1 Tuesday, 20 January 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.23 p.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: So good afternoon, Madam Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Incidentally, I am on channel four, that I can see,
10 and I'm receiving interpretation in French. Is it okay now? Yes.
11 For the record, all the accused are present today. Prosecution
12 is Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye. Defence teams, I notice the absence
13 of Mr. Bourgon and Mr. Haynes.
14 General, good afternoon to you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome back. At least from the information I
17 have gathered, it doesn't seem likely that we will finish with you today,
18 but we will still do our utmost.
19 Mr. Vanderpuye, I take it that there are no preliminaries,
20 correct? We hear none.
21 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you Mr. --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: And before you continue, this is the schedule that
24 I am suggesting. We'll have the break at 3.45 as usual, up to 4.10, that
25 means 25 minutes. And then the second break, instead of at 5.45 as usual
1 will be at 5.55, and we will resume at 6.25.
2 Mr. Vanderpuye.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. And good afternoon to
4 you, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good afternoon to my learned friends.
7 WITNESS: SLOBODAN KOSOVAC [Resumed]
8 [Witness answered through interpretation]
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]
10 Q. And good afternoon to you, General.
11 A. Good afternoon.
12 Q. I just wanted to clarify something that I noticed on the record
13 yesterday. In response to a question I put to you concerning your report
14 where I asked you if you had prepared any report at least for the
15 purposes of court, the record indicates that you said -- when I asked you
16 if you had prepared any other report, in response to whether or not this
17 was your first report you said:
18 "Yes, this is my first encounter with any court or the judiciary
19 system as such."
20 And I just wanted to first confirm if that is accurate or there
21 was an error in the transcription?
22 A. I should just add from the point of view of drafting the report,
23 because I appeared before this court, I was called as an expert witness
24 in the Milovanovic et al case. I think that's what it's called or the
25 so-called Kosovo group.
1 Q. Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
2 Now, when we left off yesterday I asked you how long you had met
3 with the Gvero team and you indicated that you had met with him for about
4 an hour or two; is that right?
5 A. That's my estimate, yes.
6 Q. All right. And I take it that you met with the Miletic team
7 prior to the preparation of your testimony here last week?
8 A. Yes. I met with General Miletic's team when I arrived here in
9 The Hague. I came with an associate from the team from Belgrade and
10 cooperation went quite smoothly.
11 Q. All right. And in advance of your testimony, how long did you
12 meet with the Miletic Defence team, that is, when you came to The Hague?
13 A. When I came to The Hague, we met on Saturday afternoon and Sunday
14 afternoon. I can't remember the exact time.
15 Q. And for how long, approximately, did you meet with them?
16 A. If I remember this correctly, on Saturday we spoke for about two
17 or three hours, and a little less on Sunday, perhaps not even two hours.
18 Q. And from the time that you prepared the report until your
19 testimony here in The Hague, did you ever inform the Miletic Defence team
20 that you had consulted with various professionals concerning your
21 conclusions or concerning the issues that are covered by your report?
22 A. What I said yesterday is something that the Miletic Defence team
23 knows. I was very precise when it came to my work. When I started
24 drafting my report, when I submitted my report, well, in the course of
25 the work on the report itself, I didn't meet any experts nor did I speak
1 to them. So I didn't provide any explanations with this regard because I
2 wanted the report to be based on a precise method, and it can be precise
3 only if there is one author, if only one person works on it.
4 My colleague General Djokic, who has appeared before this Court,
5 is a neighbour of mine. We live very close to each other and we go to
6 work together every day. I didn't give him the report either, and I
7 didn't consult him with regard to drafting this report because I didn't
8 want him to tamper with the methodology I was applying, and I think that
9 I said something to that effect yesterday.
10 Q. All I can tell as a man who appreciates precision in the way he
11 speaks, your testimony repeatedly refer to interviews that you conducted,
12 and I'm wondering whether or not we are talking about interviews in the
13 sense of a purposeful or a guided inquiry, or we are talking about a chat
14 over some coffee. So if you would, could you please tell us what it is
15 you meant when you said that you met with or interviewed people in
16 respect of the conclusions that you reached in this case?
17 A. The subject I was to deal with as an expert is very precise, very
18 well defined. And with regard to that well-defined subject, and -- well,
19 I spoke to no one about this matter. However, this subject involves a
20 very precise military position, scientific positions. It involves
21 various relevant experiences, and these are matters that we always
22 discuss. It's a matter of the general culture of people who have the
23 same or similar ranks.
24 The report submitted was never the matter of investigation
25 because I was never involved in investigative work. I was involved in
1 drafting expert reports, and the report is an analytic one and contains
2 all the other relevant elements.
3 Q. So when you say you checked this figure, as we spoke about
4 yesterday, with a large number of officers, that really had nothing to do
5 with your report and it's not in reference to anything that was prepared
6 in connection with your report; right?
7 A. I don't think I have understood you correctly. Which numbers are
8 you referring to?
9 Q. I'm referring to page 88 of your report, and I'm referring to
10 page 29992 of your testimony upon questioning by my learned friend. We
11 spoke about this briefly yesterday, and there was some confusion as to
12 whether or not I was referring to the term "diagram," as is written in
13 the transcript, or whether or not we were referring to a figure. In
14 either event, in the context of your testimony, you said that you had
15 checked this with a large number of officers engaged in organisational
17 And my inquiry, my question is, if you didn't speak to anybody in
18 connection with the preparation of your report or about your report, then
19 what -- what figure is it that you are saying that you checked with all
20 these people about?
21 A. First, you mentioned the number 88. My report consists of
22 72 pages, the report that was printed out, and the part that was
23 submitted here, because some of it was abbreviated, that version consists
24 of 70 pages. Later on I understood that you were probably referring to
25 figure 14, and that -- that's what you were asking me about. This is a
1 figure that relates to rank and order.
2 The figure on rank and order or on this method wasn't created and
3 analysed with anyone else or by working with the other people. I told
4 you about that, that the methodology for drawing conclusions on rank and
5 order was the subject of discussion. And we discussed the matter, among
6 other things, when the Serbian Atlantic Council -- or, rather, when the
7 war school, the military school from the USA came to visit, we spoke
8 about the subject of rank in order to put these people up in an
9 appropriate way. So methodology is in a certain sense always the subject
10 of discussion.
11 Q. Sir, I don't want to belabour the point, but I think my question
12 is pretty straightforward. On page 29992 of your testimony on
13 12 January, you say:
14 "I contacted additional interviews" -- this is starting on 29991,
15 line 17.
