1 Thursday, 4 December 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The Accused Nikolic not present]
5 [The Accused Borovcanin not present]
6 [The witness entered court]
7 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Madam Registrar. Good morning,
9 everybody. Could you call the case, please.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
11 IT-05-88-T, The Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic, et al.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, ma'am. Today we have two accused
13 absent, namely, Nikolic and Borovcanin.
14 Mr. Bourgon.
15 MR. BOURGON: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Judges.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning.
17 MR. BOURGON: Mr. Nikolic is absent this morning temporarily due
18 to a dental appointment which could not be placed at another time. He
19 will be joining us later, and he has signed the proper waiver form which
20 will be given the Trial Chamber later this morning and the proceedings
21 can continue in this absence.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
23 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you for that information, Mr. Bourgon, and as
25 far as Mr. Borovcanin is concerned, I understand we have a waiver
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honours, he already signed a waiver.
3 It was already submitted yesterday, same reasons as Mr. Nikolic, and he
4 will join us later this day.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Now, for the record, Prosecution
6 today is represented by Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye. Amongst the
7 Defence teams I notice the absence of Mr. Nikolic and Ms. Nikolic and
8 Mr. Haynes.
9 So, good morning to you, Mr. Kralj.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, we are going to continue with your testimony
12 today. I understand from what I have been told that you had reached
13 mainly -- roughly halfway through your direct examination of the witness.
14 You can proceed, Madam Fauveau.
15 WITNESS: SLAVKO KRALJ [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpretation]
17 Examination by Ms. Fauveau: [Continued]
18 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, yesterday you explained the proceedings
19 when an order arrived, the procedure --
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would like the witness to be
21 shown 5D820. Procedure when an order arrived at the 1st Corps of the
22 Krajina. 5D820. Thank you.
23 Q. This is an order coming from the staff, the Main Staff, 27th
24 February 1994. Could you look at the handwritten note which is on the
25 top of the page.
1 A. Yes, I've looked at it.
2 Q. Is this note sent to you; is it directed to you?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. When you received an order like this one with a note like that,
5 what did you do, then?
6 A. Your Honours, pursuant to this order which arrived at the ops
7 room at the command post of the corps, the duty officer informed the
8 forward command post, which was at a distance from the main command post.
9 And then, since he had been given guidelines from the commander, he
10 followed the normal procedure which was to prepare our own order in a
11 written form to be dispatched to the subordinate units which were
12 involved in the implementation of this order.
13 I informed Colonel Vojnovic, who was my superior about this
14 order. Under normal circles, he would be the one to draft such orders.
15 And, in his absence, which is the case at hand, I prepared our own order
16 to the subordinated units and I returned this to the duty officer who
17 then followed the procedure and forwarded this order to the commander
18 for -- for him to sign it and to dispatch it across all the subordinated
20 Q. Yesterday, we were talking about certain goods which were band in
21 the humanitarian convoys, and we spoke about video cameras and photograph
22 cameras. I would now like to talk about radio equipment. What was the
23 situation for radio equipment, radios?
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] And in meantime, could the witness
25 be shown 5D775, please.
1 Q. You can see at item 2 that there are certain equipment, radio
2 equipment, which was not authorised. Was there a reason for this?
3 A. International organisations in their vehicles had equipment to --
4 fixed equipment, within the convoy to communicate with their
5 headquarters. So there was no need for any additional equipment,
6 especially in light of the fact that some frequencies of radio devices
7 worked on the frequencies that might have been of use to the other side.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D773.
9 Q. In this document, you can see that tents were not lead through,
10 they were held back for some time. Why? Could you let us know why tents
11 could not be transported and brought there?
12 A. We had a piece of intelligence, according to which the tents were
13 used not for the civilian population but for the military that was
14 deployed along the route or on the other side.
15 Q. What was the situation with the sleeping bags?
16 A. Your Honours, as you may know, the military used sleeping bags.
17 The civilian population did not need them so much as did members of the
18 enemy military.
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D767,
21 Q. This is an authorisation from the Main Staff on the 7th of
22 January, 1993. And what I am interested in is last paragraph of the
23 first page.
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It's also the last paragraph in the
25 English version, at item 3. You can't see the text in the B/C/S. Thank
2 Q. What I would like to know is about item 3, one sees that in the
4 for Muslims or for Serbs. What was the reason not to allow the
5 distribution of these items either to the Muslims or to the Serbs?
6 A. Your Honours, international organisations, and in this particular
7 case the UNHCR, resorted to various means to do stuff. And in order to
8 pay for the passage of the goods that were not allowed, they would offer
9 the goods to us; for example, mattresses and sleeping bags. But the
10 position was the same across the board, the transport of such goods was
11 not allowed and the distribution of those goods was not allowed either
12 among the enemy side or among our soldiers. It was just an attempt that
13 tried to make it look as goods offered to us in order for us to allow
14 them to transport goods to the other side; although, we had never asked
15 for such goods.
16 Q. What was the situation for the transport of fuel in 1993 and
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Just for the record, at 9.20, Accused Nikolic and
19 Pandurevic -- and Borovcanin entered the courtroom. Thank you. You may
20 proceed; and sorry for the interruption.
21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. What was, in general, the situation for the transport of fuel in
23 1993 and 1994?
24 A. The transport of fuel should have been organised by special
25 vehicles intended for the transportation of fuel. Very often
1 international organisations used additional jerry cans to transport
2 certain quantities of fuel that they did not need, because their vehicles
3 did not use that particular type of fuel.
4 We tried to analyse the end user -- who the end user of the fuel
5 would be, would it be for the civilian population and for powering some
6 and powering some batteries, or would it be used for the combat and
7 non-combat vehicles of the enemy side. Based on that analysis and the
8 information we had from before as to what had happened from the fuel that
9 managed to pass through and ended up in the enclaves, certain guidelines
10 were provided so that the restriction of the transport of fuel was
11 reduced to a level that might correspond to the requirements of
12 power-generating batteries.
13 The quantities of fuel that might have been used for military
14 purposes were either limited or more often than not totally banned.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D816.
16 This is an authorisation for the passage of humanitarian convoys on the
17 4th of February, 1994.
18 Q. As you can see, it is sent to the 1st Krajina Corps, also.
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] And I would like to see page 5 in
20 B/C/S and page 4 in English, please.
21 Q. In the middle of the page, you can see note 1. The entry of fuel
22 is not allowed. So I think you have already answered that this situation
23 occurred. You also spoke about the quantities of fuel which were not
25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D1269.
1 Q. This is a conversation -- the summary of a conversation which was
2 intercepted, a summary of an intercept; and we can see in this passage,
3 in this paragraph, that General Milovanovic saying that UNPROFOR is
4 carrying abnormal quantities of fuel into the enclaves. This is on the
5 19th of August, 1994. Later, when you were at the Main Staff, were there
6 such concerns concerning -- were there such concerns about fuel?
7 A. UNHCR always tried to have a certain quantity of fuel in their
8 convoys, irrespective of the previous agreements and explanations and
9 refusals. This pointed to the fact that that fuel, and also based on
10 other information, that that fuel was required primarily by the military
11 that was deployed in Gorazde. Throughout all that period, the fuel was
12 always a sticking point, although, General Milovanovic had banned its
13 transport on several occasions.
14 Q. When you say that during all this period fuel was always -- you
15 are talking about which period, precisely?
16 A. I'm referring to 1994 as well as the first half of 1995.
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown another
18 document with another intercept in 1994. This is 5D1273.
19 Q. In this intercept, we can see that -- well, it's a summary of a
20 conversation on the 5th of October, 1994. You see that humanitarian
21 convoys were allowed to go through, but that convoys with fuel were not
22 authorised. You already spoke a bit about the reasons why fuel was a
23 sticky point. Were there later situations in which certain convoys were
24 allowed to go through but precisely fuel was not allowed to go through?
25 A. From this document you can see that the fuel is intend for
1 UNPROFOR units and we, as soldiers, on the basis of information, how much
2 which combat vehicles.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Yes, what's the problem,
4 Mr. McCloskey.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry, Mr. President, I didn't mean to
6 interrupt --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- I just wanted to make a point. The intercepts
9 Ms. Fauveau is using are -- my understanding is that they are from the
10 Croatian forces. I don't know a whole lot about them, frankly, but if
11 she can just identify them as from the Croatian forces as each one so
12 that it's clear on the record. I don't think we are going to have an
13 objection from them. But I think it's important to be able to
14 distinguish these from the ones that we know so much about.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's fair enough. And I think Ms. Fauveau
16 would agree to that. Yes, I see her nodding.
