1 Thursday, 13 November 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon, Madam Registrar. Could you call
7 the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
9 number IT-05-88-T, The Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic, et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. All the accused are present.
11 Prosecution we have Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Vanderpuye, Ms. Soljan. I can't
12 see him -- sorry, Mr. Mitchell. But the column is in the way, so I
13 couldn't see you.
14 Absent amongst the Defence teams I notice Mr. Nikolic and
15 Mr. Bourgon and I think that's it. I think that's it. Okay, the witness
16 is -- yes, Ms. Nikolic you are announcing?
17 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. I
18 would just like to present to the Chamber and my colleagues
19 Mr. Dragan Dukic, a new member on our team.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. And you are most welcome,
21 Mr. Dukic.
22 Mr. Vanderpuye, you've finished. Mr. Lazarevic, you are to start
23 today, half an hour maximum so that the gentleman can make it to the
24 airport in time. Please.
25 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, too.
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: Good afternoon.
3 WITNESS: BRANISLAV RISTIVOJEVIC [Resumed]
4 [Witness answered through interpretation]
5 Re-examination by Mr. Lazarevic:
6 Q. Dr. Ristivojevic, I will do my best to finalise my direct
7 examination within the time limit allocated to me by the Chamber. In
8 order to avoid any kind of confusion I would kindly ask you to speak
10 During your yesterday's testimony, on page 92 of the transcript
11 you spoke about the failure to provide assistance as a crime provided by
12 the criminal code. According to your recollection, what was the sentence
13 that this crime carried?
14 A. I think that the maximum sentence that this crime carries is one
15 year imprisonment, and there was no specified minimum sentence.
16 Q. Very well. One more question in this regard, could a perpetrator
17 of this crime be an official or any physical entity?
18 A. Anyone. The law says whoever, which means that any individual
19 can be the perpetrator of this crime.
20 Q. The Defence team of Mr. Borovcanin already questioned
21 Mr. Bajagic, an expert in the structure of MUP, the police forces staffs,
22 the PJP units, the special police brigade, and other subject related to
23 police work. Since on a number of occasions you were asked about some of
24 these topics, can you tell me whether these topics were the subject of
25 your report? Did you analyse them in any respect in any detail?
1 A. No, I didn't, and that is what I said yesterday. I am not an
2 expert in police work in general, and how it is organised or how it
3 operates. Whenever I was asked a question in this relation, I think I
4 emphasized that.
5 Q. In addition to the units mentioned in Order 64/95 dating the 10th
6 of July, which we are already extensively discussed, in your expert
7 report did you at all tackle or address any other unit that you were
8 questioned about during the cross-examination by my learned friend,
9 Mr. Ostojic?
10 A. No.
11 Q. When you were questioned by my learned friend, Mr. Ostojic, and
12 that's on pages 28007 and 008, it was suggested to you that
13 resubordination ceases once a combat task is accomplished and that on the
14 12th of July, 1995, as it says in the transcript, there were no enemy
15 offensives in the Srebrenica sector. Do you remember that part of your
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Since the position of our Defence team is that the enemy
19 offensive was finally finished by the breakthrough and the reaching of
20 the territory under the control of the BH army, and that in that period
21 Mr. Borovcanin mentioned the general area of Bratunac and Zvornik was
22 resubordinated to the VRS, can we just look at a couple of documents
23 relevant to this subject.
24 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the Chamber,
25 since this witness for the most part was involved in analysing rules and
1 regulations rather than the facts, I would just like to highlight a
2 couple of documents, and I will mention others only for record.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
4 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Can we first look at document
5 P47, please. That's a report issued by the Main Staff of the VRS
6 addressed to the president of Republika Srpska and dated the 30th July,
7 1995. Can we look at page 3, item 6 (b) in B/C/S; and in English, it's
8 on page 3.
9 Q. As you can see, item 6 (b) states that units of the Drina Corps
10 are at full combat readiness and that the subordinated units of the
11 corps, specifically the 1st Bratunac and the 1st Milic Brigades were
12 involved in scouring the terrain, and so on and so forth, as stated in
13 this report. From this document can one deduce that combat activities
14 are still ongoing on the 13th of July in the area of responsibility of
15 the Drina
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Number one, this is
18 leading. The second issue is that this witness has repeatedly testified
19 that he's not a military expert, and he's not able to determine when a
20 combat operations commences and finishes.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Mr. Vanderpuye seems to be right,
22 Mr. Lazarevic.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is exactly what I intended to
24 say. I said that yesterday, and I told that to Mr. Ostojic as well, and
25 I would repeat the same answer, actually.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] All right. For record, I would
3 just like to mention with regard to this copy -- topic the following
4 documents deal with the events that took place after the 13th, i.e., the
5 combat operations and the involvement of MUP units in these operations
6 after the 11th and the 12th; and these are exhibits P136, P137, P138,
7 P139, P140, P48, P49, P3061, and I'm not going to go on. This is quite a
8 few documents that we are dealing with.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you proceed I notice, Ms. Fauveau.
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am not sure if it's
11 an argument or a question. If, of course, these documents can be
12 presented to you, but maybe not in front and through the witness.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] I most certainly didn't show any
14 of these documents at all to the witness. I just enumerated them for the
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed, and we'll see where we get.
17 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] With regard to resubordination
18 of MUP units, let us look at document 1D1045, please.
19 Q. You are going to see it shortly. In e-court, that's a request be
20 the Drina Corps command dated the 15th of July, 1995. It is, of course,
21 addressed to the Zvornik Milic and Bratunac brigades as the units
22 subordinated to the Drina Corps and their request reports to be submitted
23 about the engagement of forces. Paragraph one mentions MUP units as
24 well. Can you see that?
25 A. Yes, I can. It says:
1 "Report where units -- your units and MUP units in your area of
2 responsibility are asked -- are engaged."
3 Q. Precisely. And so just one question regarding this document.
4 Given the date that this document bears, which is the 15th of July, 1995
5 does this document tell us anything about resubordination of MUP units
6 and their engagement in the activities on this date?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment. Yes, Madam Fauveau.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think the witness
9 should maybe read the first paragraph first and then he can maybe answer
10 the questions. I think the way the question was put to him was
11 completely unconnected to the document as presented to him.
12 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Of course. I am not opposed to
13 it. The witness has the document in front of him, and he will be able to
14 look at it.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. In the meantime I suppose he's had
16 already a chance to look at it, having heard Madam Fauveau. Let's
17 proceed with your question and the answer.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So this is a report about the use
19 of the forces of the Drina Corps, because the situation in the field was
20 quite confused and a report is demanded to be submitted about the
21 location of the Drina Corps units and the MUP units in your area of
22 responsibility. The references is probably to the MUP units that were
23 subordinated to the Drina Corps because they were in its area of
24 responsibility, but that's my assumption.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Well, I'm glad the witness qualified his answer.
2 It is a speculative answer because the document itself doesn't refer to
3 the specific units that were resubordinated pursuant to the July 10
4 document that my colleague referred to earlier.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: I just want to record to be clear on that.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move ahead. Let's move ahead and try to
8 avoid as much objections and comments so that we finish with this
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Very well. The next document I
11 would like us to look at is 5D1346. If we could look at it in e-court.
12 It's an order from the Drina Corps command. Again, the date is the 15th
13 of July, 1995. Let us look at this part where it says item 1. Again,
14 the MUP forces are mentioned as are the attached units, the date is the
15 15th of July 1995.
16 Q. Could you please look at item 1, please, of this order. So it
17 says here based on the latest developments in the general area of
18 Zvornik, the commander of the Drina Corps decided that elements of the
19 1st Zvornik Brigade and of the POSSS should return to their area of
20 responsibility, so this is what is of interest to me. We are talking
21 about attached units. So this is an order from General Krstic to the MUP
22 force and the attached units; is that so?
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment, before answer the question.
25 Madam Fauveau.
1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Maybe, Your Honour, the witness
2 could tell us who this order was sent to?
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's combine that together with your
4 answer to Mr. Lazarevic's question, please.
5 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Well, it says here, you can see
6 yourself in the upper part --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, the speakers are
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it says ZPPBR, I suppose that
10 this acronym stands for the Zvornik Infantry Brigade. And it says here
11 that they should go back to their area of responsibility in order to
12 prevent any consequences of the -- any attack on Zvornik.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpret's note, could the speaker please slow
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please slow down. Try to answer the question.
16 I think you are.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone please.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: You are already going beyond the question, so you
19 don't need to go any further. Your next question, Mr. Lazarevic.
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Very well.
21 Q. Does this order pertain to MUP units too, to cut the long story
23 A. Yes, it says here in the order that the Zvornik Infantry Brigade
24 with the MUP forces and detached units would carry out the task that is
25 indicated here, that's what it says in the order.
1 Q. And can we consider this as a new combat tasks for -- task for
2 the MUP units in relation to the task that we had an opportunity to
3 discuss regarding order number 64/95?
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Again, Mr. President, that's leading and it also
6 calls for speculation.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. But we have the answer now, let's
8 proceed. You rose too late. The answer was already there. Next
9 question, please.
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Now I would like us to look at
11 P927. It's an order of the commander of the VRS Main Staff, dated the
12 17th of July, 1995, pertaining to the unification of operations. And I
13 would like us to look at item 1 in this order. Could we please zoom in
14 so that you can read it.
15 Q. In item 1, three officers from the Main Staff are dispatched to
16 provide assistance to unify the VRS and MUP forces, to plan and
17 coordinate combat operations, to block and route and destroy the remnants
18 of the Muslim forces. Can we see from this document anything about the
19 use of the MUP units in combat operations on the 17th of July?
20 A. Just a moment, I need some time to read it.
21 Q. Yes, of course.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: While he reads it, Mr. Lazarevic, yesterday and
23 also last week, you spent I don't know how much time standing and sitting
24 and standing up again complaining that the witness was being asked
25 questions which went outside the area of expertise, and you are doing
1 exactly the same as your colleagues did when you were objecting.
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour, that's true. However, some
3 suggestions have been made to this witness by the Defence of -- by my
4 colleague, Mr. Ostojic, in relation to resubordination and the
5 continuance of combat activities by the units MUP; so I believe I am
6 entitled to try to clarify this with this witness.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: By now, you should know what our position is in
8 relation to statements made by expert witnesses on matters that fall
9 outside their area of expertise. I think we have made that clear
10 already. Anyway, are you in a position to answer the question, please,
11 Professor? And if questions are put to you that fall outside your area
12 of expertise and you think you should not answer them, just say so.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can you please repeat your question
14 now that I have read the document?
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. On the basis of this document, can we see anything about the
17 participation of the MUP units in combat operations on the 17th of July,
19 A. When I read the first item here, I can see that together with the
20 VRS forces, they should continue destroying the remnants of the Muslim
21 forces in the sectors of Kamenica and Cerska.
22 Q. Very well. Now I would like us to look at another document, in
23 fact I only have two questions for you and then we are done with your
24 re-examination. The document is P5D1320. And I would like to ask you a
25 question regarding this document.
1 It's a dispatch from the offices of the Minister of the Interior,
2 the date is the 11th of July 1995 --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpret's correction: June.
4 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] And it's in fact a forwarding of
5 a dispatch that bears the same date. Could we please look at the bottom
6 of this document, and you can see the president of Republika Srpska has
7 orally ordered the use of all the available forces of the MUP units of
8 Republika Srpska from the municipalities that are listed here: Robatice
9 [phoen], Visegrad, Gorazde, Rudoj [phoen], Cajnice.
10 Q. And could you please read the document through and then I will
11 ask you a question?
12 A. Yes, I am reading it. Just a moment.
13 Q. You were asked some questions about the order 64/95. That's
14 dated the 11th of June, 1995. And if you look at this document, did this
15 indicate the legal procedure that you spoke about in your
16 examination-in-chief, the legal procedure that you spoke about regarding
17 the use of the MUP units?
18 A. What do you mean? I don't understand what you're saying?
19 Q. Well, in light of this document you can see that there is an oral
20 order issued by the president of the republic?
21 A. Yes, that's what it says here.
22 Q. And then the commander of the Main Staff is now saying, take
23 immediate measures through competent organs of the RS MUP in the
24 above-mentioned municipalities, that the personnel be called up and
25 dispatched to the 14th HL Infantry Brigade who should be used on the
1 demand of the brigade commander?
2 A. Yes, that's what it says.
3 Q. Is this the legal procedure that you were talking about when you
4 were speaking about document 64/95, about the use of the MUP units?
5 A. Well, yes, I see this dispatch here and it does describe the
6 legal procedure.
7 Q. That's precisely my question.
8 A. Yes, it describes the legal procedure, but I can't see, so to
9 speak -- well the procedure is described here.
10 Q. Fine. My last question, when you were asked questions by
11 Mr. Ostojic, you were also asked about reporting, quite specifically,
12 whom should the chief of the SJB Zvornik should send his reports to.
13 That's at page 15 of the transcript yesterday.
14 I would now like us to look at the Exhibit 3115 dated the 15th of
15 July. It's a dispatch from the commander of the staff of the security
16 services centre in Zvornik notifying about the situation in the area of
17 the centre. If we could look at the upper part of this document. Could
18 we please look at the addressees. We can see here the Republika Srpska
19 MUP at Pale, then the cabinet of the minister, the VRS Main Staff, the
20 MUP of the Republika Srpska, the minister, the command of the Drina
21 Corps, the forward command post of the Drina Corps, Attention
22 General Krstic, and the command of the 1st Zvornik Brigade and the 1st
23 Bratunac Infantry Brigade.
24 A. Yes, that's what it says here.
25 Q. What can we conclude on the basis of this document regarding the
1 reporting procedure, reporting on the part of the public security centre?
2 According to this document, who receives reports from it, only the organs
3 within the Ministry of the Interior or other structures or other organs
5 A. Well, based on this document, some units in the corps, the corps
6 command, the Main Staff, so it's a very broad circle of addressees. And
7 here we can see the president of the republic, the minister, and some
8 commands are mentioned here quite specifically.
9 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Ristivojevic. I have no further
10 questions for you.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And I notice Madam Fauveau. Thank you,
12 Mr. Lazarevic.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to put
15 one single question to the witness relating to the previous document,
16 5D1320, describing the procedure applicable when police units are
17 subordinated to army forces.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's hear the question and then decide
19 whether to allow it or not.
