1 Monday, 19 January 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Borovcanin not present]
5 [The witness entered court]
6 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: So, good morning. Madam Registrar, could you call
8 the case, please.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
10 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam. And good morning, everyone. For
12 the record, all the accused except Borovcanin are present this morning.
13 I take it, Mr. Lazarevic, that your client is unwell today and that
14 waiver is on its way?
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
17 Yes, Your Honour is right. I spoke to Mr. Borovcanin earlier
18 this morning. He informed me that he is not feeling well and he won't be
19 able to attend this session. His waiver is on his way. He already
20 signed it earlier this morning.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. Thank you. Representation, I
22 see that for once all Defence teams -- no, there is Mr. Bourgon missing.
23 There is Mr. Bourgon missing. The rest are present, Prosecution's
24 Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye.
25 Good morning, General, I hope you had a good rest.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, we are going to continue this morning with the
3 Gvero cross-examination and then we see who else and certainly with the
4 Prosecution cross-examination. I estimate that you will be here for sure
5 today and tomorrow with us, possibly, if not probably, also Wednesday.
6 So, Mr. Josse -- or Mr. Krgovic, sorry.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honours, good morning.
8 WITNESS: SLOBODAN KOSOVAC [Resumed]
9 [Witness answered through interpretation]
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic: [Continued]
11 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, General.
12 A. Good morning.
13 Q. Before we adjourned, we spoke about methods used to draft a
14 directive. And let me ask you this: When it comes to the drafting of
15 military documents, whether it's a complete or full method or a shortened
16 method, as far as I can understand your testimony the role of operative
17 organ is the same in both cases, is it not?
18 A. Irrespective of the chosen method of work, the role of all the
19 organs of the command is the same in all the cases, not only of the
20 operative organ. The role of all the organs is the same in all cases.
21 Q. When you passed your conclusions on the methods to be used in
22 drafting the specific directive, you started from the assumption that the
23 relationship in the command and the relationship between the military and
24 political structures were harmonious, that there were no discords or
25 discrepancies in opinion among the members of command. Wouldn't that be
2 A. When I drafted my conclusions on the way the directive was
3 drafted, I was governed primarily by the elements that impact the choice
4 of the method for drafting a directive. These elements concerned the
5 documents that is being drafted, which in this case is a directive, its
6 strategic significance, its general implications for future periods, the
7 available time that the command had at its disposal, i.e., the Main Staff
8 of the Army Republika Srpska, and only later on I also looked at some
9 mutual relationships and some possible ties between the relationships and
10 their impact on the chosen method of work. And since in my expert report
11 I did not mention this, it is my estimate that the relationships that
12 prevailed and that fluctuated from good to bad did not have a significant
13 impact on the choice of the method of work.
14 Q. From the Miletic Defence, did you receive a document pointing to
15 the fact that there were discords between General Milovanovic and the
16 commander of the Main Staff, General Mladic, in the course of 1995?
17 A. I received a number of documents, and primarily I mean that I got
18 all the statements provided by General Milovanovic. I read all of them.
19 I also read his publications, his views of the whole situation. I also
20 had an occasion to see the transcript of his testimony provided here
21 before the Tribunal. This had been translated for me. And I can say
22 that the way I perceived the fluctuations and the relationships did not
23 represent the problem that I was supposed to analyse in my expert report
24 because I had never seen a -- too big a reflection on the process and
25 methods of work. I saw particular aberrations of which I spoke in my
1 testimony last week. I also saw some procedural discrepancies which I
2 don't think had a major impact on the quality of the document.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] May the witness please be shown
5 Q. General, sir, this is a document -- this is a note by the
6 security service, an official note. Look at the second paragraph. I am
7 not interested in the part where it says that: "Only General Gvero was a
8 good man in the General Staff," but the second part "... that
9 General Milovanovic would be kicked out of the Main Staff."
10 Were you privy to such information when drafting your expert
12 A. This information --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Fauveau.
14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can I maybe ask that the witness
15 read the whole sentence to the very end until -- up until the mention of
16 General Mladic?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't have a problem with the
19 witness reading the whole document. This is particularly why I told him
20 that I was interested only in the -- in one part.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. But we are talking of seven lines, so
22 let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, no problem. I've read
24 the whole document.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I had been privy to this
2 document, which I wasn't, my opinion based on this document would have
3 been something that is notorious, that is known. In strong hierarchical
4 environments such as a military, it is generally known that there are
5 several staffing policies or several ways to talk about the staff. One
6 way is used by the subordinates, one way is used by the colleagues, and
7 yet another way is used by the superior officers.
8 One might say that this is a desirable outcome on the part of
9 this major. This is what this major would like to see happen.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
12 Q. General, sir, this is another document issued by the security
13 department. I am interested specifically in the third paragraph starting
14 with the following words:
15 "During the general conversation between our source and
16 Vice-President Koljevic ..."
17 Could you please read the paragraph very carefully. As you've
18 just told us that there is a way that Mr. Koljevic, a member of the
19 superior command, perceives relationships in the Main Staff where there
20 are three streams: Hard-liner warriors with General Milovanovic; those
21 who were willing to compromise, including General Gvero; and the third
22 one that prefers Yugoslavia, including General Mladic.
23 This document says that the relationships in the Supreme Command
24 were not harmonious, at least from this angle. Would you agree with me
25 when I say that?
1 A. I absolutely agree with you. We have already discussed that when
2 we were talking about the commence of orders. We said that there were
3 problems, and this document dates from February 1995. We know that the
4 political, military, and any other environment in the security sector was
5 very volatile, that this was the year that was decisive, and we know that
6 in any such situation there is a power struggle and the Army Republika
7 Srpska was no exception to that.
8 Q. Just one more question about the directive. Did you have an
9 occasion to read the part of the statement talking about the drafting of
10 Directive 7 offered by General Milovanovic and General Skrbic who
11 testified before this Tribunal?
12 A. It is very important to repeat what I already said before this
13 Trial Chamber last week. Before I got hold of some documents, I had
14 already carried out a lot of research into the variations when it comes
15 to the methods of work. And the method of work on the directive was
16 something that General Milovanovic spoke about, and I was very confused
17 when he said that there was an accompanying document signed.
18 However, when all the pieces of the puzzle were revealed to me,
19 and a very important piece of that puzzle in that process is Spreca from
20 January to March and the command over the Spreca operation, and in the
21 meantime, I received very good information about the dynamics of meetings
22 with the president of Republika Srpska, then this confirmed that my
23 conclusions about the methods of work were very probable, unlike any
24 other methods on the methods of work used.
25 Q. Did General Miletic's Defence show you General Djukic's statement
1 about the method used to draft directives in the Main Staff?
2 A. I believe so, but I would like my memory to be jogged on the
4 Q. I don't have intention to show you the document, I just wanted to
5 ask you whether you have had an occasion to see this statement?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. General, I am going to move on to another topic. When testifying
8 before this Tribunal, you spoke about the establishment of the
9 Main Staff, and I am going to ask you about the so-called personal
10 establishment which was shown to you here. In 1992 when this personal
11 establishment was determined, the same forms were used as in the
12 Yugoslav Peoples' Army; is that correct? The same forms were used?
13 A. Yes. Throughout the whole war -- or, rather, throughout the
14 whole analysed period the same forms were used. Not only the same forms
15 but also the same documents that define the organisation of the Army of
16 Republika Srpska.
17 Q. As far as I can understand your testimony before this
18 Trial Chamber, the place in the establishment I -- determines the rank;
19 am I correct when I think that? When you were talking about the columns?
20 A. Yes, yes, I'm with you. Maybe this is a good moment for me to
21 explain the meaning of the term "personal establishment," the meaning of
22 "personal elements," and the meaning of "establishment elements" because
23 this is a source of confusion very often.
24 These terms are used in the professional part of the military and
25 they are very often used in broader military circles, and then sometimes
1 people are not familiar with the professional part and they are confused.
2 The so-called personal establishment -- personnel establishment that was
3 shown here and that I explained on the RF3 form implies part of the book
4 that regulates the organisation and composition of manpower, because
5 every establishment has a personnel part and the material part, and
6 personnel part regulates what that person and that unit is entitled to
7 with respect to materiel. As for the personal elements, those are the
8 element that is every singular person has according to their rank.
9 When the chief of operations and training at the beginning of his
10 duty, General Miletic was colonel. That was his personal element.
11 Establishment elements are the elements that the book envisages for the
12 person with that rank. If the establishment elements are higher, then
13 that person can be promoted in service; and if the establishment elements
14 are the same, then there is no promotion. If the establishment elements
15 are lower, this means that the posting is exceptional, but he will not be
16 downgraded and the ranks will not be lowered.
17 Q. And if you have a look in the case of a particular place or
18 position, and we have a look at the establishment for that position, you
19 can see the rank concerned, the duties that are performed, the position
20 group, tasks -- or, rather, weapons issued, and the transport means used.
21 That's what you have under establishment?
22 A. Yes. What's missing, though, is the abbreviation VES, military
23 specialty, which is what a person has to have in order to perform such
24 duties. This is very important within military structures. It's
25 decisive when it comes to appointing someone to a certain position.
1 Q. And the VES, the position -- or, rather, the position group,
2 well, as far as I have understood your testimony, this determines one's
3 salary; is that correct?
4 A. The position group, as I have said in my testimony -- or, rather,
5 the rank group, influence all these matters. When we spoke about those
6 who were seniors or juniors in the military, well, if you have two
7 officers who have the same rank then the rank grouping defines who is
8 senior, hence, the one who has a higher rank or higher rank grouping.
9 This reflects the work that is performed, the value attributed to the
10 work within that system.
11 Q. You also said, 29978 of the transcript, that you didn't find any
12 defined criteria according to which this rank grouping was done, if I
13 have understood your testimony correctly.
14 A. You have understood my testimony correctly, but I was a little
15 more precise. I said that unfortunately I didn't find any relevant
16 documents such as a document that I often mention on organisational
17 development. I didn't find those criteria, but I performed a detailed
18 analysis of the establishments I came across, and I spoke to various
19 individuals who worked on establishment issues in the army of the
20 Republika Srpska, and I came to the conclusion that criteria were used
21 for defining establishment elements, criterion that were in accordance
22 with those used by the Army of Yugoslavia.
23 Q. To be specific, with regard to rank groupings, if a -- if an
24 officer in accordance with JNA rules receives the grade twice, that he
25 excels, he has a rank grouping that is one level higher regardless of his
1 position and his rank; isn't that correct?
2 A. To be precise, you are right. If an officer has a rank grouping
3 that is identical to the establishment group, and if he then twice gets
4 the grade excels, then he has a rank grouping that is one level higher or
5 one level higher than the establishment group. That's correct.
6 Q. So is it possible for a corps officer to have the same rank
7 grouping as an officer in the Main Staff, for example, group 3?
8 A. If you analyse the criterion in a little more detail, the
9 criteria according to which I identified rank, and these are documents
10 that every army in the world has, these are important documents because
11 they form the basis for structuring protocol and other such matters, in
12 that case you must have noticed that in the Republika Srpska Army, the
13 corps commanders were very high-ranking. Or, rather, I pointed this out
14 because corps commanders and corps officers frequently had higher rank
15 groupings than officers in the Main Staff because their position and
16 their importance was evaluated to be of much importance for the system.