16 "I contacted additional interviews with those officers who dealt
17 with the organisation of the Army of Republika Srpska and established on
18 the basis of all this the precise rank and order in the Army of
19 Republika Srpska."
20 Then you go on and you say at 2992:
21 "Based on all this" -- this is at line two.
22 "Based on all this I reached the conclusion presented here,"
23 which is presented in your report. "I have checked this diagram with a
24 large number of officers," and it says "diagram" in the record just so
25 you are clear. "I have checked this diagram with a large number of
1 officers engaged in organisational work and they all agreed with every
2 detail of this diagram."
3 My question to you, sir, is: Having said that and now
4 represented before this Tribunal that you never showed this to anybody,
5 how can you reconcile those two statements?
6 A. Well, it's very easy. It's very clear. You've omitted to refer
7 to something from the very beginning. I don't know why you are doing
8 this. I've told you about the methodology, the criteria used. I spoke
9 to everyone about these matters who was competent in the field. I've
10 also said that I spoke to certain military representatives to see how
11 they dealt with those ranks. So that had to do with the methodology I
12 followed. I checked the methodology, but no one was presented with this
13 figure. If it had been prepared, perhaps I would have presented it, but
14 I kept introducing variations when it came to methodology so as to have a
15 consistent expert report and so as not to deviate from the line that I
16 was pursuing.
17 Q. Thank you for that. Now, as I understand it, and as is indicated
18 in your report, the object of this report was to evaluate the role of
19 General Miletic as he served in 1995 as the Chief of the Administration
20 for Training and Operations in the VRS; is that right?
21 A. You read out the introductory part in my report, and there you
22 have the subject of the report. So it's on page 5 and it starts with
23 item 1, subject of the investigation, time, context, location, and it
24 ends with the events at the time. So that's from the introduction. That
25 was the purpose of my work and the subject is defined under item 1.
1 Q. Is that a yes?
2 A. If you're referring to the subject, no. If you have the
3 objective in mind, yes. The subject is defined in a particular way, in a
4 separate way.
5 Q. So it was not your intention to evaluate the role that
6 General Miletic played in his function as the Chief of Administration for
7 Training and Operations in 1995. That wasn't the object of your report.
8 A. I never said that. I even wrote that down. That was the task
9 and the objective, but the subject of my report is precisely defined
10 under item 1, and it's called the subject -- or the conclusions, the
11 findings. If you're referring to my objective, yes, that was my
12 objective, and it was a task that I approached very seriously.
13 Q. You also attempted to evaluate his other duties that were beyond
14 his post; is that right?
15 A. Yes. I tried to find out whether he had any other duties that
16 didn't fall under his work description.
17 Q. In respect of evaluating these duties and his function as they
18 actually occurred in 1995, did you speak to General Miletic at all
19 concerning those matters?
20 A. Yes. General Miletic expressed the desire to have me as an
21 expert, and we then spoke about me accepting the task for drafting this
22 expert report.
23 Q. Did you speak to him about his function as it was in 1995 while
24 he was in the VRS?
25 A. We spoke about -- about the entire time-period that he spent in
1 that position in the Army of Republika Srpska.
2 Q. I understand that you may have spoken to him about the
3 time-period. I want to know whether or not you spoke to him about his
4 function during that time-period.
5 A. Yes. We spoke about all the duties that he performed in the VRS,
6 in the Republika Srpska Army.
7 Q. When did you speak to him about that?
8 A. I can't say for certain, but it was about ten or 20 days before a
9 proposal was made to have me engaged as a military expert.
10 Q. And how long would you say you spoke to him for about this
11 particular subject matter?
12 A. I can't remember. I wouldn't like to give you an estimate.
13 Q. Can you approximate? Was it 15 minutes or was it 5 hours?
14 A. We would see each other for other reasons, too. I was also
15 invited to the General's daughter's wedding. We would also meet each
16 other together with other friends. He's the friend of some of my
17 friends. If I gave you such an estimate, well, that wouldn't be serious.
18 So I stand by what I said. I can't say how much time the two of us
19 allocated to the subject.
20 Q. You mentioned that you were invited to his daughter's wedding;
21 right? I just want to make sure the transcript is right.
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And do you have any personal friendship with General Miletic or
24 his family?
25 A. Well, the term "friendship" means different things in different
1 cultures. However, if you have had a look at my CV, and I believe you
2 have done so, you will have noticed that General Miletic and myself are
3 of more or less -- come from more or less the same generation. We are
4 both officers from the anti-aircraft missile units. We were both very
5 successful officers. We knew each other, and I believe that we knew each
6 other professionally and we were also on friendly terms. And our
7 families didn't know each other, and the invitation to his daughter's
8 wedding was a particular honour for me. It's not just an invitation that
9 is extended to special friends. Such invitations also extended to
11 Q. All right. General --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE:
14 Q. How did it come to be that you were invited to General Miletic's
15 daughter's wedding?
16 A. As for the reasons for which I was invited, well, you would have
17 to ask General Miletic. I was very happy to receive that invitation and
18 it was an honour for me to receive it.
19 Q. When did you receive it?
20 A. Your question is when I received the invitation?
21 Q. Yes, sir.
22 A. I can't remember the date. It was certainly before the wedding.
23 Q. I would imagine so. What year?
24 A. The years fly by, but I believe that General Miletic's daughter
25 got married in 2006. I believe that that is what she herself told you
1 here before the Tribunal. I'm not sure whether you're trying to check my
2 recollection, but, yes, I was at the wedding.
3 Q. And you have you maintained contact with the Miletic family since
4 then, between then and now?
5 A. I don't know what you mean by "contact." I know, for example,
6 that his daughter had professional contact with my wife. They worked for
7 the same institution, and I went to express my condolences.
8 Unfortunately, while General Miletic was detained here, a lot of
9 unfortunate events that concerned his family. If this is the kind of
10 contact that you are interested in, yes, I did have such contact.
11 Q. And did you maintain any contact with General Miletic himself
12 during this period?
13 A. I think my visit to General Miletic in the Detention Unit is on
14 record, and I am not sure if he ever came over, but if I had the
15 opportunity to do so I am quite sure that I greeted him and welcomed him.
16 Q. Well, I'm sure your visits are on record but I'm sure you
17 wouldn't want the Trial Chamber and the Judges to go and have to look it
18 up. So the reason why I am asking the question is so that you can put it
19 on the record before these Judges so that they can evaluate what you have
20 to say. Now, can you tell us how many times, for example, you visited
21 General Miletic while he was here in custody?
22 A. I had the opportunity of visiting him twice, but given the
23 bureaucracy in place, I visited him only once last January.
