additional questions as to the deployment
14 of the military police outside the purview, its purview, based on special
15 orders, and this was raised by my colleagues during the
16 cross-examination, and I think that sending the military police into
17 combat operations is one type of task of this kind, and I'd like to clear
18 that up with the expert.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: That was not something that I brought up. I
21 brought up special use of the military police with prisoners, special
22 orders related to prisoners.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: That's why I mentioned Mr. Zivanovic because it was
24 Mr. Zivanovic who dealt with the deployment of military personnel,
25 military police, and security personnel in combat.
1 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. I'd like to refer to page 23360 of the transcript and 23361.
3 23360 and 23361 of the 7th of July, 2008.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: She is referring to what -- to a part during Mr.
6 Haynes' cross-examination. Given that, we allow the question.
7 So please, Colonel, Ms. Nikolic is going to put the question to
8 you, which I understand is a prelude to another question or series of
10 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Let me repeat the question, Colonel, if you need to hear it
12 again. My question was as follows: The security organ, does it decide
13 whether the military police will be deployed in combat operations, or is
14 it the commander who decides having consulted the security organ?
15 A. When it comes to the engagement of the military police in combat,
16 combat operations, there is no role there played by the security organ
17 because it goes beyond the remit and function of the military police.
18 Q. In case the military police is sent in to combat operations, does
19 the security organ follow the unit?
20 A. The security organ in the professional sense manages the military
21 police only when a military police unit is deployed within the frameworks
22 of the prescribed remit, that is to say, is within military police tasks
23 and assignments.
24 Q. Thank you. I'll go back to another area now. Yesterday on the
25 7th of July, you also testified on pages 23363 and 23364 of the
1 transcript for my colleagues. Actually, you were shown your findings in
2 the Vukovar case. So I'd like to ask us to have on e-court 7D952, pages
3 29 and 30 of those findings. 29 and 30 of the B/C/S, in fact, and it is
4 page 30 in the English.
5 May we scroll down for the B/C/S, please. Lower down the page.
6 Thank you.
7 On the right-hand side we have the B/C/S version, and the last
8 sentence says that the infantry brigade and the military police is
9 subordinated to the commander of the brigade. Now, can we have page 30
10 in B/C/S, and it's the same page in English. The military police company
11 commander subordinated the brigade commander indirectly, et cetera, i.e.,
12 via the chief of the security organ of the brigade who is leading the
13 military police in the professional sense. And I'd also like to read out
14 on that same page, 30 of the B/C/S, the second paragraph, third sentence,
15 in an infantry brigade the security organ is an intermediary through
16 which the brigade commander manages and commands the military police in
17 all aspects and in all contents.
18 Mr. Vuga, my question to you is this: Compared to your findings
19 and the expert report in this trial and in the Vukovar trial, are there
20 any substantive or other differences in these observations?
21 A. Mrs. Nikolic, in the proceedings we are discussing there was a
22 comparative analysis that was made of one type of infantry brigade and
23 the motorised guard's brigade, which was a specific unit in all respects.
24 So this type of infantry brigade displayed this type of control and
25 command of the military police, but it was not absolute because there
1 were other ways of control which were not excluded in this type of
2 brigade, which means there was no substantive difference between what is
3 stated in my expert report in this trial and in the previous trial that
4 we are discussing at present.
5 Q. Thank you. I'd now like to have on e-court another document or,
6 rather, the same document, 7D952, but I'd like to see the schematic, the
7 diagram that we were discussing yesterday. So first of all, I'd like to
8 ask that page 88 be displayed in English and page 91 in the B/C/S of this
9 document 7D952. Thank you.
10 Colonel, the diagram that we have in front of us contains -- or
11 shows the links, the linkup between the units, and there are full lines
12 and dotted lines. Now, what I want to ask you is this: The dotted lines
13 on this diagram, which emerge from the security organ and the military
14 police department going down towards the other segments, that dotted
15 line, does that reflect professional management or command in the sense
16 that you testified about here?
17 A. Mrs. Nikolic, a comparative analysis or comparisons generally of
18 the guards motorised brigade with other brigades cannot provide us with
19 the proper solution because the motorised guards brigade was a specific
20 units of the Yugoslav People's Army, and in the case of that unit the
21 manner of control and command are not comparable to a classical infantry
22 brigade of the kind we have studied thus far.
23 Q. Thank you. Now, may we have B/C/S page 93 and the English, which
24 is the same page of that same document. I'm sorry. I apologise. The
25 page in English is page 90. Colonel, you were asked yesterday about this
1 schematic of the composition of the infantry brigade from the Vukovar
2 report. Now, the dotted line there between the upper two rectangles,
3 does that denote some form of control and command?
4 A. It is neither in this particular case. This is a type of
5 cooperation, and this dotted line where it says SKJ Committee can be
6 struck from the agenda because as it stands, it no longer existed either
7 within the JNA later nor within the Army of Republika Srpska, so that
8 rectangle does not deserve any more extensive comment.
9 Q. So your diagram in this trial is different than it is in your
10 expert report in the Popovic et al trial?
11 A. Yes, the function is different as is shown here, and it is
12 individual. It doesn't coincide with others.
13 Q. May we have on e-court the next exhibit, please. It is 3D396.
14 The B/C/S page is 40, and it is 48 in English.
15 This is a schematic of the report that you compiled in the trial
16 you are testifying in today. We have dotted lines once again and lines
17 linking certain participants, factors, according to the military police
18 company, the security organs, and further down -- who else? So what do
19 the dotted lines further down represent?
20 A. In the upper left-hand corner, you have the key, and it says that
21 the dotted lines are specialist control, it says, or professional
22 management. And they are lines of the chief of the security organs,
23 which denote professional management and guidance. The military police
24 company through the commander of the military police company and
25 professional management and guidance in the security and intelligence
1 organs within the battalions, assistant commanders for security in the
2 battalions, which come under the authority of the chief of the security
3 organ of the brigade or, rather, the assistant commander for security.
4 And we've already discussed professional management.
5 Q. Thank you. So the small squares at the bottom are security
6 organs in the battalions within the composition of the Zvornik Brigade?
7 A. Yes, that's what it says in the rectangle and squares itself.
8 Q. Thank you. Yesterday on page 23392 of the transcript -- thank
9 you, we are finished with that document. It can be removed from our
10 screens. Anyway, lines 17 to 23 in response to a question from my
11 learned friend, Mr. McCloskey, you explained the duties of the company
12 military police commander to follow the commander within the frame works
13 of the orders given. Now, my question to you is this: The security
14 organ, can it issue instructions to the commander of a military police
15 company outside the frameworks of a commander's orders?
16 A. Mrs. Nikolic, a security organ does not have the competence and
17 authority to issue any instructions which are outside the orders issued
18 by the commander because that would mean an expansion of his own
19 authority, which he does not have the right to, nor does he have
20 authorisation to do any things like that. So no, he cannot issue such
21 instructions. Let me just add, it is understood that when this -- we are
22 talking about the implementation of the orders issued by the commander of
23 the military police. We have to very precise there.
24 Q. However, if this order or instruction would be contrary to the
25 law, would the commander of the military police company be duty-bound to
1 act on it?
2 A. Nobody has the right to implement any unlawful instructions.
3 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may we now have the
4 break so that I can re-organize my questions and finish as quickly as
5 possible. Thank you.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We'll have a 25-minute break. Thank
8 --- Recess taken at 10.19 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Faveau.
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I had discussed the issue with my
12 colleagues during the break, and we've reached an agreement, and it's
13 really a question of principal. So as to the issues of water supply, my
14 colleague will raise those issues quite independently since it's a
15 general question. However, with regard to P2517, that document directly
16 and exclusively pertains to my client; hence -- while my client has
17 chosen me as his lawyer, so I think it really behooves me to ask the
18 questions if you will allow this. I don't think that someone else can do
19 this in my stead.
20 Indeed, I'm convinced that it's a question of principle. It's
21 not the case in this particular case, but it's possible that there could
22 be a conflict of interest, and it may not always be possible for one
23 defence counsel to ask questions in the place of another Defence counsel.