17 So it's not just because of the grade excellent or excels, but
18 the system is such that some corps officers have higher positions that
19 many -- than many officers in the Main Staff of the Republika Srpska
20 Army, and this is the case worldwide not just in the Army of
21 Republika Srpska.
22 Q. So what is the importance of the rank group then if an officer in
23 the corps has group 3 and an officer in the main corps has a rank
24 grouping 3? What is the relationship when it comes to rank?
25 A. Well, this is the answer to what I said with regard to rank and
1 order. First you establish the rank, it's clearly defined, and you can
2 see this from the definition that I have provided. And when you deal
3 with rank -- well, rank groups are important only within that rank. It's
4 just a matter of whether he's the first, second, third, or fourth.
5 Perhaps an officer who has a third rank has a higher rank grouping than
6 someone in the second rank, but he can't be senior to him because he's
7 not of that rank. So it's not said in vain when you say that there is a
8 rank and order within a given rank.
9 Q. When you mentioned criteria that defined rank groupings, General,
10 I had a detailed look at what you called the working map of the personnel
11 development, and I saw rank grouping 3. Within that group, apart from
12 Commander Mladic, all generals -- all those who had the rank of General
13 in the JNA had that rank grouping, those who became members of the Army
14 Republika Srpska.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
16 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Would my colleague please submit
17 the document to the witness.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Krgovic.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's for me to decide
20 on the order of my questions and when I will show the witness documents.
21 I am laying the basis for my question, and I will choose the appropriate
22 time to show the document.
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
24 understand but I am not absolutely certain that Commander Mladic was in
25 fact part of group 3.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: We will need to see the document in any case, so
2 let's bring out this document and put it on the ELMO or on e-court if it
3 is available on e-court.
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. General, do you have a detailed look at this excerpt from the
6 establishment of the Army of Republika Srpska, this working map that
7 contains names, that lists certain names?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown the
10 following document, P3178.
11 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is kindly asked to speak into the
12 microphone or speak a little more loudly.
13 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. General --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, who exactly needs to speak --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel for the Defence is kindly asked to
17 speak a little more loudly. Thank you.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Krgovic, the interpreters are having a little
19 bit of a problem because they think you are not speaking near enough --
20 near your microphone.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. General, have a look at the first page of this establishment
23 document. We have General Mladic's name as commander. He has been
24 assigned rank grouping 2. Could we have a look at the first paragraph.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we enlarge first paragraph,
1 first part of the front page, in fact.
2 Q. You can see that the rank he is assigned is 02.
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's have a look at the following
5 page of the document, please. Could we have a look at the bottom of the
7 Q. And here you can see that in the case of General Milovanovic --
8 well, the General has a rank grouping 3.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And now -- just a minute please.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 05057629 is the ERN number. I
12 apologise, 35, it's 35. You can't see the ERN number very clearly in my
13 copy. 7635. Could you scroll down a bit, please. That's not the page.
14 The following page, please. It's page 11 in the e-court system. Just a
15 little lower down, please.
16 Q. That's the rank grouping of General Gvero, number 3.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, let's have a look at page that
18 deals with the logistics sector. I have a different copy here, 7637.
19 Page 13 in the e-court system. Could you scroll down a bit, please.
20 Scroll down a little more, please.
21 Q. This is General Djukic, and can you see that his rank grouping is
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And now let's have a look at page
24 7658. The ERN number is 7658.
25 Q. The 1st Krajina Corps rank grouping for General Talic is 3.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.
2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Excuse me, I am not absolutely
3 certain where my colleague sees "3," I can read "4" here.
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] It's the column under
5 lieutenant-colonel's VES 3109903. It's below that. It's the third
6 column from the left.
7 Q. General, apart from General Mladic who was a General in the JNA
8 army --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you happy with that now, Ms. Fauveau?
10 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand. It's just that
11 I was slightly confused because there was a position group also that
12 indicates 04, so maybe the witness could tell us a little more about
14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Krgovic and
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. General, apart from General Mladic, as far as I know according to
18 the first-hand information I received, only four other officers had the
19 rank of General in the JNA, and they were Milovanovic, Djukic, Gvero, and
20 Talic. That was in 1992. And they had rank groupings in accordance with
21 this fact. Would you agree with my assessment?
22 A. If I understood the question, and the question was whether I
23 agree that the establishment in the Army of Republika Srpska was done in
24 accordance with the rank that the persons that you just mentioned had in
25 the JNA?
1 Q. And that was the criterion when their rank grouping was
2 determined, i.e., that the establishment was actually drafted to
3 accommodate the persons.
4 A. Unfortunately, I can't agree with you. The establishment that
5 was drafted and that was carried out here, and I had an occasion to talk
6 to the people who were very important professional consultants, and they
7 were consulted when this establishment was done, it is a very
8 hierarchical establishment that provided for subordination, and it was
9 developmental because it provided for the people who were brought to
10 these establishment positions as officers to be promoted in their rank.
11 Judging by the example that we just saw, and we saw two group --
12 four -- five ranking groups, we saw that four officers, Milovanovic,
13 Djukic, Gvero, and Mladic had the same personal establishment elements
14 and personnel elements. And this is not a surprise. These are the
15 highest ranking officers. And we saw that a commander of the 1st Krajina
16 Corps had the personnel establishment 3 -- 4, and the rank grouping 3,
17 which means that he was able to promote and that the elements could be
18 raised after he had spent some time in that position and when his
19 assessment was good.
20 Q. General Talic was standing in for General Mladic that position
21 after all; isn't that correct? The Chief of the Main Staff, that is?
22 A. This is a very important element in the rank and ranking that I
23 spoke about. I did not emphasize this in the organisation and
24 establishment. When I said that standing in is a temporary situation,
25 that it isn't necessarily evil for a short period of time, without much
1 authority and powers, and lasts only until the moment a decision is
2 brought about acting on behalf of somebody. When we were talking about
3 different variants and when we were talking about on who would be
4 representing the commander or the Chief of Staff who are not there, they
5 were preventing for performing their duties, what you just told is an
6 essential issue. If the commander and the Chief of Staff had been
7 prevented in performing their duties, it would probably be the president
8 of the republic who would issue a decision for them to be represented by
9 one of the corps commanders, and it would probably be the commander of
10 the 1st Corps. This is a very essential essence of the difference
11 between representing, standing in for, and acting, and what elements
12 arise from the representing.
13 Q. Just a correction my question. I asked you this, after all
14 General Talic replaced General Mladic in his position, he was his
16 A. There is no succession in the army. After all, at one point he
17 was appointed the commander of the Main Staff of the Army Republika
18 Srpska. That is the fact.
19 Q. General, one more question. The authorities and powers of the
20 officers or military personnel are not determined by the establishment
21 but by the rules on authorities and powers. Wouldn't that be correct?
22 A. The establishment is a very important document that is involved
23 in determining the role and place of somebody in the system, together
24 with many other documents, and this also determines what he, that person,
25 could, should, and had to do.
1 Q. However, the powers and authorities are established by other
2 documents, aren't they?
3 A. Yes. They are established by the law and this order on the
4 authorities of the organisational units. These are the regulations that
5 govern this matter.
6 Q. In this specific case, these are the rules of the JNA such as the
7 rules of the authorities of the land army in peacetime and rules of the
8 authorities on the military district in peacetime. These are the
9 regulations that regulate this matter. Would I not be correct in saying
11 A. The rule on authorities and powers regulated was the governing
12 document until 1993. After that, the rule was replaced by the order.
13 These two documents regulated the authorities and powers for the specific
14 organisational units. The one that you mentioned was the rule of the
15 authorities of officers in the land army, that's one document, and the
16 other one on military districts is different, and they cannot be applied
17 to the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska because we are talking
18 about two different organisational units and all of their elements.
19 Q. So what rules --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, one moment, because I get the feeling
21 from the interpreter's voice that we are going too fast. We are going
22 too fast. She is doing a tremendous job in trying to catch up with both
23 of you, but I don't think we will keep it that way. So slow down,
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well.
1 Q. Which rule would regulate this matter in the Army of Republika
3 A. There should be or there should have been a rule on the
4 authorities of the organisational units of the Main Staff of the Army
5 Republika Srpska or an order on the authorities and powers of the
6 organisational units of the Main Staff of the Army Republika Srpska; or
7 if these two documents did not exist because of the analogy that they
8 used, what must have been used was the order on the authorities of the
9 General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia. One of these documents must
10 have had a direct or indirect impact on looking at the authorities and
11 powers of all the organisational units.
12 Q. However, did you not see these documents or -- and you did not
13 use them in the drafting of your expert report; right?
14 A. The rule and order on authorities and powers of the
15 organisational units of the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia I did
16 use pertaining to that period, and I analysed some things that were done,
17 and I can conclude that either the experience of the officers who were
18 members of the Main Staff of the Army Republika Srpska or the rule in a
19 small number of copies was something that was directly or indirect used.
20 And as for the two documents that you have mentioned and that the
21 Main Staff of the Army Republika Srpska should have had, I did not see
23 Q. And very concretely now, as far as I can understand from your CV,
24 you were not a member of the Army Republika Srpska, and you do not have
25 personal first-hand knowledge on how the hierarchical relationship
1 functioned in the Army Republika Srpska. The officers of the Main Staff
2 and people who were directly involved in the Army of Republika Srpska are
3 better suited to tell us something about that; right?
4 A. It is true that I was never a member of the Army of Republika
5 Srpska. It is also true that I am not contesting the competencies and
6 authorities of any of the officers of the Army of Republika Srpska.
7 However, it is also true that I developed as an expert on the
8 organisation and command and that I had contacts with my colleagues who
9 were involved in that matters in the Army of Republika Srpska. We
10 discussed the matters extensively. I often proposed my own positions
11 with that regard, and as an expert I tried hard to study the matters as
12 best as I could.
13 Q. General --
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
15 Exhibit P410. Could the Court please produce page 7, Article 10.
16 Article 10, please. Page 8 in the English version, please. In the
17 Serbian version, Article 10, page 7, please. I apologise, it is page 10.
18 In my copy it is page 7 so could -- can we see the following page,
19 please, the one ending with ERN numbers 47065.
20 Q. It says in Article 10 that:
21 "The Chief of Staff shall replace the commander when the latter
22 is absent and shall have all rights and duties. If the commander and the
23 Chief of Staff are both absent at the same time, the commander shall be
24 replaced by the officer assigned on the order of the commander."
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
1 Exhibit 6D36 -- 336. Unfortunately, Your Honours, we do not have the
2 translation of this document. I am going to ask the witness to read
3 Article 10 of the document -- or the rules, rather. Although it is the
4 same as Article 10 in the previous rules. 6D336. The last page.
5 Q. Do you have the document in front of you on the screen because I
6 have something else?
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I am talking about Exhibit 6D336.
8 Q. General, do you agree with me that the contents of this article
9 are the same as the contents of the same article in the previous
11 A. Since I can see only Article 10, I would suppose that this
12 document is the Rules on Responsibilities and Powers of a Military
14 Q. Yes.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
16 page 1 of the same document.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No need to do that because I
18 recognise the document anyway.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. General, do you agree that the two documents treat representation
21 of a commander in an identical way?
22 A. I absolutely agree with you in that. However, I believe,
23 Your Honours, that we need some very important explanation here.
24 Q. General, I will come to that. I apologise. I just want to ask
25 you something else, and I will go back to this topic later on. I just
1 wanted to establish that one fact. I wanted to ask you whether the two
2 documents treat the matter in the -- in an identical way. That was my
4 A. The text is identical, however, we are talking about different
5 levels and we will be discussing the two levels later, I believe.