24 Q. Last January, January of 2008; correct?
25 A. Absolutely, January of last year.
1 Q. And was that in connection with the preparation of your report?
2 A. That was a visit to a colleague. There's something I didn't want
3 to comment on at all because I was present here when your expert
4 presented the conclusions he arrived at in the report, and I didn't want
5 to influence anyone as a result of my positions.
6 Q. Is that a no?
7 A. If you are asking me about the report, the answer is no.
8 Although I knew that very soon thereafter I would be writing it.
9 Q. And when you spoke to General Miletic about his service during
10 the war, I take it you spoke to him within the framework of the topics
11 that are covered by your report?
12 A. We did not discuss the framework or the phases of my expert
13 report. I said that I would define the topic of the expert report
14 myself, and based on that I would draft my expert report. I did not want
15 anybody influencing me in that respect. I did not want anybody to tamper
16 with the definition of the subject of my expert report because I would
17 not be able to proceed from such a definition. I would not be able to do
18 my work.
19 Q. Well, your report doesn't mention anything about having spoken to
20 General Miletic about his duties at all, does it?
21 A. I believe that yesterday I said that no single conversation with
22 anybody is mentioned because no conversation makes part of this expert
23 report, and since no conversations make part of this expert report, then
24 I don't have the right to refer to any such conversations. If I had
25 quoted any of the conversations, then I would incorporate that into my
1 methodology. I would do it in the way one does when writing an expert
3 Q. Page 29954 of the transcript, my colleague Ms. Fauveau put the
4 following question to you:
5 "Q. Could you tell us the sources you used to draft this
7 "A. I've used a number of sources. My main source was the
8 source that I received from you, from the Defence. I also used materials
9 that determined the position and the role of the organ that
10 General Miletic worked for. I also used documents of the Yugoslavia
11 People's Army, as well as the documents of the Army of Yugoslavia. I
12 also used the search engines on the internet, and I compared the army
13 with other modern armies such as NATO. I also used interviews with my
14 colleagues because my colleagues, be it from the Army of Yugoslavia or
15 the Army of Republika Srpska or even the militaries of the former
16 Yugoslavia People's Army, I interviewed high-ranking officers from all
17 these militaries."
18 You identified that as the source of information that you used to
19 draft your report. Did you use information that you derived from your
20 conversations with General Miletic to draft your report?
21 A. We have to make a distinction between two things here. I believe
22 that we have been running in circles for too long now. However, this is
23 your cross-examination so I don't mind repeating things for you.
24 When you talk to anybody, when you have conversations with
25 anybody, two processes are involved. One is the coordination of
1 viewpoints, methodologies, the available knowledge, and other things; and
2 the second process is the one aimed at establishing facts which will then
3 be incorporated into your report.
4 When it comes to establishing facts and the procedure that leads
5 to it during conversations is very precise and very clear. This is
6 called an interview. You define questions, you define answers you are
7 aiming for, and then you state in the footnotes who you talked to and
8 what the conversation was about. I did not use the second method, the
9 latter method. I used the former method. However, I used it to a
10 maximum potential and as much as I could.
11 Q. General, is that a yes or a no to my question?
12 A. Your question is part of a statement, and I can't say either yes
13 or no. There are parts of your questions to which I can say yes and some
14 other parts to which I could also say no. I believe that I have provided
15 a very clear and precise answer to your question.
16 Q. My question, General, and I'll repeat it, did you use information
17 that you derived from your conversations with General Miletic to draft
18 your report, yes or no?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And the information that you used from General Miletic to draft
21 your report, did you make counsel for the Defence, that is his Defence
22 lawyers, aware of that information?
23 A. Whatever I asked General Miletic and whatever he told me in
24 answer to my questions, I subsequently received in the form of material
25 that the Defence Counsel had available to them, and that's why the
1 questions and answers did not mean much to me after that. Amongst other
2 things, I asked him about his former duties. I didn't know that I would
3 receive the complete personal history listing every position and the
4 period of time. I was surprised to see such a precision and detail in
5 all that.
6 As for any other information that was not submitted to me by the
7 Defence Counsel or that I got hold of -- hold of by reading books, for
8 example, books that had been published, victors [as interpreted], as it
9 were, no other piece of information provided to me verbally was used by
10 myself in drafting my report.
11 Q. In terms of the information that you did use, as you've indicated
12 you have, you didn't cite that in your report; right?
13 A. No, not everything. I read hundreds of reports. To be modest, I
14 read hundreds of expert reports, conversations, interviews, books which
15 are in the Prosecutor's collection, and similar things. In my report I
16 was very precise. If I provided a statement, I tied that statement to a
17 source, and in my expert report you have 142 footnotes which describe the
18 sources that I used. And out of the 142 footnotes, some 17 per cent are
19 relative to the BiH army; 69 per cent of the footnotes are relative to
20 the documents originating from the Army of Republika Srpska -- I
21 apologise, 48 per cent. 26 per cent is other types of literature and so
22 on and so forth. This is only one part of the documents that I used. I
23 did not incorporate everything because it would have been an impossible
24 thing to do.
25 Q. Well, don't you think that in preparing an analytical technical
1 report such as this, even though it's your first one, that it would be
2 appropriate to mention in the report itself that you spoke to the person
3 who is the subject of the report and used information from that person in
4 drafting it? Don't you think that would be an appropriate thing to do as
5 a professional, as an expert such as yourself?
6 A. I don't think this would be necessary. What matters is that all
7 the statements that I put in my report have been tied to the source, and
8 this all has to do with a professional basis that I used in my capacity
9 as an expert.
10 Q. Did you speak to General Miletic about the nature of his defence
11 to the charges in this case?
12 A. The nature of General Miletic's Defence in respect of the charges
13 is a matter for the Defence team. I did not want to discuss that with
14 him. I only indicated to the team what road I would take as an expert.
15 I already said at the outset that I am not an expert for the Defence. I
16 am a military expert that was engaged by the Defence team to provide some
17 facts. A military expert does not get involved in the nature of defence.
18 A military expert deals with the essence of the matter.
19 Q. With all due respect, General, you are also a military expert who
20 happens to be a friend of an accused charged with a very serious crime
21 and who happened to be invited to and, in fact, attended the wedding of
22 the same accused.
23 So my question to you is: Did you speak to General Miletic about
24 his defence?
25 A. I was absolutely precise, exceptionally precise, and there is no
1 need for me to repeat. If there is need to do so, however, I can repeat
2 whatever I have said so far. Friendship is no hindrance to an expert
3 report. In my view, a hindrance to an expert report would be if you were
4 a participant in the events that the accused has been charged with, and I
5 can see that very often both direct and indirect participants in the
6 events have been given a task to draft an expert report. I was not
7 involved. I have all the competencies to draft such an expert report,
8 and my personal friendships with people don't really play a role in this
9 case. Not at all.