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It is a question relating to June
21 1995, completely unconnected to what happened in Srebrenica, and I wanted
22 to ask the witness whether in any documents that he has consulted
23 himself, he has ever come across a similar document relating to
24 subordination of police units to army units?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
1 continues] ... document again.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Talking about July 1995, of course,
5 and Srebrenica, which is what we are talking about.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. We are agreed here to allow the question.
7 So you can answer it, Professor. We can finish your testimony here.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, could you please repeat your
9 question now? I have read the document once again, so your question is?
10 Cross-examination by Ms. Fauveau:
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Relating to the Kravija operation in Srebrenica in July 1995, did
13 you ever see a document from the police services or the president of the
14 republic outlining the procedure similar to what you saw in 5D1320, i.e.,
15 informing the VRS that the police would be subordinated to it?
16 A. Okay, so have I seen any documents that were sent to the military
17 informing the military that the police would come and be resubordinated
18 to the army? No, no I cannot recall any. Not in the documents that I
19 went through, apart from this document. So any other document that --
20 whereby somebody would inform them about that --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpret's note: Could the witness please
22 speak into the microphone.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
24 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, he is being -- now speaking into the
25 microphone but we haven't been receiving interpretation. Let's bring it
1 to an end as quickly as we can, please.
2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just wanted to know
3 whether the document that the witness is referring to --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
5 continues] ... see this one.
6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
7 continues] ... is a document that he can read to us from. He mentioned a
8 document of the 10th of July, 1995, which apparently he has in his brief.
9 Could he maybe tell us who this was destined to, this order.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm reading.
11 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... my
12 colleague had the document to ask him in relation to --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 MR. LAZAREVIC: She just -- she is not to cross-examine this
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think we have no finish here because at the
17 end of the day you are only allowed one question, Madam Fauveau. This
18 bring the testimony of the expert witness to an answered. I would like
19 to thank you for having been kind enough to come not once but twice to
20 give evidence, and I also, on behalf of the Trial Chamber, wish you a
21 safe journey back home. I hope you make it on time.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Incidentally, for the record although I don't think
25 I need to repeat it because I said it yesterday, we are still sitting
1 pursuant to Rule 15 bis for the same reasons explained yesterday.
2 Documents, Mr. Lazarevic?
3 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honours. I think our list has already
4 been tendered. We did -- we sent the wrong one, obviously. I am sorry.
5 I will just have to check this. Maybe we can deal with this at a later
6 stage just to make sure that everything is --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. On the meantime the Popovic Defence
8 team has one document?
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] We sent the list just for one
11 JUDGE AGIUS: One document.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Which is 1D1316. Any objections, Mr. Lazarevic?
14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Not in relation to this one.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye?
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Any other objections from any of the other Defence
18 teams? None. So your document, Mr. Zivanovic, is admitted. Beara
19 Defence team, you have three documents that you wish to tender, P24, if
20 that is not already tendered. 5D1389 and 2D615. Any objections,
21 Mr. Lazarevic?
22 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour. I have an objection for these
23 two documents, 5D1389 and 2D615. In respect to this first document, it
24 wasn't commented by witness at all. I mean, the witness, obviously,
25 didn't make any comments in relation to this document and I don't see the
1 basis for admission of this document through this witness.
2 As for 2D615, I don't believe that this document is reliable.
3 The witness was -- this expert was asked questions in this respect, and
4 he gave an explanation; and I believe that in order to -- to tender this
5 document into evidence, there needs to be an additional -- an additional
6 proofing of these of these facts which were stated in this document.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Any further comments from anyone? Mr. Vanderpuye?
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, Mr. President. We have no remarks with
9 respect to either of these two documents. No objections.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Mr. Ostojic?
11 MR. OSTOJIC: With respect to document 2D615, I know they claim
12 it's unreliable, but I didn't hear a basis for it. So I would be curious
13 to know why they think it is unreliable. We did a hear from the witness
14 and we heard his prefatory comments. First he didn't know an incident.
15 And then you actually pretty well that the incident involved purportedly
16 another person. I think it is reliable. I think the practice was that
17 we would introduce these types of material when it goes to issues of
18 credibility, which I think it does.
19 With respect to the other document, I still believe --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. I stop you here. Is it your position,
21 therefore, that you don't believe the witness in his statement that that
22 document doesn't refer to him but mistakenly and that the incident
23 occurred that was referred to in that document refers to someone else.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: With all due respect, carefully reviewing the
25 witness's testimony, he first denied anything knowing about an incident.
1 Then he certainly knew about it and then he claimed that it was someone
2 else, not him that was involved in it. It clearly identifies him on the
3 document. We believe that it is what it is, although he testified that
4 it was some other individual, I think the document is reliable on its
5 face. It is an international organisation.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but --
7 MR. OSTOJIC: And we think that unless they brought in other
8 articles that this witness claims exists as to who -- who was involved in
9 these two incidents, we believe --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: They --
11 MR. OSTOJIC: Defence lawyers were called --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: You brought up.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: That's two instances, I apologise.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: And in their re-examination, I think they could
15 have as they did with other documents bring it up to the witness to show
16 these articles that the witness claims exists from some newspaper that he
17 didn't identify claiming that he wasn't involved in the incident. But
18 it's not that big of a point for us. I think the Court heard the
19 evidence, have seen the exhibits.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm very glad to hear you say this. It's certainly
21 not a big point to us. I don't see the point of admitting this document
22 in the first had place unless there is disagreement. If, however you
23 want to pursue the matter further later on and bring evidence in relation
24 to the alleged incident as it may relate to this last witness, then, of
25 course, we will review our position.
1 With regard to 5D1389, what's your position in relation to the
3 MR. OSTOJIC: I thought we covered it with him. Off the top of
4 my head I don't know that. I can take a look at it, if he says we didn't
5 we will bring it in through another witness, certainly. But I think we
6 covered a whole host of documents, this is one of them, and I think this
7 expert -- or this witness actually looked at it, and he gave some comment
8 on it.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So let's admit only P0024, for the time
10 being. The other 615 is not being admitted. 1389, we reserve your
11 rights to have it admitted later on through someone else.
12 Thank you.
13 We do have the lists, now, Mr. Lazarevic. Why is mine thicker?
14 Let's proceed. We have a three-page -- four-page list here. Any
15 objection from the Prosecution to any of these documents?
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, in all honesty I will need a
17 little bit of time to go through these --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- documents.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Other Defence teams? Same position.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Same.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So we'll come back to you after the
23 first break.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Is that fair enough.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, it is.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Zivanovic, Mr. McCloskey,
3 and Ms. Fauveau, I suppose you have had a chance to discuss a little bit?
4 I take it that we are first proceeding with Mr. Mijatovic.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Madam Usher.
7 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. We will be prepared to
9 cross-examine Mr. Mijatovic on any issues of -- involved. However, we
10 also -- if you don't feel it's necessary, it may not be necessary given
11 the issue -- and the limited issue, so we also won't take offence if you
12 don't think it's necessary --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Same here, Mr. McCloskey, we don't know either if
14 we are going to ask any questions once we have given the -- the
15 opportunity to Mr. Zivanovic to put his questions first.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: We will be able to go into issues of credibility
18 and such, but given that that's really not the issue at hand, it may not
19 be, but I guess we will cross that bridge when we come to it.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Mijatovic.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Welcome back. I notice that you have already taken
23 the opportunity to salute the accused, but before you proceed, we proceed
24 with your testimony. If you could kindly go through the solemn
25 declaration again.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
2 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Please make yourself comfortable.
4 Mr. Zivanovic is going to ask you a few questions.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Before I start my examination-in-chief, I would
6 like to inform this Trial Chamber that we got two verification of
7 accuracy of interpretation.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: We have seen them here.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: However, I found so far --found another error in
10 translation. It is related to the page 21946, lines 5 to 15. It is in
11 the first sentence precisely I read it in -- I read it in B/C/S:
12 [Interpretation] "During -- I ascertained that in relation to
13 July 1995, according to statements given by the hotel's employees,
14 someone - and they don't know who this was - had seised the journals and
15 the books from July, precisely."
16 [In English] And in translated part of this document, the word
17 journals, "zurnali," was not translated. Just the books. So two B/C/S
18 words, "zurnali unjga," were translated with just one word, one English
19 word, "books." So it myself arise --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Right.
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: The confusion in --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you for clarifying that.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: As usual, you are very matriculate in your work.
25 Mr. Zivanovic, I suppose we can now proceed with your questions, and I
1 would suggest you explain to the witness the reason why he is here again;
2 in other words, that it is not something capricious, something that we
3 felt the need for. I also noticed you, Mr. Mitchell, standing up and
4 suddenly sitting down again.
5 MR. MITCHELL: Your Honour, we agree with the change, but the
6 word, "zurnali" has been consistently translated as "logbooks," and we
7 would like to put that on the record.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, but the correct version of the transcript,
10 the word journals, "zurnali," was not translated at all, just the word,
11 "knije [phoen]," books; it is a point.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
13 MR. MITCHELL: We agree that was untranslated. I am just saying
14 that the word, "zurnali" has been translated as "logbook." That's the --
15 that's the issue.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. It is so translated in the last
17 one, that we have received anyway regarding page 21917 lines 5 to 10
18 All right. Let's proceed, thank you. Both of you.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you.
20 WITNESS: PERO MIJATOVIC
21 [Witness answered through interpretation]
22 Examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir.
24 A. Good afternoon.
25 Q. I told you already why you must reappear before this Tribunal,
1 but I am about to tell you again. The need has arisen for you to clarify
2 certain elements of your evidence, more specifically in relation to your
3 work in terms of covering documents at Fontana Hotel in Bratunac. That
4 is the only thing that we shall now be focussing on. Thank you.
5 First of all, can you please tell me what assignment you got from
6 me as lead Defence counsel about the activities regarding the Fontana
7 Hotel? Can you tell us that, please?
8 A. The task is short and clear. I was told to go to Bratunac to go
9 to Fontana Hotel and to find any evidence on Vujadin Popovic having spent
10 a night there in July 1995. If possible, I was also told to make copies
11 of any documents found and to hand the whole thing over to you. That was
12 the extent of it.
13 Q. Were you dispatched to look for a particular document?
14 A. The only thing that was mentioned at the time was for me to try
15 and track down this information in the guest book dated 1995.
16 Q. Can you please tell me who you were in contact with in order to
17 accomplish this mission of yours?
18 A. Throughout the verification procedure or right away?
19 Q. No, who did you first get in touch with? Who was the first
21 A. All right. Thank you. I spoke on the phone to Brana Ilic who,
22 for a long time, was the only person who was on duty as it were every day
23 at Fontana Hotel. He was the only person who could provide answers to
24 matters such as these.
25 Q. So what was if feedback you got from him when you finally spoke
1 to him?
2 A. I had asked him a question about who owned the hotel and who I
3 should seek out in order to apply for this sort of official procedure.
4 He said they had a manager who was from Bijeljina and then dropped a name
5 on me that I failed to memorize. I asked Brana to get in touch with this
6 person, because they spoke often anyway, in order to inform them that I
7 was there, in order to gain entry to the hotel and accomplish my mission
9 Q. Can you tell us what you agreed on that occasion?
10 A. I had received permission to access the hotel. This is something
11 that Brana eventually conveyed to me. Four days after you gave me the
12 mission, I went there with Brana and we tried to track down the document
13 that you required or, rather, the information that you required.
14 Q. Once you were there, what happened next at Bratunac?
15 A. After -- soon after I met up with Brana he took me to the cellar
16 of Fontana Hotel. This is a dark area, no natural light and it's not
17 particularly tidy, either. He took me to an area that appeared to be a
18 closed room, some sort of a room. I don't know what it was used for, or
19 rather it wasn't closed. It was an open-plan room. There was some
20 shelves there and on one of those there was a heap of loose sheet of
21 paper. It was an untidy scene. They had probably had been lying around
22 that place for years and then he started skimming through these loose
23 sheets of paper. Soon after he turned around, looked at me, and told me
24 that whatever it was that we were looking for was certainly not there.
25 Right after this we left the hotel.
1 A hundred metres further down that street, we were off to what he
2 referred to as the directorate or the management. I didn't know that
3 that place was the management of Hutro Podrinje, which is a catering
4 association, a local one from Bratunac.
5 Q. I would like to interrupt you here. I would like to have a
6 clarification from you on one point. We are going back to the hotel
8 A. Yes, that much is clear.
9 Q. Thank you. This room that you mentioned, where exactly was it?
10 What part of the building? Can you be more specific about that?
11 A. You take the entry and then on the left-hand side is reception.
12 Right next to reception there is a staircase taking you down to the
13 basement of the hotel.
14 Q. Thank you. Just another thing, you mentioned shelves where these
15 sheets were stacked. Was it just on these shelves or were they lying
16 elsewhere on that room, too?
17 A. No, we talked about that room in the hotel. It wasn't like they
18 were proper shelves. This was the a protruding section of the wall. I'm
19 not sure how to put it. It resembled a shelve to some extent, but there
20 was this one bit of wall jetting out and that's where we found this lot
21 of loose sheets, a whole mound.
22 Q. Was that the only place, this shelf-like place, the section of
23 the wall jetting out, was that the only place with sheets of paper?
24 A. I turned around to look around me and that was the only place.
25 Everything else was much the same as elsewhere in the hotel apart from
1 the section that was still being used.
2 Q. All right. My understanding earlier on was a bit different but
3 not you set the record straight.
4 Now, you're off to the management building as you said. Can we
5 pick it up from there?
6 A. Brana got the key, and he unlocked the door. The key was in his
7 possession. The archive was, so to speak, under his control but under
8 lock and key; and he had a key. It was a musty room and the roof was
9 leaking. It was the office of his company, and then he went without
10 hesitation straight to a place where he appeared to believe he could
11 track this information down for me. I simply followed him into that
12 room. It was an office, as a matter of fact. I hadn't read the tack on
13 the door, I didn't know what this room was.
14 Nevertheless, Brana started going through the documents there one
15 by one inspecting the documentation that was there. First of all, he was
16 looking for the guest book which I believe was the right thing to do,
17 because that was my reasoning, too. This, I believed, would provide us a
18 shortcut to the information that we were after. Get the guest book for
19 July, that's what we had been told. However, he soon gave up the search
20 because he realised soon enough that there was no way he could possibly
21 it there. He knew some things, he didn't know some others, but if there
22 was something new about this he would have found it immediately. And he
23 realised there was no guest book. The search continues.