6 Q. On the 13th of January you testified on page 3022 on line 8,
7 and -- I apologise, 30022, 30022 is the page number, and you spoke about
8 command posts. You said then that there is just one command post which
9 consists of several elements, and then you said that one of the elements
10 is the basic command post. The second element is a forward command post,
11 and you also spoke about the system of command posts.
12 You spoke about that based on a rule. What rule is it that
13 determines the elements of a command post?
14 A. I retain the right, Your Honours, to say something about the
15 previous thing in detail because the definition that this is identical is
16 not acceptable. And when I spoke about command posts, I was answering a
17 question, and the question was whether somebody was something this or the
18 other in a command post, and then I said that a command post per se does
19 not mean a thing, that there is a system of command posts and that there
20 are several command posts; the basic command posts, the forward command
21 post, the force command post, a reserve command post, and so on and so
23 In general terms when we are talking about command posts and the
24 system of command posts, we have to consult rules of combat, we have to
25 consult professional literature, military lexicon, military
1 encyclopedias, and in principles these are all guiding documents. They
2 are mostly never conflicting, and I adhere to that fact. And I repeat
3 that if you take the most applicable rule about the work of the commands,
4 I would like to repeat that this is a system of command posts because
5 under chapter Command Posts there is an explanation of all these command
6 posts that may be found.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown P699.
8 Page -- these are instructions for the work and operations staff, page 31
9 in the Serbian and Croatian language, or, rather, in the Serbian
10 language, and page 27 -- or, rather, I apologise. In the English version
11 it's page 31. It's page 31 in both the Serbian and English version --
12 or, rather, in the e-court system it's page 33. I apologise. The page I
13 have in the B/C/S version doesn't correspond to the one in the e-court
15 Q. What confuses me is that you mentioned the elements of command
16 post whereas here the elements explains in a somewhat different manner.
17 Here it says that the main elements are the command group, the auxiliary
18 group, and the communications centre.
19 A. Under 51 you can see exactly what I said. The main command post,
20 not the command post, but the main command posts consists of a command
21 group, an auxiliary group, and a communications centre, and that's what I
22 was saying about the system of command posts. The forward command post
23 is different way -- is organised in a different way, rear command post is
24 organised in a different way, but all together they constitute a system,
25 the purpose of which is to exercise command pursuant to the authority of
1 the organisational unit in question.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
3 the following document, chapter 3 on command posts. The ERN number is
4 239389, and in the English version it's page 27. It's page 27 in the
5 e-court system in the B/C/S version. 29 in the e-court system, I
6 apologise. The ERN number in the English version is 11626.
7 Q. I assume you've seen this document on numerous occasions. What I
8 am interested in is the following, the part that deals with rear command
9 posts or logistics command posts which says that rear command posts can
10 take over the role of main command posts if it's impossible to command
11 from the command post. To control, to exercise command and control from
12 the command post.
13 Do you agree with me that that's what it says in these
15 A. Yes, that's what it says in these instructions.
16 Q. In the course of your testimony before this Court, you said that
17 if the Commander-in-Chief were not at the command post, in that case the
18 most senior officer would be the assistant for morale and religious
19 issues. That's what you said. And you said that that is what arises
20 from the establishment structure; isn't that the case?
21 A. I think that that was the context, but I wasn't that precise. I
22 probably said who was the most senior person at the command post. I
23 probably mentioned the matter of seniority. It's important to point out
24 that if the commander isn't at the command post, he's still in command of
25 the unit. That's something that's very important, in my opinion. But
1 what is very important in this case, in the case of the command post, and
2 you can see this in -- or under item 43 that's on the screen and also
3 under item 44. My explanation was based on everything I have said, but
4 what is important is something that we really must bear in mind.
5 What are the purposes of the instructions? Let me just emphasize
6 one issue. These instructions were drafted when the information organ
7 was in the staff, the intelligence organ was in the staff, and then the
8 command -- the command's work or the staff's work was organised in a
9 certain manner. The Army of Republika Srpska had an intelligence and
10 security sector that had been organised in a particular manner, and with
11 regard to that aspect, these instructions can't be applied literally when
12 analysing the Army of Republika Srpska. You have to analyse them in a
13 creative manner. It's not just enough to have a look at what is written
14 here. Since the Main Staff of the Army Republika Srpska wasn't well
15 manned, wasn't fully manned, the way it was organised and the way it
16 worked was very specific as a result of this lack of personnel.
17 Q. This is something I wanted to ask you about. You expressed your
18 opinion on who the most senior officer was when the commander was not
19 present or when the deputy commander wasn't present, but did you consult
20 any officers from Republika Srpska? Didn't the Miletic Defence provide
21 you with testimony of some officers from the Main Staff who addressed
22 this matter, because, General, the rules are one thing and the situation
23 on the ground, real life, wartime situations, that's another thing; isn't
24 that correct?
25 A. We fully agree on that. However, the question you have put is
1 very problematic. If the commander and the Chief of Staff are not in the
2 staff, well, who replaces the commander? If the commander and Chief of
3 Staff are not at the basic command post, who replaces the commander?
4 Very often you don't have a sign of identity between two solutions.
5 Perhaps I provided certain models as an answer. This was then a very
6 precise solution, a precise model, and then on the basis of that model I
7 said who should replace such a commander, but in practice things can be
8 different. I didn't deal with this matter because I had no way in which
9 to come to such conclusions.
10 Q. Did the Miletic Defence, when proofing you, show you
11 Milomir Savcic's. He's testified before this Court and he in fact
12 addressed the question of how things weren't in practice. General Savcic
13 is an officer -- or was an officer from the Main Staff. He later became
14 the chief of the intelligence department and had a high rank in the Main
15 Staff. Have you had the opportunity of examining his testimony with
16 regard to this matter?
17 A. I think I had the opportunity of reading through his statement.
18 I have been through almost all the testimonies, and on the whole I
19 focused on testimony that specifically related to the issues I was to
20 deal with. If there is anything specific or concrete I would like to see
21 it, and I would be glad to make a professional contribution to the
22 matter, if possible.
23 Q. General, I'll read out General Savcic's testimony. He testified
24 before the Court, page 15322 and it ends at 15323. The Miletic Defence
25 examined General Savcic about the matter we are dealing with -- well, I
1 will tell you what he said:
2 "[In English] Yes, that's the general rule. If a commander or
3 some other senior officer is unable to discharge his duty, then another
4 person will replace him as is provided by the establishment rules."
5 [Interpretation] And then the Miletic Defence continues to
6 examine the witness:
7 "[In English] In principle ..."
8 [Interpretation] This was the answer to the question as to
9 whether it was the general rule. And then General Savcic continues, and
10 I'll read it out in English:
11 "[In English] In principle this can be regulated in two ways.
12 One way is for the commander to decide a senior officer who would replace
13 him while he's absent if we are dealing with a shorter period of time.
14 And then there is an unwritten rule, especially during war, that when the
15 commander is absent, and when his deputy is absent, the assistant
16 commander for logistics serves as the most senior officer. This is done
17 for a very practical reason. When the command post is developed within
18 the combat order, it has at least two elements: It serves as the basic
19 command post where the command group is located headed by the commander,
20 Chief of Staff and the entire staff. And then, in the logistic command
21 post, which is separated, it's detached, they are not next to each other,
22 there is the assistant commander for logistic together with his logistic
23 organ and chief of various organ -- together with his logistic organ and
24 chief of various services -- together with his logistic organ and chiefs
25 of various services.
1 "The security organ and the organ for moral guidance, religious
2 and legal affairs, can be located either -- in either of two command
3 posts since combat operation inevitably incur losses should the command
4 post is destroyed, should the command group be neutralised, this is the
5 mechanism that was developed mainly for the assistant commander for
6 logistic to take over as the most senior officer."
7 [Interpretation] General, are there any reasons for which you
8 would doubt that General Savcic did not tell the truth when he testified
9 about this subject before the Court?
10 A. Well, if I said I had any doubts it would be a catastrophe in
11 terms of military culture if someone had not spoken the truth. So what I
12 have said, well, now is the best time to be more precise. At one point
13 in time I said that I agreed with something that General Savcic said. He
14 mentioned the system of standing in for someone else. He was very
15 precise. He mentioned a method that consists of the following: When a
16 commander designates who will stand in for him, but he is not present and
17 nor is the Chief of Staff. In my work I analysed two methods. The first
18 one is the method that is implemented automatically. If the commander
19 and the Chief of Staff leave, then in certain situations the person that
20 will stand in for the commander is dealt with automatically. This is the
21 most senior person as stated in the Rules of Service, and this was also
22 the case in the rules on the Army of Republika Srpska later on.
23 At this point in time, as I have said, the practice in certain
24 situations that General Savcic has addressed was as follows. The
25 practice was based on all of the rules that were in force. The
1 commander, when absent, could designate someone to stand in for him. He
2 could designate any of his assistants. They were on an absolutely equal
3 footing, and the reason for which he opted for the assistant commander
4 for logistics was quite logical. General Savcic was quite right with
5 regard to this model. I spoke about the automatic process in the case of
6 another model, and we were both compatible with each other, and this is
7 great for this Court and for the profession that we are both involved in.
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will have another
9 half-hour, but if we can take our break now because I am going to move on
10 to another topic, and I would like to structure my questioning for after
11 the break, with your leave.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: By all means, Mr. Krgovic. We will have a
13 25-minute break now. Thank you.
14 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. General, I interrupted you as you were explaining the difference
19 between the corps and the military district. So would you please tell us
20 what it was that you intended to explain.
21 A. Yes, thank you. Basically, these two rules are almost identical
22 as far as these points are concerned, but they actually are different
23 because they treat two different commands of a different level, a
24 different structure, and having different tasks. However, these two
25 articles are almost identically worded because both refer to the rule of
1 standing in and the appointment of a stand-in officer. However, both the
2 documents when they refer to standing-in representation actually do not
3 say that Article 10 is sufficient for such standing in to indeed
4 examination. Both articles are based on the law and it accentuates that
5 this actually -- this appointment, stand-in appointment begins under an
6 order on standing in and starts running as of that -- the issuance of
7 such an order. So this is not an automatic process. Both these rules,
8 however, are of course in compliance with the law. Thank you.
9 Q. On the first day of your testimony you said -- actually, you
10 discussed rank and sequence, and you gave us a diagram, a map, rather,
11 which you drew as a supplement to your expert work in which you sequence
12 these posts or put them in a specific order.
13 On the 12th of January, on page 29991:
14 "[In English] The document concerning the rank ..."
15 [Interpretation] It is page 29991.
16 "[In English] The document concerning the rank and the order of
17 commanding officers in an army is something that almost every army in the
18 world should have."
19 [Interpretation] And as far as I could gather, as far as I could
20 understand this diagram or whatever we shall call it, this sequence that
21 you gave, this is not contained in any rule or any document but it was
22 you, yourself, who made it on the basis of your perception of the
23 establishment structure; right?