24 I think we have to abide by very specific rules when the Prosecutor
25 raises a completely new question during the cross-examination. The
1 witness has been here for a week. The name of my client was never
2 mentioned during the interrogation in chief, nor by the counsel of
3 Popovic or Nikolic. No document mentioning my client was mentioned or
4 submitted. So for the he very first time, my client's name was mentioned
5 by the trial attorney. Hence, I think that based on the fundamental
6 rights of the accused I should be entitled to ask questions regarding
7 this specific document. I will not mention the water tower. That is a
8 general question that is of interest to all of the Defence counsels and,
9 therefore, questions may be raised by any of them.
10 I believe that it is a fundamental right of the accused as any
11 accused has the right to be judged in joint trial as if he were the only
12 accused, and if he were the only accused, of course, this question would
13 not arise. If we allow the Prosecution to use new documents, and when I
14 say new, it's new with this witness. Of course, the document was
15 submitted to other witnesses, but I don't see why I should have been
16 expected to raise this with the witness when the issue had not been
18 So if we allow the Prosecutor in the cross-examination to raise a
19 new question and do not allow the Defence counsel to ask questions on
20 that same issue, the Defence would then not enjoy the same rights as a
21 Prosecution, and an accused in a joint trial would not enjoy the same
22 rights as if he were being tried alone. So I would ask you for the right
23 to ask questions only on the document P2517.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey. Thank you, Madam Faveau.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, having had a little time to think about
1 this, my mentioning of General Miletic was only in reading who the
2 document was to and kind of going over the date, referring who it was to,
3 and at one point I remember emphasizing that this was a proposal and not
4 an order because I think the witness or the translation started talking
5 about order. But I never did anything to try to implicate General
6 Miletic in anything except just to read the document about it, which -- a
7 document that has been around for a long time. So had I done something
8 to specifically - for lack of a better word - ding General Miletic, I
9 think she would have an argument. In this case, I don't think she does.
10 However, if she goes into this with this witness in an area that I did
11 not go into, she will be opening the door to an area that the Prosecution
12 may then want to get into. Having said all that, if she wants to make an
13 exploratory question on this issue, on whether General Miletic is
14 authorised to give orders, perhaps it will be over and done with in a
15 question or two. But I think we can see the slippery slope where this
16 takes us, and that's why I've objected thus far.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Just a couple of words, Your
20 Honour. We second Mrs. Faveau's position because it is a principle that
21 we want to abide by. If that principle and that right is curtailed, we
22 wouldn't be in the position to examine our witnesses in a proper manner.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, I think the principle has already been
24 discussed and disposed of weeks ago, so we are -- we won't be opening
25 that chapter again.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Faveau, we would like to know the precise
3 questions that you wish to put to the witness before we decide.
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there are only two
5 questions, in fact, the first being whether General Mladic [Realtime
6 transcript read in error "Miletic"] was the only person who had the
7 authority to approve or endorse such proposals within the staff of the
8 Army Republika Srpska; and the second question is according to the
9 information that the witness has, does he have any information that would
10 suggest that those proposals were followed or implemented or not.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: My memory of the witness's answers, it was -- he
13 was trying to distance himself from this document and the subjects that I
14 was dealing with, the chemical weapons and the bombing refugees. And so
15 to ask him now a question, you know, a leading question about General
16 Mladic in this context I think is objectionable.
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] In fact, there's a mistake in the
18 transcript, I said General Mladic, in fact.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: So for the record, that correction needs to be made
20 to line 18 of the previous page, page 29.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Our decision is to allow only the first question
23 but not the second, Ms. Faveau. And the reasons should be obvious,
24 particularly since the letter was addressed to your client, although
25 neither the witness nor the Prosecution has tried to implicate your
1 client. Yes, we need the witness in the courtroom now, please.
2 Ms. Nikolic will conclude her -- Ms. Nikolic will finish, will
3 conclude her -- Ms. Nikolic?
4 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Should I complete my redirect and
5 then have Ms. Faveau putting questions? What would be your decision?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: That's precisely what we were discussing. We seem
7 to be in agreement once you've started your redirect, and you are halfway
8 through, that you conclude it first. After all, you know what the
9 question is going to be, although we don't know what the answer is likely
10 to be. So let's proceed with your redirect, and then we'll give the
11 opportunity to Ms. Faveau. The idea is not to interrupt your redirect
12 any further.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Colonel, I want to continue with my questions. By referring to
16 your testimony on the 4th of July, 2008, it is page 23344 of the
17 transcript. You were asked a number of questions concerning the general
18 staff of the VRS instruction P2741. Among other questions, you were also
19 asked by my learned friend what the problems and irregularities appeared
20 in the command and control chain of the OB referred to in the instruction
21 and which caused instruction to be draft. Your reply was that you did
22 not study the process of drafting instructions and their causes.
23 However, I still have a question for you.
24 In principle, can one deem opening mail packages or assigning a
25 security organ to duty shifts or refusing to allow vehicles to be used or
1 to take away the stamp used by the security organ; can these be deemed
3 A. Madam Nikolic, as far as I recall in terms of my answers, it was
4 not in strict accordance with what I said. This may have happened
5 because of the interpretation. I said that I had prior experience with
6 the JNA but that I did not study this in particular when drafting this
7 report. However, it is not directly relevant to your question. I just
8 wanted to have that down for the record.
9 First and foremost, the instruction and its drafting was caused
10 because -- by certain problems that had been identified in the VRS during
11 the preceding period up to the instruction itself. The problems are
12 outlined in the instruction according to their consequences and the
13 situation that was established in the field. The instruction envisages
14 how the problems should be dealt with in terms of command and control.
15 It has to do with command and control. It is limited to the application
16 of the rules of service because it talks about the tasks of security
17 organs as prescribed by the rules of service of security organs.
18 Anything beyond the rules in terms of deviating from point 93 of the
19 rules of service and point 48 of the same rules was seen as an infraction
20 of command and control that had been prescribed.
21 Q. I mentioned several examples in my question of such
22 irregularities or infractions. Are these, indeed, infractions of the
23 rules of service of the security organ?
24 A. That's why I mentioned point 93 of the rules of service as well
25 as 48, which stipulates that the competent officer can issue tasks to the
1 security organ within the security organ's remit, which are not done
2 regularly in terms of establishment, but, however, are still part of the
3 scope of activities of the security organ.
4 Item 93 states that security organs are not appointed to perform
5 duty shifts in internal services. According to the rules of work of
6 commands and staffs at page 34 and 35, what we have are the organs of
7 internal services including operational duty services and others to which
8 security organs were assigned according to the documentation I had at my
10 Q. I will move on to item 2 of the instruction. It is transcript
11 page 23345 and 23346. In e-court, I would kindly ask for P2741 to be
12 brought up. While we are waiting for the instruction, Colonel -- well,
13 so as not to waste any time, I wanted to read out the text of item 2.
14 You've already testified about it. It is the third paragraph in B/C/S as
15 well as in English in item 2: "All members of these organs in the
16 service have the legal authority and act upon those in the course of
17 their work in keeping with the instruction provided by the state security
18 service." You've explained all that. In your report, which is 3D396,
19 did you deal with a full explanation of all five areas of competence
20 assigned to the security organ?
21 A. In my report, you can see the authorities of security organs, the
22 five of them, which are also assigned to the state security service and
23 its internal organs or organs of the interior. In keeping with the rules
24 of work of the security organ, security organs cannot be prevented from
25 using these authorities provided they abide by law.
1 Q. 3D396, page 14, 15 of the B/C/S and 16 and 17 of the English
2 version: That is your report, Mr. Vuga. In particular, 282 and 287,
3 those are the points I'm interested in. 3D396, 14 and 15 in the B/C/S
4 and 16 and 17 in the English. Page 14 of the B/C/S, please.
5 We have it on our screens, but is that the portion of your report
6 which deals in detail with OB
7 A. Yes, that's right. That is the part of my report dealing with
8 those questions.
9 Q. Thank you. We won't need the document anymore.
10 Now, on transcript page 23347 of the 4th of July, 2008, when
11 referring to the same document P2741, you testified about providing
12 intelligence information or, rather, in point 4 of the instructions. So
13 once again, P2741 on our screens, please, in e-court. Page 2 in the
15 While we are waiting for the document to appear, I have a general
16 question for you. Tell us, please, Colonel, what happened on the 13th of
17 January in the Army of Republika Srpska - that is the 13th of January,
18 1995, of course - along the lines of the questions asked to you by Mr.