24 We were off to another part of the room where he had began
25 rummaging through sheets of paper that were folded three times, as it
1 were; and they were stuck up into what I can only refer to as a complex
2 shape. And then I said, Brana what is this? What do you think these are
3 called, the documents that you are after? And he said, These are
4 journals. I had never heard that one before. I walked up to this heap
5 of papers, and I had a look. Perhaps I should briefly describe what
6 these were like.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
8 MR. MITCHELL: Your Honour, just the same translation issue as
9 before. "Zurnali" should be translated as logbooks. Thank you.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I believe that "zurnali" should be translated as
13 MR. MITCHELL: Your Honour, that's the official CLSS position on
14 that word.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I have nothing against this kind of translation,
16 and I ask the witness to explain what the journal or logbooks are.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's proceed. It's almost a case of
18 what's in a name.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: But let's proceed. They are what they are, whether
21 you call them journals or logbooks. At the end of the day, we will have
22 a look at them and know exactly in our mind what word to attribute.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, I would like to ask you one thing. Can you just
25 slow down a little while giving evidence. I'm sorry for interrupting
1 you. This is precisely what I was about to tell you. Can you please
2 pick up where you left off. I am not sure if you know where you left
3 off, do you?
4 A. When I got closer to that place, Brana had already finished his
5 inspection of what he referred to as journals. So I proceeded to do the
6 same thing. That is why I am certain what they look like, and I think if
7 shown one now I could not possibly fail to identify this. This is large
8 format sheet. They have a certain size, and in order to be stacked up
9 like that they had to be folded three times, not just once. Each of the
10 sheets had the month that it was in relation to and the order was
12 Handwritten on every single sheet, the date that the sheet was in
13 relation to starting, of course, with January on the top of the pile, and
14 then spilling over into February and the order was consistently followed.
15 Q. Just another thing, I believe we have a small problem. Did you
16 say that you could identify those journals, what they look like in terms
17 of appearance? And can you please just repeat about their format, but
18 please slow down if you can.
19 A. Right. Thank you. These documents were not bound. They didn't
20 have any covers. And they had a certain size and that's how they were
21 stacked there, that's how they were stored there. They are one of a
22 kind. The only document of that size being used, and in this they were
23 different from all the other document that were circulating. They were
24 in relation to each month separately. They were a reflection of the
25 financial states of the hotel on daily basis and the order followed was
2 Q. When you say, "daily financial situation," does this mean that a
3 journal was drafted in relation to each day or a sheet, or each month had
4 its own sheet? How did this work?
5 A. Based on the hotel's business, it really depended whether a sheet
6 could be filled on any particular day, and it was by no means certain
7 that 30 sheets would equal a month. This was by no means a commitment.
8 Each day had a sheet, but sometimes there were days when there were no
9 guests or very few, so the entries made were not too numerous, and then
10 they would go on like that. So a month has to comprise of every single
11 day within that month, that was the system.
12 Q. I think you talked about whether these sheets were bound or
13 whether they had covers. I may have missed that. But can you please
14 tell me nevertheless, was there any system to the way these were stored
15 and organised? Were they organised in a tidy way or not?
16 A. Well, yes, there was a system to this, and it appeared to be a
17 tidy system. There were some folders there, and so on and so forth; but
18 as soon as I looked at it, I could realise that there was order there.
19 Q. All right. Did you manage to track down all of the journals in
20 relation to that year?
21 A. One was missing, the July journal. I personally saw this for
22 myself because I was sorting these month by month. I wasn't able to
23 simply believe that July was missing, because everything else was there,
24 but this was a very conspicuous absence and Brana before me had
25 established the same thing.
1 Q. Thank you very much. All right. That's what happened. You
2 failed to track down the July journal. What did you do next? What steps
3 did you take, if any?
4 A. That same day, having left the management building, we agreed
5 that we could obtain this information in a different form from the
6 accountancy unit, from a different source, the accounts. Brana was not a
7 qualified bookkeeper, so to speak. He was for the most part waitering.
8 So he was not willing to infringe on anyone else's territory, special
9 that of the accountants working there; but he knew them well so I pleaded
10 with him to call them after I had left and to ask them over the following
11 days to come there, to go to the cashiers unit, and to try to find any
12 sort of information that they believe might be useful to us. He promised
13 to do just that for me.
14 Meanwhile, I had managed to get in touch with Risto Saremac, who
15 at the time was at the Jahorina Olympic centre. He was the last manager
16 of the hotel before the hotel went into administration. Mr. Saremac was
17 quite kind with me, promising, yes, promising, that he would speak to his
18 former employees, or, rather, the lady employees of the accountancy unit.
19 He said that he was quite confident that they could do the job for us,
20 that they could track the documents down for us because they were
21 diligent worker and very systemic. He knew them well. He said
22 Mijatovic, nothing for you to worry about, you will be getting this
23 information in due course.
24 The documentation was kept in order, everything was being done by
25 the book, it was all tidy, the documents was tidy, and the archive was
1 under lock and key. I took his word for it. And I held him to his
2 promise, so I bade my time waiting for his invitation expecting that
3 there would be end to this, and that the documents would be tracked down.
4 I was convinced that this would be the case.
5 Q. Very well. What happened next after you received some sort of
7 A. I learned in the meantime that the main account and the cashier
8 helped Brana to locate and copy the documents and invoices at the
9 accountancy department relating to the guests who stayed at the hotel in
10 July of that year. Once they finished this, Brana called me by phone and
11 that was about ten days after my departure. He told me that I could come
12 over and take the copies of these accounting documents and that is
13 precisely what I did.
14 Q. Can you describe for us how this handover of documents took
15 place? Who gave you the copies of the documents?
16 A. I arrived at the hotel, and Brana came out to meet me. I
17 remember quite clearly, although some 20 months had elapsed since then.
18 We were standing in the street, and he gave me these copies without any
19 covering sheet. He told me this is it, this is what you were looking
20 for; and I'm giving it to you. And it's finished.
21 I took the documents from his hand and in front of him, just
22 browsed through the documents superficially. I noticed these were
23 invoices, the copies were not exactly good, and there were also some
24 other documents containing names of persons. I suppose that those were
25 supplements to the invoice or, rather, the documents on the basis of
1 which these invoices were issued. There were reservation sheets or
2 confirmations or whatever. Just like a delivery bill is part of an
3 invoice, in hotel business these supplements always accompany invoices.
4 I immediately saw that there was some 30-odd documents, I didn't
5 count them. This is not -- neither a lot neither a few. I also noticed
6 some bills relating to the use of restaurants and the bills relating to
7 drinks and food.
8 Q. On that day, did you have a chance to look closely at these
9 invoices? Can you describe these other documents that were attached to
10 the invoices? Do you remember what they actually contained, who wrote
11 them, who they were sent to?
12 A. These other documents constituted less than a third of the
13 documents. They were issued by the Bratunac Brigade. It was a typical
14 format typed on each sheet saying that the following persons were given
15 approval to spend the night at the hotel on specifying days according to
16 the attached list. And these lists were different in terms of the number
17 of persons and their names.
18 This document was also certified by the brigade stamp and signed
19 by the brigade officer in charge. I think that constituted a complete
20 set of documents that served as a basis for providing services by the
21 hotel and later on for charging for those services.
22 Q. In order to avoid any confusion, in addition to these documents
23 that you mentioned now issued by the Bratunac Brigade, was there any
24 additional list attached thereto, or were these documents only what you
25 saw, perhaps, you haven't been properly understood?
1 A. Those were A4 forms and nothing else other than that. And these
2 were the copies that I took over. In no way could they be in any other
3 format, either smaller or bigger, with different data and different
4 shape, and things like that.
5 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, I shall be very brief. Given that you had an
6 opportunity to see those journals earlier, can you tell me, among those
7 copies, were any copies of the journals?
8 A. No, there were no copies of the journal. I would have spotted
9 them immediately because of the form. You have a sheet of paper folded
10 three times. People might remember that payroll list used to be folded
11 like that and they were printed. According to the French word,
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpret's note that we didn't comprehend what
14 the witness is saying.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Stop, stop. You need to repeat a bit please
16 because the interpreters had problems following you. I can tell you
17 until where they -- where they caught up with you:
18 "People might remember that payroll lists used to be folded like
19 that and they were printed. According to the French word, 'journal.'"
20 That is where it stops. Go ahead.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to the definition of this
22 term that we are interested in, that means journal, a diary, or an
23 accountancy book that contains all daily financial changes according to a
24 certain chronological order. And there is also the definition that it
25 might mean a newspaper, a magazine, and things like that.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Can you tell us, among the copies of the documents that you
3 received, were any pages from the guest book?
4 A. I don't think that would have been possible. There were no
5 journals and there were no pages taken out of the guest book because I
6 would have recognized them.
7 Q. One more question, please. Among these copies, were there any
8 documents in which the name of Vujadin Popovic was mentioned, because
9 that was basically the terms of reference of what you were instructed to
10 look for and why you went there?
11 A. I did notice among the documents immediately that the name
12 Vujadin Popovic appeared in a couple of places and that was sufficient
13 for me in terms of the objective of our verification. And with that, I
14 deemed my mission to be accomplished. I took them and handed them over
15 further on.
16 Q. In a nutshell, you said that you had been given some 30
17 documents, does that mean that the remaining documents did not contain
18 the name of Vujadin Popovic?
19 A. No, they didn't.
20 Q. Can you tell me, please, you and Mr. Brana Ilic, at the time when
21 he handed over the copies to you, did the two of you compile any list or
22 some document confirming that he had handed over the documents to you
23 according to the specification; and, on the other hand, did you sign such
24 a kind of document as the recipient of these documents?
25 A. During the handover, we did not -- or, rather, Brana did not make
1 any other additional documents that should have probably contained the
2 specification of the documents attached to it. They were just copied
3 without any attachments.
4 Q. First of all, tell us, did you handover these documents to
5 someone else, and if you did to whom did you hand them over?
6 A. When I first met you in Zvornik, I gave the documents to you in
7 the same way as I received them from Brana without any written record of
8 that. I just handed them over to you personally.
9 Q. One more thing, after that, were you given another assignment to
10 go to the Fontana Hotel, and if you did, can you tell us when and why?
11 A. After certain period of time or, rather, a long period of time,
12 more precisely the following year, I was instructed to go to the same
13 location and look again for the same documents and to make the same
14 number of copies as I did the first time. I followed the same procedure
15 as I did on the first occasion. I called Mr. Ilic first, and he called
16 me back, very quickly, after a couple of days by telling me that the
17 copies were made and waiting for me. And I had went there to collect
18 them either on the same day or the following day.
19 Q. Can you tell us were these the same documents that you had taken
20 the previous year?
21 A. I couldn't expect anything different. I expected them to be
22 identical in number and shape and the quality of copy without any
23 attached documents that did not exist at the same -- during the first
24 time, and I didn't expect them to appear the next time.
25 Q. When you say, "without any attachments," are you referring to the
1 record of handover that would have been signed by you?
2 A. Yes, that is what I was referring to, a record on the handover.
3 It wasn't made on that occasion, either.
4 Q. Just to clarify things, you said that you had been instructed.
5 Can you tell me who instructed you to go there?
6 A. Mr. Zivanovic or, rather, you, told me that you had misplaced
7 these documents. I accepted that, and I thought that this would be a
8 very easy task and that is how I went and did it for you.
9 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, today in my office, I showed you a selection of
10 documents that the OTP had obtained, and I read to you part of the
11 statement given by Mr. Erin Gallagher, the OTP investigator who
12 interviewed Mr. Brana Ilic about, inter alia, this handover of documents.
13 I showed you these documents that Mr. Brana Ilic mentioned. Tell me,
14 when you compared those documents and the documents that you received,
15 can you tell me whether these are two identical sets of documents if --
16 and if there are any difference, what the differences are?
17 A. These two sets of documents are identical. I could have seen
18 that at the first glance and in every detail.
19 Q. Thank you. A couple of more questions relating to your testimony
20 of the 6th of June and the 9th of June of this year. We have shown you a
21 transcript of the part of your testimony in B/C/S, in the language that
22 both of us speak, and you were able to read these two passages that were
23 in dispute in a sort of way and reflected your testimony in a different
24 manner from the one that you have given today. I am going to read to you
25 this part of your testimony, and I would kindly ask you to tell me,
1 because you indicated that there was some omissions, and therefore I
2 would kindly ask you to explain to the Chamber what happened.
3 That's the transcript of the 6th of June, 2008, page 21917, lines
4 2 to 10.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
6 MR. MITCHELL: Your Honour, can I just confirm what this B/C/S
7 transcript is? Is it the one that was transcribed by CLSS in their memo
8 that we received today? Or is it the old one that we received this
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, it is from -- it is, no, no. The transcript
11 I was provided by OTP yesterday by Mr. McCloskey, but I believe that it
12 is the same as the B/C/S version -- B/C/S version of translation unit. I
13 believe so.
14 MR. MITCHELL: Your Honour, I think the only difference is we
15 provided a transcript of lines 2 to 10. CLSS only reviewed lines 5 to
16 10. So just to put that on the record.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: 5 to 10. Yes, 5 to 10 is the subject of my
19 question. It is just the answer, not the question.
20 Q. [Interpretation] So you gave the following answer on that
22 "The Fontana Hotel in Bratunac has been in the receivership since
23 2006, and it's still ongoing. Given this situation pertaining to this
24 hotel, we managed with the assistance of its employees who are still on
25 the list of employees of the hotel, to locate and take certified
1 journals, the so-called journals of the guests staying overnight and the
2 invoices relating to the guests who stayed at the hotel in June and July
4 This is part of your testimony that was entered into the
5 transcript on the 6th of June. You had an opportunity to see it, and can
6 you tell me now how it happened that this version is completely different
7 from the one that you have given us today? What is this all about?
8 A. Most probably this is due to imprecision, I would not like to
9 call it lack of concentration. But apparently, during my long testimony
10 I -- had I known that I should have been more precise at the time I
11 should have and could have probably used some more precise words, and
12 some words are actually missing. What does that mean? Obviously, there
13 is some erroneous meaning attached to this, and it deviates from what I
14 wanted to say.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
16 MR. MITCHELL: Just to clarify, Your Honour, the witness is
17 suggesting that the words -- the words aren't missing from the transcript
18 or from the audio, it was -- he didn't actually say them. Is that
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you agree to that, Mr. Zivanovic?