24 A. It does not exist as a model, rank and order, not as a model
25 defined under any specific rule. However, the rules of service and the
1 laws which deal with the levels of subordination and superiority, of
2 seniority and junior positions, those which refer to subordination and to
3 hierarchy as well as protocols which are of the essence for the unfolding
4 of specific activities of almost -- require of almost all commands to
5 have this document in one way or another. I use that methodology in
6 order to send a message regarding appointment, substitution, standing in,
7 et cetera, in order to show this perception of a military organisation
8 and military hierarchy so that this document was produced -- or, rather,
9 this drawing number 14, figure number 14 in my expert work, in my expert
10 report, was made inter alia on the basis of the establishment structure,
11 the establishment structure of subordinated units. And as there is no
12 document found which is called the Organisational Development so as to
13 explain what this looks like an importance source for this are directives
14 from which the order of the units was extracted as given in those
16 Q. When you were drawing this other figure where you were marking
17 the order of the different organs, you started with the staff and the
18 Chief of Staff, you marked General Jovanovic [as interpreted] with a
19 number 1. If we are talking about the level of the Army of Republika
20 Srpska -- excuse me, it is Milovanovic. It is misspelled in the
22 So Milovanovic is marked by you with number 1 as, actually, the
23 commander is the one who should be marked by number 1. What do you have
24 to say to that? I can show it to you.
25 A. No problem. I have understood your question perfectly. I know
1 what you are talking about. Here I was shown the organisational chart of
2 the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska, although I had had
3 occasion to see it in the expert report of the expert Mr. Butler, and to
4 which I raised a number of objections and I stated my argumentation
5 substantiating my objections. The order or the sequence in this chart
6 which I showed does not refer to persons, not to Milovanovic. It is the
7 order of organisational units of the Main Staff of the Army of Republika
8 Srpska, the first organisational level, and that is the order which is
9 extracted from the establishment structure book. And the establishment
10 book has to be made in keeping with the organisational development or
11 structure of the Army of Republika Srpska. So this is the order given at
12 that level. It is not at that level that we have the commander, and the
13 end of that process is the planning of development and finance.
14 Q. And further in your work you explained the levels of command. I
15 have to admit that bearing in mind what you stated before in terms of the
16 unity of command where the right of command is exclusively in the
17 competence of the commander and the part where you refer to strategic and
18 operational levels of command, I must admit that that level of command in
19 the Main Staff is something that I don't exactly understand. These can
20 be levels of hierarchy or of subordination, but the right of command is
21 vested in the commander solely; right?
22 A. That is correct. The right of commanding with the Army of
23 Republika Srpska is the right of the commander, but the entire structure,
24 the entire -- an entire cluster of other participants also are vested
25 with the right of command within their respective spheres of competence.
1 When we are talking about the strategic, operational, and tactical levels
2 of command, I was referring to the Army of Republika Srpska, and there
3 are no dilemmas whatsoever and there we completely agree.
4 When we talk about the Main Staff and in the Main Staff it's --
5 and in the Main Staff itself, as a sub-system of this large system, you
6 have different levels of command. You have the first level of command
7 where we have organisational units of sector rank, and they are ordered
8 in one colour and the one order of magnitude.
9 Then you have the second level where we have organisational units
10 of administration levels, and the certain departments they have a
11 different colour. Then there is the third level of command with
12 organisational units where the organisational units are of the rank of
13 sections, mainly. So I was very precise when I said what levels of
14 command I was referring to. The first -- the one level was in the
15 command level, Main Staff level, and the others in the other two which
16 I -- three which I described.
17 Q. So this is a work of authorship by you. This is not something
18 which is envisaged in any rules of command ordered or described, laid out
19 the way you did it? At least I haven't found it.
20 A. No, no, this is not a work of authorship or sensibility or
21 perception on the part of the author himself as such. This is a
22 methodolgy which deals with organisation. In each organisation a
23 structure can be ordered by levels on the basis of certain specific
24 rules; hence, this methodolgy which is shown here has been processed in
25 both specialised papers, in rules, and in books, and in some specialised
1 papers the authors have actually cited a number of experts who have used
2 these papers and these levels as I have put them.
3 Q. In addition to these documents, in regard of establishment,
4 another order has been shown or a sequence, arrangement of organs in the
5 Main Staff, how they were ordered according to rank and order.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] So can Exhibit 6D333 please be
7 uploaded and shown to the witness.
8 Q. General, we have this document only in the Serbian language, but
9 I am not interested in its content. Please look at this number, the
10 reference number which is 01.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the last page of this
12 document, please.
13 Q. 01. That is General Ratko Mladic's number as the commander of
14 the Main Staff. His number was 1, 01. Although he could sign documents
15 also produced by other organs so that you will see his signature in other
16 documents also.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see Exhibit 5D975,
19 Q. Please look at the reference number on top, which is 02.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And can we see the last page,
22 Q. You see it is General Manojlo Milovanovic. We will see his
23 signature on other documents as well, but these are documents from the
24 Chief of Staff.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see Exhibit 5D1016,
1 please. Can we go to the right-hand side, please.
2 Q. I think it is already indisputable that number 03, which we see
3 in the reference number, is the number of the operations organ --
4 operations and training.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see Exhibit 5 -- P,
6 sorry, P2516. P2516.
7 Q. This is 07. That is the reference number of the sector for
8 morale, religious and legal affairs.
9 General, is it not possible that the rank and the order of the
10 organs in the Main Staff was somewhat different than what is given in
11 your own schedule? Is it not that Mladic is number 1 in the Main Staff
12 of the VRS, Milovanovic 02, and General Miletic 03, namely third in rank
13 or literally the third man in the Army of the Republika Srpska?
14 A. Not only is this not possible but this is a general confusion of
15 the issue. The reference number in the reference book in the registry
16 book does not define by any document whatsoever what 01, 02, or 03 refers
17 to. This is most often defined by the office administrator, by the chief
18 of the office either according to his own design and assignment of
19 numbers or according to the receipt of documents. Mainly, and as a rule,
20 the chiefs do not interfere with that office and with the assignment of
21 reference numbers as such.
22 Their reference numbers often refer to the frequency of the
23 incoming and outgoing documents. From the aspect of organisation and the
24 organising of that process, the reference number has nothing whatsoever
25 to do in terms of cause or effect with rank and order. The reference
1 number's sole purpose is to -- for you to be able to locate a document in
2 that book. It is an arbitrary number. It is assigned by the acting
3 chief who actually is not in charge or versed in the organisation of the
4 system. He's only versed with his only organisation of that office.
5 Q. So 01, 02, 03, does that refer to the organisational units in the
6 Main Staff?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Because this reference number follows.
9 A. I repeat. The reference number is an arbitrarily assigned number
10 assigned to a unit under which it will be able to identify its document.
11 Responsible for the assignment of the reference number is the head of the
12 office. The criterion applied by the head of the office is something
13 that only he may be able aware of. It can refer to the frequency of
14 correspondence. It can be based on anything else.
15 The rank and order are kept in the sector for organisational,
16 communicational, and personnel affairs. These are documents which define
17 rank and order from strictly confidential to state secret, and documents
18 as such are not actually passed to the office for them to define what
19 number to assign it because this is office work and that is quite
20 something else.
21 Q. General, in determining rank and order did you have an occasion
22 to talk to the officer of the Republika Srpska, did you talk to Colonel
23 Dragoljub Keserovic [as interpreted] as well? He was an officer in the
24 Main Staff, an officer in charge of security there.
25 A. I didn't talk to Keserovic, but I did talk to the competent
1 Colonel, Colonel Kovacevic.
2 Q. Did the Miletic Defence show you the testimony provided by a
3 Colonel Keserovic in the Blagojevic case? He spoke precisely on the same
4 topic on which you provided your expert opinion.
5 A. No, they didn't show me that.
6 Q. I am going to read one part of the transcript, and then I will
7 ask for your comment on that part. This is on page 1071 on 10 June,
8 2004. My learned friend Mr. McCloskey questioned Colonel Blagojevic [as
9 interpreted], and he asked him the following -- Colonel Keserovic. And
10 the page number 10701.
11 My learned colleague McCloskey asked Colonel Keserovic as
13 "[In English] [Previous translation continues] ... 17th, 18th,
14 who was basically in charge over there when Mladic wasn't around?"
15 [Interpretation] The answer is this:
16 "[In English] I really don't know who was the most senior ranking
17 officer as the operation officer. He would be the number three man on
18 the staff."
19 [Interpretation] And now I have to read once again since --
20 "Q. [In English] 16, 17, 8 -- 18th, who was basically in charge
21 over there when Mladic wasn't around?
22 "A. I really don't know. Miletic -- Miletic was the most senior
23 ranking" --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Two things. I want to know if
25 interpretation in B/C/S is being received. That's number one. And
1 secondly the transcript stopped -- but it's not on mine. Yes, yes, okay.
2 It seems to be okay on one monitor but not on the -- not on the other
4 We are not receiving transcript, in other words, on the LiveNote.
5 Well, that would be my preference but I have to see whether
6 everyone is in agreement.
7 Position is as follows: The transcript is rolling on the
8 monitor, on the monitor, but it's not on the LiveNote. Options are we
9 stop until we fix this or if there is agreement we can proceed and then
10 the missing ...
11 As far as I am concerned we could proceed, but I want to make
12 sure everyone else agrees. And on previous occasions we have had
13 requests from some Defence teams insisting that they needed the LiveNote
14 to be functioning, too, before we could proceed. So that's what I want
15 to make sure of.
16 All right. I see no objections. Basically, then, let's proceed.
17 I just want to make sure that whatever you have read in English has been
18 translated into B/C/S. Okay --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it has been.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: -- then let's proceed, and in the meantime we try to
21 fix this technical hitch.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I am going to repeat the answer:
23 "[In English] I really don't know. Miletic was the most
24 senior-ranking officer as the operations officer -- as the operations
25 officer. He would be the number three man on the staff."
1 [Interpretation] And further on, page 10707, it says --
2 Judge Argibay asks Colonel Keserovic about the same topic the following.
4 The question was as follows:
5 "[In English] You told us that General Tolimir was the number 4
6 in the Main Staff, that General Miletic was number 3, and we all know
7 that General Mladic was number 1. But I am not sure from the transcript
8 this morning, or yesterday, when you were talking about General
9 Milovanovic, was he number 2 in the Main Staff?
10 [Interpretation] And the answer:
11 "[In English] Your Honour, General Milovanovic was the number 2.
12 Milovanovic, but General Tolimir was not number 4."
13 [Interpretation] And further on, a bit later, Judge Argibay asks:
14 "[In English] Could you give me more or less the order, then.
15 More or less."
16 [Interpretation] The answer:
17 "[In English] For the first three, what you said is quite right.
18 Mladic, Milovanovic, and then Miletic. And then the assistants,
19 according to their departments, come in the following: Tolimir, Gvero,
20 Djukic, Tomic. I think those were the sectors represented at the time."
21 [Interpretation] And then I will take you back to the previous
22 answer which concerns Tolimir.
23 "[In English][Previous translation continues] ... Tolimir was
24 probably number 4 -- was number 4."
25 "I really don't remember saying that. I think I didn't give a
1 number. He is one of the assistant commanders of the Main Staff, and
2 there were five or six then at the same level -- on the same level in the
4 General, do you have any reason to doubt Colonel Keserovic's
5 words? Do you think that he was not telling the truth when he was
6 talking about his specific knowledge as an officer of the Main Staff and
7 he was talking about the rank and order of the Main Staff?
8 A. What I am interested in is what duties did Colonel Keserovic
10 Q. He was the security officer in the Main Staff, later on in the
11 General Staff and a full-time professor at the security academy.
12 A. Thank you.
13 Q. I am talking about factual things here, not about --
14 A. It arises from everything I've been interpreted from the
15 transcript, and from my point of view it -- being an expert for
16 organisation, and based on that I enjoy my status and rank,
17 Colonel Keserovic should have put a full stop after the first sentence,
18 which was "I don't know ..." Everything he said after that just
19 confirmed his first sentence, "I don't know."