17 So let's proceed. Sorry to have interrupted the course of your
18 answer, but I thought it was something directly relating to the answer to
19 all the questions that had been put. So let's proceed.
20 Mr. Kralj, you had just said:
21 "From this document you can see that the fuel is intended for
22 UNPROFOR units, and we as soldiers, on the basis of information, how
23 much, which combat vehicles ..."
24 You can start again, actually, and give your full answer to the
25 question. Thank you.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From this document you can see that
2 the fuel was intended for the UNPROFOR units, and, as such, it was
3 transported in cisterns. However, the Main Staff of the army of
4 Republika Srpska had the precise information how many and what kind of
5 combat vehicles, let's say, if we are talking about Gorazde or some other
6 protected area, and which quantities were essential for the normal
7 functioning for a specific period of time.
8 It was not allowed to stockpile excessive supplies for which
9 there was no need, because it was always possible to provide more fuel
10 according to existing procedures for the needs of UNPROFOR. It was often
11 the case that the quantities were enormously high, and this was then
12 reduced down to normal quantities and the excess was banned.
13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Can you remember whether in 1993 and 1994 there were periods of
15 time during which the movement of convoys was suspended or restricted?
16 A. There were occasions when the convoys would be suspended without
17 this being announced. This would usually happen because of their
18 security because they had information that some activities would be
19 underway, combat activities, which would not be good for their security
20 or for them -- it would not be good to find themselves in the territory
21 under the control of Republika Srpska. Of course, they did not give any
22 announcements in advance that the convoys would be suspended. I really
23 cannot tell you exactly which periods I am talking about or this
25 Q. One very last question with respect to that particular period of
1 1993 and 1994. Do you know how the Serbian civilian population reacted
2 when seeing these convoys move through, convoys that transported goods
3 for the Muslim population?
4 A. Your Honours, we had considerable difficulties with the civilian
5 population, especially close to the line of separation with the other
6 side because they believed that they're not receiving sufficient aid
7 while the other side is receiving too much aid and that it is being used
8 for military purposes. And this sometimes caused incidents at
9 checkpoints or along the routes of the convoys in the immediate vicinity
10 of the line of separation.
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D787.
12 Q. I would like to draw your attention to item 3 of this document.
13 A. I've read a paragraph 3.
14 Q. Does it say here that because of the situation you've just
15 outlined, things happened that way?
16 A. Yes, the result of the -- that is the result of the situation.
17 All the military organs of power from the president to the president of
18 the Assembly took the position that the convoys of humanitarian aid
19 should be allowed to pass to the other side without obstruction. And
20 that is why the civilian sector often cooperated with the organs of local
21 power or the police organs which were participating in the escort of
22 these convoys for the purposes of adhering to this paragraph.
23 Q. Yesterday you stated that around the end of 1994 you arrived at
24 the Main Staff. Could you tell us a little bit more about your duties at
25 the Main Staff?
1 A. Your Honours, by coming or being posted on duty at the Main Staff
2 of the army of Republika Srpska, I was appointed and assigned to the
3 duties of interpreter for the English language. My first -- or immediate
4 superior was Colonel Milos Djurdjic, who was performing the functions of
5 the chief of the sector for relations with foreign forces. Since this
6 position began to gain more and more in importance, I was assigned
7 additional duties, and they were to acquaint myself with all procedures
8 relating to cooperation with UNPROFOR, international organisations; and
9 to be ready and trained to assist Colonel Djurdjic in his work with these
10 organisations, and in his absence to be able to prepare the required
11 documents myself and to be able to submit them for processing according
12 to the previously established procedure.
13 Q. Who was the immediate superior of Colonel Djurdjic?
14 A. His immediate superior was General Mladic, who later transferred
15 part of the authorities from the sphere of humanitarian activities to the
16 Chief of Staff, General Milovanovic.
17 Q. What happened when the Chief of Staff, General Milovanovic, was
18 not present at Crna Rijeka? In such cases, who would deal with
19 humanitarian aid convoys and their movement?
20 A. In that situation, Colonel Djurdjic would consult on the issue of
21 the convoys with General Tolimir.
22 Q. I'd like to show you another intercept coming from the Croatia
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] 5D1272. This is dated 1994.
25 Q. I would like to know whether the situation described here was the
1 same in 1995. Do you know whether there were meetings between
2 representatives of the army of Republika Srpska and representatives of
3 UNPROFOR with respect to the passage of UNPROFOR convoys and all related
5 A. Your Honours, it was the practice in matters of convoy and the
6 passages of these UNHCR and UNPROFOR convoys to meet occasionally and as
7 needed both the chief of the Main Staff of the army of Republika Srpska
8 and in some cases the commander as well; but there was a rule who should
9 meet with whom: the chief of the staff with the Chief of Staff, or others
10 who met at lower levels, most frequently with General Milovanovic at his
12 Q. Do you know whether in 1995 there was an agreement between the
13 Republika Srpska and UNPROFOR with respect to freedom of movement?
14 A. After each meeting they would make an appropriate record of the
15 meeting, we could even say an agreement, stating what the things were
16 agreed on during the meeting. And then, the corps commands were informed
17 about these matters.
18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 1404.
19 We only have the English version of this document, 1404. 5D1404.
20 Q. Witness, yesterday you explained that you can speak English.
21 When you were at the Main Staff, did you have the opportunity to see this
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Could you tell us briefly what this document is about for the
25 accused? Just briefly.
1 A. These are the principles relating to the freedom of movement of
2 UNPROFOR. The document is from the 31st of January, 1995.
3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown page 2
4 of the document. I'd like to see signature.
5 Q. Witness, do you recognise the signature we see on the right-hand
6 side of the document, where we read "HQ SA representative"?
7 A. This is General Tolimir's signature.
8 Q. What was the procedure required for a -- an UNPROFOR convoy to be
9 able to go through in 1995 when you were at the Main Staff?
10 A. The procedure was as follows: The UNPROFOR convoy would be
11 announced to the Main Staff of the army of Republika Srpska via fax at
12 their office at Pale. The request would be submitted according to the
13 already mentioned principles 48 hours in advance, this would be the
14 regular procedure. The request would be in Serbian and in English. The
15 fax would be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, meaning
16 non-stop; and most frequently it would be set to automatic reception.
17 The documents were sorted by Colonel Djurdjic or by myself depending on
18 who was at the office at a given time. It was not possible for the
19 office to be left unattended and that the document on reception -- on
20 receipt could not be sorted, the text compared, the text in Serbian and
21 the text in English would be compared.
22 I emphasize this because I would like to point out that often it
23 was illegible because the communications or the connections were not
24 good, so we had to see what it was about so that the document in the
25 Serbian version could be submitted in the mail for information to
1 General Mladic or General Milovanovic. Sometimes, there was a need for
2 direct telephone communication with the UNPROFOR office in Pale to
3 clarify some questions.
4 When the Serbian version of the UNPROFOR request was harmonised,
5 then Colonel Djurdjic, depending on the time available, would submit the
6 document in the regular post for review, or would ask for permission to
7 go to General Mladic directly with the document or, most, frequently,
8 General Milovanovic. Of course, before that he had to inform about all
9 the previously agreed on and signed on matters which they also were very
10 familiar with themselves because they were monitoring the situation and
11 knew the situation.
12 From what I was able to see, on the top page of the document of
13 the original, there would always be an initial of General Mladic or
14 Milovanovic for this convoy to be approved. If something was disputable
15 or it was not in accordance with the regular procedure, that paragraph
16 would be underlined, and it would be most often stated on the document
17 that the rest would be approved but this paragraph that was disputed
18 would not be approved; and UNPROFOR was asked for additional
19 clarification about the purpose or the intent of the articles that were
20 disputed. Then the approved document -- or, on the basis of that
21 document another document would be drafted and logged at the office of
22 Colonel Djurdjic. And again it would be returned for signature most
23 often to General Milovanovic. And then the approved document would be
24 returned by fax to the UNPROFOR office. Then we would usually make sure
25 by calling that they received the document. That would be the regular
2 The same document would be presented to the duty operations
3 officer for him to use his communication channels and dispatch it to a
4 specific corps so that it would reach the department which dealt with
5 these matters, or, rather, to reach the checkpoint. That was the regular
7 Q. You stated that when requests from UNPROFOR would arrive and when
8 Colonel Djurdjic dealt with them, these requests were submitted to
9 General Mladic or General Milovanovic. Did it ever happen that these
10 requests were submitted to colonel and then later General Miletic? To
11 your knowledge, did that ever happen?