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: He didn't say the proper word at the time when he
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I think it's [Overlapping speakers]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: It's clear enough. It's clear enough. Let's
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: -- error in transcript.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, today I showed you the
4 corrected -- or, rather, this version of the transcript, and I think you
5 actually made copy of it and then you corrected it. Or, rather, you put
6 in what you failed to say last time. Now, I don't know whether you can
7 perhaps read this or maybe just say it or perhaps I should read out to
8 you what you told me today and then you can confirm whether this is so or
9 not. We sent this text to the Prosecution, so if they are not objecting.
10 A. I think that the sentence went more or less like this. That in
11 the business books, and then there is a list made, and the list includes
12 the guest book, the journals, but there -- it should also say that
13 instead of those documents that were supposed to exist there, the couple
14 of documents that I mentioned, we found invoices. And then it goes on.
15 So instead of the documents that we don't have, we have invoices.
16 So I think that in this context we can now really say everything
17 accurately so that everybody can understand it.
18 Q. Let me just read the second sentence that should have been
19 corrected, so let me just ask you whether this is what you said should
20 have been said and wasn't said:
21 "We are in such a statutory position of this hotel, and we
22 managed to retrieve from the archives with the assistance of the workers
23 who are still on the lists of the employees of the hotel, we managed to
24 find and take the certified -- to take instead of certified journals,
25 journals of the book of overnight stays, the invoices that pertain to the
1 overnight stays of the guests in the period of June and July 1995."
2 A. I think that's precisely how it is. So instead, and then I list
3 the documents, we took the invoices.
4 Q. Could you please tell me one more thing, the word "June" is
5 mentioned in the transcript, and what you actually said is June, July [as
6 interpreted]. So since this word "June" really was said, could you
7 please explain to us what this is all about?
8 A. I think since the previous time-period was mentioned, i.e.,
9 probably meant to say, but that is a different thing. That this was a
10 period from the 1st until the 31st of July. But since I spoke about the
11 time-period then the word "June" slipped in, and it was a slip of the
13 Q. But could you please repeat once again, did you have any task to
14 search through the documents pertaining to June 1995?
15 A. No, never, ever.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I have just one more paragraph to give to the
17 witness, but it is time for break.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you can proceed.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thanks.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Provided you finish within the next five minutes.
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, let me just show you the second
23 paragraph from the transcript. That's at page 21946, the lines are 2
24 through 15. Again, we are only interested in one particular bit. Well,
25 I will have to read the whole text:
1 "The thing is of a technical nature, and the means to know what
2 documents we need for what period and from what part of the archives,
3 whether the cashiers desk, the accountancy, the auxiliary books or what.
4 As we worked on collecting those documents, I ascertained that for July
5 1995, according to the statements made by employees of the hotel,
6 somebody had - somebody they don't know who that is - had taken the
7 journals, precisely the journals and the books pertaining to July, with
8 the assistance of the police station in Bratunac a few years earlier.
9 And those documents could not be found in the archives of the hotel.
10 "However, the employees, the cashier, the account, and the
11 others, managed to find copies of those documents from other sources --
12 or, rather, of invoices --"
13 Instead of no, no that's not what it says in the original. I
15 "Invoices, journals, the book of overnight stays of domestic
16 guest, the book of overnight stays of foreign guests, and so on, and then
17 we were able to put together everything that we needed, everything that
18 we were supposed to get. So they were able to find it."
19 Now, could you please tell me -- well, I've already read outside
20 the word that I should not have read now, but I first had to ask you a
21 question and then you were supposed to tell me. Could you please tell me
22 whether this text, without this word that I read out, does that really
23 reflect -- you mentioned that there is a difference between what you said
24 then and what you say now. So could you please tell me what is it?
25 Why -- what is it that in fact led to this confusion on your part?
1 A. I think that is the same thing as we had a little while ago. We
2 were talking about the distinction between the documents that we didn't
3 find and the documents that were available. As I listed them, I said we
4 found invoices instead of -- I am not going to now list the documents
5 that did not exist, that were not available. So I had to make that
6 distinction whereas I did not do it at the time. So again it's the same
7 thing as in the previous case.
8 Q. So does it mean that you did not say the word, "instead"?
9 A. Yes, I did not make that distinction. I didn't use any words to
10 mark that distinction, and I should have.
11 Q. And just one more question for you, as I went through the
12 transcript I noticed that you did not mention the letters that you
13 described today, the approvals from the Bratunac Brigade that were
14 attached to the bills or invoices. So could you please tell us why?
15 Could you remember -- can you remember why this was not mentioned by you
17 A. I think that in the first testimony I did not mention the
18 approvals issued by the Bratunac Brigade, the authorisations. They were
19 an integral part of the documents that I received. I think I should have
20 mentioned them, but it was precisely because of the precision that was
21 lacking or that was suggested. I left them out. I don't know why,
22 because they were in the minority in relation to other documents, the
24 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Mijatovic. I have no further questions.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: And so we will have the break now which needs to be
1 of 30 minutes. It will be 30 minutes from now. Thank you. In other
2 words, we can actually reconvene at 20 minutes past 4.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 3.52 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 4.31 p.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Mr. Mitchell.
6 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: You may proceed to cross-examine the witness if you
8 so wish.
9 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Your Honour. Mr. McCloskey indicated
10 that we may not have any questions, but we do have a few. So --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: That's why I have asked you. So please go ahead
12 and take your time.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Mitchell:
14 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Mijatovic.
15 A. Good afternoon.
16 Q. I'd just like to clarify with you first your testimony today. In
17 2000 -- in June 2008, you testified here that you had picked up or you
18 obtained the guest logbooks for July 1995. That's what you testified in
19 June, correct?
20 A. I received copies of the documents that I mentioned.
21 Q. You received copies of the guest logbooks for July 1995, is that
22 what you're saying?
23 A. No, did I not mention the guest logbooks. I did not say that I
24 received them. I received invoices and the parts that have to do with
25 the approvals or authorisations that I mentioned.
1 Q. I just want to clarify, sir, in June 2008, you said you did
2 receive copies of the guest logbooks and today you've told us that that
3 was a mistake, and that you didn't receive those copies, correct?
4 A. I do apologise for having done that at that time. I did not do
5 it on purpose. I did not intend to mislead anyone or to prejudice anyone
6 in any way. The sense and the intention was to say things as they were,
7 but it was not precise enough. And if I -- if anyone had asked me at
8 that time to be more precise, I would have given the same answer as I did
10 Q. Sir, I want to read out a question that was asked to you at
11 transcript page 21945. Now, you've just said that if someone had asked
12 you to be more precise, you would have given the same answer. Well, this
13 was the question that you were asked:
14 "Can you describe to me everything you know, everything you
15 remember about those documents? You've obviously you've seen them.
16 Precisely describe to me what they were, as far as you can recall?"
17 Do you remember that question?
18 A. I do.
19 Q. And do you remember that that question drew an objection from
20 Defence counsel?
21 A. I don't recall everything. I don't remember how it proceeded
22 from there. I wish I could.
23 Q. Okay. Well, you made a mistake in your June 2008 testimony, and
24 you made that mistake more than once, didn't you sir?
25 A. It's one and the same thing. In one case when we were talking
1 about the fact that instead of receiving the documents that we had sought
2 that would have given us the date immediately, that we found and took the
3 invoices. And in the other case, the sentence was the same, that we took
4 the invoices instead of -- now, I don't want to list all the documents,
5 the guest book, the journals, and so on.
6 Q. I understand.
7 A. I think that it's the same.
8 Q. And so when did you first communicate to Mr. Zivanovic that you
9 had made this mistake?
10 A. Well, I did not communicate that to Mr. Zivanovic. I thought --
11 well, I didn't have that in front of me, but to my mind it was
12 sufficient, but then later on I don't know how the procedure was, but at
13 any rate up to the day when they told me that I needed to provide some
14 clarifications. And that was some time after that.
15 Q. So today is the first time that you have spoken with the Defence
16 about this issue?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment before you answer the question.
18 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: The witness answered differently. He indicated
20 that there was a time when he communicated with me.
21 MR. MITCHELL: That was my mistake.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
23 MR. MITCHELL: I will clarify that.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
25 MR. MITCHELL:
1 Q. Exactly when did you discuss this issue with the Defence? Can
2 you tell us how many times, over what period of time?
3 A. I think it was several weeks later. I don't know the exact date.
4 I don't know the exact date when I was told that I should provide some
5 more precise answers to some of the questions. And since that time,
6 we've had several contacts to discuss the procedure and how to explain
7 that with greater precision because the first time we didn't do this
8 in-depth. Not only in this case but in other cases, and we didn't get
9 the broader context; and we did not go and get specific answers, what was
10 done, who specifically was involved, by name and so on.
11 Q. So what happened when you first spoke about this? Did
12 Mr. Zivanovic tell you that there may have been an issue with the
13 translation, or did he ask you for further clarification and you
14 suggested that there was an issue or can you tell us how that
15 conversation went?
16 A. Well, translation was not brought up at all because I have
17 nothing to do with it in terms of how my testimony was given,
18 technically. But the thrust of the conversation was to clarify some
19 definitions and some kinds. This was the most important part of
20 documents that we were supposed to find and what we actually managed to
21 find, what we couldn't find physically, and what was not accessible to us
22 because after all what was important to us was to get results regardless
23 of the actual source.
24 Q. Sir, you told us today that in the documents that you received
25 from Mr. Ilic, you saw references to Vujadin Popovic; is that correct?
1 A. Well, naturally that's what I expected, that's what I saw, that's
2 what I obtained; and this was a sign that indicated to me that what I was
3 asking for was -- what I was waiting for, that I actually got it.
4 Q. Okay. I'd like to take you back to your testimony in June this
5 year and read you a question and answer that was put to you on this same
7 Now, in cross-examination you were asked:
8 "The documents you got from the Hotel Fontana, did they indicate
9 that Vujadin Popovic had spent the night there in July any time 1995?"
10 And this was your answer:
11 "The documents existed. I didn't go into the contents of the
12 documents. The most important thing was that the documents date from the
13 month of July 1995 and that they related to that particular lodging. I
14 didn't have any need to go into the contents of your documents, to be
15 able to answer your question."
16 Now, sir, which of your testimony under oath is correct, the one
17 from June or the one from today?
18 A. I think that the sense remains the same, both times. Now, if you
19 want to define what it means that I didn't go into the contents, I think
20 that there was the first name and the last name in some of the documents
21 on some of the invoices, several invoices indicating that Vujadin Popovic
22 spent the night in the hotel two times. What does it mean that I wasn't
23 going into the substance - and now I'm saying that I just browsed through
24 the invoices - I meant the same thing. That this information exists
25 there. It is recorded that this man did spend the night in the hotel.
1 So there is a record of it. I think the essence is the same.
2 Q. Sir, you were asked a specific question in June. Did those
3 documents indicate that Vujadin Popovic had spent the night there in July
4 1995? And you, your response was that you didn't have any need to go
5 into the content. Today, you told us that you did see his name on those
6 documents. That's a different answer, isn't it?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: My friend missed one sentence from previously
9 cited -- a previously cited passage that he said the document existed.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm not sure I'm following you, Mr. Zivanovic.
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It's page 46, line 14, "the document existed."
12 MR. MITCHELL: Your Honour, on the previous page on 14, I've
13 read -- that's been read into the record.
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: 46, line 14.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: "The documents existed."
17 MR. MITCHELL: That's what I read into the record.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
19 MR. MITCHELL:
20 Q. Now, sir, did any of the material you saw contain the name
22 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment before you proceed with this question
23 because we want to see clear on this.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: He hasn't answered that previous question. So
1 let's go through that first, and then you proceed with this Beara.
2 MR. MITCHELL: Yes, Your Honour.
3 Q. My question was, sir, you were asked in your testimony in June
4 whether the documents you saw indicated that Vujadin Popovic had spent
5 the night there in July of 1995. The version you gave today was very
6 different from the version you gave then. Now, which of your testimony
7 is correct?
8 A. Well, I wanted to give the same answer both then and now. I
9 claimed that Vujadin Popovic was listed in the document. His name was
10 there. The date when he stayed there and other information that was
11 listed there, the sum of money and so on. So I saw that the moment I
12 received the documents, and I think that today I gave the same answer to
13 the effect that I saw that Popovic was listed as a guest in the hotel on
14 those dates. So that was not only one night but several or more than
16 Q. Sir, did any of the material you saw contain the name "Beara"?
17 A. Well, that's a new question for me. In the documents that I
18 received from Ilic, I did not find Beara's name. If I had, I would have
19 returned the documents to him. What would I do with a document that
20 nobody needs and that I, myself, don't need. So I really have to say no.
21 Why would I be looking for other names, other persons, and so on.
22 Q. So the Bratunac Brigade authorisations that you fail to mention
23 in June, you didn't see Mr. Beara's name on one of them?
24 A. Well, to be quite specific, the authorisations or approvals from
25 the Bratunac Brigade, I didn't see Mr. Beara's name at all there.
1 Q. Did you look at these authorisations?
2 A. Well, several times. I know them by heart. Of course, when I
3 receive something then I go through all the pages, I look at the format,
4 I check whether there are any duplicates or forgeries. I look for
5 anything that I may have been planted there, anything that is out of the
6 ordinary in terms of bookkeeping.
7 MR. MITCHELL: If I can just have one moment, Your Honour.
8 [Prosecution Counsel Confer]
9 MR. MITCHELL:
10 Q. Sir, I only have one more question to you -- question for you.
11 What happened to the documents that Mr. Zivanovic lost in 2006? Have
12 those documents ever been found?
13 A. Well, I handed over to him another set of documents, the same
14 documents, I have to say. Now, as to what happened with the previous set
15 I did not discuss this with him. I didn't even ask him.
16 Q. So do you know where these -- the missing documents, where were
17 they last seen?
18 A. When I handed over the documents the first time in Zvornik, I was
19 not aware of what happened with them at all up until the time when I was
20 told that I should go back to the hotel and obtain them once again. So
21 as for their fate, I didn't inquire about that and I was not interested
22 in it.
23 MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Your Honour. I have no further
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Judge Prost would like to put some
1 questions to you, Mr. Mijatovic.
2 Questioned by the Court:
3 JUDGE PROST: Mr. Mijatovic, I am going to begin with something
4 you just answered to Mr. Mitchell because I am not clear at all now on
5 what kind of a review you made of these documents.