19 Haynes and linked to security and intelligence affairs within the VRS?
20 A. Mrs. Nikolic, on the 13th of January, 1995, an order from the
21 Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska led to differentiation in
22 functions, security and intelligence organs to intelligence organs, which
23 were incorporated within the composition of the staff itself, and the
24 functions of the security organ separately, which remained within the
25 frameworks of the commands under the command of the commander of the
2 Q. Thank you. Now, when you testified about that, you may
3 differentiated between intelligence and security information. Now, my
4 question to you is this: After this January 1995, in the brigade, who
5 were -- was intelligence information sent to, and to whom was security
6 information sent to?
7 A. In the brigade from the moment these functions were separated and
8 from the --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: I apologise, but are we talking brigades
11 generally or a particular brigade, a motorised brigade, a light infantry
12 brigade? This makes a big difference.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, which brigade are you referring to?
14 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] I'm referring to the Zvornik
16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think that's clear enough now.
17 Colonel, perhaps you can answer the question directing your answer to the
18 Zvornik Brigade, please.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have understood
20 that. The answer for the Zvornik Brigade is this: That the intelligence
21 organ, which was within the composition of the security intelligence
22 organ of the brigade, was transferred and dislocated from establishment,
23 was to become part of the staff of the brigade, and it was the
24 intelligence organ within the staff of the brigade. The security organ
25 remained subordinated directly to the commander, and intelligence went to
1 the staff of the brigade to the intelligence organ there and the Chief of
2 Staff, of course, as his superior officer.
3 Security information went to the -- down the professional line of
4 the security organ and were in the security organ for use and evaluation
5 and everything else that the security organs had under their authority
6 and accessible to the commander pursuant to regulations.
7 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Thank you. Before point 4, it says simultaneously the members of
9 the intelligence and security organs, they weren't separated yet, are
10 duty-bound to inform their immediate commanders about their assessments
11 and et cetera in the extent to which it refers to the security of the
12 units and institutions --
13 THE INTERPRETER: A little slower, please. Thank you.
14 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I apologise to the
15 interpreters for going so fast.
16 Q. -- in the assessments and observations, a necessary scope and
17 measure, which relate to security of the unit -- of the units and
18 institutions, and that is on page 2 of P2274, the first paragraph in the
19 B/C/S and on page 2 of the English. Colonel, is that what you were
20 talking about a moment ago?
21 A. Mrs. Nikolic, this is part of what I was talking about earlier
22 on, the part relating to the functions of the security organ as realized
23 in the command within whose composition the security organs find
24 themselves; and it is their basic responsibility, that is to say to
25 protect the security of their unit and command, the ones that they are
1 responsible to the commander -- responsible for to the commander.
2 Q. Now, I'd like to go on to point 5 of that same document. It is
3 page 23348 of the transcript, once again of the 4th of July, 2008
4 testified about promotions and replacements in the OB, and my question to
5 you is as follows: If a commander learns that his security organ has
6 committed a crime of any sort or has violated the law, does the commander
7 have the right to take steps and proceedings against the security organ
8 with the aim of replacing him -- having him replaced?
9 A. Mrs. Nikolic, the security organs did not have any immunity, did
10 not enjoy immunity when it came to responsibility for crimes committed or
11 any other type of responsibility which was prescribed in the rules and
12 regulations of the Army Republika Srpska, the Criminal Code, and other
13 regulations and provisions providing for sanctions for controversion of
14 the law, infractions of the law. The commander could initiate
15 proceedings just as he could against any perpetrator of a crime or
16 somebody to be held accountable for their conduct under the law.
17 Q. Now, in keeping with item 5 - may we see item 5, please - in the
18 sense of stimulative measures and proposals of the security organs, who
19 makes assessments of the work of the security organs? Who assesses their
21 A. Mrs. Nikolic, an assessment and appraisal of the work of the
22 security organs is something made by the commander, and in that regard he
23 needs to be informed about a significant portion of the work of the
24 security organs in the field of counterintelligence, which as a rule are
25 not given insight to -- to people at all levels. So that is necessary
1 for an evaluation to be realistic and all-embracing. Otherwise, it would
2 be partial with all the drawbacks that such a partial appraisal involves.
3 Q. I'd like to go back to point 7 of this document now, which is on
4 page 3 of the B/C/S. It is the control of professionalism and legality
5 of the OB
6 the transcript in response to Mr. Haynes's questions.
7 My question to you is this: If the security organ violates any
8 regulations in going about its duties and performing its tasks of the
9 duty operative in the brigade or in conducting affairs with the military
10 police, who controls the professionality and legality of the work of
11 security organs in these affairs according to item 7 of the document?
12 A. Mrs. Nikolic, I'd like to ask you to clarify what you mean. I'm
13 not sure I understood your question. It was incomplete, I feel.
14 Q. Yes, I'll do that. If a security organ, for instance, violates a
15 regulation or is in contravention of the law in performing its
16 counterintelligence work in the Judas Operation, for example, who
17 controls and supervises the legality of its work within the framework of
18 that area of its activity?
19 A. I see what you are asking me now, yes. Professional supervision
20 and legality in work in full when it comes to the methods of work applied
21 by the security organs, that is done exclusively by the superior security
22 organ within the frameworks of the line of professional management and
23 supervision, down that chain, right down to the level of the individual
24 who is authorised or who decides about the use of and selection of
25 methods of work. The person who approved the application of those
1 methods of work, that same person has the right fully to control the
2 legality of their implementation.
3 Q. Thank you. In a case where the security organ is engaged in
4 affairs of a duty officer, for example, or has dealings with the military
5 police, who then controls its professionalism and the legality of its
7 A. Professionality and legality of work for the security organs
8 engaged in the areas you mentioned in your question is controlled by the
9 unit commander or, rather, the senior officer who prescribed those duties
10 within the unit and who is in command of the unit within that sphere of
11 activity. And we once again come back to the commander of the unit and
12 the security organ as a member of the command and assistant to the
13 command of full security is responsible for those affairs to the
14 commander fully.
15 Q. Thank you. May we have the next document on e-court, P176. And
16 the document was shown to you during your testimony on Friday, pages
17 23354 and 23355 of the transcript.
18 Let me remind you, it is a warning to keep confidential
19 information confidential, P176, secret information secret.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Could the counsel please clarify the number.
21 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] P, Prosecution, 176.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: We are being told it's not in e-court.
23 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. It was
24 already used on Friday, I believe, but my associate tells me it is 7D
25 P00176 is the number, and it's an exhibit under that number.
1 JUDGE KWON: Is it an order from the security department, 3rd of
2 June, 1999
3 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, it is an issue of warning, a
4 caution. Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: That's Prosecution Exhibit 176. Looking at the
6 number, it should be in e-court.
7 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Q. Now, Colonel, this is a document of the 5th corps, the security
9 department, on the protection of the leaking of secret information. It
10 was sent to the commander, the 503rd motorised brigade, that is to say
11 the Zvornik Brigade, and it was signed by Momcilo Pajic, an officer of
12 the Drina
13 that are protected in communication in counterintelligence work done by
14 the OB
15 service governing the OB
16 refers, security rules of service and its provisions?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment. Yes.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. We've gone through this, and they
19 are, and I don't know why we are going through it again.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Nikolic.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please. Microphone.
22 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. This question
23 was broached in a different way during the cross-examination conducted by
24 my learned friend Mr. Haynes, so I'd like us to complete the document in
25 the manner that it deserves.
1 MR. HAYNES: I'd also like to say it's a leading question, but --
2 are the rules of the OB
3 invites the answer "yes," doesn't it?
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let me confer with my colleagues.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Maybe there's something coming, but we don't see
6 it yet, and ...
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Nikolic, please rephrase your question and make
9 sure that in doing so you do not repeat or elicit the repetition of
10 information that has already been given by the witness during the
11 cross-examination by Mr. Haynes.
12 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will
13 follow your instruction.
14 Q. Mr. Vuga, in this document - I will read out a portion of it - it
15 says: "In the future, all mail addressed to the OB should not be opened.
16 The counterintelligence organ is responsible to its department. It
17 should also familiarize the commander with the important elements. The
18 security organ based on its rights and obligations, which stem from the
19 rules of service and the applicable law, have the right to use the unit's
20 seal. Given that you are familiar with the contents of the documents of
21 this department, and I won't go into all the numbers, you are duty-bound
22 to provide a written statement to the security organ of your unit on the
23 keeping of secret information, Article 25, paragraph 2, of the rules of
24 security or safety."