12 A. Your Honours, as far as I know, General Miletic never
13 participated in any decision-making with regard convoys, either with
14 General Milovanovic or General Mladic. This was not his job. He had
15 other things to do. He had other obligations that fell within his
17 Q. What was the situation as for signatures of a document which has
18 already -- which had already been prepared or which already contain the
19 decision taken by General Mladic or General Milovanovic? Did you have an
20 opportunity to bring these documents which were already finalised to
21 General Miletic so that he could sign them?
22 A. There were situations when no higher officers were present to
23 sign everything that had already been agreed upon pursuant to the regular
24 procedure so that the document might be dispatched and the aforementioned
25 activity to be implemented. And in such a situation, Colonel Djurdjic
1 would go to the duty operations officer on the day to see, to get
2 information, rather, whether there was anybody authorised to sign the
3 document so as to enable the document to be implemented and complied with
4 and so that the convoys in question could pass. In very rare cases, I
5 even believe that I once had an opportunity to get information from
6 General Miletic as to who was in a position to sign the document that had
7 already been approved.
8 Q. Excuse me, I interrupted you. Please continue.
9 A. General Miletic, in exceptional cases and only if the convoy in
10 question was really important, he could be talked into signing; or he
11 would ask the convoys to wait until the moment the superiors came back,
12 or he had obtained approval from General Milovanovic to let that
13 convoy -- or, rather, to have that document signed. This was not common
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness now be shown
16 5D81 -- 881. 881.
17 Q. Could you explain what this document is that you have in front of
19 A. This document is marked as urgent. It deals with the movement of
20 a British convoy from Kiseljak to Gorazde on the 1st of January, 1994,
21 and back. This is about the supply of fuel which was regulated by the
22 weekly supply plan. It was an urgent document, and in the right-hand
23 side in the top corner of the page the initial is by Colonel Djurdjic, if
24 I am not mistaken.
25 Q. And the fact that the initials of Colonel Djurdjic, if you're
1 right, are on this document, does that mean that Colonel Djurdjic had
2 approved this convoy?
3 A. No. What this means for me is that he had had prior
4 consultations either with General Milovanovic or, exceptionally, with
5 General Tolimir. And since this was about the weekly resupply of fuel
6 and the passage of fuel tanks that had already been planned for, I
7 suppose that it was suggested to him by telephone that he should initial
8 that and to send the whole thing into the procedure. Those are very rare
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D882,
12 Q. Now, this is the same type of document, but instead of having
13 initials here you can see handwritten, "Colonel M. Djurdjic." Can you
14 see this?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I don't want to lose too much time with this document, but is
17 this document the same sort as the one we just saw a while ago?
18 A. Yes, this is a similar procedure, but the unit in question is
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
21 continues] ... 5D1310.
22 Q. Please have a look at this first page. This document indeed is a
23 self-contained document, and could you tell us what it is, what it
24 represents? Briefly, I don't need a thorough explanation for each
25 convoy, but in general what is this document about?
1 A. This document is about the movement of several convoys which had
2 not been approved. A short document had to be sent to the UNPROFOR
3 command stating the number of convoys, the time, what was transported.
4 It was not clear from the request, what the purpose of the goods that
5 were transported was. Additional information was sought, i.e.,
6 information was sent back that the convoys were not allowed to pass.
7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown -- could
8 the witness be shown the bottom of the page where the signature is?
9 Q. You can see the name of General Milovanovic, and would you be
10 able to recognise the signature on this document?
11 A. The letterhead always contained the name of Manojlo Milovanovic,
12 that was as per rules, but this obviously is not his signature. It is
13 possible that the duty officer who was -- or, rather, the person who was
14 the duty operations officer's superior, after a consultation with
15 General Milovanovic, signed this document in order to comply with the
16 procedure of maintaining communication with the UNPROFOR command. I
17 suppose that this is the signature of Pandzic, of Colonel Pandzic, who
18 was often the head duty officer.
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness now be shown the
20 top of the page, a bit higher, item 1.
21 Q. Just to identify what sort of a convoy we are talking about,
22 convoy from Sarajevo to Kiseljak, number 21-228/02.
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] And could one see now the B/C/S
24 version page 2 and page 3 for the English version. Just at the top, yes,
25 thank you.
1 Q. On this document one can see numbers 22102 -- 21-228/02. This is
2 a request for the convoy from Sarajevo to Kiseljak, and I would like to
3 know if you recognise the initials which are at the top of the document.
4 A. General Mladic.
5 Q. Just to be quite sure and clear, what do these initials mean, as
6 they are here, just by the name one can read? Just in a circled lane,
7 the initials in a circle.
8 A. This means that the convoy was not approved. It does say "no" in
9 the Cyrillic script.
10 Q. Can you see at the bottom of the page, some handwritten
11 observations. Do you recognise who wrote these handwritten notes?
12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I think it's page 4 for the English
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose that this was additional
15 information by Colonel Djurdjic at the -- at General Mladic's request as
16 to what had been transported previously by the same people. Some
17 supplies could last indefinitely, and it says here, "Only after seven
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... be here that this matter of
21 40 beds is mentioned, which had already been imported on the 19th of
22 February, 1995.
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Would it be possible to go back
24 both for the B/C/S and English version? Page 4, please.
25 Q. Item 1, paragraph 2, in this second paragraph can one indeed find
1 what was said in the handwritten note we've just seen?
2 A. It was not clear, the same number of soldiers, double the number
3 of beds. The question was raised, why if beds were being replaced, why
4 the old ones were not being returned. And the rest should have lasted
5 seven days as had been agreed before.
6 Q. I simply wish to know whether what can be seen on this document,
7 which has been typed, does it correspond to the handwritten words which
8 one has read before on the request coming from UNPROFOR?
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning to
12 I would just simply ask if that's the question that's going to be
13 put to the witness, that the witness simply read the handwritten note
14 into the record; and the document that's otherwise translated speaks for
15 itself, and we can resolve this, I think, relatively quickly.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you agree to that, Ms. Fauveau? I think it's --
17 it will facilitate our lives.
18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, Mr. President. Could
19 we go to page 2 in B/C/S, please.
20 JUDGE KWON: Page 5.
21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Witness, could you read the handwritten remark which says, "The
23 19th February"?
24 A. "19 February, this is what was imported into Sarajevo: 40 beds, 1
25 pallet of office supplies, 10 crates of beer, 10 crates of fruit
1 juices ..."
2 Q. Would you please read just after that, if you can read it. Is it
4 A. It is a bit illegible, but it says:
5 "Only after seven days, drinks; and in the meantime they should
6 provide additional information as to who the beds are being transported
8 Again illegible, and then it continues: "When they return old
9 ones," and I suppose that this refers to the 40 beds.
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can we now go back to page 1 of
11 this document.
12 Q. I don't think you need to read paragraphs 2 and 3 of item 1, but
13 was it the regular procedure to incorporate in this document -- document
14 which was to be sent to UNPROFOR, the notes which were written on the
16 A. This note refers to the person who drafted the document, and it
17 was not obligatory to write it in that sense. It did not have to be
18 copied word for word. The document had to be drafted in this sense in
19 order to ask for additional information or say why something has not been
21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness now be shown
22 5D1316, please. This is another notification concerning convoys which
23 hadn't been approved. And this is dated 29 March 1995 [sic].
24 Q. And for this document, please look at the signature. Do you
25 recognise the signature on this document?
1 A. This is General Milovanovic's [Realtime transcript read in error,
2 "Mladic"] signature. And there is also a list of convoys which have not
3 been approved.
4 Q. On the basis of the fact that General Milovanovic signed this
5 document, can you say who decided that these convoys shouldn't be
6 approved or wouldn't be approved?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment, before you answer the question.
8 Mr. Vanderpuye.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I think there is a
10 correction due in the transcript with respect to the date of the
11 document. It's indicated 29th March and the document is dated 26th of
13 JUDGE AGIUS: 26th of April. Yes.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: The references to line 18 of the previous page.
16 Okay. Let's proceed, thank you for that, and it will be taken care of.
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] My colleague is perfectly right,
18 it's my fault. There is another mistake, also. Page 21, line 21. I
19 don't think the witness spoke about the signature of General Mladic. I
20 will ask him again.
21 Q. Could you say who signed this document, witness, please.
22 A. I don't understand your question. Could you please provide me
23 with the page that you are talking about.
24 Q. There is a mistake in the transcript. Could you repeat what you
25 said a while ago, who signed this document, if you please?
1 A. General Milovanovic, the Chief of Staff signed this document.
2 Q. The fact that this document or, let's say that the fact that this
3 document was signed by General Milovanovic.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: The question is leading, and I would ask my
6 colleague to rephrase.
7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I hadn't finished my question.