6 Now, Mr. Mitchell noted your testimony before us previously, and
7 this is at page 21944, where you said that, in answer to the question
8 about Mr. Popovic, you said:
9 "I didn't go into the content of the documents. The important
10 thing was that the documents dated from the month of July and they
11 related to that particular lodging. I didn't have any need to go into
12 the contents of the documents."
13 Now, today, earlier on, you said something very similar. You
14 said that when you received - and this was at page 31, lines 1 to 15 -
15 when you received these documents the first time, you said:
16 "I just browsed through the documents superficially. I didn't
17 count them." You've indicated you didn't list them. And yet, just now,
18 at page 49, you say, in terms of the authorisations, which were in those
20 "I know them by heart. When I receive something, I go through
21 all the pages. I look at the format. I check whether there are
22 duplicates or forgeries. I look for anything that may have been planted
23 there, anything out of ordinary in terms of bookkeeping."
24 So tell me, what is the situation, did you review these documents
25 in detail or did you not?
1 A. Well, at the moment when I received the documents is one thing,
2 and the other thing is the period when I was in possession of the those
3 documents up until the time when I handed them over to Mr. Zivanovic.
4 Given the circumstances at the time when Ilic handed those
5 documents to me, Ilic simply went out into the street and I could not do
6 all those things that you just mentioned here. But throughout the period
7 while I was in possession of those documents, well, I had them in my
8 custody, up until the time when I handed them over to Defence counsel, I
9 had an opportunity to go through them in detail. Did I that for my own
10 sake. So I don't know if you understand me or not, so I did not have
11 them in my possession for just a day or two; and they were not just kept
13 I had to familiarise myself with them and to be able to convey
14 properly the quality of the work, whether everything that was requested
15 was indeed present. All the things that were present, the quantity, the
16 contents, I had to specify all that.
17 JUDGE PROST: Well, that's quite different then from what you
18 told us in June because there was no specification on that question as to
19 the time-period. You were asked about the content of the documents and
20 you seem to indicate previously that you had not looked at the content.
21 But now you're telling us that you did do a very thorough review of the
22 contents of these documents. Is that the case?
23 A. I wasn't asked the question at the time. I wasn't asked up until
24 now to provide this extent of explanation as I am being asked now. They
25 only asked whether I inspected these documents and then we moved on.
1 There was no time for me to explain. I do have the time now to talk
2 about document numbers, are these incidence voice, are these
3 authorisations, and so on and so forth, discussing the type of document.
4 But back then it was just one thing of many that were discussed. I was
5 asked to say specifically what I did in that building during those days,
6 what I sought and what I received. That was the only purpose.
7 JUDGE PROST: And when you did this examination, then, did you
8 make a list as might be normal for an investigator, list out what the
9 documents were, what the dates were, what the contents were? Did you
10 make a list of that nature to give over to Defence counsel?
11 A. Whenever there were situations like that, and there were quite a
12 number of them, I never put together an attachment like that specifying
13 these things. I never attached any document to the documents that I had
14 singled out. I would get the documents. I would put them in an
15 envelope. In this case -- even that was not the case, there was no
16 envelope involved; and then I would deliver them like that to the counsel
17 with no signatures and no receipts or anything else.
18 JUDGE PROST: Now, I'm going to be very specific here since we've
19 had some confusion on the point. We are not talking about whether you
20 made a list right at the time that you received the documents, but when
21 you did this thorough review that you just told us about, did you during
22 the course of that review make any kind of a list of the documents that
23 you were looking at?
24 A. No, I didn't.
25 JUDGE PROST: And did you take any notes about the contents of
1 those documents? Did you keep any notes whatsoever?
2 A. No.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE PROST: And afterwards, at any point in time, and I don't
5 want to be limited in any time-frame here, did you at any point in time
6 make a list of those document or make notes about the contents of those
7 documents, anything of that nature, at any time?
8 A. No, not then, not ever.
9 JUDGE PROST: Based on that, you testified here today, in summary
10 you had no list; and you obviously didn't keep any copies of these
11 documents; is that correct?
12 A. That's correct. Are you suggesting that I -- or are you asking
13 me whether I made copies of the documents.
14 JUDGE PROST: Yes, I'm asking you whether you made any copies.
15 A. Why would I have? I do apologise, but why would I have done
16 anything like that? Perhaps to keep those, but for what purpose? I had
17 no use for those, I would just pass them along so that they might be used
18 wherever necessary. I certainly didn't need to keep those at my home. I
19 didn't copy them. I didn't make any copies or distribute copies. There
20 is a certain procedure in place for things like these and the procedure
21 is known to everyone.
22 JUDGE PROST: Okay then. I want to try and understand your
23 answer to this question earlier, which is Mr. Zivanovic put to you that,
24 "Today," and I am going to read from his question:
25 "Today in my office I showed you a selection of documents that
1 the OTP had obtained, and I read to you part of the statement given
2 by --" I believe it was Gallagher, "The OTP investigator," miss, it
3 should be:
4 "Who interviewed Mr. Brana Ilic about inter alia this handover of
5 documents. I showed you these documents that Mr. Ilic mentioned, tell me
6 when you compared those documents and the documents that you received,
7 can you tell me whether these are two identical sets of documents and
8 if -- if there are any differences what the differences are?"
9 And your answer was:
10 "These two sets of documents are identical. I could have seen
11 that at the first glance and any, every detail."
12 How could you possibly know that, sir, when you didn't keep any
13 notes of the documents, you kept no list of the documents. It's not that
14 you said they were similar but you said that they were identical. I want
15 to try and understand how you are so certain that they were two identical
16 sets of documents?
17 A. We are talking about the following situation. I had copies and I
18 had what you termed "the originals." I compared the one to the other
19 right away. That's what I do. At the time I received the documents, I
20 had nothing to compare them to, nor at the time. Now, it won't be
21 difficult to put these documents side by side, compare the headers, the
22 numbers, the stamp, and everything else -- or the author, for that
23 matter. It tallies in every respect. There is the date. You can't have
24 the same date in two different dates or any other changes --
25 JUDGE PROST: Let me just stop you there.
1 A. -- in a single invoices.
2 JUDGE PROST: -- because we may be talking at cross purposes
3 here. So if I understand you correctly, it's not precisely how the
4 question framed but what you compared was the documents that the OTP had
5 collected, which was shown to you by Mr. Zivanovic, with the documents
6 that Mr. Zivanovic provided you with; is that correct? Is that what
7 you're saying?
8 A. We compared the documents, as far as I remember.
9 JUDGE PROST: So these are the documents, though -- not the
10 documents necessarily, and I'm not imputing there was any substitution,
11 but what you compared was the documents currently held with the documents
12 seized by the OTP; is that correct?
13 Currently held by Mr. Zivanovic; is that correct?
14 A. There were documents that were in our possession, earlier on.
15 And we compared those to these documents and we realised that they were
16 identical. There were no discrepancies, no new documents that the OTP
17 had and we didn't, and so on and so forth. We established no
18 discrepancies. The number and the type of the documents that we
19 received, were the same as those other ones. Well, now had there been
20 any discrepancy at all, I would have known; but there was none. I am
21 certain about that. Had this been a new document, for example, that we
22 had and the OTP didn't and, well, that's what I mean. We didn't notice
23 that sort of thing at all and that would be all.
24 JUDGE PROST: Thank you.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that brings your testimony to an end,
1 Mr. Mijatovic. Thank you for coming over again, and once more I wish you
2 a safe journey back home.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thank you too, Your Honours.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I take it there are no documents.
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: But I have one clarification, I have the second
7 documents obtained, provided by my investigator, and the set of documents
8 by the Prosecution. I had it. The only difference is in the lack of ERN
9 numbers in my set of documents, and it is --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Mitchell or Mr. McCloskey -- usually I
11 would prefer to have only one of you speak on this, but.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry, this just got into more of a policy
13 issue. This whole exercise has been to have the Defence turnover all the
14 documents they received so that we could compare what we have.
15 And this witness just said we didn't have anything he didn't
16 have, but he also said the Beara document was not in his group, and
17 clearly the Beara document is in our group. So yes, we will gladly
18 accept what Mr. Zivanovic is offering now, but we would like them to
19 follow through with the Court order and provide all materials that this
20 man received.
21 And yes, we will gladly accept this, but we would like the full
22 thrust of the -- of the request to receive everything. And Mr. -- I'm
23 sorry, Mr. Mitchell is prepared to argue anymore detail if you need it.
24 But just to clarify, yes, of course, we will accept that; but we
25 would like an assurance that it is everything. I mean, this whole thing
1 just --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I don't think we need to hear
3 Mr. Mitchell as well.
4 Mr. Zivanovic, is what you are offering the entire collection of
5 documents received or do you have more.
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I have this document and --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry. I -- I put all my reasons because I
9 believe that it is not my duty to surrender my documents, the results of
10 my investigation, to the Prosecution. But in this case, because the
11 Prosecution already obtained all of these documents I could provide all
12 these documents to the Prosecution.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but you haven't answered actually the basic
14 question that I tried to put to you; namely, arising from the point made
15 by Mr. McCloskey, whether what you are offering is the entire collection
16 that you are -- of documents that you were provided with by this witness
17 or whether you have more documents that you are now offering.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I don't have more documents. I just have these
19 documents --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: -- that he spoke about.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. That's the declaration that -- yes,
23 Mr. McCloskey.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: If it could include not just documents he has but
25 documents that the witness may still have, because that's been left out
1 of this.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you aware if Mr. Mijatovic has more documents?
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I don't -- I don't believe so. I don't believe
4 that Mr. Mijatovic has some other documents.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: They did not ask --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's leave.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: -- other documents.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's close the argument here. Yes, we would like
11 you to tender those --
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: -- documents, please.
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I didn't put it on my list. But I could tender
16 JUDGE AGIUS: It's no problem. I mean, the formality of the
17 list --
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I will make the list and provide it.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: You can even do it tomorrow or some other day --
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, yes.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: -- so that you can concentrate on the rest of the
22 proceeding. Yes, Mr. Josse.
23 MR. JOSSE: They are being disclosed rather than tendered into
24 evidence, as I understand it.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, the purpose of the recalling of the witness
1 in part, or for a major part, was precisely to get a clear picture as to
2 what had -- had been obtained by him and what he made available to
3 Mr. Zivanovic. And basically whether there were also any substantial
4 differences between those documents and the documents that had, in the
5 first place, been provided by the Prosecution. So, more or less, with
6 this we will get the clear picture.
7 MR. JOSSE: Could --
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE AGIUS: So basically, unless I -- in case I haven't made
10 myself clear, the end of this whole procedure today, and the end of the
11 discussion, basically brings us back to the main reason for which we
12 recalled -- we asked this witness to be brought again. The consequence
13 or the bottom line being that precisely these documents are essential;
14 and they need to be in the record and not just being shown to the
15 Prosecution or to the Bench just to have a look at them and make up our
16 minds what was provided and whether they are accepted. They need to be
17 in the record.
18 MR. JOSSE: Clearly if they are going to be in the record all
19 parties need to see them and be in position to make submissions upon
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course, of course.
22 MR. JOSSE: That's helpful, Your Honour, and could I make one
23 more observation, and the reason I've risen is we were the only other
24 party to make some submission in response to the Prosecution motion.
25 Presumably that motion is in effect moot now because we have made various
1 legal submissions. They have not been ruled upon. We are not inviting
2 the Court to rule upon them. They involved, I would concede a quite
3 difficult and perhaps even complicated areas of law which do not need to
4 be gone into bearing in mind the offer that Mr. Zivanovic has just made,
5 but I just wanted to be clear about that. That in effect this exercise
6 has circumvented, and I make no criticism of that fact, has circumvented
7 the need for further consideration of the Prosecution motion.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you have put it as clear as it could be. I
9 mean, we don't need to decide the motion in the first place, and the
10 documents are going to be in the record. However, if you wish to have a
11 look at them, not just you but all the others, you of course are free to
12 do that. And if you want, you are free to make submissions. You only
13 have to ask, and you will be given the opportunity.
14 MR. JOSSE: Well, thank you.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
16 So take your time, Mr. Zivanovic. I don't want you to shift your
17 concentration now on other matters. So do it at your leisure and
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Microphone.
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Just a moment. I didn't understand. Your
23 Honours, I already said due to the fact that the Prosecution has all
24 these documents, they provided it meanwhile in July or all of the year.
25 I provide it both to the Prosecution and both to the Chamber and to all
1 my colleagues from the Defence. But basically they are absolutely the
2 same as the documents from the Prosecution --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Right.
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: -- collection just without an ERN number.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: That you have already stated. Just let us have a
6 look at them now and then you tender them formally, and the others,
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC:
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So let's do it this way. You will disclose
11 these documents --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Would the -- microphone, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: -- the ones that. Sorry, my apologies.
14 You will disclose these documents, the ones that have been made
15 available to you by your investigator, and these documents, the other
16 documents, for comparison purposes, namely the ones that were disclosed
17 by the Prosecution, in two separate bundles, you will disclose them to
18 each and every one of your colleagues and to the Prosecution.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: And for Trial Chamber.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course. I mean it's taken for granted.
21 After which, if anyone wishes to make submissions, you will have ample
22 opportunities. That applies to any member of any Defence team as well as
23 the Prosecution. Then we will have the tendering stage by which time you
24 will have had enough opportunity to prepare yourself. Is it clear?
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes. Yes, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: In the meantime, if you wish to see them now
2 Mr. Mitchell or Mr. McCloskey, of course you only have to say so.
3 MR. MITCHELL: We would like to see them now, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Shall we have a short break. We'll have a
5 short break. Any one of the Defence teams that wishes to have a look at
6 them now can also do so. We'll have a break of -- next break was due at
7 quarter to 6.00, so we can have it now. We'll have it now. We'll have
8 25 minutes now, and those of you who wish to avail themselves of the
9 document please do so. We'll reconvene at 20 to 6.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 5.16 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 5.41 p.m.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: All settled, Mr. Zivanovic, Mr. McCloskey, and
13 others, about the documents?
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. And also just before I
15 forget Mr. Vanderpuye looked over the list of Borovcanin documents, and
16 we have no objection.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Any objections from the other Defence teams?
18 None. So those documents are admitted. Before I give you the floor,
19 Ms. Fauveau, you filed a motion today for the addition, and your 65 ter
20 list of part of disclosure consisting in video. This would relate to
21 witness who is scheduled to testify on Monday.