10 Q. All right. Well, I'll let the Trial Chamber worry about that.
11 Now, you were asked some very specific questions concerning
12 Directive number 7.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: And that's 65 ter P5. If I could have that in
14 e-court, please. If we could go to page 10 in the English or -- in the
15 English, I believe. I am mistaken. It's page 10 in the B/C/S, and I
16 believe it's page 14 in the English. And we should be looking at 6.1.
17 Thank you. I'm sorry.
18 Q. Just before I get to this, I just want to ask you: When you
19 spoke to General Miletic, did you take notes, perhaps, of your
20 conversations that you had concerning what you ultimately used to draft
21 your report?
22 A. I've already told you that I did not use anything in drafting my
23 report. I did not use this method. I did not make any notes for that
24 reason, and here I have some notes that I made in January last year
25 during your expert's report or during your expert's testimony.
1 Q. I know we have gone over this a hundred times, but I asked you
2 specifically whether you used information that was provided to you by
3 General Miletic in your report, and the transcript says that you said
4 yes. And now you seem to be saying the exact opposite again.
5 A. I think when I was examined by the Defence one of the first
6 questions they put to me was about the sources, and when I listed my
7 sources, I never said that -- the thing that you have just put to me. If
8 you read my words carefully about the method of my work, I never
9 mentioned and you will never find anywhere that I used as part of my
10 method something that General Miletic provided to me.
11 Q. Well, maybe I can help you find it, and you will find it on page
12 15 of today's transcript, lines -- page 14 of today's transcript, lines
13 11 through 14:
14 "Q. My question, General, and I'll repeat it, did you use
15 information that you derived from your conversations with General Miletic
16 to draft your report, yes or no?"
17 "A. Yes."
18 There is no confusion about that, is there, sir?
19 A. Your Honours, I will have to provide a somewhat lengthier answer
20 here at this point because this statement and this play-on words
21 represents -- this game on words is quite a strong attack on my
22 integrity, and I will be very precise here.
23 I have been trying very hard at every moment to provide very
24 correct, precise and concise answers in keeping with your request. So
25 far for the gentleman, I made a distinction between the drafting of the
1 report and consultations. One has to do with establishing facts,
2 situations and methodologies or any such thing; and the second one is
4 If you are trying to play games with these words when you put all
5 that in the context of the question whether I informed the Defence
6 Counsel for General Miletic about all that, I said that I checked all the
7 information that I had received, that I was surprised when I saw how
8 precise the material was and that I used the written material from the
9 personnel file number 2.
10 Any other attempt to take words out of the context is the
11 reversal of the things that I said. I never used any facts or
12 information that was provided to me verbally because if I had I would
13 have used the methodology appropriate for entering such facts into a
15 Q. All right. You didn't take any notes. You didn't use any notes
16 of any information that was provided by you -- provided to you by
17 General Miletic; right?
18 A. I did not use any notes that I might have made in my conversation
19 with General Miletic, and General Miletic did not provide me with any of
20 his notes, either. No notes involved.
21 Q. I'm curious because I've noticed that throughout your entire
22 testimony you've been taking notes even though there is a reporter here
23 and a transcript in front of you. Did you take any notes with respect to
24 any of these interviews or any other information that you used in
25 preparing your report?
1 A. I am forced to make notes for several reasons. Unlike you, an
2 expert has his hands and legs tied. He does not have access to a
3 database. He can't use his computer. He cannot go back to check. The
4 only thing I can consult is what you provide me with. Very often the
5 questions that are put here are too wide-ranging, they contain several
6 sub-questions, and they use some methodologies that I am not familiar
7 with, and in order to provide any answers I have to make notes.
8 It is with great pleasure that I can provide my notebook to --
9 both to you and the Trial Chamber and you can inspect my notes. The
10 transcript in front of me is of no use to me because I don't read
11 English. My knowledge of English is very passive, and I am using the
12 transcript in order to start my answer on time so as not to be admonished
13 by the Trial Chamber that I am too fast in providing my answers. This is
14 about the transcript.
15 When it comes to the drafting of my expert report, I drafted one
16 variation with over 300 pages. I have hundreds of notes on the computer.
17 I am very good at using the computer. I have tables in Excel and some
18 other documents which I can search, and this is what I do. And this is
19 an integral part of a serious work, and I must tell you that I have been
20 involved in a lot of serious work of this kind so far.
21 Q. Were you asked for any of these things by the Defence for
22 General Miletic, any of your notes or interviews or notes of interviews?
23 A. It never occurred to them or at least they did not tell me that.
24 The General Miletic Defence did consult me on some professional issues.
25 They wanted to hear my opinion.
1 Q. So you have those notes then?
2 A. No, not at this moment. The notes are on my computer in my
3 apartment, and they were the basis of my expert report.
4 Q. All right. What I mean is that you've retained them. That is,
5 any notes that you've had, any interviews that you have conducted in
6 preparing your report, you've retained; right?
7 A. Yes. It's a vast database which contains some book which I found
8 in an electronic form. So this is a huge database that I can search. It
9 is fully searchable, because that's how it was compiled. And anybody who
10 needs anything from that database from me, I can certainly provide them
11 with that.
12 Q. Aside from the database, I am talking about notes now. Did you
13 retain those?
14 A. When I say "database" I imply documents that I have been provided
15 with in any form, notes that I have made, books that I downloaded, and
16 all the things that I have used in my work.
17 Q. All right. Thank you for clarifying that, General.
18 We were looking at 65 ter P5, 6.1. Now, you were asked a series
19 of questions concerning that. In particular, on paragraph -- I should
20 say, rather, paragraph 122 of your expert you stated that:
21 "This language does not fall within the scope of work of the
22 operations and training organ with regard to formulating certain items of
23 the directive."
24 You also said that:
25 "Neither the Operations and Training Administration nor its
1 chief, General Radivoje Miletic, could have drawn up or modified item 6.1
2 of the directive."
3 That's correct, isn't it? Let me just qualify that that's your
4 conclusion; right?
5 A. Yes. There was something else about this conclusion. There is
6 another very important statement there. When Mr. Gvero's Defence asked
7 me questions about this point, we agreed on the fact that the support to
8 combat activities in 6.1 and then morale and psychological support, and
9 there is no 6.2 or 6.3 or any similar thing, that that very fact points
10 to the lack of professionalism in the drafting -- or, rather,
11 non-military way of drafting this directive.
12 So the first part is not an activity that the Administration for
13 Operations and Training would be involved in, although they were the ones
14 charged with the drafting of this document. It seems to me that the
15 methodology that was used in this point is not something that would have
16 originated from the Administration for Operations and Training.