8 Well, I don't know how he can say. The witness was just going to say
9 that this document was signed by General Milovanovic.
10 Q. According to the signature on this document, can you say who
11 decided not to approve this convoy? Is it possible to say who took the
12 decision on the basis of this document?
13 A. Your Honours, by just inspecting a signature, it is not possible
14 to see who it was who decided for the convoys not to be let through. We
15 he don't know whether it was General Mladic or General Milovanovic. We
16 would have to go back to the beginning, to document number 1, and then at
17 the top of the document we could see who initialed the document and added
18 the word "yes" or "no." In this particular case the word is "no," the
19 convoy is not approved.
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown page 2
21 of the document. Page 2 in English as well.
22 Q. Do you recognise the initials we see on this document?
23 A. General Mladic, you can see "no" and his initial.
24 Q. Can you tell us now who decided not to approve this convoy?
25 A. General Mladic made the decision.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Any time it's convenient --
2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Well now, for example.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's have a break now. Thank you.
4 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.
7 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Could the
8 witness be shown 5D1314. This is a notification dated the 29th of March,
9 1995, related to UNPROFOR convoys that have been approved. I'd like to
10 show page 2 to the witness in B/C/S, page 3 in English.
11 Q. Witness, here we see a handwritten comment "yes" encircled and
12 next to that we see two initials. Could you identify these initials?
13 A. The first initial above is one of General Mladic and the other
14 one underneath is that of General Milovanovic.
15 Q. Can you provide us an explanation. Do you know why both of them
16 initialed this document? With did these two generals initial this
17 particular document?
18 A. This is an exceptional situation when both were in the same
19 office. The document was first looked at by General Mladic, then
20 continuing with his review of the mail, he gave it to General Milovanovic
21 to look at, and then he also put his signature on it in order to let
22 Colonel Djurdjic know that the document has already been shown to him.
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown page 13
24 of the document in B/C/S and page 19 in English. Please turn to item 6.
25 We have a detailed list of the cargo transported.
1 Q. Why does this request go into such a level of detail?
2 A. What this is about is it's the Ukrainian Battalion; and what was
3 required is to state the type of equipment and weaponry that was entering
4 the protected area and whether the quantities noted are for themselves or
5 for someone else. That is why we insisted on this and agreed in advance
6 in order to build confidence and trust between UNPROFOR and the army of
7 Republika Srpska that the entire range of equipment and weaponry and
8 other items be put on the list of items being transported by the convoy.
9 Q. When the Main Staff notified its subordinate units of the cargo
10 transported by authorised convoys, would that part of the text, with a
11 list of cargo transported, would that also be sent to the subordinated
12 units when they were notified of the convoys?
13 A. In principle, yes. If there was such information in the request,
14 then in order to prepare and carry out adequate checks, the information
15 would mention item by item specifically the equipment or the articles
16 that were supposed to be in the convoy as in the request.
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D1315.
18 JUDGE KWON: If you're moving, Ms. Fauveau Ivanovic, can you see
19 the upper part of the B/C/S document.
20 Mr. Kralj, we see here as well the signature of Generals Mladic
21 and Milovanovic? No, I'm asking, whether signature of Mladic and whose
22 signature is that?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The upper signature is the one of
24 General Mladic and the lower one is that of General Milovanovic.
25 JUDGE KWON: Whose handwriting is it that reads "yes" with
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] General Mladic's.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] This is another notification sent
5 to UNPROFOR listing the convoys that have not been authorised. On the
6 first page we see the signature of General Milovanovic, could the witness
7 be shown page 2 of this document, that would be page 3 in English.
8 Q. Do you recognise the initials on this document?
9 A. This could be the initial of Milos Djurdjic.
10 Q. Does that mean that Djurdjic approved or, rather, disapproved the
11 passage of this convoy?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. The question assumes
14 a fact not in evidence. This witness has said that it could be and not
15 that it is, and so I think the question presupposes that.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but he hasn't excluded the possibility either.
17 So assuming that there is that possibility, what would be his answer to
18 the last question, provided my colleagues agree with me.
19 JUDGE KWON: I think she was asking is it meaning of the "ne."
20 JUDGE AGIUS: So, yes, yes, let's proceed.
21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
22 Q. First of all, can you tell us what this "ne" means, "ne," this
23 handwritten observation we see here. What does that mean?
24 A. It states here "ne," "no." Since this is about fuel supplies
25 Colonel Djurdjic had a plan for the fuel supplies which was agreed on
1 earlier. Evidently this was not in accordance with the plan, and in the
2 procedure he consulted his superior who was not physically accessible;
3 and he was given oral agreement that this convoy should not pass. For
4 the purposes of record keeping and for information, he had to place his
5 initials there, perhaps he didn't process his document -- this document
6 further, but without the initials the document could not be passed on for
7 further processing.
8 Q. I'd like to show you document P2454.
9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] 2554. This is a notification to
10 subordinated units dated 1st of July, 1995. I'd like to show you page 2
11 of this document. Could the witness be shown the very bottom of the
12 page, please. That would be page 4 in English. Here we see the name of
13 General Miletic.
14 Q. Based on this document, can you ascertain who authorised the
15 convoys listed in this document? A total of eight convoys are listed in
16 the document.
17 A. I couldn't say until I see the number of the convoy and whose
18 initials are at the top of the document. That person would have approved
19 it. All this means here is that this is being submitted for further
20 procedure. It does not mean that General Miletic did or did not approve
21 this request or convoy. The role of General Miletic in this case was
22 just to sign what somebody approved and that should go as written
23 information for the information of the person to whom the document is
25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would like to come back to page 1
1 of this document, please.
2 At item 2, we see that we have a convoy going from Gorazde
3 through Rogatica, Podromanija, Pale, and Sarajevo; and we see that this
4 convoy has been approved, convoy number 01-007/07.
5 I would like the witness to be shown 5D884.
6 This is a request for approval for convoy 01-007/07 going from
7 Gorazde to Sarajevo.
8 Q. Do you recognise the initials we see on this particular document?
9 A. The initials below are those of General Mladic. The one to the
10 right could be that of General Tolimir.
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we now show the witness again
12 P2554. We've just reviewed the request for approval of the convoy
13 mentioned at item 2 of this particular document.
14 Q. Based on your experience, can you tell us whether for each of the
15 convoys listed in this document, a request was needed?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Would every single request show and bear the approval of the
18 person who had approved the convoy?
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown page 1
20 and paragraphs 5 and 6.
21 JUDGE PROST: Madam Fauveau, I don't think the record reflects
22 the witness's answer to the last question. I believe he said "yes" but
23 it's not recorded here.
24 JUDGE KWON: Line 12.
25 JUDGE PROST: At line 12.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly, you will just have to ask him again.
2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
3 Q. For each one of these individual requests, is it the case that
4 they would bear or show the signature or -- or the decision of the
5 officer who was supposed to approve this particular convoy?
6 A. Yes, Your Honours, without that it could not be released into the
7 procedure of drafting the information.
8 Q. Please have a look at convoys 5 and 6, just to get an idea of
9 what it's all about. I can tell you it's -- these are convoys going from
10 Srebrenica to Belgrade and Zagreb.
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] But now if we turn to page 2 of the
12 document. Page 3 in English. At the very top of the page we see a note
13 stating that these convoys have been approved with some reservation or
14 subject to some reservation, conditionally. We saw that the document
15 bears the name of General Miletic.
16 Q. But, do you know who could have drafted this document?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: That calls for speculation, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Not necessarily, he could answer the question.
20 So Mr. Kralj, if you could answer the question. If you know you
21 know, if you don't you don't.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The convoy -- actually this
23 document was drafted by Colonel Djurdjic. It was typed in the sector for
24 typing the material, usually the typists would type that under his
25 control, that would be the original version. Evidently, what we have
1 here is the transmission via encryption.
2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Do you know how Colonel Djurdjic knew that these convoys number 5
4 and 6 had been approved conditionally?
5 A. Colonel Djurdjic was an expert, and he monitored the overall
6 situation with the convoys. That word "conditional" is a bit unclear to
7 me, because it was either that it would pass or not pass, if anything
8 were to pass. So I cannot precisely answer what this word
9 "conditionally" means in this case.
10 Q. Would the officer who decided that the convoy was allowed to go
11 through, would that officer also set a number of conditions to be
12 complied with for the convoy to go through?
13 A. Your Honours, I am not familiar with that. I don't know.
14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D1307.