22 Is there any objection on your part, Mr. McCloskey, or do you
23 wish to take time.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: No objection.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Any objection from the other Defence
1 teams? So there being no objection, the motion is granted.
2 Next, Ms. Fauveau. How long do you think your ...
3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I should finish today, but I expect
4 I will go to the final moment of this session, maybe a few minutes early.
5 Your Honours, this case has been brought to court by the
6 Prosecution. It is, therefore, to the Prosecution -- on the Prosecution
7 that the burden of the proof lies. Defence has no obligation to supply
8 any evidence. Innocence, any accused in this case General Miletic is
9 presumed innocence, innocence need not be proven.
10 Defence of General Miletic has, however, chosen to provide
11 evidence to contribute to the quest for truth. These pieces of evidence
12 will confirm in an incontrovertible manner, the innocence of
13 General Miletic. Criminal responsibility is individual and personal.
14 No responsibility can be established on the simple fact that one
15 is a member of the Serbian people or the army of Republika Srpska. The
16 responsibility of an individual cannot be established simply by belonging
17 to the army of Republika Srpska being a General and occupying a specific
18 function. The Prosecution has to supply evidence, evidence beyond
19 reasonable doubt, that the accused has committed criminal crimes and
20 committed them with a criminal intent.
21 As for General Miletic, we consider such evidence does not exist.
22 We will try and show -- we will show that General Miletic had no criminal
23 intent and that he committed no acts which could be defined as criminal.
24 This case has seen an allegation of a joint criminal enterprise. It is
25 an interesting construct from the Prosecution's point of view, but a very
1 dangerous one for justice as a whole. Indeed, there is a risk of
2 confusing innocence and guilty persons.
3 To avoid such a trap, we will have to examine evidence with great
4 caution. Indeed, contacts, relationship between different individuals,
5 do not, as such, mean that all these individuals are part of a joint
6 criminal enterprise.
7 In this case there is an obvious relationship between the
8 different units and the different individuals, between the Main Staff of
9 the Republika Srpska, the subordinate bodies, including the Drina Corps,
10 and the brigade subordinated to the corps. This link alone cannot
11 substantiate and cannot be used as a proof of a joint criminal
12 enterprise. It is just the normal you structural organisation of an army
13 and of the chain of command. The simple fact that individuals
14 communicate, that they have contacts, cannot substantiate a joint
15 criminal enterprise. Therefore, when an officer of the Drina Corps turns
16 to General Miletic for a piece of information, it doesn't mean that
17 General Miletic is part of the joint criminal enterprise. It simply
18 means that he is doing his job.
19 The criminal intention of General Miletic cannot be derived
20 solely from the fact that General Miletic was called upon. What we have
21 to try and establish is what General Miletic did and said. His deeds,
22 and only his deeds and his intent, are vital in establishing or
23 disproving his responsibility. In no instance should he be held
24 accountable for acts committed by others.
25 Much circumstantial and indirect evidence has been supplied in
1 this case. We will show that these documents, testimonies, and evidence
2 supplied by the Prosecution, a number has -- has led to a number of
3 conclusions; and we will draw other conclusions from these elements,
4 conclusions that are more likely and more reasonable. What charges has
5 the Prosecution brought against General Miletic?
6 Under paragraph 75 of the indictment, he is being accused of
7 making life unbearable for the inhabitants of the enclave in that he
8 drafted Directive number 7, signed by President Karadzic; and in that he
9 took part in and helped the policy set out in Directive 7 to restrict
10 humanitarian aid to the Muslim population of Srebrenica and Zepa. He is
11 also being charged with wanting to defeat the military forces militarily.
12 This is a perfectly legitimate goal in a situation of war, and he is also
13 being charged with wanting to control the movement of Muslim population
14 out of the enclave.
15 The basis for these allegations is the position that
16 General Miletic held -- or would have held in 1995 in the army of
17 Republika Srpska. We disagree slightly with the Prosecution as to the
18 functions of General Miletic in -- in 1995, but as I have already said,
19 whatever his job, whatever General Miletic's job, it is not sufficient to
20 establish criminal responsibility. You also have to identify and prove
21 criminal intent and deeds that substantiate such a criminal intent.
22 To refute the Prosecutor's allegation, we will specify a number
23 of things. First of all, the position in which General Miletic actually
24 was in 1995. His role in drafting Directive number 7. The reasons
25 justifying the policy of the army of Republika Srpska relating to the
1 transit of the humanitarian convoys, the authorisation procedure for
2 humanitarian convoys, and the role of General Miletic in relation to
3 humanitarian aid. And also we will establish the general situation in
4 the area of responsibility of the Drina Corps in the spring and summer of
5 1995, and the role General Miletic played in the events that unfolded in
6 July 1995 in and around Srebrenica and Zepa.
7 The Prosecutor alleges that General Miletic represented
8 General Milovanovic when he was absent and that his representation
9 covered -- was valid for a large part of 1995. The Prosecutor, however,
10 was very vague in establishing the exact period of time when
11 General Milovanovic was not at his post.
12 We intend to prove you that in the first half of 1995, General
13 Milovanovic was indeed present at the Main Staff of the Republika Srpska
14 army in Crna Rijeka.
15 We also intend to prove that during that same time, when
16 General Milovanovic was not in Crna Rijeka, he was not in western Bosnia
17 but specifically in the area of responsibility of the Drina Corps.
18 Indeed, and a forward command post was established in Zvornik,
19 and General Milovanovic spent some time there. Briefly, indeed, but long
20 enough to know exactly the situation in the region, much better, indeed,
21 than General Miletic would have known it as he was remaining in
22 Crna Rijeka.
23 We will also bring evidence to identify the specify role and
24 function blamed by General Miletic within the Main Staff of the army of
25 Republika Srpska when General Milovanovic was not there. We are not
1 saying that General Miletic was not the chief of operations and training.
2 Operations and training is indeed a body within the staff of the Main
3 Staff of the army of Republika Srpska.
4 We will, however, show that in discharging his duties, contrary
5 to what the Prosecution claims, he was not involved in the military
6 operations led by corps and brigades. Corps and brigades have their own
7 officers in charge of operations which lead these operations. We intend
8 to give proof of the way in which such operations are planned and
9 conducted at the different levels of the hierarchy within the army of
10 Republika Srpska. We hope to show that General Miletic could not and was
11 not involved in the military operations, both tactical and operational,
12 and that he was not involved in the activities of the army of Republika
13 Srpska in Srebrenica and Zepa.
14 We shall show that General Miletic had other obligations and
15 duties within the staff of the VRS Main Staff and that even if he had
16 wanted to do so, he could not cover and monitor each of the operations
17 conducted by each of the corps and brigades on the frontline in Republika
19 The Prosecutor has tried to convince you that when General
20 Milovanovic was not there, General Miletic stood in for him. We are not
21 saying that when General Milovanovic was not there General Miletic was
22 not standing in for him within the staff. But I must insist on the fact
23 that he was only standing in for him in the staff and not in the Main
24 Staff Command of VRS. We must draw a clear distinction between "staff"
25 and "command."
1 We shall bring evidence that will shed light on the way in which
2 the Main Staff was organised so that no one may confuse "command" and
3 "staff." This should also enable us to understand clearly where and when
4 and in what function where General Miletic could stand in for
5 General Milovanovic. We also intend to show that General Milovanovic's
6 functions within the Main Staff Command of VRS was never discontinued
7 even when he was in western Bosnia
8 not in a position to discharge some of his duties within command, some of
9 these functions, contrary to the staff functions, were not transferred on
10 to General Miletic but passed on to other generals serving within the
11 Main Staff of VRS. Indeed, some of these functions were covered by
12 General Mladic himself.
13 According to the indictment, Directive number 7 is the beginnings
14 of the JCE, which General Miletic would have taken part in. We shall
15 give evidence relating to Directive 7 and we shall show that this
16 directive is first and foremost a directive, a military act legitimate in
17 and of itself. We are not denying the fact that General Miletic would
18 have taken part in the drafting of the directive, or, more specifically,
19 to the formatting of the directive. We shall show that the formatting of
20 the directive, as is the case for any directive or any similar military
21 act, is the usual -- forms part, rather, the usual duties of the officer
22 in charge of operations.
23 We shall present evidence concerning the operations within the
24 Main Staff of the VRS and the decision-making process within its command
25 structure. You shall hear General Maso, who drafted directive number 9.
1 He will explain how a directive, an order, or any other military decision
2 is thought through, drafted, and formatted. We hope that such evidence
3 will help us understand precisely what role General Miletic played in the
4 drafting of Directive 7. By identifying the specific role of General
5 Miletic vis-a-vis Directive 7, we hope to show that there is no evidence
6 attributing to General Miletic the infamous sentence incriminated in the
8 This directive is not a directive of General Miletic. It is an
9 act by the Supreme Commander, President Karadzic. If the Prosecution
10 wants to prove General Miletic's responsibility vis-a-vis this sentence,
11 he must show that General Miletic wrote it, and there must be no
12 reasonable doubt that he didn't do so. We intend to show that there is
13 no evidence than the incriminating sentence was thought or drafted by
14 General Miletic.
15 Why are we convinced that General Miletic did not write this
16 sentence? We rely, indeed, to answer that question on the evidence that
17 has already been supplied and the evidence that we shall supply. As I
18 have said, the allegations of the Prosecutor based solely on the
19 functions of General Miletic who would have stood in for
20 General Milovanovic, and, therefore, would have been the main advisor to
21 General Mladic. However, the Prosecutor has never indicated where
22 General Milovanovic was in February, March 1995 at the time when
23 Directive number 7 was drafted.
24 We shall show that General Milovanovic was at his post at that
25 time, his post as Chief of Staff of the VRS serving in the Main Staff of
1 the VRS. He was not at the forward command post in western Bosnia
2 was serving in the Main Staff at Crna Rijeka.
3 As you have already seen, General Milovanovic has signed the
4 transmission letter under which Directive number 7 was sent to the 1st
5 Krajina corps. We shall give evidence that General Milovanovic did not
6 only transmit Directive number 7 to the 1st Krajina Corps but also to the
7 other corps.
8 He personally signed this cover letter to the Directive number 7,
9 to the Sarajevo
10 You should learn that on the eve of sending Directive number 7 to the
11 subordinate unit, General Milovanovic attended a lengthy meeting with
12 President Karadzic. As Directive number 7 was being drafted in February,
13 March 1995, General Milovanovic was indeed serving in the Main Staff at
14 Crna Rijeka. He was discharging fully his functions as Chief of Staff of
15 the VRS. He was available to advise General Manic and to make a
16 contribution to the drafting of the infamous directive.
17 We will also look about the reasons that brought about the
18 drafting of Directive number 7. And we shall show that at the end of
19 January 1995, the VRS had its annual meeting at which the commanders of
20 the corps proposed tasks that they felt they could and should carry out
21 during 1995. You shall hear that President Karadzic attended that
22 meeting and set the tasks of the army down.
23 We are not questioning the fact that officers -- that the officer
24 in charge of operations has to format the directive as identified by the
25 commander in its staff. However, we shall show that once the text has
1 been drafted, the president, as Supreme Commander, as signatory of the
2 directive, can bring final amendments and correction to the draft, the
3 incriminating sentence, according to the indictment, can perfectly have
4 been amongst the amendments and corrections brought by President
6 We have all heard General Milovanovic say that he didn't remember
7 Directive number 7 and that he had had no knowledge of it. We shall show
8 you orders signed by General Milovanovic referring to Directive number 7.
9 The orders that are built and founded on Directives number 7 and 7.1.
10 These are not orders under the -- sent out under the authority of
11 General Milovanovic but orders that he personally signed. We shall show
12 also that the subsequent directives, Directives 8 and 9, relating more
13 specifically to the western Bosnian front of which General Milovanovic
14 was the commander in charge in July and August of 1995, refer directly to
15 Directive number 7. We shall show that it is unthinkable that
16 General Milovanovic had no knowledge of Directive number 7.
17 We shall also show that in April and May 1995,
18 General Milovanovic was monitoring on the ground the completion of tasks
19 that he had set for the eastern Bosnian Corps and the Drina Corps. These
20 tasks, more specifically operation Spreca derive directly from Directive
21 from 7 and 7.1 and were drafted in the orders that I had referred to
22 earlier. General Simic, the then-commander of eastern Bosnian
23 [indiscernible], will discuss operation Spreca, the operation described
24 in directives 7 and 7.1. General Simic will also describe the role of
25 officers serving the Main Staff in this operation.
1 Now, why am I mentioning General Milovanovic so much? Quite
2 simply because the main piece of evidence for the responsibility of
3 General Miletic as supplied by the Prosecutor is the alleged absence of
4 General Milovanovic and the functions that General Miletic is supposed to
5 have discharged in his absence. We shall show that this allegation from
6 the period -- from the point in time in which the directive was drafted
7 and until June is erroneous.
8 Now, to avoid any misinterpretation, we are not saying as the
9 Defence of General Miletic that General Milovanovic would be responsible
10 for anything. We are just trying to show that as a subordinate to
11 General Milovanovic, General Miletic cannot be held responsible for acts
12 and decisions made at that point in time at the Main Staff and by the
13 Main Staff of the VRS.
14 Let us now move on to humanitarian aid. We are not saying that
15 the humanitarian situation in Srebrenica wasn't difficult. We are not
16 saying that there were no controls imposed to humanitarian convoys and
17 there weren't any restrictions. However, we are not convinced that the
18 humanitarian situation in the enclaves was the consequence and due to
19 these controls and restrictions. Moreover, we deny the relationship
20 between Directive 7 and the policy vis-a-vis humanitarian convoys. We
21 also object to the existence of a specific policy of the VRS relating to
22 the humanitarian aid bound for Srebrenica and Zepa. We object to the
23 allegations made by the Prosecution, according to which General Miletic
24 is meant to have had a key role in defining this policy vis-a-vis
25 humanitarian aid convoys.
1 Letting humanitarian aid go through is not an absolute right
2 exercised unrestrictedly. Letting humanitarian aid through a
3 territory -- through the territory of a party to a conflict and bound for
4 the territory of another party to the conflict is bound by strict rules.
5 It is not -- we are not talking of internal rules of the Republika Srpska
6 but of international rules derived from the Geneva Conventions. Before
7 we can -- before anyone can establish restrictive policy on humanitarian
8 aid which would have made life untenable, we have first of all to
9 establish that this humanitarian aid was being sent in accordance with
10 international requirements or with the requirements of international
11 humanitarian law, and that it was meant for the civilian population and
12 used by the civilian population it was being sent to.