17 Q. Now, what you've said in regard to the quality of the language
18 that is used, the methodology, that you said it's not military or I think
19 you used the term "unsoldierly" previously, that's not something that is
20 actually contained in your report, is it?
21 A. Correct. This has not been provided in detail in my report
22 because I did not deal with anything that was not part of the duties of
23 the Administration for Operations and Training. As far as the sentence
24 is concerned, yes, I did say that this was structured in a non-military
25 or unsoldierly way.
1 Q. All right. Well, you know that the directive itself indicates
2 that General Miletic was its drafter; right?
3 A. Not correct. I've already said several times that the Main Staff
4 of the Army Republika Srpska proposed an outline of the directive, not
5 the directive itself, and that proposal went to there, and in that part
6 of the work of the General Staff the job of General Miletic is not in
7 dispute at all.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could just go to page 15 of the English
9 and page 21 of the B/C/S.
10 Q. Now, all I'm referring to is what it says where it indicates
11 "drafted by," and it says "Colonel Radivoje Miletic."
12 You see that, don't you?
13 A. What point of my expert report is that? I can't go by pages.
14 Can you direct me to the point in my expert report?
15 Q. I am asking you only this, only this: The document that's before
16 you indicates that it is drafted by Colonel Radivoje Miletic. You see
18 A. Yes. In this document, yes. What it says here shows that the
19 proposal made in the document was made by Colonel Radivoje Miletic. The
20 draft proposal was made by him. You have to make a distinction between
21 the draft document and the document itself.
22 Q. You refer in your report to a Directive number 7. That's
23 correct, isn't it?
24 A. Yes, absolutely.
25 Q. And the documents you referred to in conducting your analysis is
1 this document that's now before you; isn't it?
2 A. Yes, correct.
3 Q. And so when I say to you that this document indicates that it's
4 drafted by General Miletic, do you take issue with that as a matter of
6 A. It's absolutely problematic, and I think you understand what I am
7 talking about here, but you're trying to confuse two issues, two theses
8 here. The document drafted by Colonel Radivoje Miletic as a proposal was
9 forwarded to the president of Republika Srpska, to the supreme commander,
10 in other words. When this document was forwarded -- after it had been
11 forwarded, I don't know what was done with it, but this is the final
12 document that was created over there.
13 On the basis of everything that has been analysed, I presented
14 you with arguments and conclusions according to which it was highly
15 probable that this document isn't identical with the draft document or,
16 rather, the proposal that was sent to the president. I was quite precise
17 about that both in my report and in the testimony that I gave last week.
18 Q. All right. When you were determining whether or not the language
19 that's contained in point 6.1 could be attributed to General Miletic, you
20 did not put in your report the fact that it may be unsoldierly or
21 unprofessional or sloppy as a possible basis; right?
22 A. Yes, for a very precise reason. Point 6.1 is not a field of
23 activity that the chief of the Administration for Operations and Training
24 deals with, and I was quite precise about this. This document here was
25 collectively drafted, and point 6.1 was not the subject of my expert
1 report. Together with colleagues here we came to the conclusion that you
2 yourself stated. The fact that it wasn't a subject of the report doesn't
3 reduce the importance of the expert report which focused on other
5 Q. All right. So the conclusion that you drew that it is
6 unsoldierly and unprofessional was something that you drew during the
7 course of your testimony. It wasn't some conclusion that you drew
8 beforehand; right?
9 A. And I had already reached that conclusion, but not on the basis
10 of point 6.1 but on the basis of other points.
11 Q. All right. So you reached the conclusion in advance of drafting
12 the report, but you never put it in the report per se; right?
13 A. Among other things in point 3.34, I dealt with the distinction
14 between the draft directive and the final directive. I dealt with the
15 matter in detail, and I addressed the matter that you have asked me
16 about. On that occasion and with regard to what you have referred to,
17 well, it's an issue I addressed in one of the points that the Defence
18 team for General Gvero also asked me about. For example, point 1.39, we
19 talked about an illogical task. In 1.40 we talked about the fact that it
20 wasn't possible to have such task, and I think there is one point where I
21 said that it -- I said quite precisely that, among other things, this
22 wasn't a military task. It appeared to be an illogical task and it was
23 for another organ to deal with.
24 As for the shortcomings of the directive in relation to the
25 Operations and Training Administrative Unit, well, I was quite precise.
1 I didn't analyse all the details, but I think that on the whole I have
2 rounded things off quite well.
3 Q. Thank you for that, General.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could go back to 10 -- page 10, I'm sorry,
5 in the English, and page 14 in the B/C/S. Sorry, it's 10 in the B/C/S --
6 nope, 19 in the B/C/S, I think is what it was, and I think it was 14 in
7 the English.
8 Q. Okay. General, with respect to this particular section, 6.1, you
9 indicated when you were examined by Mr. Krgovic that -- well, he put the
10 question to you, and this is at page 30244, lines 13 through 22 of the
12 "Q. If you analyse the portion right here, you can see these
13 elements being introduced, such as logistics, PVO support, things to do
14 with mobilisation. This entire paragraph does not contain anything, at
15 least in my view, that corresponds with morale and psychological support.
16 Not something that would seem to be in keeping with the rules of the
17 military profession; right?"
18 And your answer was: "Not only does it not correspond with this
19 element of support for combat operation, this entire paragraph is not in
20 keeping with its purpose. This entire paragraph that relates to support
21 for combat operations and then with a specific emphasis on 6.1."
22 You remember giving that testimony, giving that answer to that
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Now, if you look at the next-to-last paragraph in the English --
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- and I think we have to go to next page for
2 the B/C/S.
3 Q. You can see -- let me know if you can't, but I'll read it in
4 English anyway. The next-to-last paragraph on the page in front of you
5 says: "In the implementation" --
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: It should be page 21 of the B/C/S. I can't tell
7 if that's what's in front of us. All right. I think it is the
8 next-to-last paragraph before number 7.
9 Q. "In the implementation of other forms of support for combat
10 operations, all measures are to be taken according to Directive number 6.
11 The focus of logistic support in 1995 shall be on units envisaged for the
12 execution of strategic level operations."
13 You see that; right?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. And you know that Directive number 6 provides for combat support
16 in terms of morale and psychological support, intelligence support,
17 security support, engineering support, anti-nuclear chemical and
18 biological support, counter-electronic support, and logistics support.
19 You know that; right?
20 A. I am fully aware of that.
21 Q. So it's not anomalous or unusual that those particular categories
22 are not listed under this section individually since it's referred to or
23 incorporated by reference?