25 Could we next have P470 in e-court, page 10 in the B/C/S and 11
1 and 12 in the English. After that, I will put my question. P470, page
2 10 in the B/C/S and 11 and 12 in the English version. 470.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction. 407.
4 MS. NIKOLIC: [In English] 407, please. [Interpretation] Page 10
5 in the B/C/S, 11 and 12 in the English version.
6 Q. Could we please move the document so as to be able to see the
7 right-hand side of the B/C/S version.
8 Colonel, please have a look at the document before you. Item 25.
9 Does this rule, number 25 that the document refers to - that is P4176;
10 that is the letter sent to the commander of the 503rd Brigade - does it
11 refer to that rule?
12 A. Ms. Nikolic, that is the rule referred to in the document.
13 Q. Item 2 of Rule 25 says, "The officers managing security organs
14 and other persons who get by -- information which falls under the scope
15 of activity of the OB
16 to the rules in place under protection of secrecy." Also in paragraph 4
17 it says, "the obligation to protect information" --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Persons under
19 paragraph 3 of this item shall give a special written statement
20 concerning the obligation to protect the secrecy of information.
21 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Colonel, according to this rule are all persons, should they get
23 by certain information, are obliged to keep them secret and provide
24 written statements about it?
25 A. All persons are duty-bound to treat the data which has to do with
1 methods of work of the security organ and information gained by their
2 application if arrived at by whichever means have to keep them as secret
3 under different categories of classification up to the level of state
5 Q. Does that mean, Colonel, that that category of persons includes
6 commanders and all those who get in contact with secret information?
7 A. All persons without exception, irrespective of their function,
8 position, and other attributes.
9 Q. Thank you. Could we again have P176. It is the OB letter that
10 we just saw. Thank you. I will read item 6 in which it says, "We hope
11 that you shall see this as an effort in good faith to protect the
12 security service." Could this be seen as a disciplinary measure or
13 warning which may carry consequences?
14 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Colonel. Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. This is leading, and it's all clearly
16 an argument that's being made through this witness. It's not appropriate
18 MR. HAYNES: I join that objection. This is not the proper
19 examination of a witness. Two sections of two documents have been read
20 out to him at length, and the link is just being made through him. It
21 doesn't need any expertise. This is a closing argument.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. I need to consult with my colleagues.
23 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] I'll rephrase my question, Your
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's hear your new question. Mr.
1 Haynes in particular has made a point, and it goes across to some of the
2 previous questions that you have put.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's hear your question as rephrased, Ms. Nikolic,
6 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. My question, Colonel, is this: Does the document before you in
8 your professional expert opinion, is it a document which initiates a
9 disciplinary proceedings or procedure by the OB against anyone?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop. Stop. Don't answer the question. Of
11 course, the document says what it reads, so let's continue with your next
12 question, please.
13 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. On the 4th of July at page 23340, you testified about a document
15 from 1992. Could we please have Document 7D483 brought up in e-court.
17 This document was issued by the 17th Corps command, which was a
18 unit of the former JNA, on the 25th of February, 1992, sent personally to
19 the commanders of subordinate units. Colonel, please tell us what this
20 document is about.
21 A. This is an order/warning on the engagement of security organs in
22 units. The document warns that the rules of engagement of the OB in the
23 various units should be strictly abided by. We have commented upon it
24 rather extensively in my previous testimony.
25 Q. Was this document sent to any of the security organs?
1 A. This is a corps command document which followed the chain of
2 command and had to do with unit commanders rather than security organs
4 Q. I wanted to ask you something about a document which was also
5 shown to you on Friday. It is Exhibit P3033; pages of the transcript are
6 2334 --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 23354.
8 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. It has to do with the Judas operational action. P3033. Thank
11 My question is this: According to this document, if the senior
12 officers, Mladic and Tolimir or Mladic or Tolimir, are to arrive to the
13 brigade, is the commander supposed to know about it?
14 A. As regards these officers --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I think -- one moment. I remember quite vividly
16 this question being asked and answered.
17 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I have only two
18 additional questions concerning the measures undertaken in such cases,
19 and that is something that remains unclear in the transcript.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Then go straight to that, ma'am, please.
21 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. In such a case, Mr. Vuga, are any security measures put in place
23 at the command, and do such measures have anything to do with the
24 counterintelligence work of the security organ undertaken concerning the
25 planned murder which was to be part of the operation?
1 A. All security measures undertaken comprise a single security
2 system. The counterintelligence measures are only undertaken by the
3 security organ. Their nature is as prescribed by the regulation. I
4 won't go into that again.
5 Q. If these highly ranked people are to arrive at the unit, who is
6 responsible for their security?
7 A. Mrs. Nikolic, although imprecise -- although your question was
8 imprecise, my answer would be this: Those security system elements that
9 are in place are supposed to be responsible in their respective domains.
10 It is precisely described what the responsibility was of certain security
11 elements, are, per functions.
12 Q. If we go beyond this document, apart from the counterintelligence
13 work of the Judas Operation, who was responsible for the security of
14 these officers?
15 A. I believe my previous answer contains the part that has to do
16 with the system elements. The different security system elements range
17 from the duty officer and the soldier at the gate up to the commander of
18 security if he is there. These are all different parts of the system.
19 Each of them has its tasks and responsibilities for their implementation.
20 Counterintelligence work is a part of that system, and the way they
21 should be undertaken are -- is described in the regulations. However, it
22 is not to be disclosed to those who are not supposed to take part in it.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just -- I think it's a translation error.
25 Commander of security?
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Lines 3 and 4. He is referring to lines 3 and 4 on
2 this page, page 46. I don't know. I can't answer your question because,
3 obviously, I don't understand the B/C/S language, so I don't know what
4 the witness said. We can ask him.
5 Colonel, you said the different security system elements range
6 from the duty officer and a soldier at the gate up to the -- did you say
7 the commander of security if he is there, or did you use any other
8 different term?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Commander of the unit, not
10 security. The unit and its commander prescribe the security regimen
11 within its competence. These are the parts of the system I referred to,
12 which need to function jointly.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Nikolic.
14 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Thank you, Colonel, I have one more question. Today on page 15
16 of the transcript, lines 8 to 13, and my colleague was asking you a
17 question, my learned friend Mr. McCloskey, and the question was, if the
18 main commander in any army decide to kill many hundreds of prisoners in
19 an operation, which implies incarceration, transport, execution, burial,
20 and everything else, not to have to repeat the whole question. Anyway,
21 he ended by saying that is it -- does it go about saying that it should
22 be an action conducted speedily, quietly, and so on as the question was
24 My colleague then went on to ask you, which military service
25 would be the best to use for the security of such an operation, would be
1 the military service of choice? Now, your answer was as follows, and my
2 question to you is, according to the documents which you looked through
3 and everything else, the operation of incarcerating prisoners of war,
4 which occurred in Bratunac and Zvornik, was it done according to the
5 so-called secret plan, speedily, efficiently, and quietly; or did you --
6 or what was your position in the matter?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey?
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: That is commenting on his opinion about the
9 specific acts in the case, which he has not yet given his opinion on as
10 far as I know.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Colonel, do you agree with Mr. McCloskey? In other
12 words, are you in a position to give us an answer to Ms. Nikolic's
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, all I can say is what
15 I found in the documents and how I understood this and recognised it in
16 the light of the activities that were undertaken according to a plan
17 which would have the kind of character that we are discussing here.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: And what would your answer be in that case?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the activities and documents
20 that I analysed, there are a series of facts which do not satisfy the
21 criteria of a secret plan or even a plan, per se, in general terms. And
22 they are as follows. Well, some of them because there are more which are
23 a little less important, but bear out what I'm saying. First of all,
24 activities which would move along the lines of liquidation of the
25 prisoners of war or their execution, whichever term you like to use,
1 would have in front of them much that would not be publicly demonstrated
2 or visible to a large number of observers, for example, participants and
3 those who would be supposed to keep it secret. So that is the portion
4 that is lacking. First of all, incarceration in Bratunac itself,
5 imprisonment as a stage which in case a plan existed must certainly have
6 been avoided; secondly, moving the people from Bratunac to other
7 locations to inhabited areas, into an environment during the day would
8 almost be publicly demonstrated, which, if you need to have secrecy, this
9 must be avoided; doing this in that way must be avoided; thirdly,
10 documents that speak to the offer that prisoners of war should be
11 transported to the economia for work and sent that way, so that offer by
12 the officers and in positions such as General Tolimir occupied would not
13 exist if a plan had existed to keep this action secret.