20 I would really love to see anybody in the world show me a single
21 military where an officer, a colonel or a major-general comes before a
22 commander [as interpreted] with a lieutenant-general or similar rank.
23 The fact that in accordance with what you read out to me, he forgot very
24 important assistant commander, the assistant for organisation,
25 mobilization, and personnel matters, and that he was talking about
1 military and forgot corps commanders, that he did not give you the basis
2 for his ranking and order, then I can only assume that he believes that
3 the Army of Republika Srpska was an -- anarchic, lacked organisation, and
4 that there was a grab for ranks and other things.
5 Based on all the documents that I studied, there was no anarchy,
6 there was no grab for ranks, and the order was well known. This is based
7 on nothing, and especially not on the principles of organisation,
8 hierarchy, and subordination.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Fauveau.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. General, sir?
12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just a quick
13 correction of the transcript at line 13 on page 39. It should be before
14 the assistant commander, "assistant commander" is missing.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So it would read:
16 "I would really love to see anybody in the world show me a single
17 military where an officer, Colonel or Major-General comes before the
18 assistant commander," is that correct, "with a lieutenant-general of
19 similar rank." Is this what you mean?
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It is indeed, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Let's continue.
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. In your testimony on page 29984, to General Miletic's Defence
24 question you said that such a possibility does exist, but within your
25 view it is not likely. If you wish me I can read back to what you said.
1 You said that it was a likely possibility.
2 A. Yes. Could you please read it back to me. I never had such a
3 view of the Army of Republika Srpska, especially after having studied so
4 many documents.
5 Q. This is your testimony on 12th January, 2009, page number 29984,
6 line 6. And the question is this:
7 "[In English] Could General Miletic have been the senior officer
8 in the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska in a given
10 "There is a possibility and there is a model that he could have
11 been seen as the most senior officer in the Main Staff of the Army of
12 Republika Srpska."
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the -- my learned colleague
15 read the answer to the very end, please.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] My learned friend can do it in her
17 additional examination.
18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I couldn't indeed because that
19 would completely alter the meaning of the answer.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Is the rest of the paragraph relevant to what was
23 asked to the witness in the first place or not? I think you need to
24 explain this first.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I told the witness that he
1 confirmed the whole thing, but he said that it was not very likely.
2 That's why I did not want to read the rest of this answer because in my
3 question I already addressed the possibility.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. But let's take it in a logical
5 sequence. If you look at page 40, line 14, when you were putting the
6 question to the witness you asked him as follows: "In your testimony on
7 page 28894 to General Miletic's Defence question, you said that, 'Such a
8 possibility does exist, but within your view it is not likely.' If you
9 wish me I can read what you -- read to what you said."
10 "'You said that it was a likely possibility?'"
11 And then the witness told you:
12 "Yes, please read it out to me. I never had such a view of the
13 Army of Republika Srpska, especially after having studied so many
15 And then you started reading. The second paragraph, which we
16 have here, says:
17 "There is a possibility and there is a model that he could have
18 seen as the most senior officer in the Main Staff of the Army of
19 Republika Srpska."
20 To me it is obvious that this is not complete. In other words,
21 he must have followed up with something to explain his position so that
22 we can understand what he said then and now better. So I suggest that
23 you read out the next part that there is, provided it is relevant to what
24 we have here.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. So your answer:
2 "[In English] There is a possibility and there is a model that he
3 could have been seen as the most senior officer in the Main Staff of the
4 Army of Republika Srpska, General Miletic or the Head of Administration
5 for Teaching and Operation, but this would be, as it were, a headless
6 model or a pointless model."
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. And your question?
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Was it possible that General Miletic was the most senior officer
10 as General Keserovic said in his testimony before this Court? Colonel
11 Keserovic was in the Main Staff. You weren't.
12 A. I did not receive a mandate from this Court to be an expert with
13 regard to whether I was in the Main Staff or not. My assignment as an
14 expert was to address certain issues on the basis of documents. And on
15 the basis of my experience and my education and on the basis of the
16 duties that I performed. This was the task that I had to perform.
17 So I have stated and I have provided all the arguments that
18 nothing said apart from the first sentence is correct, as far as
19 organisation is concerned, that refers to Colonel Keserovic's statement.
20 He certainly is a great security officer, but as far as organisational
21 matters are concerned, I categorically claimed he doesn't know anything
22 about them.
23 What I said on the first day is something that I stand by today,
24 too. That would have meant that the RS army didn't have a commander,
25 didn't have a single assistant commander, didn't have a single corps
1 commander, a single Chief of Staff in the corps, and then
2 General Miletic, given his rank and educational level, would have been
3 the first man. But in such an organisational structure -- well, an army
4 without such a system is senseless. It's not just a matter of saying
5 that it would act in a senseless manner.
6 Q. Do you have any reason to doubt that Colonel Keserovic committed
7 perjury when testifying here. He was expressing his own impression. He
8 expressed his opinion. He wasn't testifying in his capacity as an
9 expert. That's what he thought about the way the Main Staff of the
10 Republika Srpska Army functioned.
11 A. I think I was very precise. At no time did it occur to me to say
12 that a witness to whom I had no spoken was lying or not lying, but I was
13 very precise when I said that what he explained was something he didn't
14 know anything about. And he himself said he didn't know that.
15 Q. General, do you know that Mr. Keserovic was on the list of
16 witnesses for the Miletic Defence and he was supposed to testify
17 immediately after you, and then he was suddenly withdrawn so as to not
18 testify in this case. Are you familiar with that fact?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, before you answer, Madam Fauveau.
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what my learned
21 colleague is saying is not exactly right. I think we all know why
22 Mr. Koserovic could not come and give his testimony, quite simply because
23 he did not get his visa, and my learned colleague could always call him
24 as a witness.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: In any case, what's the relevance of the question,
1 Mr. Krgovic? Let's move to your next question.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions,
3 Your Honour.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
5 Mr. Haynes, do you still require about 20 minutes?
6 MR. HAYNES: Yes, I should think so.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
8 MR. HAYNES: I would be obliged if Mr. Krgovic could just hand me
9 the lectern.
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes:
11 Q. Well, good morning, General Kosovac.
12 A. Good day.
13 Q. I represent Vinko Pandurevic who, in July of 1995, was the
14 commander of the Zvornik Brigade. Were you aware of that fact?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And just a couple of preliminary questions to get us down from
17 Main Staff levels of command. He was at that time a lieutenant-colonel.
18 Can you confirm that that is an inferior rank to a colonel?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And just to follow the logic down of figure 14 to your report,
21 if, as you opined, the operations officer at the Main Staff level was at
22 rank level 6, it would follow, wouldn't it, that a brigade commander was
23 at rank level 10?
24 A. That kind of rank and order is not drawn up for the whole army
25 because there is no relation of cause and effect. With the rank of
1 operations officer, well, he would be at the first or second
2 organisational level.
3 Q. Well, we will move on. I am not going to waste time going
4 through, as it were, how we go down from the bottom of your existing
6 I take it you would agree with me that in relation to the
7 Yugoslav National Army, a vast number of documents were produced to
8 regulate the way in which it operated?
9 A. Yes. Since the -- a lot of documents that refer to organisation
10 defined how things were to be organised, some of those documents were
11 adopted by the Army of Yugoslavia. They weren't redrafted. I'm talking
12 about these specific documents that pertain to organisation.
13 Part of the documents were supplemented, and the Army of
14 Republika Srpska took over most of the documents that the Army of
15 Yugoslavia was already using, at the least the documents that had to do
16 with the subject of organisation.
17 Q. Thank you. And those documents had varying degrees of legal
18 status. Some of the them, for example, had the force of law. Some of
19 them were regulatory. Some of them were merely for guidance. Would you
20 agree with that?
21 A. Absolutely. I agree with that absolutely.
22 Q. Thank you very much. I would like us to look now at one such
23 document, and I know straight away it's not a document that you look at
24 in preparation of your report, but I hope that doesn't disadvantage you.
25 MR. HAYNES: It's firstly P408. And it would be helpful if we
1 could have in e-court page 1 in B/C/S for the witness and the Serb
2 speakers and page 2 in English.
3 Q. General Kosovac, is that big enough for you to read on the
5 A. Absolutely.
6 Q. Thank you. I just want to focus your attention on the very top
7 of the document. You can read it in your own language, but it is headed
8 "Federal Secretariat for National Defence, JNA General Staff, Infantry
10 Are you familiar with that body, the Infantry Administration of
11 the Federal Secretariat for National Defence?
12 A. Yes. The Infantry of the Main Staff of the Yugoslav Peoples'
13 Army, I am familiar with that.
14 Q. And just in a sentence or two, what was it?
15 A. In the General Staff of the JNA, the administrations for services
16 and departments were organised in different ways and these
17 administrations for services and departments are either grouped as
18 sectors or they were independent, but their main task was to develop
19 their services and arms and this included the field of drafting rules for
20 the units of specific services and combat arms.
21 For a while I was a junior officer in the airforce and
22 anti-aircraft defence sector and I was responsible for dealing with
23 anti-aircraft defence, so I was very familiar with this area.
24 Q. Thank you. Can we go down now a little bit on the front page.
25 We see that this document is dated the 20th of July, 1984, and then the
1 authority of the document is set out. It says:
2 "Pursuant to item 34c of the instructions on the preparation and
3 use of professional military literature, I hereby proscribe the
4 following ..."
5 In terms of legal force, what legal force does an instruction
7 A. These rules and instructions were guiding. They are not binding.
8 They are guide-lines and they serve as a basis so the individuals can
9 attain the objectives assigned to them in the best possible way.
10 Q. Thank you. That is very helpful. Now, I want to move on please
11 to another version of the same document which is more fully translated.
12 MR. HAYNES: I'd like to look, please, at P694. In the English
13 we will need to see page 3, and in the B/C/S for the witness we will have
14 to look at pages 12 and 13, I'm afraid.
15 Q. Now, General Kosovac, as I've said, I know you didn't study this
16 document in preparation of your report because you weren't talking about
17 brigades in your report. So please take your time to read that page and
18 then the next page of the document in your language and let us know when
19 you have finished.
20 A. We can go on to the following page.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 A. I've read it.
23 Q. Thanks very much. What we looked at previously was, as it were,
24 the legal basis of the brigade rules of 1984. This introduction sets out
25 the basis for their creation and their purpose. Would you agree with
2 A. Certainly.
3 Q. And we can see in the first couple of paragraphs, it says they
4 are based on the concept of the All People's Defence; the strategy of
5 arms struggle; the NOR
6 units, commands and staff, so on and so forth.
7 And then in the second paragraph it says:
8 "Considering differences in terms of organisation and
9 establishment structure and the purpose and possibility of various types
10 of brigade in the infantry, it is necessary to apply the provisions of
11 these rules creatively and according to the concrete conditions for the
12 preparation, organisation, and conduct of combat operations and the
13 actual combat capability of each individual brigade."
14 And then going, you can't see this because I think it's on your
15 next page, but going down one, two, three, four -- five paragraphs, it
17 "The aim of the rules is to ensure that each separate brigade
18 according to its purpose and capabilities adopt and apply unified views,
19 attitudes, and tactical moves in the preparation, organisation, and
20 execution of combat operations in All People's Defence war. It is a duty
21 of all senior staff and commands to study the provisions of these rules
22 in detail and to test and evaluate them during training for all types of
23 brigades and for the conditions for which they operate. The rules are
24 intended for the training of commands, staffs, units, institutions, army
25 cadets, and students at the military schools, as well as the reserve
1 senior staff."