24 A. It is unusual and methodologically unjustified. Directive number
25 6 has quite opposite purposes. It was issued about 15 or 16 months prior
1 to this one. If I am not mistaken, Directive number 6 dates back to
2 November 1993; whereas, this directive dates back to March 1995. Not a
3 single soldier would rely on that directive because I see here that an
4 attempt is being made to accept item 6.
5 I'd like to emphasize a fact that is quite noticeable at this
6 point in time and that is that the paragraph between the one that you
7 read out and the previous one, well, these paragraphs are far removed
8 from other paragraphs. It shows that someone tampered with the digital
9 text. One can't refer to support for combat operations from the previous
10 period, and it's also not justified in methodological terms. You can see
11 that something very unusual has been done here.
12 Q. You don't have any personal information that anybody tampered
13 with the electronic version of this instrument, do you?
14 A. That would mean that I was a participant in the event.
15 Q. I don't know if there is a translation error, but it might
16 mean -- well, let me re-ask the question. You don't have any information
17 that this particular document in its electronic form was tampered with in
18 any way; right?
19 A. I have no such information, but on the basis of the facts I can
20 reach a given conclusion. To help you understand the matter, I would
21 like to point something else out. When you try -- when we try to move
22 support for combat operations under 6 to support for combat operations
23 under 7, if you bear in mind the characteristics of what is written under
24 6 and the Directive 7, it says that the matters are defensive, well,
25 things are quite clear because support for combat operations at the time
1 cannot be taken -- or, rather, adopted from that directive.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Shall we have the break now?
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We will resume at 10 minutes past 4.00
6 --- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 4.14 p.m.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Q. Good afternoon to you, General.
11 A. [No interpretation]
12 Q. When we left off, I asked you if you had any personal information
13 that anybody had tampered with the electronic version of this
14 Directive 7, and you indicated that you had no such information. Did you
15 ask General Miletic about that?
16 A. No.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could take a look at 6.1 again.
18 Q. Now, in the middle of the second paragraph -- or third paragraph,
19 I'm sorry, it reads -- well, let me read the whole paragraph or a part of
20 the beginning:
21 "Externally, a more aggressive propaganda and information
22 presence should be maintained aimed at gaining allies, deepening discord
23 in the coalition, unmasking the biased and hostile activities of certain
24 individuals and parts of UNPROFOR and some humanitarian organisations and
25 undermining the enemy's fighting morale. This is to be achieved through
1 planned and organised information and propaganda activities coordinated
2 from state level."
3 Now, having read that and having reviewed that, this is clearly
4 something that would be attributed to the administration for legal --
5 well, morale, legal, and religious affairs; is that right?
6 A. No. And this is what I said last time. First of all, we have to
7 bear in mind the fact that Directive number 7 was issued at the state
8 level or the national level, as you can see in the figure, and this text
9 is intended for someone who works with the government. It's intended for
10 ministries and other organisations. The administration for morale,
11 religious, and legal affairs doesn't deal with such organisations. And
12 although I am not an expert on morale, they would never apply such a
13 text, use such a text, because these groups are not their target groups.
14 Q. Let's continue.
15 It further reads that this is to be achieved through the planned
16 and organised information and propaganda activities coordinated from the
17 state level and says:
18 "Internally, raise the awareness of people and soldiers of the
19 necessity and possibility of waging an armed struggle and militarily
20 defeating the enemy. Make them so aware of the need -- make them also
21 aware of the need to put all available human and material resources at
22 the disposal of the liberation struggle in order to create a free and
23 unified Serbian state in the former Yugoslavia."
24 Now, in your view, is this language consistent with the function
25 of the Administration for Morale, Religious, and Legal Affairs?
1 A. Something has been mixed up here. There are some sentences that
2 might be sentences used by this department, but most of the sentences are
3 sentences that would be attributed to the commander and government or the
4 government of Republika Srpska. It's language that would be used by
5 those bodies.
6 I'd emphasize the items that have to do with raising the level of
7 awareness of the people. This is the state's responsibility. Then it
8 says, Place all personnel and material resources at the disposal of the
9 liberation fight, and the Supreme Command and the president deal with
10 such matters. Together with the Supreme Command, these elements that
11 have to be used in combat. So it's not something that falls under the
12 competence of this department, and you can see that this language is
13 intended for elements from that system.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Could I have 65 ter 3029, please, in e-court.
15 Q. Now, General, I take it you've seen this document before; right?
16 A. Perhaps. I am not sure, but perhaps.
17 Q. This is a decision for further operations. It is dated
18 24th November 1992. It was issued on the heels of Directive 4 of
19 19 November 1992, and it's signed by Commander Colonel Milenko Zivanovic.
20 Paragraph 1 of this document, you can see that it refers essentially to
21 Directive number 4. It's 023 of 19 November 1992, and it reads:
22 "I have decided launch an attack using the main body of troops
23 and major equipment to inflict on the enemy the highest possible losses,
24 exhaust them, break them up or force them to surrender, and force the
25 Muslim local population to abandon the area of Cerska, Zepa, Srebrenica,
1 and Gorazde."
2 You see that; right?
3 What I am interested at this point is, rather, section 2.3(c)
4 which will be on page 2 in English.
5 A. I can see it. It's item 1 in the decision, as far as I can see.
6 Q. That's right. Now, I am going to refer you to item 2.3(c) which
7 is page 2 in the English and it's page -- should be page 3 in B/C/S.
8 Now, I am only going to refer you to the section that concerns
9 moral, psychological preparations, and the language of that section reads
10 as follows:
11 "Before initiating any kind of operation, inform the unit members
12 about the important aim of that operation and underline that the outcome
13 of minor actions and of the whole operation is of crucial importance to
14 the realisation of the aim of the Serbian people, namely, the creation
15 and establishment of a Serbian state in these areas."
16 Now, that language is consistent with the language that you see
17 in Directive 7, 6.1, particularly concerning informing soldiers of the
18 liberation struggle in order to create a free and unified Serbian state;
19 isn't it?
20 A. I have to provide you with a detailed explanation. You know as
21 well as I do that I am a military expert whose field relates to
22 organisation, management, and command. If we are now dealing with morale
23 and psychological preparations and security, well, I am not specifically
24 competent for that. I can talk about it in technical terms, but in terms
25 of methodology it wouldn't be appropriate or it's highly inappropriate
1 for you to put questions to me that are based on an order that relies on
2 Directive 6, and you are asking me to compare it to Directive 7. In
3 methodological terms this is quite inappropriate, but if you are trying
4 to establish some kind of a link, it is necessary to do so by referring
5 to this point -- or, rather, the entire point.
6 This order is based on Directive 6, and then you might try to see
7 whether morale and psychological preparations correspond to Directive 6,
8 or perhaps 4. If it's November 1993, I think the directive concerned is
9 Directive 4.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know if I have understood the answer,
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: I haven't understood it. If I could --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: If you could clarify it with the witness, please.