14 The execution of prisoners of war in places where this was done
15 in relation to the facilities to which they were deployed speaks about a
16 lack of covering up this fact, and I have to use a very logical
17 observation here. Even those who in a way learned of this or were they
18 to learn of it would have asked the question, now, if they wanted to kill
19 them, why wouldn't they have taken them to a more secretive place and
20 killed them there and not here, so all that led me to --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop, stop, stop because you've now moved from the
22 documents to areas where you are just trying to make one and one and
23 together without really knowing what happened and what didn't.
24 And one question from me. In such a case if such a plan existed,
25 how much documentation or documents would you expect to find in any case
1 if it's the kind of plan that was suggested to you and the kind of
2 secrecy that would have been necessary? How much documentation would you
3 have expected to find?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I made the
5 observations I did from the existing documents as much as was contained
6 in them except for the last thing I said, that is to say the synthesis,
7 and I can correct that. However, I had not expected to find -- I did not
8 expect to finds the document of a secret plan, but did I expect that in
9 the procedures and steps I would have recognised something that would
10 have belonged and been commensurate with a secret plan. So that was the
11 substance -- that's the substance of what I'm saying. So I did my best
12 in the procedure --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's move to your next question.
14 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have no
15 further questions.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Faveau, your two question -- your one question.
17 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:
18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Good morning, sir. I have one question for you, and to this end
20 I'd like to call up Document P2517. While it is being displayed, let me
21 tell you that this is the document that General Tolimir sent to the Main
22 Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska on the July 20th, 1995, document
23 where he was using about the -- where he was talking about the use of
24 chemical weapons.
25 This is Document 2517. In this document, notably in paragraphs 5
1 and 6, there are -- these seem to be proposals that General Tolimir would
2 have sent to the Main Staff. I would like to know the following: Do you
3 agree that in the Main
4 person that had the authority to approve such proposals was General
6 A. In the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska, it was only
7 General Mladic as far as the Main Staff was concerned and activities
8 within it who was responsible and had the authority to approve or refute
9 proposals by his subordinates and nobody else.
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I have no other question.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam Faveau. Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Given that new area that's just been opened, I
13 would like to ask him a question about that topic. One question.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: What is the question?
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Why, then, would he make this specifically to the
16 attention of General Miletic in his knowledge.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Yeah, but you could have asked that
18 question to him when you were -- but anyway.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: I wasn't trying to mess with General Miletic.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We'll take the question ourselves to
22 try to keep it as short as possible.
23 Colonel, why would Tolimir write to Miletic, write this letter or
24 -- to Miletic and not to Mladic directly?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Information and proposals which
1 were supposed to be formed could be collected in one place or should be
2 collected in one place before they reach General Mladic because otherwise
3 he would be inundated with proposals arriving to him, coming into him
4 directly. Not this one but others. He had his organs who would amass
5 those proposals and then present them to him. That is how things worked.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Now, Mr. Zivanovic.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Re-examination by Zivanovic:
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Vuga. Good afternoon. During my examination,
11 I'd like to clarify some of the things that the Prosecutor asked you
12 about, so let's take a look first at a document that was shown to you
13 yesterday, 1D1078. Let's just wait for the English translation.
14 Yesterday, you spoke in detail while you addressed the last page
15 of the document that was shown to you yesterday. I'd now like to draw
16 your attention to the first page of this document. On the first page,
17 can you see to whom this report was addressed? Who was it sent to?
18 A. Mr. Zivanovic, what I can see is that the report was sent to the
19 command of the Drina Corps.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, tell me this: When a document is sent to the
21 command of a unit in general, to whom is it actually being sent? Who
22 opens the document? Who takes up the document?
23 A. A document headed in this way would go to the commander of the
24 unit because no other organ is stipulated.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 JUDGE KWON: Did the witness see the last page to address this?
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, it is my next question.
3 Q. [Interpretation] In that context, can you take a look at the
4 second page of this document, and it was shown to you yesterday, and look
5 at the last three points where it says that it was sent to the chief of
6 security, the Chief of Staff of the Drina Corps, and the archive. Can
7 you now explain to me whether that means that in addition to the document
8 being sent to the commander it is also sent to these three instances, or
9 was it just sent to the three people mentioned at the bottom of the
10 document or places?
11 A. This was -- would have been sent -- this "sent to" would be in
12 slight contradiction to the title, the heading, but I have to mention in
13 that regard the following: The chief of security was the person who was
14 responsible to the commander as far as the military police was concerned,
15 so on that basis the title itself and what it says here are not
16 contradictory. So whether it went to the chief of security or whether
17 the document as it said at the top of the document went to the commander,
18 it must have reached the commander. That's the conclusion I can make,
19 but I don't know the fate of this document because I have no trace of it.
20 JUDGE KWON: The top of the page doesn't say "commander." It
21 says "command."
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When -- Your Honour, when the
23 command receives documents, where it says "to the command" without the
24 actual person within the command stipulated to whom the document should
25 go, then it would have to be given to the commander because no other
1 organ is designated. And at the bottom, it says to the chief of the
2 staff, so it would go to him, but I was talking about the heading, the
3 title. And then it also says to whom it was sent, so the title says to
4 the commander, and the distribution was done in this way, but I have no
5 trace as to how it was actually done.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Before you go further, if you could
7 remind me to which organ this 5th military police battalion belongs. It
8 is organ of Drina Corps or something else?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the 5th Battalion of
10 the military police was a unit at the command of the Drina Corps or,
11 rather, subordinated to the commander of the Drina Corps.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. The Prosecutor yesterday asked you something about the use of
14 force and permission given by the minister, and he said that he found
15 that in your report. Now, could you tell me in very definite terms if
16 you remember whether you used anywhere that expression that the minister
17 or, rather, that sentence that the minister approves the use of force or
18 allows for the use of force in your report?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey?
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Again, this may be a translation issue, but the
21 term that I was quoting from was "coercion," and that was what was in the
22 report in English.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: And that was what we had in the transcript except
24 in one instance when it was interpreted as "correction" instead of
25 "coerced," but ...
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. I'll rephrase the question. In your report, does it say anywhere
3 that the minister approves the use of force or coercion or any other act
4 resembling that, so was the minister mentioned in your report as somebody
5 who can approve something like that?
6 A. In my work and in my report and investigations, that question was
7 not a point of consideration, a question to be considered.
8 Q. But that was an express question put to you by the Prosecutor on
9 page 23378, lines 13 to 15 of the transcript. Now, the next thing that I
10 want to ask you --
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. Maybe we have a translation issue
12 here, but I quoted him from his report this term, and it was on the
13 screen. Everybody saw it. The Colonel saw it, and if this is going to
14 be asked again, I can read it back, but -- it's 1D1175, paragraph 2.13:
15 "Authorised military personnel in the military security service and
16 military police may use while performing military security or military
17 police duties weapons and other means of coercion under conditions
18 prescribed for authorised officials of the interior." And I think I
19 asked about the minister of interior.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Minister was not mentioned but the law, law
21 authorizing the members of security to use arm and coercion in some
22 situations, and it was a part of testimony of the witness.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: It says "officials of the interior," and so if
25 the question is going to be asked, it should include the proper part.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: But it is to the officials of the -- to the
2 officials of --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Anyway, your question was going to be as rephrased
4 as follows: In your report does it say anywhere that the minister - you
5 can add now or other officer - approves the use of force, coercion, or
6 any other act resembling that. So was the minister or such other officer
7 mentioned in your report as somebody who could approve something like
8 that? I mean, I have read it as it is in the transcript.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Once again, let me rephrase the question. In your report, does
11 it say that a person outside the situations prescribed by war can approve
12 the use of force or coercion or something similar to a member of the
13 security organ?
14 A. Mr. Zivanovic, outside the regulations and situations in which
15 those authorisations are applied, nobody can expand them to include
16 anything else except for what has already been stipulated.
17 Q. From your report, one would say that the use of force is
18 regulated by the law, clearly stating -- and coercion clearly stating
19 what cannot and cannot -- can and cannot be done. Is this something
20 unique to Serbia
21 other countries as well?
22 A. All security systems that I know of - that is, beyond Serbia
23 the RS - have the authority to counter dangerous activities and use force
24 within certain limits, i.e., coercion, the use of force and coercion.