13 We shall show to dispel any doubts that the authorities of Bosnia
14 and Herzegovina
15 situation in the enclaves. We shall show that the convoys supposedly
16 transporting and conveying humanitarian aid in fact were laden with
17 munition and weapons; and we shall show that humanitarian aid was in fact
18 used in fact for -- to serve the needs of the Bosnia Herzegovina army.
19 Captain Novakovic, an officer in the Drina Corps, and Maksimovic, an
20 officer in the Zvornik Brigade will testify to that.
21 Checking and controlling humanitarian aid is a right of the party
22 to the conflict which is letting this convoy go through its territory.
23 Should any humanitarian aid convoys be used to transport illicit wears,
24 the party which authorises the transit is entitled to restrict
25 humanitarian aid or even to cancel it in some extreme situations. We
1 shall show that the authorities of Republika Srpska were founded in
2 cancelling these convoys but never cancel them.
3 However, they did try and enforce a number of rules, rules that
4 should have been abided by. We hope to show that the policies of the
5 Serbian authorities vis-a-vis humanitarian convoys, was the result of the
6 type of products being conveyed in these convoys and of the abusive use
7 to which these convoys were put by the Bosnia and Herzegovina
9 Indeed, they were being used for other purposes than humanitarian
10 aid. You have already had an opportunity to show -- to see the evidence
11 that these so-called humanitarian convoys, in fact, transported weapons
12 and munition. We shall also show you that the actual humanitarian aid
13 ended up in the warehouses of the Bosnia and Herzegovina army. Rather
14 than being distributed to the civilian population this aid was
15 distributed to the military units of the Bosnia and Herzegovina army.
16 As for the restrictions to humanitarian aid in 1995 as imposed by
17 the Bosnian Serb authorities, we know that the Prosecutor is arguing that
18 this is the direct consequence of Directive number 7. We shall show that
19 the restriction to humanitarian aid goes back much further. For simple
20 reasons, the reasons I have exposed, these restrictions we want back to
21 the beginning of the war, no specific changes intervened in the policy of
22 the VRS after the adoption of the Directive number 7.
23 We shall show that the situation in March, April, and May of 1995
24 was not different from the situation in January and February 1995. It
25 was not different from the situation in 1994. We shall show that in the
1 period following the adoption of Directive number 7, the amount -- the
2 monthly amount of humanitarian aid arriving in Srebrenica and Zepa
3 enclaves was the same as the amount arriving before the directive. And
4 we shall show that the amount of humanitarian aid in the enclaves in
5 April and May 1995 was the same as what it had been in April and May
6 of 1994.
7 We shall show that the transport of some wears was still
8 forbidden and restricted and that these restrictions were unconnected
9 with the military activities in eastern Bosnia in July of 1995 or with
10 Directive number 7 and the alleged determination to making life
11 unbearable for the civilian population. These restrictions were applied
12 on all fronts and determined by perfectly understandable military
14 Transport of freight and video cameras was generally band for
15 quite simple reason. No army, even in time of peace, ever allows for its
16 units or its equipment and materiel to be filmed or that pictures should
17 be taken of it. Fuel was -- the passage of fuel was also limited from
18 the very beginning of the war. You shall hear that humanitarian convoys
19 moved more difficult -- difficulty -- with more difficulty when the
20 relationship between the authorities of Republika Srpska and UNPROFOR
21 were tense. You will also hear that before Directive number 7 was
22 adopted there were tense moments during which there was less humanitarian
23 traffic than at some points in time after directive number 7 was adopted
24 and before the transit of humanitarian aid was completely suspended.
25 We shall also show that the restriction imposed to the convoys
1 were unconnected to the Directive number 7 and that there was no specific
2 policy adopted regulating humanitarian aid to the enclaves in eastern
4 eastern Bosnia
5 Lastly, we shall talk about the role played by General Miletic as
6 regards humanitarian aid. The Prosecutor tendered into evidence those
7 documents that had been sent to the subordinate units bearing the name of
8 General Miletic. Providing a simplistic explanation of these documents,
9 there was no reference whatsoever to the procedure applied to
10 humanitarian convoys established well before Directive 7 by the civilian
11 and military authorities of the Republika Srpska.
12 We will concentrate on specifying the exact nature of these
13 documents, as well as the information sent to the subordinate units. We
14 will specify which procedure is applied before these documents were sent
15 to that by the name of General Miletic. You will understand that these
16 documents were something like a pass for the convoys, and without these
17 documents, no convoy could go through. In fact, what is important are
18 those decision that were taken upstream. The general decisions relating
19 to the conditions of passage of the convoys and specific decisions
20 relating to the passage of individual convoys; thus, determining which
21 goods could be transported.
22 As part of this trial, nobody has ever explained where and how
23 and by who these decisions were taken. Even though the Defence does not
24 need to adduce any proof of the innocence of the accused, we shall
25 explain how this procedure worked, i.e., granting authorisation for the
1 convoys to go through. Understanding this procedure is essential, for it
2 will enable us to understand which role General Miletic played in the
3 issue of humanitarian convoys.
4 Witness Kralj, a staff officer who was working under the orders
5 of Colonel Djurdjic, the latter having being the officer in charge of
6 humanitarian aid in the Main Staff of the army of the Republika Srpska,
7 member of the coordination body in charge of humanitarian aid will try to
8 explain who took those decisions relating to the passing of the
9 humanitarian and how these decisions were actually taken.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment. What's this the witness's name,
11 this last witness that you have mentioned?
12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Kralj, K-R-A-L-J. Thank you, Your
14 You have heard the UNPROFOR generals, General Smith and
15 General Nicolai [Realtime transcript read in error, "general in this case
16 lie"] the commander and chief of staff of the United Nations forces in
17 Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995. They both mentioned those meetings held
18 in the presence of the authorities of the Republika Srpska, including the
19 Serbian military authorities. They confirmed that during the period
20 relevant to the indictment, they had no occasion to meet or contact
21 General Miletic.
22 General Miletic did not attend the meetings in the presence of
23 UNPROFOR. He was not the contact person of UNPROFOR at the Main Staff of
24 the army of Republika Srpska. We will show that the procedure that
25 applied to the convoys and the general policy adopted was addressed at
1 these meetings which were attended by representative of UNPROFOR and
2 members of the army of the Republika Srpska. General Miletic did not
3 attend these meetings.
4 You have, I am sure, already wondered how it is that these
5 generals, a commander and a chief of staff of UNPROFOR in Bosnia and
7 paragraph 51 of the indictment, purportedly played a central role in
8 imposing restrictions on humanitarian aid. Part of the answer is already
9 contained in the case file. General Nikolai explained that when a
10 question of this kind arose the only answer could be provided by the
11 generals. We will demonstrate that General Nikolai was right and that it
12 is quite logical that neither General Nikolai nor General Smith had any
13 dealings with General Miletic. General Miletic was colonel until June
14 1995 and had no power or authority to negotiate with the UN generals or
15 to take any decision relating to the passage of the convoys.
16 We will show you the documents, the orders, stemming from the
17 army of the Republika Srpska, that indicate what general policy was
18 adopted by the army as regards the convoy. All these orders -- none of
19 these orders is an order issued by General Miletic. All these orders go
20 back to the period where General Milovanovic, the chief of staff of the
21 army of Republika Srpska was indeed present at the Main Staff of the army
22 of the Republika Srpska. And that these orders were not signed by
23 General Mladic [as interpreted], they were signed precisely by
24 General Milovanovic. But there is something even more important. We
25 will show you how General Miletic did not decide which of the convoys or
1 goods could pass. He signed the documents that were sent by their
2 subordinate units indicating which convoys could pass and which had
3 received authorisation from the authority in charge.
4 The only connection between Miletic and humanitarian aid was
5 precisely this document, i.e., information sent out to the subordinate
6 units indicating that the decision had been taken by the authorities in
7 charge on the basis of orders and previously established rules. We shall
8 demonstrate that without this document the subordinate units could not
9 have let the convoys go through and that these documents in no way be
10 characterized as a contribution to the implementation of a policy
11 applying to the passage of the convoys.
12 Lastly, we shall talk about the situation in the area of the
14 and in the summer of 1995, including July 1995; and the role played by
15 the officers of the Main Staff of the army of the Republika Srpska during
16 the operation -- during the military operation conducted in the area of
17 the Drina Corps during this period.
18 We have already discussed the presence of General Milovanovic in
19 the area of spring of 1995. We hope to show that in May 1995 he took
20 part or attended the meetings at the command of the Drina Corps and
21 approved those decisions and plans and devised by this command. And
22 after the departure of General Milovanovic who left for the Krajina no
23 Drina Corps decision or plan was approved at the Main Staff of the army
24 of Republika Srpska.
25 We hope to demonstrate although that the separation of the
1 enclaves was an ongoing task that had been given to the Drina Corps well
2 before Directive number 7 was drafted; and that was per se, legitimate.
3 Of course, we hope to demonstrate that the allegations made by the
4 Prosecution concerning the role played by General Miletic in the military
5 operations conducted in the area of the Drina Corps are incorrect.
6 Paragraph 52 of the indictment mentioned the shelling of the
7 enclaves and inter alia the shelling of the 25th of May, 1995. The
8 Prosecutor alleges that the Predunaci [phoen] brigade shelled Srebrenica
9 on the orders of the Main Staff of the Drina Corps. Even though we did
10 hear about this shelling on the 25th of May 1995, we have never seen a
11 single order sent by the Main Staff, and we hope to demonstrate that on
12 the 25th of May, 1995, General Miletic certainly did not issue or forward
13 such an order and that he was in no way involved in what was going on in
15 His immediate superior, General Milovanovic, was at the time in
16 the Main
17 paragraph 53 of the indictment, the attack of the observation post Echo
18 of the UNPROFOR was a prelude to the attack on the Srebrenica enclave.
19 We will demonstrate that what the Prosecution calls or qualifies as an
20 attack on the Echo post was in fact not connected to operation Krivaja;
21 but it was a secondary operation that had been triggered by the situation
22 on the ground and probably had been requested by the local civilian
24 Witness Milenko Jevdjevic will testify about this. We will also
25 discuss the events in Srebrenica and Zepa in July 1995 and the role
1 played by, or rather, the absence of General Miletic in these events.
2 When we talk about the events in Srebrenica and Zepa in July 1995, it is
3 important to emphasize the very special position General Miletic had in
4 this trial. He is the only accused who went neither to Srebrenica nor to
5 Zepa whether it be before, during, or after the military operations in
6 these areas.
7 Admittedly, the criminal acts can be committed without the person
8 or the perpetrator being physically present; however, we would like to
9 draw your attention to the distances because in this particular case
10 distance is of the essence. Distance between where General Miletic was
11 and where these criminal acts were committed.
12 Because of -- General Miletic did -- had no direct knowledge of
13 what was happening on the ground. He relied on the reports provided to
14 the Main Staff. And if these reports were erroneous, his perception was
15 also erroneous. We will demonstrate that this is precisely what happened
16 in July 1995. Pursuant to paragraph 75 of the indictment,
17 General Miletic is accused of having monitored the Muslim forces during
18 and after the attack on Srebrenica and Zepa. The surrender of the Muslim
19 forces after the fall of Srebrenica and Zepa, the activities of the units
20 of the army of the Republika Srpska in the areas of Srebrenica and Zepa.
21 And he is accused of having controlled the moment when the Muslim
22 population moved out of the enclaves. We hope to prove that no officer
23 can monitor and control such activities from a distance. Surveillance
24 and control are tasks which can only be conducted on the spot, where
25 things are happening.
1 Throughout this entire trial, the Prosecutor has tried to
2 convince us that General Miletic was a key man, the advisor to
3 General Mladic, who was coordinating everything that was going on. He
4 purportedly has been the coordinator throughout the entire period of 1995
5 and also in July of 1995. We have already indicated that we will adduce
6 evidence confirming that General Milovanovic was at the Main Staff of the
7 army of Republika Srpska in Crna Rijeka in the first half of July 1995.
8 And we will now focus our attention on July 1995.
9 You have heard that General Milovanovic was not there at the Main
10 Staff of the army of the Republika Srpska at Crna Rijeka in July 1995.
11 We do the not challenge that. However, you have heard also that
12 General Milovanovic was indeed there and attended the lunch hosted in
13 honour of General Milovanovic in July 1995. General Milovanovic does not
14 deny that he was during the entire period of 1995 Chief of Staff of the
15 army of the Republika Srpska; and we shall show that he was permanently
16 at General Mladic's disposal. He could be contacted at any time and be
17 consulted as required.
18 If General Miletic were to replace him at the staff of the Main
19 Staff, there will be no reason for him to replace him along side
20 General Mladic, and we will show that he never replaced him in any
21 position that goes beyond that of a position in the staff of the Main
22 Staff of the army of Republika Srpska. But let's take it a step further.
23 The Prosecutor alleges that General Miletic must have been at the Main
24 Staff headquarters, because in his position he was coordinating and
25 centralizing everything, liaising between General Mladic, his assistants,
1 and subordinate units. We will show that this was not the role played by
2 General Miletic and that he never had such authority.
3 We know that General Mladic was on the ground and in Srebrenica
4 and Zepa in July 1995. We will also show you that General Miletic as
5 officer in charge of the operations should have gone -- accompanied
6 General Mladic if he had been, in one way or another, involved in these
8 In July 1995, in Srebrenica, in Zepa General Mladic did not need
9 a go-between. Did he not need a go-between for he was there himself, he
10 was there along side General Krstic and could give his orders directly.
11 As far as the connection between him and President Karadzic and the
12 reports that were sent to him that I allege in paragraph 75 (b) and (c)
13 of the indictment, we would show that these reports cannot, per se,
14 constitute a criminal act. The drafting of these reports was the daily
15 task and regular tasks of the body in charge of such operations.
16 These reports, daily reports, did indeed describe what the
17 situation on the ground was, but this description was not the result of
18 the observation on the ground made by General Miletic but based on the
19 reports of the Main Staff that he received. Evidence will show that
20 these reports were neither contacts nor the main links between
21 President Karadzic with the army of Republika Srpska nor the main source
22 of the information he received regarding the situation on the ground.