15 Q. This document was sent to you because we see that it was
16 addressed to Lieutenant-Colonel Kralj, and this document is signed by
17 Lieutenant-Colonel Indic; do you know who is Lieutenant-Colonel Indzic?
18 A. Lieutenant-Colonel Indzic was in the group for UNPROFOR at the
19 Sarajevo Romanija Corps command.
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown the very
21 bottom of the page. In the last paragraph we can see that:
22 "Colonel Lugonja spoke with General Tolimir. The journey is
23 approved. The units need to be notified of it."
24 Q. Who is Colonel Lugonja, do you know?
25 A. Colonel Lugonja worked at the command of the Sarajevo Romanija
1 Corps. I think that in a way he was superior to
2 Lieutenant-Colonel Indzic.
3 Q. But why did Colonel Lugonja spoke with General Tolimir, do you
4 know why he did that? General Tolimir.
5 A. I assumed that there were no other officials who were authorised
6 to approve the convoy, and probably this movement was --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. The question clearly
9 called for speculation, given the witness's answer it seems readily
10 apparent that he doesn't know --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Started his answer with the words "I assume ..." So
12 it is to an extent speculation. We can't proceed on the basis of
13 assumptions. So you either move to your next questions, Madam Fauveau,
14 or you clarify some things with the witness.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown the top
16 of the document.
17 Q. This document also has two initials. Can you identify these
19 A. General Milovanovic and General Tolimir.
20 Q. One could already see on this document that Colonel Lugonja had
21 informed you that this trip was allowed and proved, so why was it
22 necessary to obtain an authorisation, a written authorisation?
23 A. We could not draft a document without a written approval. That
24 was the procedure. Irrespective of any prior oral agreements, a written
25 document had to get to Colonel Djurdjic's desk.
1 Q. Did the organs?
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Pardon the intervention again, Mr. President.
4 Just for the record, I would just like the witness to indicate which of
5 the two signatures on the right-hand side is General Tolimir's and which
6 is General Milovanovic's.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, could you do that, please, Mr. Kralj.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The top initial belongs to
9 General Milovanovic and the bottom one to General Tolimir.
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
11 Q. In 1995 did the civilian organs and in particular the
12 coordination organ, have some influence on the UNPROFOR convoys?
13 A. Yes.
14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown an
15 intercept, and would it be possible to go into private session just to
16 identify the intercept.
17 [Private session]
25 [Open session]
1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could 5D960 be shown to the
2 witness, please. We do not have a translation in English, but we have
3 prepared a draft translation.
4 Q. Sir, do you know who is Petko Obucina.
5 A. Petko Obucina worked in the office of the
6 Vice-president Koljevic.
7 Q. Look at this intercept. It seems that Petko Obucina speaks first
8 with General Mladic, and after that, he expressly asks for
9 General Tolimir to be put on the line.
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown a bit
11 lower on the page the contents of this conversation. The fifth line from
12 the bottom, one can see the name of Milos, and the fourth, also, from the
13 bottom; and Srebrenica is mentioned.
14 Q. Do you know why Petko Obucina asked to speak to General Tolimir?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. Or the fourth line from the bottom, one sees that the commander
17 has approved what was requested, approved the request. Can you read
18 this, can you see this?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In this context, when the commander is mentioned, who is the
22 A. Always Mladic, General Mladic.
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown document
24 5D961. And this is -- this comes from the same collection of documents
25 and there also is an audio recording of it.
1 Q. So here again it's a conversation with Petko Obucina and a
2 non-identified person; but you could see the name Kralj, could it be you?
3 A. [No interpretation]
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown the
5 lower part of the page, the bottom of the page.
6 Q. Your answer was not taken in the transcript for my former
7 question. Could you tell us if the Kralj who was mentioned in this
8 conversation, is it you?
9 A. "Da," that's me. Yes, that's me.
10 Q. At the bottom of the page, one sees that Petko Obucina says that
11 he's spoken to the General, and Djurdjic asks him which one, and Obucina
12 says, Tolimir.
13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we now see page 2 of the
15 Q. At the middle of the page Petko Obucina transmits to Milos a
16 mention according to which the principle chief was saying that at
17 Srebrenica one could enter and go out of the enclave. Did you often have
18 situations like this one when Petko Obucina and other civilian organs
19 transmitted to you, colonel or judge [as interpreted], messages from
20 General Tolimir or from General Mladic?
21 A. It didn't happen often. This is the only case that I know of.
22 Q. Do you know whether in such a situation that Colonel Djurdjic
23 checked what was said by Petko Obucina?
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Objection.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, objection, it's a leading
2 question, and it calls for speculation as well.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to comment, Ms. Fauveau, or not?
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President, no thank you.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't agree with you at all, Mr. Vanderpuye. If
7 he could answer that question, he should do so. So Mr. Kralj, if you
8 could that question, without speculating, please.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Colonel Djurdjic, in this case,
10 went to General Tolimir's office to clarify the situation. Whatever was
11 not covered by papers and approvals could not be sent into the procedure.
12 Very often people in the coordination body were not privy to our further
13 procedures, and they thought that things could be done over the
14 telephone, which was not the case. It just could not be done.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D1280.
16 This is an intercept coming from the Croatian collection. This is a
17 summary of a conversation which took place on the 13th -- of the 30th of
18 June, 1995. The office of General Nicolai, executive office of
19 General Nicolai is mentioned.
20 Q. Do you know who was General Nicolai?
21 A. General Nicolai was the Chief of Staff of UNPROFOR, I believe.
22 Yes, I'm certain he was the Chief of Staff of UNPROFOR.
23 Q. And General Nicolai, apparently, sent a request to
24 General Tolimir, and it's seen between brackets that there is
25 General Mladic mentioned between brackets.
1 Did General Tolimir, about these humanitarian issues and the
2 UNPROFOR convoys, did he replace General Mladic for these matters?
3 A. General Tolimir was involved in the procedure to approve convoys
4 and to meet with UNPROFOR on the issue of convoys, and he would be
5 replaced by General Milovanovic. In the absence of General Milovanovic,
6 General Tolimir could also issue approvals; however, the UNPROFOR
7 procedure was as follows: If they had contacted General Tolimir as per
8 the procedure, then they would continue talking to him for any assistance
9 because they already knew him because they had already met with him; and
10 that's why they addressed General Tolimir in the hope that he would be
11 able to assist them, to speed things along. And this case, obviously, is
12 about the transfer of the body of a fallen soldier.
13 Q. You mentioned contacts with UNPROFOR, did you ever take part --
14 or did you ever attend a meeting with representatives of UNPROFOR?
15 A. At the beginning with the commander of the Main Staff, I was at a
16 meeting that took place at Sarajevo airport, and I also participated
17 quite often when Colonel Djurdjic met with the representatives of the
18 UNPROFOR office in Pale.
19 Q. Do you know whether General Miletic attended the meetings with
20 the members of UNPROFOR? I am speaking of the period going from the 1st
21 of January, 1995 until end of July 1995.
22 A. As far as I know, no.
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D1306.
24 This document is dated 6 March 1995, and one can read the name of
25 Colonel Miletic.
1 Q. Do you recognise the signature?
2 A. This is not Colonel Miletic's signature. This is -- it looks
3 like Pandzic's signature to me.
4 Q. In this document, the Main Staff of the army of the Republika
5 Srpska informs UNPROFOR that General Milovanovic is absent; and,
6 therefore, the Main Staff of the Republika Srpska army proposes to
7 postpone the meeting until the return of the general.
8 In the Main Staff, was it decided who could negotiate with
9 UNPROFOR, who was in a position to negotiate or discuss with the
10 representatives of UNPROFOR?
11 A. Yes, it was decided. Since this involved a commander of the
12 UNPROFOR staff, the normal procedure was that when the UNPROFOR request
13 was discussed, that the meeting would also be attended by the Chief of
14 Staff of the army Republika Srpska.
15 Q. Do you have any information on this? Did General Mladic request
16 from President Karadzic and from the civilian organs of the government
17 some instructions when he was going to meetings with the representatives
18 of UNPROFOR?
19 A. The normal procedure stipulated for the presidency to be informed
20 about the activities of the Main Staff involving UNPROFOR before a
21 meeting. And after the meeting, appropriate reports were sent to the
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown document
24 5D1295. This is a document sent by the general commander Mladic to the
25 president of the Republika Srpska. This is a very short document.
1 Q. We see that General Mladic sends to the president the equipment
2 or documents concerning the meeting of the 19th -- January 19th, 1995 and
3 requests suggestions concerning the position of the delegation.
4 Here, it's a question of freedom of movement. You have already
5 in part answered my question, but did General Mladic -- was he in a
6 position to decide alone with -- without the president on matters as
7 important as freedom of movement of UNPROFOR?