14 Thank you. Yes.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE:
16 Q. This document, sir, is a decision for further operations issued
17 by the Drina Corps command. It is signed by Milenko Zivanovic as
18 commander. It is a military document, and it indicates in its header --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- that it refers to -- it refers to a directive of the
21 Main Staff of the Army Republika Srpska, strictly confidential, number 02
22 /3 of 19 November 1992. And paragraph 1 or item 1 refers to a decision
23 of the commander, as you have been talking about. It is dated 24
24 November 1992. I think I may have mentioned. And let me point out that
25 the section that I am referring to in particular, I do realise I did make
1 an error. It is actually number 3(c). The indentation is kind of hard
2 to see, but it's number 3, item 3. And item 3 reads:
3 "Support" --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: So I think we have to go to the next page in
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Ah, yes, next page in the English. I'm sorry, I
7 didn't realise that we had moved. Okay. And if you could look at the
8 top, maybe, of the B/C/S version, I think we might be able to see the
9 title. No? It's on the previous page. Okay.
10 Q. In any event, number 3, item 3 refers to support for -- support
11 to combat operations, and item (c) is morale and psychological
13 So my question is: In light of those facts, it is true, is it
14 not, that the language that is used concerning morale and psychological
15 preparations is consistent with the language that is used in Directive 7,
16 item 6.1?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse.
18 MR. JOSSE: Could the witness remove his headphones, assuming, as
19 he's already said, he doesn't answer any English.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: There was a moment where I thought he did
21 understand and he could follow, but if anyone so wishes we can ask him to
22 leave the courtroom right away.
23 MR. JOSSE: I don't -- Your Honour, whilst the answer to the
24 question as first asked was, I would concede, not clear, the witness has
1 "If we are now dealing with morale and psychological preparations
2 and security, well, I am not specifically competent for that."
3 The question he has just been asked clearly relates to something
4 which he has conceded he is not an expert to deal with and answer. He
5 said that; he shouldn't be asked about it again, in our submission.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: But the -- do you wish to comment, Mr. Vanderpuye?
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the question is a very simple one. I mean,
9 the question basically is look at the two texts, do they tally, do they
10 say the same thing. You don't need to be an expert to answer that.
11 MR. JOSSE: Well, in which case he doesn't really need to ask the
12 question. It's rhetorical in many ways.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, because he could -- he could actually say,
14 No, they are not the same thing.
15 MR. JOSSE: So be it, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: General, what you are being asked is a very simple
17 question. You are being asked to look at the two texts and tell us
18 whether, to you, they practically or essentially mean the same thing or
19 they say the same thing or whether you think that they differ, the one
20 from the other.
21 First of all, do you have the two texts in front of you?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have both. I just have the
23 order of the Drina Corps, point 3(c), as far as I can tell. And the
24 other text from the Directive 7, I believe that I remember it well. I
25 don't have to have it in front of me to compare it.
1 What matters here is a statement of some essence, and that is the
2 language extended to the brigade and the language extended to the state
3 cannot be similar, let alone the same. And the spirit of that language
4 can be recognized by the expert. In point (c), this language is of the
5 kind that would be used to send a letter to a much lower level.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE:
8 Q. The idea of motivating one's own's soldiers, troops to armed
9 struggle on the basis of securing freedom and state sovereignty, as it
10 were, is not an unheard of concept in relation to the function of the
11 Administration for Morale, is it?
12 A. Your first question which contains a statement in it is something
13 that I would like to refer to and say that the statement is not correct.
14 Moral guidance is the duty of all the officers across the army and not
15 only of one administration. The administration is only the professional
16 body in that respect, a professional organ. So that idea, that concept
17 is based primarily on the goals and the Administration for Moral Guidance
18 is the one that operationalises the elements in a professional way.
19 As for the credibility of that work and the competence of the
20 Administration for Moral Guidance, I am really not the best suited person
21 to talk about that.
22 Q. Well, under who's competence would morale and psychological
23 support or preparations be, given this full method of work that you have
24 indicated was employed in drafting directives and, indeed, some orders?
25 Who would contribute to that?
1 A. The organs in charge of that.
2 Q. What organ would that be? What organ is in charge of developing
3 or making submissions concerning morale and psychological support or
5 A. At the level of the Main Staff it would be the sector for moral
6 guidance, psychological, legal, and religious affairs. At the corps
7 level, I believe it would be departments. And at the department level it
8 would -- I apologise, at the division level it would be departments and
9 sections. In the brigades I believe it would be departments and sections
10 as well. I am not sure. I did not analyse that in detail, in depth.
11 However, the professional and functional authority is established along
12 the vertical line.
13 Q. What organ would be responsible for making submissions concerning
14 planned and organised information or propaganda within the Main Staff?
15 A. The Army Republika Srpska and almost all the militaries from the
16 region did not have organs for information and propaganda, and especially
17 not in peacetime. And this derived from the character of -- or the
18 nature of the war from which they were being prepared. One could draw an
19 analogy and say that something of that sort was needed. It would be the
20 commanders who would give it to that organ to do that.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could have 5D759, please, in e-court. And
22 I believe I need page 18 in the English.
23 Q. And for your reference, since you have it in front of you,
24 General, I am referring to figure 3 of your report.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Maybe we could blow that up just a little bit.
1 It might be of some assistance.
2 Q. And what we have in e-court now is a diagram -- or I should say a
3 figure showing the organisational chart. On the far left --
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: I understand it's page 15 in B/C/S. In any
5 event, the figure is in B/C/S as it's written.
6 Q. On the far left we have the staff. That's right, isn't it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And next to that we have the sector for moral guidance,
9 religious, and legal affairs; right?
10 A. Moral guidance, religious, and legal affairs.
11 Q. And if we go down that organisational chart we will see that
12 immediately beneath where you have indicated "sector," it says,
13 "Department for moral guidance and religious affairs"; right?
14 A. Department for moral guidance and religious affairs.
15 Q. And beneath that you can see it says: "Information and PPD,
16 political and propaganda activities department"; right?
17 A. Psychological -- yes.
18 Q. And beneath that you have the civilian affairs department and
19 then the legal affairs department?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And it is a fact, sir, that the moral guidance, religious, and
22 legal affairs sector oversaw or -- rather, I should say, the information
23 and political propaganda activities department fell underneath the sector
24 for moral guidance and religious affairs -- religious and legal affairs;
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you know, having reviewed the documents in this case or of
3 many of the documents you were provided, that General Gvero was the head
4 of the sector for moral guidance and religious affairs. He was the
5 assistant commander for that organ in the Main Staff; right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And in 1995 you know that Savo Sokanovic was the chief of
8 the department for moral guidance and religious affairs; right?