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could Counsel please slow down.
3 MR. HAYNES: I am very sorry.
4 Q. Put in simple terms, this document created pursuant to an
5 instruction is a training manual, isn't it?
6 A. No. It has a slightly broader purpose than just a training
7 manual. As I said initially, it has a broader purpose somewhat because
8 training involves a number of processes. First you have the actual
9 schooling process, then you have training which involves daily work and
10 education, then you have training in terms of applying experiences, as
11 also referred to by these rules. These are rules which are intended for
12 training, but they are also intended to ensure the adherence of certain
13 principles and a creative endeavour in keeping with particular situations
14 and needs. In that sense it is more broad than just training.
15 Q. Would "guidance" be a better word?
16 A. Yes, much better.
17 Q. Thank you. I want to move on now to another document.
18 MR. HAYNES: And it's 7D717. And I want to start, please --
19 well, I just want to look at B/C/S at page 6, and English, page 2. It
20 might actually be helpful if in the B/C/S before we show the witness page
21 6, we show him the first page so he can see what the rules are, which
22 ironically is page -- yes, we've got it there. Thank you.
23 Q. General Kosovac, you were able to see what this set of rules were
24 by looking at the front page, were you?
25 A. Yes, I was.
1 Q. And I want you now to look at clause 17 which is in precisely
2 similar terms to another provision you looked at earlier this morning
3 which you were being asked questions by Mr. Krgovic. But Article 17
5 "In the absence of the commander, the Chief of Staff or the
6 deputy commander stand in for him with all the commander's rights and
8 Can you see that?
9 A. Yes, I can see Article 17.
10 Q. And can you confirm that the word used in Serbian for "standing
11 in for" is "zastupa" [phoen] rather than anything else?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And is that your understanding of the legal position of the Chief
14 of Staff within a brigade of the Yugoslav National Army?
15 A. It is. In terms of its character, these rules are a binding
16 documents in contrast with the previous rules which had a quite different
17 purpose. However, these rules are also binding upon the commander as
18 well as upon the Chief of Staff.
19 What does Article 17 say? Article 17 has divested the commander
20 of the right to appoint anyone else from his -- from among his
21 subordinates to stand in for him, but it stipulates that it is
22 exclusively the Chief of Staff that can stand in for him. However, it is
23 generally known that standing in here is also an obligation which also
24 needs to be regulated by an order to that effect. Without such an order
25 there can be no standing in and there can be no rights or obligations
1 stemming from such a position, a standing-in position, according to these
3 Q. And can that be a permanent order?
4 A. No. Both the Law on the Army and the Law on the Army of
5 Republika Srpska were very precise to the effect that standing in is
6 limited in terms of duration. According to the law that substitution,
7 that standing in can last for a maximum of six months.
8 Q. You've pre-empted my last question on this topic, which is to
9 look at page 3 of that document which is not translated. So you will
10 have to help us, General. Above the title of the rules you can see the
11 authority, and as you've already told us, this is a document which has
12 the authority of law; is that right?
13 A. It is a binding document.
14 Q. Now, I want to move away from the Rules of the Army of Yugoslavia
15 and turn to the Army of Republika Srpska. And I'd like you, please, to
16 consider P26.
17 To be quite frank, General, I can't recall whether you did
18 consider this document in preparation of your report. Have you seen it
20 A. I don't think so. No, no, I haven't.
21 Q. Well, would you take a few moments just to read it through.
22 A. Now having seen the content, I think -- no, I know that I have
23 seen this document before but I have not cited it in my expert report.
24 Q. I thought you probably had. This is effectively the document
25 that creates the structure of the Army of Republika Srpska; isn't it?
1 A. This is a document which requires of commanders their proposals
2 for creating the structure of the Army of Republika Srpska. So these
3 are -- this is eliciting proposals for the creation of the structure of
4 the Republika Srpska Army, and some parameters are given to the effect
5 that the proponents giving such proposals must explain their proposals
6 for the structure of the Army of Republika Srpska.
7 Q. And by the parameters do you mean the section in the document
8 that says that:
9 "The Army of Republika Srpska should be an army consisting of
10 quick, mobile and efficient units based on current establishment
11 formations, existing combat hardware, weapons, and other military
12 equipment, light infantry brigades are to be the preferred options ..."
13 And then:
14 "Existing divisions shall be abandoned as organisational units."
15 Are those the parameters that you have in mind?
16 A. Yes, yes absolutely. These are parameters which are of the
17 essence for making proposal -- for proposing a structure of the army. As
18 well as this where it says that the army has to be capable of -- of
19 offensive defence and the use of other hardware. This is the different
20 modules, capability, and things like that.
21 Q. Thank you. And do you agree that those parameters made the Army
22 of Republika Srpska, in structural terms, a rather different animal to
23 the Yugoslav National Army?
24 A. I absolutely agree because one substantial parameter is
25 organisation, which is why specific organs are set up to deal with
1 organisation, in order to avoid stereotype and in order to make the
2 optimum organisational structure in keeping with the objectives, the
3 available personnel, and the available hardware, in order to make an
4 observation which will develop very quickly if you obtain different
5 hardware and other means of combat, as well as different personnel.
6 Q. Thank you. We are moving on very quickly.
7 MR. HAYNES: Can we now have P417 in e-court.
8 Q. And again, General Kosovac, I am just going to show you the first
9 page of this document to see whether it is familiar to you, that you've
10 read it either in preparation of your report or in preparation for your
11 evidence or at any other time. Do you recognise this document?
12 A. Yes. I cited some of his elements in my report.
13 Q. Good. And just to explain why I'm having to do this, you and I
14 haven't had the opportunity of discussing what evidence you are going to
15 give today, have we?
16 A. You and me?
17 Q. Yes, you and me.
18 A. No, no, we haven't.
19 MR. HAYNES: And can we now please go to page 10 of that document
20 in B/C/S and in English, please. And I'm concerned with Articles 16 and
22 Q. And if you don't mind, I am going to deal with them in reverse
23 order. We will start with Article 17, if we may.
24 Firstly, a general question about these provisional service
25 regulations for the Army of Republika Srpska. They were written about
1 three months after the document we've just been looking at, the
2 invitation for proposals as to the structure of the army. You agree with
4 A. Yes. And the service regulations also have a different purpose,
5 the interim one. These provisional service rules on the Army of
6 Republika Srpska define precisely the competencies and the relationships
7 between the unit commands and the senior officers, the commanding
8 officers, and this -- actually this chapter is called and deals with
9 relations in the army.
10 Q. Thank you. And you are familiar with the whole document, I don't
11 want to take you through it, but they do not, do they, expressly
12 incorporate any rules from the Yugoslav National Army?
13 A. They are self-sufficient, as it were, but it is obvious that it
14 was created on the basis of the Rules of Service.
15 Q. Now, if we go to Article 17, that creates an obligation to carry
16 out the orders of a superior officer. That's correct, isn't it?
17 A. Article 17, yes, it speaks about the superior commander or the
18 superior commanding officer.
19 Q. And --
20 A. The most senior one and the superior one.
21 Q. You've again answered my next question. It's in two parts. It
22 defines to an extent who the superior officer is if the obvious superior
23 is not present. It's the most senior officer present; isn't it?
24 A. I am afraid I did not quite understand your question. Would you
25 be so kind as to repeat it.
1 Q. Yes. I was just looking at the second paragraph of Article 17
2 which reads:
3 "Members of the army shall carry out the orders of the most
4 senior officer present when the superior officer is absent."
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, I want to go back to Article 16, but first I want to see if
7 you agree with this general proposition. A commanding officer is not
8 necessarily a commander, is he?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Does that mean that you agree with what I'm saying?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And that is particularly the case when we consider the giving of
13 orders in relation to a joint task, would you agree with that?
14 A. Again, I'm afraid I did not understand your question, sir.
15 Q. Well, that is my fault. Let's consider a joint task which is
16 specifically legislated for in Article 16. We have a classic example of
17 a joint task in this case. Operation Krivaja 95 was a joint task, wasn't
19 A. I was precise. Operation Krivaja 95 does not exist. There were
20 active combat actions which were conducted under covert name or secret
21 name Krivaja 95. An operation -- if you want to call this an operation,
22 that would mean that you are trying to put documents somewhere in
23 something that actually never took place.
24 Q. Very well. Let's try and take another example. A joint task
25 could be ordered which involved a unit from one brigade, a unit from a
1 second brigade, a unit from the corps, and a unit from the Main Staff.
2 That would be a joint task, wouldn't it, where units from four other
3 units combine together to perform a task?
4 A. I understand your question, and the question and answer to it has
5 two tiers. It is good that you took an order which regulates active
6 combat and the example you provided is also good. If a command unites
7 the activities of several units, then that command is also in command of
8 those units and the person that that command appoints, which we
9 illustrated several times last week. This Article 16 or bullet point 16
10 is something that happens in a different situation.
11 If for any reason a connection is interrupted with a command,
12 then these units that you listed will still be one whole and they will
13 act as one whole, and the senior officer assumes the role of the superior
14 commander and regulates all the activities for as long as they last.
15 Q. I think you have answered my question. The senior officer would
16 be in command of all those disparate units that were combined together
17 performing the same task, wouldn't he?
18 A. Yes. If they are on a joint task.
19 Q. And the commanders of all the units from which those units
20 originally came would not be in command of them. That's correct, isn't
22 A. The officer who would be in command of the task would be also in
23 command of that whole consisting of three or four units, and every
24 commander or senior officer leading their respective units would be
25 carrying out orders. A system of hierarchy would soon be established in
1 such a situation.
2 Q. Well, I am now confident that you have answered my question, and
3 I'm content with that answer. There is just one last matter I want to
4 ask you about, and it involves a further document which is --
5 MR. HAYNES: P699.
6 Q. And I'd like you to look please at B/C/S page 36.
7 MR. HAYNES: And those of us who speak English can look at page
9 Q. And I'd like you just quickly to consider point 65 in relation to
10 some questions you answered from Mr. Bourgon the other day. And do you
11 agree with the provision of Article 65 that the operational duty at the
12 command post is organised by the Chief of Staff of the unit?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. General Kosovac, thank you very much. I have no further
15 questions for you.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Haynes. That brings us to you,
17 Mr. Vanderpuye, but the break is with us. Shall we have the break now?
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: As you wish, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Do you still estimate eight hours?
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, it's substantially reduced from that,
21 Mr. President.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. 25 minutes.
23 --- Recess taken at 12.27 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon to
2 you --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- and Your Honours. Good afternoon to my
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
7 Q. And good afternoon to you, General. My name is Kweku Vanderpuye.
8 On behalf of the Prosecution I am going to put some questions to you in
9 relation to your direct examination and also your cross-examination, as
10 well as your expert report.
11 Since we don't speak the same language, I will try to go a little
12 bit slow, and I would appreciate it if you could also respond slowly so
13 that there is time for an adequate translation or accurate translation of
14 what we say to one another for the record. If you have any questions
15 about what I ask you, please just let me know and I'll try to rephrase it
16 in a way that we can best understand one another more clearly.