8 A. Your Honours, the freedom of movement for the UNPROFOR is a very
9 broad term. It implied the freedom of movement across the entire
10 territory under the control of the army of Republika Srpska, which
11 required additional positions and involvement on the part of the civilian
12 authorities, the civilian police, and in a way informing the population
13 about UNPROFOR activities. Thus, the issues of such important nature had
14 to be communicated to the president and guidance was sought from him on
15 those matters.
16 Q. We have already spoken about fuel matters. I would like to ask
17 you a specific question concerning the fuel for Srebrenica.
18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D1276.
19 This is an intercept from the Croatian collection dated 3 January 1995.
20 And this conversation takes place between General Mladic and Svetlana the
21 translator of UNPROFOR.
22 Q. In the middle of the document one can read that General Mladic
23 said that for Srebrenica, 35 tons in total. This would be enough for
24 five months, should suffice for 5 months.
25 You have already said there were some estimations made of the
1 quantities necessary, but could you explain how and who did these
2 estimations or calculations?
3 A. This was done by the competent organs of the technical services
4 together with Colonel Djurdjic based on the number of vehicles, the
5 UNPROFOR activities that took place in Srebrenica, and a proposal would
6 be given to -- for this to be something that would allow for the normal
7 work of the UNPROFOR. And there was also intelligence according to which
8 some of the fuel was shared with the military of the opposing side which
9 was in Srebrenica.
10 Q. A few questions, a few technical questions I would like to ask
11 you. Were there any problems - I think you already mentioned this - were
12 there any problems when receiving requests from UNPROFOR?
13 A. Your Honours, there were technical problems, problems of
14 technical nature, because of the illegibility of the documents which were
15 faxed through. Sometimes the fax would run out of paper, so only one
16 half of the document would go through. That's why additional information
17 would be sought over the telephone in order to complete such incomplete
18 documents. It also happened that UNPROFOR office provided us with roles
19 of fax papers, because they were the ones who spent most of our fax
20 papers, that's why they provided us with supplies to facilitate our
22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D834.
23 This is a document from 1994, but what I am interested in is in the third
24 paragraph, one can see: "[In English] From the UNPROFOR command for the
25 former BH is badly planned."
1 Q. [Interpretation] Was the situation such -- what was the situation
2 in 1995?
3 A. The coordination on the UNPROFOR side was not good enough. They
4 did not inform us properly about the time of arrivals of their convoys at
5 the inter-points. So it happens that on one day several convoys were
6 supposed to pass through the entry checkpoint. And in view of all the
7 activities that such a checkpoint had to undertake in terms of the
8 controls of the convoys, there were certain problems created by that.
9 Both for those who were involved in the -- in the checks as well as in
10 traffic; in other words, unnecessary confusion and commotion would be
11 created at the checkpoint which resulted in the faster checks, and as a
12 result the checks were not of good quality.
13 In order to avoid such situations, the checkpoints, i.e., the
14 commands of the corps brigades proposed adequate solutions and that was
15 to talk to the UNPROFOR command and draft a joint plan. This would be
16 aimed at convoys moving faster, safer, and easier.
17 Q. When the Main Staff informed subordinate units of the passage of
18 convoys, would subordinate units also report to the Main Staff that the
19 convoys had passed through?
20 A. There was a regular procedure to proceed along the line of
21 command announcing to the corps which convoys are approved. And then, in
22 the response or return information, in regular reports, the answer would
23 be provided if the convoy had passed through, if there were any problems
24 in relation to the passage of the convoy.
25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D1070,
1 please. This is a regular combat report from the Drina Corps dated 4th
2 of May, 1995.
3 Q. At item 3, we have a list of convoys, a rather short list. Is
4 this what you were referring to earlier when you spoke about information
5 provided by subordinate units?
6 A. Yes, that is the answer. They were not getting into details.
7 They would just cite the number of convoys and what you see here, just
8 the basic information. This was enough for us to compile our records and
9 to note down that such and such a convoy had passed through.
10 Q. Would you receive more detailed reports related to proposals made
11 by subordinate units to improve the operation of checkpoints or to
12 identify problems?
13 A. There were such cases, yes.
14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D847.
15 Q. Yesterday I showed you a similar document, but it dated back to
16 the beginning of 1994. Here we have a document that bears no date, but
17 because of content and since it refers to what happened in 1994, we can
18 come to the conclusion that this document dates from 1994, the beginning
19 of 1995. Did you ever see any such documents at the Main Staff?
20 A. I didn't see the document, but Colonel Djurdjevic [as
21 interpreted] had a habit of briefly informing me about documents of this
22 type that he would receive. I am familiar with the contents.
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could page 2 of the document be
24 shown to the witness, please. Page 2 in English, as well. At item (c)
25 this relates to behaviour and abuse of mandate by UNPROFOR and
1 humanitarian organisations.
2 Q. Could Colonel Djurdjic have notified his superior, General
3 Mladic, or anyone else at the Main Staff, with respect to that particular
4 section of the report?
5 A. Your Honours, the procedure was reverse. All the mail that would
6 arrive at the Main Staff would be submitted for review by the commander
7 or the chief; and in this case the commander or the chief would pass the
8 document -- I mean, they would read it first. More likely that would be
9 the case than General Djurdjic reading it first, and then they would
10 issue the adequate guidelines.
11 Q. Paragraph 1 of item (c), in the last sentence of this paragraph,
12 we see that up to 30 transits by convoys and individuals were approved
13 daily. When you were at the Main Staff in 1995, how many requests would
14 you receive on daily basis, roughly speaking?
15 A. I mentioned earlier that it was a skill to take these requests
16 from the fax and to arrange them, because they would be arriving in a
17 period from -- at a certain period we would be receiving 20 to 30
18 requests via fax on a daily basis, that's why we would to sort them. And
19 it was receiving 24 hours a day, and for 24 hours a day there was the
20 option of disposing of those requests. That was just here. I am not
21 even referring to requests that were sent to other corps.
22 Q. Do you know anything about medical evacuations?
23 A. There were requests for evacuation due to health reasons from the
24 enclaves, and the way out was by road or by helicopter. These requests
25 were processed summarily, and those who needed assistance -- to make sure
1 that those who needed assistance would have these requests approved in
3 Q. I would like to show you 5D890. This is an authorisation for any
4 medical evacuation from Srebrenica to Sarajevo. The document is dated
5 21st of March, 1995. Based on your recollection, can you tell us whether
6 during that period and after the 21st of March of any medical evacuations
7 took place from Srebrenica whilst Srebrenica was a protected area?
8 A. There were medical evacuations from Srebrenica. And these were
9 of patients, allegedly civilians.
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D894.
11 This relates to another medical evacuation from Srebrenica to Sarajevo.
12 The document is dated 27th of March, 1995.
13 Q. In the third paragraph of this document we can see that 30
14 civilian patients are being evacuated as part of this medical evacuation.
15 Who was in charge of approving such medical evacuations?
16 A. All approvals for entry and exits into the enclaves were approved
17 by the Main Staff, by the chief or the commander, the commander or the
19 Q. When you mention the chief, who is this? Who you are thinking
21 A. I am thinking of the chief of General Milovanovic.
22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D1313.
23 Item 3, please. We find the approval of a medical evacuation that has to
24 take place in the period between 28 to 30th of March, 1995. And in order
25 to avoid any misunderstanding, this relates to the 30 patients mentioned
1 in the previous document.
2 Could we now turn to page 4 in Serbian, in the Serbian version of
3 the document, please. That would be page 5 in the English version of the
4 document. Under item 2 of this request, we see that this relates to 30
5 civilians patients who have to be evacuated out of Srebrenica.
6 Q. Do you recognise the initials underneath the handwritten comment
7 we see at the very top of the page?
8 A. This is General Mladic's initial.
9 Q. Something is handwritten, and we see -- and then rest is
10 illegible. Who is Toso?
11 A. General Tolimir.
12 Q. Why did General Mladic get in touch with General Tolimir and not
13 directly with Milos to deal with the situation?
14 A. There was relevant intelligence that medical evacuations were
15 being used for various diversions or for different purposes, for
16 transport of specific persons or equipment. And there were indications,
17 and this did happen, that these evacuations were always approved in time.
18 And this procedure would then include the service that General Tolimir
19 was dealing with, that he would carry out the required assessments and
20 conduct the appropriate talks with General Djurdjic for purposes of
21 preventing abuses of medical evacuation convoys.
22 Q. You talked about evacuations by helicopter. Based on your
23 recollection, can you tell us whether in 1995 there were evacuations by
25 A. There were medical evacuations as well as helicopter trips into
1 protected areas. I am talking about UNPROFOR helicopters.
2 Q. I'd like to show you 5D1296. This is a request for approval for
3 a helicopter flight.