23 The reports that were sent to President Karadzic in July 1995
24 bore the name of General Miletic. They bear his name, but not his
25 signature, and the Prosecutor has never proven that he had, in fact,
1 signed these documents during the relevant period. Why is this signature
2 important? This signature is important because in July 1995 during the
3 military operation in and around Srebrenica, General Miletic could not
4 have signed these reports because he was not at the Main Staff of the
5 army of the Republika Srpska in Crna Rijeka. He was in Belgrade where
6 his daughter was on the 10th of July 1995 celebrating her 18th birthday.
7 You will hear testimonies of her daughter and other people who
8 attended the birthday party thus confirming that General Miletic learned
9 about the entrance of the army of the Republika Srpska into Srebrenica
10 when he was in Belgrade
11 General Miletic did not know that the army of the Republika Srpska was
12 going to enter Srebrenica. He could not know that because the order
13 given to enter the enclave was given on the 9th of July 1995; and we will
14 show that on the 9th of July 1995, General Miletic was in Belgrade with
15 his family.
16 In July 1995, whatever his knowledge may have been about the
17 military operations conducted by the Drina Corps, if ever he did know
18 anything, he was not concerned by this. He had left for Belgrade
19 had been allowed to go to Belgrade
20 because his presence at the Main Staff of the army of Republika Srpska
21 was not required, not needed. And admittedly, General Miletic returns on
22 the 12th of July, 1995, and is at the Main Staff of the army of Republika
23 Srpska. He is there. But what does he do, how does he behave and what
24 are his intentions? What does he know about the events that were
25 unfolding in Potocari? We will show that General Miletic did not take
1 part in any way in what happened in Srebrenica and Zepa in the summer of
2 1995 and he could in no way influence these events.
3 We will also show that when General Miletic came back to the Main
4 Staff of the army of Republika Srpska in Crna Rijeka he did not receive
5 any reliable information concerning the situation on the ground. His
6 understanding of the knowledge -- of the situation was quite
7 approximative. All he could have known is that the Muslim civilian
8 population had been evacuated to Potocari in the direction of the
9 territory under the control of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but each officer
10 of the army of Republika Srpska, each officer of the Drina Corps and the
11 Main Staff, knew that also at that time. So this knowledge, per se, has
12 no significance.
13 In July 1995, General Miletic was not in Srebrenica; he was not
14 in Bratunac; he was not in Potocari either. Did he not attend those
15 meetings at the Hotel Fontana. He not know what the position of the
16 DutchBat was. He not what the representatives of the Muslim community
17 wanted or did not want. We will show that General Miletic didn't --
18 could not know and did not know what the conditions were in Potocari. He
19 could not know, either, under which circumstances the evacuation had taken
20 place; and we will stress this as far as General Miletic is concerned.
21 What is important is not what actually happened in the field but
22 what perception General Miletic could have had since he was not there and
23 at no time did he go there.
24 When these military operations were being conducted in Zepa,
25 General Miletic was still in Crna Rijeka. He was not in Zepa. He was
1 not attending the meetings in the presence of the representatives of the
2 Muslim populations. He did not attend the meetings with the UNPROFOR
3 members. We do not deny the fact that General Miletic may have been
4 informed about these meetings. He may have known that an evacuation of
5 Zepa was being negotiated, but we will show that it's precisely because
6 he knew that the evacuation was being negotiated because he knew that the
7 UNPROFOR representatives and other international organisations were
8 involved, that he could reasonably think that these evacuations -- that
9 he could not reasonably think that these evacuations could contain the
10 seeds of a criminal act.
11 You know that General Mladic [Realtime transcript read in error,
12 "Miletic"] was in Zepa, as was General Tolimir and that these
13 negotiations were taking place in Zepa also. We will show that all the
14 decisions were taken in Zepa, and that General Miletic and the other
15 officers in Crna Rijeka were involved. Neither involved in any military
16 operation or the avocation of Zepa. General Obradovic, who was the
17 immediate subordinate of General Miletic came back from sick leave on the
18 17th of July 1995 and as of the 17th of July 1995 onwards, together with
19 General Miletic, was at the Main Staff of the army of Republika Srpska,
20 Crna Rijeka. We'll say that the officers at the staff at Crna Rijeka, in
21 concluding, General Miletic, we'll talk about what they knew about Zepa.
22 We will show that in July 1995, the only information that
23 General Miletic had about the situation in Srebrenica and Zepa was
24 information that was communicated to him in those reports--
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry. This is going so fast that I think
1 the interpreters are beginning to miss things.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I was assuming that they have a copy of your --
3 because otherwise I was quite sure that they wouldn't have been able to
4 catch up. So he they do have a copy.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down somewhat, please. Thank you.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Still there is a request that you slow down
7 somewhat, Ms. Fauveau.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] If you like.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we proceed or do you wish Ms. Fauveau to go
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: No I'm fine --
12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's proceed, and just slow down a little
14 bit. I mean, I was assuming all the way that they had a copy of it.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Page 85, line 5, it should read
16 "General Mladic."
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] We will show that in July 1995, the
19 only information that General Miletic had on the situation in Srebrenica
20 and Zepa was the information that had been forwarded to him in those
21 reports he received. Taking delivery of the reports does not show in any
22 way that there is a criminal intent. This was a part of his daily tasks.
23 In addition, we have every intention of proving that those
24 reports he received in July 1995 were insufficient, inaccurate, and
25 sometimes vague.
1 Admittedly, the army of Republika Srpska was organised and
2 structured, and the reports were sent by the subordinated units.
3 However, we will adduce evidence showing that the materiel situation was
4 difficult, that the equipment of the Republika Srpska was not the best in
5 the world, that there were technical failings and other problems, and
6 that the reports were not always so accurate.
7 General Miletic had information which was sent to him. He had no
8 direct knowledge of these events. He did not influence them in any way,
9 and he could not influence them in any way. We do not deny that the task
10 of General Miletic was to follow the situation on the front lines in
11 Republika Srpska, but we insist on the term "follow." For following does
12 not mean monitoring or controlling. The terms "monitor" and "control,"
13 contrary to the term "follow" involve an active role. We will show there
14 is a difference between these terms and we will prove that
15 General Miletic did not play an active role.
16 General Miletic was not there to influence the situation on the
17 front but forward to General Mladic in as reliable a fashion as possible
18 the information he had received. We will also show that the major
19 concern of General Miletic in July of 1995 was not the eastern Bosnian
20 front. General Mladic was there, and General Miletic was of no help to
21 him, for as far as that was concerned, General Mladic knew the situation
22 much better than did General Miletic.
23 Since General Mladic had more information than General Miletic on
24 the eastern Bosnian fronts, he did not need General Miletic to inform him
25 about anything concerning the situation in eastern Bosnia. However, he
1 did need General Miletic to provide him with information about the
2 situation on the other fronts, i.e., the fronts in the areas of the 1st
3 and 2nd corps of the Krajina, the Sarajevo Corps, the eastern Bosnian
4 corps, and the Herzegovina Corps. And it was this task that
5 General Miletic devoted himself essentially to in July of 1995. We will
6 show that what is important is not the Main Staff of an army per se, but
7 the command that is located there.
8 When the command and -- the commander and his closer associates
9 are not at the Main Staff, decisions were not taken in Crna Rijeka, but
10 it is where the commander and the command were. The fact that
11 General Miletic remained in Crna Rijeka when the entire command was
12 elsewhere does not show that he was important. Quite the opposite. This
13 fact ascertains that General Mladic did not need General Miletic to take
14 his decisions.
15 That said, we do not want to undermine the role and position of
16 General Miletic in the army of the Republika Srpska. We wish to
17 acknowledge his due role. His role was important in the running of the
18 army, but the army of the Republika Srpska was not, per se, a joint
19 criminal enterprise; and any contribution to the running of it was not
20 criminal either. What is important, and this is what the Prosecutor
21 needs to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, are criminal intent and acts
22 that contributed to the commission of crimes. We will show that these
23 evidence does not exist because General Miletic did not in any way
24 participate or contribute to the tragic events of the Srebrenica and Zepa
25 in July 1995. Thank you.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam Fauveau.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE PROST: Madam Fauveau, sorry. I just thought it would
4 perhaps be easier now. There were a couple of errors I noticed in the
5 transcript because I was listening to you in French, but at page, and
6 just two that I will bring to your attention, page 76, line 18, I'm
7 pretty sure that what you said was - and I'm just scrolling back - what
8 you said was that:
9 "You have heard the UNPROFOR generals, General Smith and
10 General Nikolai, that it reads at the moment, you have heard
11 General Smith and general in this case lie."
12 So I think that that needs to be corrected.
13 And page 77, line 23, it says:
14 "In that these orders were not signed by General Mladic."
15 I'm pretty sure that should have been Miletic as opposed to
16 Mladic. Page 77, line 23.
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Indeed, you are right. They were
18 never signed by General Miletic, and if they were signed by anyone Mladic
19 or Milovanovic.
20 JUDGE PROST: Okay. Then that would make more sense. I just
21 wanted to bring this to your attention.
22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. There are further names and
24 things missing, but I am sure they will be taken care of. Do you have a
25 witness present, shall we start with him now or?
1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] We do, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So let's bring the witness in, please, and
3 start him off.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good evening, and welcome to this Tribunal. You
6 have been summoned by the Defence team for General Miletic. Before you
7 start giving evidence, you are required by our rules to make a solemn
8 declaration that in the course of your testimony you will be testifying
9 the truth. Text had just been hand to you now. Please read it out aloud
10 and that will be your solemn making with us.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good evening. I solemnly declare
12 that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Please make yourself comfortable.
14 Madam Fauveau will be asking you some questions.
15 I need to advise you on -- or Mr. Petrusic. I need to advise you
16 that it's very unlikely that we will finish with your testimony today or
17 tomorrow. Today we have only got 15 minutes, but I don't envisage that
18 we will finish tomorrow either. So you will be here and -- over the
19 weekend and then continue on Monday.
20 Mr. Petrusic.
21 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. And good evening, Your
23 WITNESS: LJUBO OBRADOVIC
24 [Witness answered through interpretation]
25 Examination by Mr. Petrusic:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Good evening, Mr. Obradovic.
2 A. Good evening.
3 Q. At the outset, for the record please state your name.
4 A. Ljubomir Obradovic, born on the 13th of January, 1950 in
5 Visegrad, Republika Serbia
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, Republika Srpska,
8 Q. Can you briefly tell us about your background in terms of
9 education, both civilian and military?
10 A. The first eight forms of elementary school, that was in Visegrad.
11 In 1968 or rather from 1968 to 1972, the military academy for the ground
12 force in Belgrade
13 for reserve officers, infantry, in Bileca. Between 1977 and 1980, or
14 rather 1988, I served in Belgrade
15 school for tactics, I was deployed to the Derventa garrison, and I served
16 there as Chief of Staff of the 327th Motorised Brigade. After Derventa,
17 once the war had begun, I was transferred to the Main Staff. It was in
18 the 1st of September, 1994, that I reported to the Main Staff at Crna
20 operations of the Main Staff of the army of Republika Srpska. I remained
21 in that position until the war ended.
22 Q. What were your duties before the war?
23 A. Before the war I was platoon commander in the school for reserve
24 officers and company commander at the military academy for ground forces.
25 I taught firing lessons to soldiers at Derventa, of the 327th, I was
1 Chief of Staff and also deputy commander. And there were two further
2 six-month cycles. In addition to my regular duty as Chief of Staff, I
3 also performed the duties as commander of the 327th Motorised Brigade,
4 because the commander, Colonel Rejiceva Surevic [phoen], had retired on
5 account of his age.
6 These were the duties that I performed before the war.
7 Q. General, when the war broke out, which rank were you holding in
9 A. Lieutenant-colonel.
11 the rank you held at the time?
12 A. Lieutenant-colonel.
13 Q. Who was your direct superior when you came to the Main Staff?
14 A. Chief of training and operations, Colonel Radivoje Miletic. He
15 was a colonel at the time.
16 Q. Did you stay in that position at that place throughout the war?
17 A. Establishment-wise, I remained chief of the operations
18 department, but I had different duties. All along the front line at
19 different points in time.
20 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have 5D1039.
21 Your Honour, Mr. President, there will be a whole succession of
22 documents now. Therefore, there is a binder that has been provided with
23 all these documents in it. The OTP have had a chance to inspect the
24 documents and no objections were raised about any additions or anything
25 like that. This is simply for ease of handling and in order to make it
1 more convenient for the witness during his examination.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Let's hear Mr. McCloskey.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. We have no objections, but perhaps for
4 clarification, my notes indicate that he was the chief of operations and
5 training under Miletic, who was chief of operations and training. So
6 that can't be right. So I don't know if there is a translation issue or
7 something else going on.
8 We also don't have -- I don't see any history from 1991, 1992,
9 1993. If that was -- if it was there, I didn't catch it. So just that
10 might help clarify before we start getting into documents.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Mr. Petrusic.
12 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. General Obradovic, let us first remove any doubt -- or, rather,
14 let's take this in chronological order. Your war biography, between 1992
15 and your arrival at the Main Staff?
16 A. When the war broke out, I was Chief of Staff and also deputy
17 commander of the 327th Motorised Brigade at Derventa. I remained in that
18 position until another commander was appointed, and that was before I
19 arrived at the Main Staff. Do you want to know about the deployment of
20 the units or anything like that.
21 Q. I believe this is quite sufficient for our purposes. Thank you.
22 What about 1994, the 1st of September. You say you came to the Main
23 Staff on that day. Please, sir, give me a chance to finish my question.
24 Thank you.
25 What was the duty that you performed when you came to the Main
2 A. Chief of the operations department, and this was part of
3 operations and training, that department, and the department was headed
4 by Colonel Miletic. I was in the operations department.
5 Q. I am not sure if this is sufficient for the Prosecutor's purposes
6 in terms of distinction.
7 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the usher.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, I see Ms. Fauveau on her feet.
9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I think there is a problem in the
10 translation. The witness was chief of head of operations but
11 General Miletic was chief of administration for operations and training.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you for that.
13 Mr. Petrusic, we have five minutes left. Just want you to make
14 sure that you can deal with something useful in these five minutes,
15 otherwise we adjourn.
16 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] I am about to move on to documents
17 that may require more time.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: That's what I thought, and so that's why I
19 intervened. We stand adjourned until tomorrow.
20 Mr. Obradovic, we will continue tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning.
21 In the meantime -- in the meantime you are not to discuss with anyone or
22 allow anyone to discuss with you the subject matter of your testimony.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
25 6.55 p.m.
1 14th day of November, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.