25 Well, I'm not familiar with the English language, and I can't say what
1 theic exact difference is, but I would stick with coercion.
2 Q. If I understood you well, under the regulation -- well, first of
3 all, could you tell us who puts the conditions in place?
4 A. They are made part of Article 151 of the Law On Criminal
5 Procedure. There we find what the authority is of the persons who are
6 authorised to apply such procedures as stipulated in the rules of service
7 for the security organ and in the rules of service of the military police
8 for the military police. Those situations are clearly defined. They are
9 there to do away with any risk or danger which was identified and
10 required attention and intervention.
11 Q. Thank you. Let us clarify some methodological elements that you
12 included in your report. You were asked about it by the Prosecutor at
13 page 23383 yesterday. Would your report be of any value if you based it,
14 say, on an accused's statement, if the accused would share with you
15 something that he recalls or wants you to know? Would that be a good
16 quality expert report?
17 A. When researching such topics as this one, in order to arrive at
18 reliable conclusions and facts used to arrive at that conclusion and to
19 also make those facts as watertight as possible, then testimonies and
20 witness statements must be severely restricted or even avoided for the
21 risk that that would entail. That could bring into question the validity
22 of conclusions reached if one used witness statements. I did not use
23 witness statements because I did not come across sufficiently reliable
24 facts and information which would be beyond any doubt.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, non-responsive. The question was
1 related to accused statements.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct.
3 Q. I don't know what your answer would be, but I will try to put the
4 question again. When we are talking about an accused's statement, would
5 that be a solid basis for a quality expert work in this field, the
6 information that you would receive in that way?
7 A. For me as an expert, an accused's statement is on the level of
8 the witness statement. I have no reason to single an accused out of,
9 say, any other witness statements.
10 Q. As a professional, would you accept to draft an expert report
11 which would be based on the information served to you by me serving my
12 interests as Defence counsel and that I would require you to use that in
13 drafting your report? Would you accept that?
14 A. This is not my first report. The principal question of all
15 expert analyses is whether they satisfy the threshold or the standards of
16 profession, and they should not be drafted based on anyone's requests.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: May we have a break. We had a break earlier,
18 previous break?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: How much more time do you think you need to finish
20 your redirect?
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I hope to the end of the business day today,
22 until the --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Please try to finish today.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right? I mean, I don't think it's fair to keep
1 this gentleman here any further.
2 We'll have a 25-minute break now. Thank you.
3 --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 12.53 p.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: So, Mr. Zivanovic, I'm informed the witness is
6 quite tired, so please try to -- I'm not going to keep him again and get
7 him to return tomorrow. We need to finish with him today.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I don't know if he is able to.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, he is able, but we need to finish today.
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I'll do my best.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC:
13 Q. Mr. Vuga, in answer to a question from the Prosecutor yesterday
14 on page 23393 and 94, you spoke about the actions in the surrounding
15 villages in which individual civilians participated too. Now, I'd like
16 to ask you whether from the documents that you had an opportunity of
17 seeing were able to see whether any difference could be established
18 between civilians and the BH Army, members of the BH Army?
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. I think this is more time-consuming
20 than probative, especially since his answer to my questions on that topic
21 were not responsive to my question, if you recall.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: You are right. Let's move on, Mr. Zivanovic.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Is there any possibility at all for you as an expert or, rather,
25 can you tell us whether the Army of Republika Srpska could make a
1 difference between the civilians who were attacking, taking part in
2 attacks on villages, and those who were not doing that, who were dealing
3 with farming and so on as Mr. McCloskey said, farmers, et cetera?
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't answer that question, please, Colonel. Move
5 to your next question, Mr. Zivanovic, your next topic, actually, not your
6 next question.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. McCloskey showed you a document of the 19th of November,
9 1992, which speaks about the treatment among others of the population,
10 the inhabitants, the Muslim inhabitants, Muslim population. Now, would
11 you take a look at another document, now, please, and then explain to us
12 something about that. It is 1D1302.
13 This is a report --
14 A. I'm sorry, but I just have the English version.
15 Q. Well, that document hasn't been translated into B/C/S. It is a
16 report by the -- by Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki of the United Nations of
17 February the -- or rather, the 23rd or February, 1993, special rapporteur
18 of the Commission on Human Rights. Let's move to page 18 of that
19 document, please. I'd like us to look at paragraph 88. I'm going to
20 read it out to you, just one sentence. It says, "Violations of the
21 Geneva Conventions [In English] were perpetrated by government forces
22 when they refused to allow the ever creation of the civilian population
23 from Srebrenica, thus attempting to use them as a human shield."
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: I won't object as long as he will read the
1 preceding paragraph, 87. There is a B/C/S translation under 3312.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I should tender all document into evidence and --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: No, but you are asking a question now. We are not
4 expecting the witness to read the entire document. Mr. McCloskey is
5 telling you that he would not object to the question if it is --
6 paragraph 87 is also read out to the witness.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Paragraph 87.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: 87, yes.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Right. "Massive and repeated violation of Geneva
10 Conventions of 1949 were perpetrated in a recent combat in Eastern Bosnia
11 and Herzegovina
12 Konjevic Polje, and Srebrenica in attacking and ambushing civilians
13 attempting to flee their encirclement in attacking the villages
14 themselves. In refusing to allow humanitarian aid to enter and refusing
15 to allow the ever creation of the wounded in attempt to link the above
16 issues to the independent question of freedom of movement for Serbs in
18 Q. [Interpretation] And now my question is this: Can you explain to
19 us in the first paragraph that I read out, that is to say 88, what does
20 "human shield" mean?
21 A. Human shield is a concept that has been known for far longer than
22 what is stated here. They are civilian persons who are protected
23 according to international conventions and covenants and according to
24 which no -- and they are not to be attacked, and they are placed in front
25 of military units, and in that way what is intended is to paralyze the
1 effects of the opposing side and reduce the possibility of them firing at
2 units behind the human shield or within a mixed population. So those
3 persons who are protected protect those who are not subject to protection
4 and protective measures.
5 Q. Thank you. Now, within this context, let's look at 1D628,
6 please. 1D628. [In English] Not 3628 but 628.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Document 1D628 is not available in
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have a hard copy of it in front of you, Mr.
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry. The document is -- 628 is available in
12 e-court. 1D. 1D.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Try 5D496, maybe.
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I have it in e-court under 1D628.
15 JUDGE KWON: Let's try again.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Is it this one? All right. Then let's proceed
18 with your question.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. I don't think this document has been translated, but in any case,
21 it is just one sentence that I want to address. Oh, yes. It is
22 translated. Good.
23 Just briefly, can you tell us who sent this document and to whom
24 it was sent?
25 A. The document was sent from the command of the 2nd corps of the
1 army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to the staff of the Supreme
2 Command of the armed forces of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
3 Q. Thank you. Now, take a look at point 5 of this document,
4 paragraph 5. Tell me, please, do you understand this, this sentence,
5 "Under no circumstances is a single inhabitant ought to move away from
6 the demilitarised zone." Can you tell me whether this point can be
7 understood as being an order?
8 A. Item 5 is an express order because it says "under no
10 Q. Can we take a look at the date of this document, now, up at the
11 top. Can you see the date of the document?
12 A. The date is the 5th of July, 1993, Tuzla.
13 Q. Thank you. Now, I'd like to ask you to look at a document
14 together with me, which I have here on paper. I don't think you have it.
15 It is a document that was shown to you by my learned friend of the
16 Prosecution, and it is about the water tower. So can we take a look now
17 at Document 3501.
18 If it's too much of an effort for you to read it, I can read it
19 out to you because I know you have some sight problems, and you can just
20 follow. Would that be easier?
21 A. Yes, it would be easier if you read it out.
22 Q. All right. Fine. So this is a document dated the 21st of June
23 1993. It was sent to the commander of the Drina Corps in person, and it
24 is signed by the commander Colonel Vukota Vukotic. The text of this
25 document read as follows: On the 26th of May at 2058 hours, the Turks
1 launched a surprise violent infantry attack on the positions of the Army
2 of Republika Srpska along the stretch of road and river of Zeleni Jadar
3 at a stretch of about 2 and a half kilometres. The focus of the attack
4 was along the road and river of Zeleni Jadar. The attack lasted for 2
5 hours and 40 minutes. The RS army soldiers returned fire from all
6 available weapons, and the Turks' attack was completely repelled except
7 for sporadic shooting. The fire stopped at around 2400 hours.