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown very
5 bottom of the page, the handwritten part of the document.
6 Q. Do you recognise this handwriting?
7 A. This is General Mladic's handwriting.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown page 2
9 of the document. The very top of the page.
10 Q. Does this confirm what you've just said? I am talking about the
11 signature we see here, does this confirm what you've just said?
12 A. Yes, this is General Mladic's signature.
13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D1297.
14 This is document dated 7th of February, 1995. Here we see that
15 General Mladic approved a helicopter mission, but in the first paragraph
16 he talks about frequent requests for helicopter missions and of abuse of
17 this, something that took place in the night between 6th and 7th of
18 February, 1995.
19 Q. Did you hear about such abuses?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, something that I should have asked you earlier on. We see a
22 number here, 06/17-121. Does this number mean something? I am talking
23 about 06, does 06 mean something particular?
24 A. Your Honours, in office correspondence, the office that recorded
25 the post separated the list of documents under the number 06, which was
1 something that Colonel Djurdjic maintained for the needs of registering
2 the cooperation with UNPROFOR and humanitarian organisations. The mark
3 "06" means that that was the civilian tasks sector under Colonel
4 Milos Djurdjic. All correspondence that was sent to UNPROFOR, most of
5 the time would be logged in our logbooks marked as 06.
6 Q. We are talking about helicopter flights, and before that we were
7 talking about medical evacuations. I would like to show you 5D1298. In
8 this document, we see that a medical evacuation has been approved for
9 February 14, 1995, to evacuate a sick child accompanied by his twin
10 brother and mother. This document is dated 13th of February --
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I think there is an interpretation
12 problem in the B/C/S.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Because in English we are receiving
14 interpretation for sure. Let's start with the accused, first.
15 Were you receiving interpretation in your language? No. So
16 there is a problem for sure. I don't need to ask anyone else. Could I
17 have an indication of when the interpretation into B/C/S stopped? In
18 other words, what needs to be repeated.
19 THE ACCUSED MILETIC: [Interpretation] The last question, I
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please repeat the
22 specific question?
23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I will read it out myself slowly.
24 Madam Fauveau's questions was the following:
25 "We are talking about helicopter flights, and before that, we
1 were talking about medical evacuations. I would like to show you Exhibit
2 number 5D1298. In this document, we see that the medical evacuation has
3 been approved for February the 14th, 1995, to evacuate a sick child
4 accompanied by his twin brother and mother. This document is dated 13th
5 of February."
6 That's where you had stopped. I don't think that concluded your
7 question, so if you could proceed and bring it to an end, then the
8 witness can answer assuming that it all has been now interpreted into
9 B/C/S. Okay.
10 Go ahead, Madam Fauveau.
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
12 Q. My question is the following: How long did it usually take for
13 such requests to be decided upon?
14 A. The question of the helicopter flights is a very sensitive one.
15 As far as actions by units are concerned, if they were not informed about
16 these helicopter flights. That means that it was necessary after
17 receiving approval of information to send an act to the corps command or,
18 rather, to units on positions that at a certain time the corridor would
19 be opened, and the helicopter flights would be approved referring to the
20 precise route in order to prevent any incident happening that may mean
21 the downing of the helicopter. So that warning would imply a reasonable
22 period of time of at least six hours.
23 Q. My question was: When you receive a request for a medical
24 evacuation of that sort, how much time was it necessary to decide at the
25 level of the Main Staff?
1 A. The evacuations had priority. Such a document would immediately
2 be processed in the shortest possible way. It would need to reach
3 General Mladic or General Milovanovic quickly in order to complete the
4 process as soon as possible, and you could see from the document itself
5 that nature of the injury, whether it was an evacuation that could maybe
6 take some time, or whether it was necessary to do it immediately. But it
7 would be processed in the shortest possible time.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] This would be a good moment to
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Merci, Madam. Let's have the break now, 25
11 minutes. Thank you.
12 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] We were speaking of the helicopter
16 missions; in particular, this mission approved for the 14th of February,
17 1995. Could the witness be shown 5D1126.
18 Now, this is a report from the Main Staff 14th February 1995.
19 Could the witness be shown page 3 in English and B/C/S. It's page 3 in
20 both cases.
21 Q. In this first paragraph, I am talking about item 6 (a), we can
22 read that in the area of the 5th and 6th Brigade, Podrinje, a helicopter
23 which had not been announced and which is not yet identified as been
25 Do you know which region was covered by the brigades of Podrinje?
1 A. The area leading up to the protected areas.
2 Q. We see that helicopter had been approved. Now, in this report --
3 by the report, can you conclude that it is indeed the helicopter -- the
4 helicopter which had been approved or is it another helicopter?
5 A. This is not about an approved helicopter. It is about a
6 helicopter of unknown origin using the corridor to carry out a mission of
7 its own. Knowing very well that during that time, no fire would be
9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness now be shown
10 document 1299. This is a document sent by the Main Staff to UNPROFOR.
11 In the second paragraph, I can see that the helicopter mission which had
12 been approved took place without any problem, but that after that in the
13 sentence beginning by -- at 11.30, one sees that another helicopter was
15 Q. I would like to know if such incidents had an influence on the
16 decisions taken by the Main Staff concerning the approval of helicopter
18 A. Your Honours, the monitoring of such incidents provided the Main
19 Staff with an opportunity to pay special attention to the approvals
20 granted to helicopter missions, which means that there was analysis and
21 most missions were requested to use the land route, if at all possible.
22 Q. We spoke of the UNPROFOR convoys and the medical evacuations.
23 Could you tell us who in 1995 decided that are humanitarian convoys could
24 pass, could go through?
25 A. Decisions were made by the commander or the Chief of Staff if
1 they were about the movement on UNPROFOR. And the coordination body
2 provided appropriate approvals and proposals to the Main Staff to
3 consider convoys of humanitarian organisations in the part dealing with
4 the transport of such supplies which might be used for the other side's
5 military purposes.
6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could document 5D1283 be shown to
7 the witness, and this is an intercept which, unfortunately, has no date.
8 But by the contents of the conversation, it's obvious that it was July
10 Q. In this conversation, one of the speakers takes place, and it is
11 supposed that it is Colonel Djurdjic who took part. But what I am
12 interested in is what is said about state committee which decided to
13 approve the requests of HCR
14 know what this organ is?
15 A. The government had established a committee to cooperate with
16 humanitarian organisations. Its seat was in Pale. The president of that
17 committee was the vice-president, Vice-president Koljevic, and
18 Colonel Djurdjic represented the Main Staff as a member of that
19 committee. The committee to cooperate with international humanitarian
21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could document 6D7 be shown to the
22 witness. In B/C/S that's page 2, while in English it's page 1.
23 Q. You can see there it's about a decision of the creation of the
24 state committee for cooperation with the United Nations and the
25 international organisations dealing in humanitarian matters, and I would
1 like you to look at Article 5, which is on page 2 in the English text.
2 The first organ we see mentioned in this article is the
3 coordination organ for humanitarian operations. We have already several
4 times seen this coordination organ mentioned. Does this decision have to
5 do with this coordination we already spoke about?
6 A. Yes, it does.
7 Q. Who would send the requests for the passage of convoys, of
8 humanitarian convoys, to the Main Staff?
9 A. It would be the coordination body from the secretary's office,
10 they would send it.
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D1284.
12 This is a conversation or an intercept. The date is not determined.
13 Q. And do you know when Colonel Djurdjic arrived at the Main Staff?
14 A. Colonel Djurdjic took over from Colonel Magazin. I arrived --
15 or, rather, joined on the 3rd of November, 1984 [as interpreted]. He was
16 already there. I can't give you the exact date. I don't know.
17 Q. Could you repeat which year this was. When did you arrive at the
18 Main Staff?
19 A. I did not take over any duties. I joined. Colonel Djurdjic was
20 still in his position, and I joined on the 3rd November 1994.
21 Q. In this conversation, Colonel Djurdjic speaks with a certain
22 Branko or Branka, and he says that requests have to be sent by the --
23 through the coordination organ. And what I would like to know is if you
24 look at what you've got at the bottom of the page in B/C/S.
25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] And in English it's the beginning
1 of page 2.
2 Q. Colonel Djurdjic speaks about the official procedure and of a
3 rectangular stamp. What -- do you know what Colonel Djurdjic is talking
4 about in this conversation?