17 Now, you were put some questions --
18 A. Good afternoon. Thank you very much, I understand perfectly.
19 Q. Great. You were put some questions -- some questions you put to
20 you, rather, by my colleague Mr. Krgovic with respect to the testimony of
21 Lieutenant-Colonel Dragomir Keserovic, and he asked you in particular
22 some questions regarding Mr. Keserovic's statements concerning
23 General Miletic on page 32 of the transcript.
24 What I wanted to do is read to you what he said before the
25 questions that were put to you by my colleague, and let me refer you --
1 or from my colleagues, rather, to the trial transcript. It's at
2 page 31 and begins at line 22 and it reads as follows:
3 "Q. Do you know was there an acting Chief of Staff, deputy
4 commander, in Han Pijesak while Milovanovic was away?"
5 "A. I don't know if there was one officially. If you allow me,
6 may I say that --"
7 "Q. It's pretty simple, but go ahead, go ahead. No, go ahead.
8 If you need to explain, you can always explain."
9 "A. I meant to say, that -- and you probably have this
10 information anyway, that the Main Staff involved such a small number of
11 people that quite literally everybody did everything. So people could be
12 replaced all the time. If one person was not there then somebody else
13 would -- somebody else could take over for him. And people would have
14 several duties. So it is possible that from that point of view somebody
15 did stand in for General Milovanovic, but I am not sure of whether
16 anybody was officially appointed."
17 He then goes on, as was brought out by my colleague, to say that
18 General Miletic would be the number 3 man on the staff.
19 So let me ask you this, General: Is it possible, in your
20 estimation, your experience, that Lieutenant-Colonel Keserovic arrived at
21 the conclusion that General Miletic was number 3 in the staff because he
22 had the opportunity to see General Miletic's signature as standing in for
23 the Chief of Staff on a number of occasions, given his experience as a
24 member of the Main Staff?
25 A. Yes. It is possible that Lieutenant-Colonel Keserovic, who I
1 don't want to deny any capabilities in his part of the profession, gained
2 that impression for several reasons. One of the reason may be that
3 people often mistake the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska with
4 the staff of Republika Srpska. The second reason may be that the staff
5 of the Army of Republika Srpska is often mistaken for a command post.
6 And the third reason may be that very often, based on personal
7 impression, one is tempted to give an evaluation. And fourthly, it is
8 generally known that most of the officers, not only in the Army of
9 Republika Srpska but also the other militaries that I am aware of, the
10 problem of organisational establishment and personnel affairs is the
11 least known and no simple logic can be applied to it. And this is also
12 indicated by the use of the word "standing in for," "VD," acting for,
13 which never existed in the army. It does not exist in any military.
14 This "VD," acting on behalf.
15 Q. Well, what he describes in his testimony --
16 JUDGE KWON: Just a second, Mr. Vanderpuye.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry, Judge.
18 JUDGE KWON: The first reason given by the witness, I am not sure
19 whether it was correctly translated. I will read it again and, General,
20 could you confirm whether it was what you said:
21 "One of the reason may be is that people often mistake the Main
22 Staff of the Army of the Republika Srpska with the staff of Republika
24 Is that what you said?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that people often mistook
1 the staff of the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska for the
2 Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
5 Q. What Lieutenant-Colonel Keserovic describes appears to be regular
6 regularity of unofficial assignments of duties and responsibilities
7 within the Main Staff. Do you accept that?
8 A. If you ask me, I believe that the prevailing fact here is the
9 fact that he was often in contact with the basic command post, and the
10 person he often -- most often saw there was General Miletic. And at one
11 point General Miletic represented a focal point for him and everything
12 resolved around him. And the fact is that General Miletic was almost
13 exclusively at the command post. He rarely toured the units, and when he
14 was absent it would be to visit his family.
15 Q. All right. Well, I think I will move ahead. I will probably
16 come back to this in a little bit. Let me ask you some more general
17 background questions.
18 First, can you tell us, do you have any practical experience in
19 terms of commanding combat operations, whether it be strategically
20 directed, operationally, or tactically?
21 A. Absolutely.
22 Q. All right. And can you tell us when and where that was?
23 A. When the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was bombarded, I
24 represented the chief of the third administration of the Main Staff of
25 the Army of Republika Srpska which organised work outside of the system
1 of the command post because that administration was duty-bound to
2 contact -- maintain contacts with the government, the ministries, and
3 other organisations and the military. Very often as the chief of that
4 administration, I cooperated with the command posts, almost all of them,
5 and I also toured my military territorial units which were deployed
6 across the entire territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
7 Q. All right. Thank you for that. And I take it that you've had
8 experience preparing technical reports of the type and nature that you've
9 presented here?
10 A. You could see in my CV the works that I authored and the expert
11 report of this nature is the only such report that I've prepared.
12 However, on the part of the Tribunal I was also engaged as a military
13 expert in the Perisic case.
14 Q. All right. So this is the first military or technical military
15 expert report you've prepared, at least for court. That's fair to say,
17 A. Yes. This is my first encounter with any court or the judiciary
18 system as such.
19 Q. And have you produced a report or are you in the process of
20 producing the report with respect to your Perisic engagement?
21 A. Yes. It -- the preparations are underway. Once I am done with
22 this, the Perisic case will become one of my focal tasks, in addition to
23 my everyday duties.
24 Q. You recognise, of course, given your experience, that in
25 preparing a report, particularly a technical report such as this, you
1 have to be analytical, right, in your review of both materials and the
3 A. I am absolutely clear on that. In the introductory part of my
4 report I emphasized that and I also emphasized what methods I used, and I
5 particularly explained how and why I used the method of modelling, or the
6 modelling method.
7 Q. All right. I asked you that because I believe it was on Friday
8 you testified that you didn't try to put together all the pieces of the
9 puzzle. Do you remember that?
10 A. I would like you to be more precise because in some instances
11 that sentence could be -- can be excellent and in some others it could be
13 Q. Well, let me put the question, then, to you directly. Is it the
14 case that you tried to put all the pieces of the puzzle together or not?
15 A. From the point of view of my expert report I tried to complete
16 the mosaic, and that's why I searched for some comparisons where I did
17 not have any documents available to me.
18 Q. All right. In preparing your report you tried to be thorough.
19 That's fair to say, isn't it?
20 A. I believe that anything else would be disastrous and would not
21 comply with the task and the topic. An officer, an expert of my rank and
22 reputation would not embark on any task in any different way. They
23 wouldn't be superficial. They would not leave any stones unturned.
24 Q. And so in preparing this report you tried to be neutral and
25 objective; right?
1 A. What you've just asked me, this is the starting point of my
2 expert report. I perceive myself as an expert, a military expert that
3 was engaged by the Tribunal and the topic was given to me by the Miletic
4 Defence. In that sense, when it comes to the functioning of experts, at
5 the end of my testimony I am going to provide some proposals to the
6 Trial Chamber irrespective of the fact whether they will be inclined to
7 adopt my proposals or not.
8 Q. I may have misunderstood you, but do you mean that in terms of
9 your report or in terms of your testimony?
10 A. Given the place and the role of an expert.
11 Q. All right. And in order to accomplish all these things, to be
12 analytical and thorough and neutral and objective in the course of
13 preparing this report, you, as an expert, know that among other things
14 you have to be critical or you have to critically at least evaluate the
15 nature and the applicability of the information that you consider in
16 preparing the report?
17 A. Thank you. This does ring a bell. I am very familiar with all
18 these concepts. That's why I can tell you that my effort has not been in
19 vain. Unlike any other expert reports, I did not want to analyse one
20 military party to the conflict without obtaining a number of documents
21 originating from the other army in the conflict. I even researched
22 documents that concerned other militaries outside of the former
23 Yugoslavia, and that's why whenever I say that other militaries used the
24 same thing, that means that I had direct access to the information
25 pertaining to such other militaries and I studied them as well.
1 Q. Thank you for that. I asked the question in relation to some of
2 the answers that you gave my colleagues when they questioned you as well,
3 and in particular, in relation to your acknowledgment, upon questioning
4 by my colleague Mr. Haynes, that there is a vast body of regulatory
5 documents from the former Yugoslavia that may be applicable to any given
6 circumstance concerning the VRS. That's true, isn't it?
7 A. The answer is affirmative. That is the case indeed. However, I
8 need to provide an adequate comment in respect of this answer. All the
9 militaries that originated from the former JNA, among their command cadre
10 or among the top management as it were had officers from the former JNA,
11 and it is only natural that all the command activities were taken over
12 from the JNA.
13 There was another comparative advantage which you yourself could
14 observe in the courtroom. A large number of the documents issued by the
15 JNA were drafted in the languages of the various peoples, so none of them
16 had to be translated. And the most important thing of all, the officers
17 in question had been trained to use the documents in question.
18 At the beginning, the laws were drafted by adopting the existing
19 laws with some minor changes. As the time went on, the different
20 countries incorporated their own idiosyncrasies and their own features
21 into such laws.
22 Q. So I take it you took into consideration the degree of binding
23 nature of any given law, regulation, instruction, in terms of arriving at
24 your conclusions when you were developing your report?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And I take it you also considered the fact that many of these
2 rules, regulations, and instructions were creatively applied, both in the
3 former JNA -- or, rather, in the JNA and in the VRS?
4 A. I believe that I was very precise in my expert report as well as
5 in my words uttered here before the Trial Chamber, and I was really very
6 precise in defining the creative application, the binding application.
7 And also when I explained the specific features of the two sets of
8 documents I was very careful and I very often emphasized that, and I am
9 always prepared to make a distinction between one and the other thing.
10 Q. In your report you identify the information that you relied upon
11 in reaching your conclusions; is that right?
12 A. Yes. I referred to the information I used. I didn't provide an
13 exhaustive list of the information because it never is final and
14 exhaustive. So over the last few days I came across certain information
15 that I hadn't previously seen. I was precise when I said that the expert
16 report is not final. It can always be amended on the basis of new
17 information obtained, and I am quite prepared to engage in a professional
18 discussion with regard to this report.
19 Q. All right. The documents that you relied on in preparing this
20 report you received primarily from the Miletic Defence; is that right?
21 A. Well, one could say so. Because I can see that an expert in the
22 court doesn't have access to the database, I mostly used documents that
23 the Defence provided me with. I used documents that I came across, too.
24 I read expert reports, other reports. I read through transcripts of
25 conversations that were held, and I spoke to many people who were
1 directly or indirectly involved in anything that was of interest to me.
2 Q. All right. Well, that's what I want to get to, actually, because
3 you mentioned on a number of occasions during your testimony that you
4 spoke to very numerous high-ranking officials in various armed forces in
5 respect of your engagement. So could you please tell us who it is that
6 you spoke to concerning the preparation of the report?
7 A. The information that I incorporated into the report does not only
8 concern individuals or generals or people who were involved in this
9 field, people that I spoke to directly with. It also concerns people or
10 individuals whose documents I used. And among other things, I most
11 frequently spoke to individuals involved in field of activity like my
12 own, that concerned the organisation and functioning of a system. With
13 regard to certain elements of the organisation and function of a system,
14 I spoke about such elements to General Simic. He has testified here, and
15 I spoke to him while he was still a Chief of the Main Staff of the VRS --
16 or, rather, while he was still in that position, I officially visited him
17 in Banja Luka, and I then I spoke with him because I was interested in
18 some of his experiences.
19 As for General Skrbic, I spoke to him when he came to visit the
20 Army of Yugoslavia. When he did so, he worked in the sector where my
21 organisational unit was based.