8 Considering that it was a dark night and foggy with occasional rain and
9 wind, the Turks succeeded in infiltrating 2 DTG - that is to say, as far
10 as I know the abbreviation for sabotage and terrorist group - along the
11 Zeleni Jadar river. The first sabotage terrorist group sabotaged the
12 water work pipes in the vicinity of the Sipa factory at some 150 metres
13 away from the UNPROFOR observation checkpoint. We do not know the number
14 of terrorists, and something has been crossed out there. I can't read
15 what it says. The other group of terrorists succeeded to come to the
16 water. The explosion at the pipes in the factory was of medium strength,
17 and it was deafening from the water filters. Hearing the explosion from
18 the Zeleni Jadar valley, the commanding officers realized that a
19 diversion had taken place at the water works facility and that that was
20 actually the main target of the Turks' surprise and very fierce attack
21 and that everything else was just camouflage so that the saboteurs could
22 go sabotaging without any disturbances.
23 Judging by the traces left when the terrorists pulled out after
24 the destruction of the water tower and water filters and that this
25 destruction was done by a strong explosive and - could we zoom down the
1 document, please, in English, thank you - and we can't see any traces on
2 the basis of which we could assess the character nature of the explosives
3 and the explosive devices. On the 27th of May, the next day, when they
4 met with UNPROFOR, when I met with UNPROFOR, I lodged a complaint with
5 the major from Canada
6 protection to the Muslim terrorists to be able to destroy facilities
7 unimpeded so that they could accuse us before the world of the so-called
8 vandalism just as they always did, we couldn't have directed the focus of
9 fire towards the stretch checkpoint Zeleni Jadar because we didn't want
10 to endanger the UNPROFOR forces, which were located at the observation
11 point and which they saw for themselves. They replied in the affirmative
12 to my claims but disgusted by the Muslim's behaviour.
13 During the following two meetings with UNPROFOR, in the context
14 of criticizing the Muslims for not implementing the obligations under
15 taken under the agreement on the surrender of weapons, I reiterated and
16 emphasized that they were so cunning and so evil that they were
17 committing the most horrible sabotage actions on structures and let alone
18 what they would do to us Serbs.
19 I don't think I have to read on. I don't need to read the last
20 paragraph, but I wanted to ask you something. Is there anything in this
21 text of the telegram whether the details indicate that all this was pure
22 fabrication and untruthful? In a word, can this information be checked
23 out? It is very viable?
24 A. As far as the text is concerned and an analysis which I conduct
25 when I'm confronted with a text and have to analyse a text, it is only by
1 a parallel method of comparison, comparing it -- the events with the text
2 and with the consequences if they are accessible to me in a document.
3 Only on that basis am I able to ascertain whether there are certain
4 lackings and shortcomings between the facts which are to be found in
5 either three of these things. I don't have the possibility of doing that
6 here, so I can say that within the frameworks of this text -- I can just
7 make my assessments on the basis of the text itself. There are no such
8 factors if this text were to be considered sufficient for it to be
9 interpreted on its own.
10 Q. Let's now go back to a document that the Prosecutor showed you
11 yesterday, and I'm sure you will remember that in this document we are
12 dealing with the 26th of May, whereas on the 27th of May a protest was
13 lodged with UNPROFOR. Now, I'd like us to go back to the document, as I
14 was saying, that the Prosecutor showed you. It is 3499, the number.
15 Can you tell us what the date of this document is? Can you see
17 A. Well, if I can see it properly, I'll read it out and you can
18 correct me if I'm wrong. It says the 31st of May, 1993.
19 Q. Can you tell us after -- or, rather, how many days that is from
20 the event described in the previous document?
21 A. Judging by the date and the previous date, which was the 26th,
22 the difference is five days.
23 Q. Thank you. Now, when you read this document, does it follow from
24 what it says here that the water tower at that point in time had not been
25 demolished and as far as we can read from this document that this should
1 be done the following day, on the 1st of June, if this document is to be
3 A. The chronology of events denies the contents if you compare the
4 state of the water tower on the 26th.
5 Q. I'd like to take you back for a moment to paragraph 3. Perhaps I
6 read it too fast, so perhaps you weren't able to understand it properly.
7 Judging by the traces and where the terrorists pulled out from after the
8 water tower event and the water filters, there were five of them?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. How do you understand this: Water tower, then it says mistake,
11 water filter.
12 A. I understand it as saying that it wasn't the water tower that was
13 destroyed, but that the water filter was damaged so that the system
14 itself couldn't function properly.
15 Q. All right. Thank you. And now let me ask you something else now
16 because we have some information about this. Do you know whether at that
17 time - and we are talking about 1992, the end of 1992 and the beginning
18 of 1993 - whether the water works in Bratunac was functioning properly,
19 if you happen to know?
20 A. I can't answer that question with any certitude because I don't
21 actually have the information or knowledge to do so.
22 Q. All right. Fine. I want to ask you just this, another thing:
23 Yesterday, my learned friend of the Prosecution asked you about some
24 derogatory terms that were used for -- when referring to Muslims, and
25 among others he showed you some documents where the term "balija" is
1 mentioned. And he asked you whether there is a term that is worse from
2 the term "balija." Now, as a security professional, can you
3 differentiate and make grades between insulting words, say which are more
4 insulting than others? Is that something that you can do as being the
5 professional you are in your field?
6 A. Mr. Zivanovic, I've already answered that question. I answered
7 it yesterday, and so I'll have to repeat that today. And it is this: I
8 do not know all the aspects and contents of the concept of "balija," the
9 term "balija," because I didn't live in an environment where that term
10 was used. Now, as far as the different grades of derogatory meaning and
11 everything else, that does not come within the field of my expertise, nor
12 did I attempt in any way at all to interpret it in drawing conclusions.
13 So my answer is no, that is not my profession, and I can't give an answer
14 which would be deemed satisfactory to a question like that.
15 Q. Let me ask you something else now. In analyzing these documents,
16 I'm sure you looked at documents where the members of the Army Republika
17 Srpska were referred to as Chetniks. Do you remember something like
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. Tell me now, please, when reading a document like that, can you
21 assess the context in which this term Chetnik was used, for instance?
22 What does it denote? Is it a favourable term, a neutral term, a
23 derogatory term? How do you understand the use of this word "Chetnik" in
24 the documents you came across?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you need an expert like Colonel Vuga to answer
1 that question? Haven't we heard enough about Ustasha, Chetnik, balija?
2 Let's move to your next topic, please.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. I'm just going to ask you one more question. I think that will
5 suffice. Would you look at your report, now, 1175. 1D1175 is the
6 number, and it is page 20 of the English and 18 of the B/C/S.
7 Let's take a look at the following paragraphs. Paragraph 2 --
8 let me just check that out. 2.1 -- 16, I think. Just let me take a
9 moment. No, I'm sorry. Can we take a look at pages 7 and 10. I do
10 apologise. 7 and 10, please, 7 being the English. I do apologise. May
11 we go back to -- well, no. I'll withdraw the question altogether.
12 Thank you. That completes my examination.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Your microphone.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Colonel, we did -- our apologies to the
15 interpreters. We did our best to finish your testimony today. You
16 obviously have every reason to complain that we tired you out. On behalf
17 of the Trial Chamber, my colleagues Judge Kwon, Judge Prost, and Judge
18 Stole, I wish to thank you for having been kind enough not only to come
19 with us but to -- to come to give testimony in this case but also to be
20 patient with us, and on behalf of everyone here I wish you a safe journey
21 back home.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'd like
23 to thank all of those in the courtroom who have followed everything I've
24 been saying.
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Let's move to documents now.
2 Which one is -- all right. Mr. Zivanovic.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: We have a list, but I will double-check this list
4 and eventually ask to tendering for next sitting date, is day after
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thursday. All right. Okay then that gives us time
7 with your indulgence to go through some pending issues. Let's go into
8 private session for a short while.