5 A. This refers to the regular procedure that was used in the
6 coordination body. Before this body existed, some other organisations
7 sent their requests directly to the Main Staff. This is obviously a
8 Branka from the area of Sarajevo to whom they sent assistance through the
9 Main Staff. And, now, since the new organisation was in place, they were
10 supposed to talk to the coordination body, and they did not have enough
11 information; and it was Branka's intention to try and push this through
12 to Colonel Djurdjic . However, Colonel Djurdjic was performing according
13 to the new procedure that was put in place. He clearly told her that it
14 could not be sent for the procedure if it did not go through the
15 procedure of the new coordination body.
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D1308.
17 And could page 2 in B/C/S be displayed and page 3 for the English
18 version, please. We can see there is a stamp, a rectangular stamp on
19 this document.
20 Q. Could you explain what it is, this rectangular stamp?
21 A. This is a stamp of the coordination body, the body that we have
22 just discussed. And this is a list of their documents, and you can see
23 clearly the title of the body, the Coordination Body for Humanitarian
24 Aid, whose president was Vice-president Koljevic.
25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we go back to back to page 1
1 of the document. We see that this is a document from the coordinating
2 body dated 17th of May, 1995; and I am interested in the note we see on
3 this document at the bottom of page 1.
4 Q. It says that the weekly plan was approved except for note 3 on
5 page 3, satellite telex with equipment needed for the UNHCR office. Who
6 decided that this equipment could not go through?
7 A. The coordination body decided that. The coordination body of the
8 government of Republika Srpska.
9 Q. This is number 1179-HCR
10 show you another document, 5D905. Here we have a notification from the
11 Main Staff. The date is a bit difficult to decipher, but I believe it's
12 the 18th or the 19th of May. Here in the first paragraph of this
13 document, we read:
14 "We hereby notify you that we have approved request number
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we now turn to page 2,
17 please. The very bottom of the page, we have a note here saying we have
18 not approved the transport of a satellite telex to Srebrenica on the 24th
19 of May with accompanying equipment. This is the next-to-last paragraph.
20 Q. When the Main Staff received documents from the coordinating
21 body, what was the procedure then followed?
22 A. Since Colonel Djurdjic was a member of the Coordination Body for
23 Humanitarian Aid of the government of Republika Srpska, when he received
24 a document of this nature, he was clear that the coordination body had
25 informed UNHCR that the equipment would not be allowed to pass. And
1 according to the regular procedure, he informed his superior officer, in
2 this case either General Mladic or General Milovanovic, who did not have
3 any objections to this type of document. They simply approved it
5 However, this obviously so far as a technical mistake. It says
6 in the remark:
7 "We did not approve the transport of satellite telex with
8 equipment to Srebrenica, even before the coordination body had informed
9 UNHCR about that and told them that this would not be approved."
10 There was no need to put this into the remark to subordinated
11 units. For the subordinated units, it would have sufficed that the order
12 had arrived from the Main Staff and the convoy escort had been provided
13 by a written document from the coordination body disallowing this type of
15 Q. You stated that it was not necessary to send that to subordinated
16 units, but how would subordinated units know what was approved and what
17 was not approved if that particular information was not disclosed to
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment. Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. It seems to me that
21 this is not a sufficiently clear question. What the witness testified to
22 was the remark on the document referring to "we did not approve it," and
23 the question that's being put to him is not in that context. It's in a
24 completely different context.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to comment to that? I think
1 Mr. Vanderpuye is right. But it's up to you, Madam, if you think your
2 question is right you can pursue it, and we'll see then what the witness
3 has to say.
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Would the coordination body send its direction -- its decisions
6 directly to the corps and to the brigades?
7 A. No.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 1405. I
9 believe that this document should not be displayed outside of this
10 courtroom. It's an intercept that has not been translated. We have
11 prepared a draft translation. Whilst the document is being brought up,
12 one question.
13 Q. Do you know who Mr. Kekic is?
14 A. Mr. Kekic was a member of the coordination body.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] 5D1405, please.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. While we're waiting
18 for that one to come up, I just wonder if my colleague could put on the
19 record which collection this particular exhibit comes from so that the
20 record is clear as to what it is.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, are you in a position to do that?
22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we move into private session,
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course. Let's move into private session,
1 [Private session]
8 [Open session]
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Are we back in open session.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone, please.
12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] This is a report dated 8th of June,
13 1995. I would like to have page 2 of this document displayed, please.
14 This is an intercept -- or the conversation starting at 1758 [Realtime
15 transcript read in error, "1959"] mention is made of Lieutenant Kralj, or
16 a Lieutenant Kralj. Later on in that conversation, we see that you first
17 spoke with colonel -- or Major Basevic and then with a colonel whose name
18 has not been recorded properly.
19 During that conversation you say that Kekic was wondering what
20 was going on with the convoy.
21 Q. Can you find that portion of the intercept?
22 A. I see it.
23 Q. A few lines further down, you say he's the main person of the
24 Republika Srpska, the man in charge for Republika Srpska when it comes to
25 humanitarian transfers?
1 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters don't have translation in
3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Did you find this portion of the intercept? It's a few lines
6 A. I've read the document in question.
7 Q. Did Kekic have a specific role when it came to humanitarian aid
8 and its transport?
9 A. He was involved in the work of the government coordination body.
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we turn to page 2 of this
11 document, please -- or page 3, sorry. Page 3 in B/C/S. Third line.
12 Q. You say, "He approves, he does not check or control." Who you
13 are referring to here?
14 A. The coordination body does not inspect the convoys. It approves
15 the convoys. So this does not refer to the coordination body.
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we return page 2, please.
17 The bottom of the page.
18 Q. I believe that you read this portion of the intercept?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I just wanted to clarify for the record, at page
21 56, line 3, the time of the intercept is recorded in the record as "1958"
22 it should be "1758." And I believe the date isn't recorded in the
23 record, I wonder if you might put that on since I don't have it in front
24 of me just now.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
1 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, the Prosecutor is right. The
2 time is 1758 and the date is 8th of June, 1995.
3 Q. I believe that you've already read the portion of the intercept I
4 want to discuss with you now. There is something here about ammunition
5 apparently found in the convoy. Do you remember such cases? I am not
6 talking about this particular case, but I am talking about similar
8 A. There were instances when ammunition that was not reported was
9 being transported. The procedure was that such a convoy could not be
10 allowed to pass to the other side and to urgently inform the Main Staff
11 as well as the humanitarian body, the humanitarian coordination body.
12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D1259.
13 This is a regular combat report from the 1st Podrinje Brigade dated 8th
14 of June, 1995. Could you please turn to item 3 of this document. It
15 relates to a convoy that was bound for Zepa but that is still in Rogatica
16 because it's undergoing a detailed search since ammunition has been found
17 in the convoy.
18 This is a report from the Podrinje Brigade to the Drina Corps.
19 Q. Was the Drina Corps under the obligation to notify the Main Staff
20 of such incidents?
21 A. The regular procedure was to inform of the passage of convoy.
22 The corps would do that. They would inform the Main Staff and if there
23 was an incident, a more detailed report would be required separate from
24 the regular daily report.
25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown 5D856.
1 We talked about UNHCR weekly plans. Here we have an authorisation or,
2 rather, an approval for the weekly plan approved by the coordination
3 body. This is a document dated 12th of May, 1995. Could you please turn
4 or have a look at the destination of these convoys, Bijeljina, Visegrad,
5 Vlasenica, Sokolac.
6 Q. On which territory were these places located? Were they located
7 in Republika Srpska or on the territory of the federation?
8 A. The first convoy, Sremska Raca, Bijeljina, Karakaj, Vlasenica, is
9 the territory of Republika Srpska. The second convoy, Sremska Raca,
10 entrance to Republika Srpska, Bijeljina, Karakaj, Vlasenica, all of these
11 places are in Republika Srpska.
12 Q. These convoys going to Republika Srpska, was their passage to be
13 announced as well in advance?
14 A. It was announced regularly with a public text via fax through our
15 office, by fax through our office.
16 Q. Would the convoys going to Republika Srpska be in a position to
17 pass or to go through without having been authorised?
18 A. Nothing could pass the checkpoint if it was not approved.
19 Q. What about the inspection of convoys bound for Republika Srpska?
20 A. The procedure was the same.
21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will need an
22 additional 20 minutes tomorrow morning, so I was wondering if the time
23 was not the right one to stop for today?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: There is no problem with that. It's almost quarter
25 to 2.00 in any case. So we adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9.00 in the
1 morning, isn't it?
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Anyway, Mr. Kralj, we have to stop here today.
4 We'll continue tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning. We'll make an effort to
5 finish tomorrow, because otherwise you will be staying here Saturday,
6 Sunday, and Monday; Monday being a public holiday for the UN. So we'll
7 try and make an effort, please, tomorrow to finish with this witness.
8 Thank you.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
10 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday, the
11 5th day of December, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.