22 I spoke to numerous colonels at various conferences and I
23 established contact with them. There were a lot of people I spoke to
24 directly or indirectly. I don't want to offend anyone by saying that I
25 didn't speak to such and such a person; however, when the decision was
1 taken to draft this report -- or, as of that moment I didn't contact any
2 of these individuals because I wanted to work on the basis of the
3 information I had already obtained and I wanted this report to be an
4 original work.
5 Q. I'm sorry. Are you saying that you -- excuse me, you didn't
6 speak to either General Simic or Skrbic after you were engaged to prepare
7 the report? Because that's how it reads in the transcript. I am
8 wondering if whether there is an error?
9 A. If that's what it says, there is an error. I didn't speak to
10 them about the report after I started working on the report. I was very
12 Q. All right. Let me rephrase my question and maybe I can be a
13 little bit more precise. Did you speak to them in relation to the
14 preparation of your report at any point during that process?
15 A. You were very precise at the beginning and I answered that
16 precise question. With regard to drafting the report, well, I didn't
17 speak to anyone about it because I wanted it to be my own original work,
18 but I spoke to a huge variety of individuals with regard to their
20 Q. All right. Well, let's -- I suppose what's troubling me a little
21 bit, I would like to know if you could, more precisely, when you say
22 "huge numbers of individuals" who you are talking about, and you've
23 mentioned two people. Could you be a little bit more precise about who
24 it is you spoke to and what you spoke to them about, because your report
25 covers a broad area of material.
1 A. In order to be more precise I'd -- well, I would have to remember
2 the list of individuals about whom I spoke to about all these matters.
3 Up until the end of 1995, I was the executive director of the Ministry of
4 Defence of Serbia and Montenegro, or, rather, of Serbia. Prior to that I
5 was the assistant or, rather, deputy minister for human affairs,
6 personnel affairs. The subject of this work that was drafted was the
7 subject of each and every conversation I had with each individual, each
8 official who worked in the system.
9 With regard to organisational matters, I spoke to a NATO officer
10 about this. I also spoke about organisation to individuals in the
11 Pentagon, to people from the Ministry of Defence. I spoke about this to
12 the G5 head. As far as organisation is concerned, I spoke to officers
13 from the Slovenian army. As far as organisation is concerned, I spoke to
14 officers from the Slovak army. I also spoke to officers from the VRS
15 about organisational matters. I spoke about organisational matters to
16 former JNA officers who were involved in this area. I had presentations
17 at conferences. I am a member of the Atlantic Council of Serbia. I am a
18 member of the administration of the Atlantic counsel, and to this very
19 day I speak to these people about all aspects that concern organisation,
20 functioning, and command.
21 If you are interested in any specific names, well, I provided you
22 with two names that are fresh in your memory, but I can look into other
24 Q. I have had the opportunity to look at your report, and it is
25 really quite sophisticated so forgive me if I err with respect to some of
1 its content, but I did not see in your report any mention of any
2 interviews that you had with anybody concerning any of the conclusions
3 that you've drawn. I don't believe your report contains any footnotes
4 with respect to individuals that you had these conversations with, and I
5 am wondering why that is.
6 So if you could tell us why is it that your report doesn't
7 reflect the fact that you spoke to such a wide array of highly qualified
9 A. First of all, thank you for saying that the report is
10 sophisticated. It's an honour for me to hear it described in this way.
11 I must say that when I started working on this report, a very limited
12 period of time was used to draft the report. In fact, I relied on
13 material used by other investigators or drafted by other investigators
14 and I wanted to reconstruct the way in which the VRS was organised and
15 mobilized. However, the working method itself requires a lot of time,
16 the use of a lot of associates, many things have to be verified, and it
17 wasn't possible for me to draft it in this way. However, given that I
18 spoke to many individuals and worked in this manner, well, all these
19 factors were incorporated in my CV in the description of the duties that
20 I performed. These are elements that I used for the report. As I didn't
21 conduct any specific interviews when I started drafting the report, I
22 didn't contact anyone in particular, and as a result, I didn't want to
23 mention any names because there was no basis for referring to such names
24 at such a point in time.
25 Q. Bear with me for a moment. On the 12th of this month when you
1 testified, and this is at page 2991, you were testifying in relation to a
2 question that my colleague put to you concerning General Miletic's rank
3 and order. And on line 13, during the course of your answer you said:
4 "Reading the documents linked to this case, I have seen that very
5 often there was a lot of confusion about what commanding officer in the
6 Army of Republika Srpska held what rank. Bearing in mind that they had
7 an order on the operation of the Army of Republika Srpska, that they also
8 had the establishment, that I had a large number of orders, I contacted
9 additional interviews with those officers who dealt with organisation
10 within the Army of Republika Srpska and established on the basis of all
11 this the precise rank and order in the Army of Republika Srpska."
12 Having read that to you, I put my question to you again as to
13 whom it is that you contacted after you were engaged to prepare this
14 report. Did you contact anyone after you started this report or after
15 you were engaged by the Miletic Defence?
16 A. Everything has fallen into place in your question, but confusion
17 doesn't make sense because it's not a word I use very often, but I think
18 I have understood your question and I'll try and be precise again.
19 When I was drafting this report, I did not speak to anyone for
20 the purposes of drafting the report, but when I did speak to people I
21 spoke to them to find out how they worked, what tasks they carried out,
22 and what sort of problems they encountered and that is why my intention
23 was to reconstruct the way in which matters were organised. In my
24 opinion, someone else should have done this, not this expert, but time
25 did not allow for this.
1 When there were certain problems that I encountered, when it was
2 difficult to understand certain things, I would contact, for example,
3 General Skrbic, and I would ask him about some elements of an order. I
4 would ask him, for example, whether an order on standing in for other
5 officers was drafted. He said that no such order at that highest level
6 had been drafted. I didn't tell Skrbic that I would use this in the
7 report or not or anything of the kind. I would ask about how many
8 problems they had with establishment. I asked about how establishment
9 was dealt with. I asked Colonel Kovacevic about this. He said that they
10 followed the system they had and relied on the basis -- on the documents
11 that the army had.
12 I don't know if I can find a document about organisation or if I
13 didn't know how to find such a document -- well, he didn't know anything
14 about it, he said that he wasn't part of the system, he hadn't been for a
15 long time, and he said he knew nothing about it. Perhaps the problem is
16 that you have something concealed within your question and, as a result,
17 I don't understand it, but I am being very precise and I have repeated it
18 a number of times. As far as the report is concerned, not a single
19 sentence was added from someone's interview, for example, and therefore
20 no references were made.
21 Given the tasks that I had to perform and the context I
22 established, well, this was the base upon which I drafted this expert
24 Q. At page 29992 of the transcript, you go on to describe your
25 diagram, and you say:
1 "Based on all this I reach the conclusion presented here. I have
2 checked this diagram with a large number of officers engaged in
3 organisational work, and they all agreed with every detail of this
5 Do you remember giving that testimony?
6 A. Which part?
7 Q. That you had checked the diagram that you developed in relation
8 to representing the rank and order in the Republika Srpska with a number
9 of individuals that were engaged in organisational work. I am referring
10 just to the 12th of January during the course of your testimony.
11 A. Does this mean that you are referring to figure number 14?
12 Q. I believe I am, but you correct me if I am wrong. I am only
13 referring to the subject of your testimony, in particular that you said
14 that you checked the diagram with a number of individuals.
15 A. Perhaps there is an interpretation issue. I went through my
16 report very rapidly, but there aren't any diagrams. There are only
17 figures. There are various figures, but if you're talking about rank and
18 order that would correspond to figure 14. And it's correct that in
19 figure 14 -- or, rather, with regard -- I spoke to a number of people
20 about figure 14, but it's not as if I provided these people with figure
21 14 and then had them verify it, or I spoke to them about the working
22 method used. And since this question was often put about this being my
23 own work, well, during the break it occurred to me that there is a
24 document in the army, it's a JNA document that's been adopted by the Army
25 of Yugoslavia, and I know that it was worked on by the VRS. And I know
1 that they established some kind of an organisation on the basis of that
2 document in the army of Slovenia, but the document hasn't been referred
3 to, but the document is called "Instructions for Drafting Mobilization
4 Plan Documents." I am convinced that this document also exists in the
5 database you have here and that we could have a look at it and work with
6 it, but it's one of the documents that also speaks about the issue of
7 rank. It's important because you can see that rank and order aren't
8 concepts that I have invented here. As to the method on how one obtained
9 rank and order, well, about these methods I spoke to, for example,
10 military officials, former ones, present ones. I asked them whether they
11 had any experience about rank and order in foreign armies --
12 Q. [Previous translation continues]... concerned about whether or
13 not you presented this figure or diagram to anybody after you had
14 prepared it. And so I think you have probably answered my question just
16 If the Court would like, we could break, but I could continue
17 also for --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: We have got two minutes left.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- the next two minutes if you like.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.
22 Q. Now, I take it that you have prepared quite extensively for your
23 testimony before coming here, right? You could probably answer that yes
24 or no.
25 A. Well, I can't seem to be someone who is not very serious to you.
1 Yes, I prepared very thoroughly for this.
2 Q. And you met with both the Miletic Defence team and the
3 Gvero Defence team; isn't that true?
4 A. I think that you failed to mention someone. I also met or spoke
5 to Ms. Nikolic, and that's been said in the courtroom. We met and spoke
6 for an hour or two about certain main issues, and I did not meet with
7 anyone else nor did I speak to anyone else before my testimony here.
8 Q. How long did you meet with the Gvero team for, if you could tell
10 A. I am afraid I couldn't really say, but if I said it was between
11 one and two hours, well, I think that that's probably a fairly precise
13 Q. All right. Thank you for that.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. We will stop here. We will continue
17 Do you think you will finish tomorrow or not?
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: I am hoping to.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: You are hoping to.
20 Mr. Haynes, please note.
21 MR. HAYNES: Thank you, I will.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Obviously, I think there will be some kind
23 of redirect later on, but on the assumption that we might finish tomorrow
24 or latest Wednesday, be prepared.
25 Yes, yes. Incidentally, Judge Prost is reminding me, you have to
1 come back to us on Kovacevic and whether you have any other --
2 MR. JOSSE: We are aware that we need to make a final decision
3 about that and to relay that to the Trial Chamber and also the parties,
4 of course.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
6 MR. JOSSE: And I am grateful to Judge Prost for mentioning that
7 at this stage. As well that, Your Honours, we do wish to make this
8 opening statement as well which will take up a session, approximately.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: We have -- Mr. Thayer is trying to determine
13 whether he needs to get ready for this witness, so if we could get that
14 information as soon as possible. We also wonder if there is no evidence,
15 what kind of an opening statement that would be. That would be a closing
16 statement. So if there is no evidence, I don't see that an opening
17 statement, well, fits the system.
18 MR. JOSSE: Could I deal with the first point. I have repeatedly
19 told Mr. Thayer that he needs to be prepared to deal with our expert. I
20 have said that to him ten times at least, and that is the answer to the
21 question that my learned friend Mr. McCloskey --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: In the meantime the witness --
23 MR. JOSSE: -- poses. Mr. Thayer needs to be prepared for it.
24 Secondly, so far as the other issue is concerned, clearly that is
25 something if we call no evidence that my learned friend is entitled to
1 address --
2 [The witness stands down]
3 MR. JOSSE: -- and you'll need to hear argument about and then
4 resolve. Now is not the time to do that, I would suggest.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I agree. I agree. We will continue tomorrow at
6 9.00 -- tomorrow in the afternoon at 2.15. Thank you.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
8 1.48 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the
9 20th day of January, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.