9 [Private session]
10 [Open session]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: My colleagues and I have gone through the motion
12 already, and since we have very limited time within which to decide the
13 issue in case we grant it, we would like you to possibly respond to it by
14 the end of this week. The main points raised in that motion is the
15 relevance of his testimony and also his health condition, but as I
16 understand it the accompanying or supporting documents as to his health
17 need to be translated. That requires time, and as they are, they are not
18 very much legible. We would like you to come back to us with your
19 response by the end of the week. Do you think that would be possible,
20 Mr. McCloskey?
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. I'm sure it is, though this
22 is beginning to mount up on us, all of these last minute issues without
23 exhibits, without statements. We are making a filing on this issue in
24 particular that I was hoping to get yesterday, but it will be filed
25 today, but this is beginning to really make it difficult to be prepared.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Not only to you, but also to us and our staff, but
2 I hope that this is only transient, transitory, brought about by the fact
3 that the Beara Defence team has been faced with a different schedule that
4 they may have had in mind until a few days ago. So let's try to keep
5 calm, all of us, and also try to be reasonable, and I'm sure that you are
6 all capable of this. So if you can, please, try to come back to us with
7 a response by the end of Friday.
8 Now, one moment because I have other things to -- yes. Now --
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: For example, there was a previous motion by the
11 same Defence team for the hearing of the testimony of Osman Dizdarevic to
12 be heard by video conference link. We had encouraged you to come to some
13 sort of an arrangement or agreement between you. We haven't had a
14 feedback from either of you, so to date we don't know whether we are
15 going to hear the testimony of this gentleman at all or that's going to
16 be by video conference link because we haven't decided that pending
17 information from you, or whether his testimony will be provided in some
18 other format. At the same time, he is not listed in the immediate list
19 of Beara team witnesses.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I believe, though I'm -- could be
21 mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that's a fellow that Mr. Ostojic and I
22 spoke about, and he clarified that this was a man that would just speak
23 about his treatment as a prisoner in 1993 or 1992, and we said if that's
24 the case and if the statement reflects that when we get it, then we don't
25 have a problem, him being 92 bis, and so we don't need any videolink, and
1 I think that's the same person, and so we should be able to 92 bis that
3 JUDGE AGIUS: We are definitely talking about the same person,
4 yes. Mr. Ostojic, do you have anything to say about this?
5 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President and Your Honours. We've
6 learned from witnesses, obviously their health condition may have changed
7 over the course of the last month or two, so when we called them we were
8 advised of his poor health. We are still trying to contact him to see
9 exactly what his health condition is like. We will in the alternative
10 either present his testimony pursuant to 92 bis or to simply withdraw the
11 witness, and I communicated that with my learned friend several days ago
12 actually, so ...
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. There was -- yesterday we
14 had an indication that the Prosecution was to make or was intending to
15 make a filing either yesterday. Subsequently, it appeared that it would
16 happen today, that being the Prosecution's response to the supplemental
17 motion by the Beara team for leave to amend the 62 ter list, which was
18 filed on the 2nd of July. Can you update us on that, Mr. McCloskey?
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. As you know, I left early
20 yesterday and -- but I'm told in consultations with Mr. Thayer and Mr.
21 Nichols that that's going to be filed today. I haven't spoken to them
22 yet today about it, but I'm convinced that it should come in today, and I
23 of course will let you know if there's been some significant issue, but
24 it should be today.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Then there were two witnesses.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: And Mr. President, I have something along those
2 lines, as well, to clear something up.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: You may recall the --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: There were two witnesses, Witness number 98 and
6 Witness number 11 -- I forgot his number now.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think it was 105.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, something like that, I think, yeah.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: I know we resolved that. I don't remember how.
10 Maybe Mr. Ostojic can help us.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Mr. Ostojic.
12 MR. OSTOJIC: We resolved that as reflected in the notice of
13 filing that the Prosecution does not object to their 92 bis statements
14 coming into evidence. We have an e-mail to that effect, and also we had
15 verbally spoke about it, so ...
16 JUDGE AGIUS: We had indication but of course since we will be
17 handing down a bitten decision, we need to have your position publicly
18 stated either in writing or orally we are happy with an oral statement to
19 that effect in this case it has to come from the Prosecution. We didn't
20 have it until now.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes you are correct it's 98 and 105.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes I agree with Mr. Ostojic that was one of the
24 many things we've been speaking about.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I think I have covered all the pending
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just one small, well, one issue that I think is
3 important to clear up, Mr. President. You may recall during the
4 testimony on I guess it was 30 June of the ICMP Defence or the DNA
5 Defence expert there was use of an ICMP document called a tracking chart
6 that had the various summaries of their results and Judge Kwon asked why
7 this need today be in private session and we did check that and we've
8 requested ICMP and they were able to say that it was not a problem for
9 them if that is now in open session. So we would request that that be
11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Madam Registrar, you need to identify
12 the relevant part.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Sorry, I missed it should have been 65 ter 3488
14 on transcript page 23031.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So you need to identify that, confirm the
16 identification of it, and it's our decision to lift the confidentiality.
17 Agreed. That's our decision. That's how it will be. So be it.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just also so you know, we now have received a
19 written request from the Popovic team about more information from the
20 ICMP and we'll be looking into that.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Now, we heard Mr. Zivanovic earlier on say
22 he would like to go through his list before we can finalise the tendering
23 process in his regard. However, there are others that have that wish to
24 tender documents, perhaps given that we have some more time available we
25 do that. Whose is this? I suppose this is the Nikolic Defence team, you
1 have three documents, Madam Nikolic?
2 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our list included 37
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. I was mixing it up with.
5 MR. HAYNES: I think I'll own up to the one that's got three on
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Because it doesn't state who.
8 MR. HAYNES: Very sorry.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: It's all right. Yes, the whole list is here, has
10 been circulated. You are correct there are 37 documents. Is there any
11 objection, Mr. McCloskey?
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I'm told that there are documents
13 on this list that were not dealt with by the witness but that were
14 referenced in footnotes to the witness's report. And given that all
15 Mr. Butler's footnotes and such came in, I have no objection to all their
16 footnotes and material coming in as well.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Any objection from the other Defence teams?
18 There are none, so all these documents are admitted. Madam, please check
19 whether they are all translated. They seem to be. Whether they have all
20 been translated. Yeah, they all seem to have corresponding translation.
21 So they are admitted.
22 Then there was the Gvero Defence team, Mr. Josse, you have two
23 documents to my knowledge.
24 MR. JOSSE: That's right, they are small parts of very large
25 documents and it's only those small parts that we wish to have adduced.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay thank you. Any objections on your part?
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. McCloskey.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections from the other Defence teams? None,
4 they are so admitted. Then by elimination it would be the Pandurevic
5 Defence team three documents.
6 MR. HAYNES: Yes, all used in cross-examination, all translated.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections, Mr. McCloskey?
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: I see the expert report in the Sljivancanin case
9 the entire report at this point no objection to any of it.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Any objection from the other Defence
11 teams? Ms. Nikolic?
12 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Our position is more or less the
13 same as Mr. McCloskey's. However, I believe it would be more useful for
14 the chamber to have parts of the reports admitted that were used during
15 the testimony rather than admitting the whole report.
16 MR. HAYNES: I'll accede to that, I'll accept that point.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you Mr. Haynes and Ms. Nikolic. So they are
18 being admitted with the caveat, and Mr. Zivanovic you will come back to
19 us with your revised list if it's revised on Thursday.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Correct. Okay. Prosecution, you have got one,
22 two, three, four, five?
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. We are offering one document
24 that the Defence used, that's 1D01076, that's one of the Drina Corps
25 documents just in case the Defence didn't offer it, we wanted to, but
1 they may or may not. And the other documents we would like to offer,
2 three of which are the now famous water system documents and for your
3 knowledge, they are from the Drina Corps collection and I've got one of
4 the originals here, if anyone wants to look at it. We've got actually
5 all the originals here.
6 MR. JOSSE: Could we see the list please.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Which list, Mr. Josse?
8 MR. JOSSE: -- the screen next to me if I could have a moment
9 thank you.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Any objections? None. So these are
11 all admitted. To my knowledge they have all been translated. We were
12 looking at the translation so there are no problems there. Anything else
13 you would like to raise before we adjourn? All right. We'll reconvene
14 tomorrow. We have granted you -- the day after tomorrow. We've granted
15 you tomorrow because of the difficulties you must have encountered,
16 Mr. Ostojic, but now the ball is in your court, and we'll be insisting on
17 the most efficient way of proceeding. So we stand adjourned until
18 Thursday. I think it's in the afternoon Thursday? Is it in the morning,
19 Thursday morning.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thursday morning, Friday morning.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
23 1.42 p.m.
24 of July 2008, at 9 a.m.