9 A. No, I didn't know that.
10 Q. Did you know that Milovan Milutinovic was the head of the
11 information, political and propaganda activities department?
12 A. I don't know these officers. I didn't know -- I did not research
14 Q. All right.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could may have 65 ter 6D284 in e-court,
16 please. All right. If we could just go to the very last page of this
17 document, it's ERN ending 76 in the B/C/S version so it should be the
18 next page. And that would be page 4 in English.
19 If I could, I just want to focus in on that stamp.
20 Q. I have the original over here if you have trouble reading it,
21 General. Are you able to make out what that stamp reads?
22 A. It says "Information Centre," I believe, if that is correct.
23 Q. All right. Are you able to read the circular part of the stamp?
24 A. Yes, well, "Main Staff of the Army Republika Srpska," that's the
25 first circle. "Sector for moral guidance, religious and legal affairs,"
1 is the second circle. In the inner most circle I believe it says
2 "Centre," but it's not very legible, I'm afraid. If I were provided with
3 the original, I might be able to do it a little better.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Perhaps if we zoom out a little bit rather than
5 zoom in. Not that much.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do happen to have the original if that will
7 assist --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. If you have the original that's easier.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could put that on the ELMO maybe.
10 Q. Are you able to read that, General?
11 A. "Information Centre," that's what it says.
12 Q. Thank you for that, sir. And that document is dated 8 -- 22 of
13 August, 1995; right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And that would certainly indicate that that information,
16 dissemination of information and propaganda would have fallen under the
17 purview of the sector for moral guidance, religious and legal affairs.
18 Wouldn't that indicate that to you, sir?
19 A. One might conclude that, yes.
20 Q. Is that a yes?
21 A. Probably. Not yes, probably. Let me explain why such answer.
22 Drawing conclusion on the activities of any single organisational units
23 anywhere in the world, including this army here, based on a structural
24 scheme where you can see a box and based on a stamp which shows that
25 there was an information centre would be pure speculation, beyond one's
1 authority. One would have to analyse all of their documents.
2 I've already stated several times that the reconstruction of the
3 organisational development of the armies on the territory of Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina has never been carried out, and I could not derive any
5 information about the existence of such a unit. I can say based on this
6 that it probably did exist, that it probably had its own activity. So to
7 be precise, the long and the short of it is probably that was the case,
8 but I don't have any elements to draw a final conclusion on that.
9 Q. All right, General. Let me take you to another document.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Can I have 65 ter 4148, please.
11 Q. While that's loading up let me just ask you: Was it your
12 understanding that one of the functions of the organ for moral guidance,
13 religious and legal affairs, the sector as it existed in the Main Staff,
14 one of its functions was actually to provide information and also
15 propaganda; true?
16 A. To be precise, I can conclude that its activity was information,
17 provide information and propaganda activity. When I say "information," I
18 mean internal information of the troops which is an important activity,
19 and I believe that propaganda activity also existed, but one would have
20 to analyse that based on the activities that were actually carried out
21 and on the powers that were regulated by a document.
22 Q. Well, if you look at this document which is dated 13 April 1993,
23 this follows the activity surrounding Directive 4, the Cerska campaign,
24 Konjevic Polje, you can see that at the bottom, the last paragraph of
25 this document -- it's a Drina Corps document for the record. It's
1 directed to the Main Staff, moral, religious, and legal affairs section.
2 In the last paragraph it reads:
3 "In order to react in a correct and timely manner and take all
4 the necessary measures, we ask for your engagement in this manner through
5 the following: To engage your bodies in the resolution of the problem of
6 the population that wants to leave Srebrenica, that assistant commander
7 for morale, General Gvero, and his bodies should engage themselves with
8 projecting information to the Muslims of Srebrenica on the means of their
9 safe evacuation from the combat zone."
10 That is precisely an appropriate application of the organ of
11 moral guidance, religious and legal affairs; is it not?
12 A. Absolutely incorrect. I am not an expert. You have to ask
13 General Zivanovic that. In all the schools where I worked, where I
14 studied this, and in practice wherever necessary, I requested assistance
15 from this organ to be extended to my units, to my troops, not to the
16 civilians. And I really don't know where this request on behalf of
17 General Zivanovic came from. What he wanted, how he wanted it done,
18 organs for moral guidance, religious, and legal affairs extend support to
19 commands when it comes to the information, motivation, and mobilization
20 of their own troops.
21 And here one could conclude that General Zivanovic is privy to
22 some information about the existence of some forces or means that may be
23 engaged for this task, but I believe you will have to look for an answer
24 to your question from him.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse.
1 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, we wanted to let the witness finish, but
2 again, now he has finished, perhaps he can take his headphones off.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, General, please, if you could remove your
5 MR. JOSSE: Now, as it happens, he's given a rather favourable
6 answer from our point of view, but we weren't to know that in any way.
7 That's not really the point of this objection. Judging by the general
8 tenor of the Prosecution cross-examination of this witness, they have
9 approached him, at least to begin with, in the same way as the Gvero
10 Defence did, namely to seek to undermine him partly in relation to his
11 credibility and primarily so far as his expertise is concerned.
12 Our cross-examination was directed at two areas; namely,
13 Directive 7 and in particular his placement and ranking of our client
14 within the VRS, in effect figure 14 of his report. Those assertions
15 which undermined our case in part were challenged and we cross-examined
16 him accordingly. Beyond those two areas, we did not advance anything
17 with this witness.
18 The Trial Chamber has really been here before. Our objection is
19 that yet again the Prosecution are using a Miletic witness as a vehicle
20 to further the case against our client. And we go one stage further.
21 These questions are a calculated gamble on the part of Mr. McCloskey and
22 his team to ask questions which they would otherwise have put to our
23 expert. They, gambling that we are not in fact going to call him.
24 Now, previously I have objected on the basis of saying where is
25 this going. I think it was in relation to a cross-examination of
1 Mr. Vanderpuye of another witness, and Mr. McCloskey got up, and I make
2 no bones about that because no we -- no criticism of that, perhaps I
3 should say, because Mr. Krgovic and I share matters in a similar way, and
4 he said that he wasn't prepared for his advocates to reveal where they
5 were going. We didn't pursue that, but we do suggest that this is going
6 in an inappropriate direction. This is straying well beyond the subject
7 matter, one, of the expertise of the witness; and two, of the matters in
8 hand, but above all else, this is a clear attempt by the Prosecution to
9 further the case against Gvero.
10 One only needs to look at the list of documents they have
11 supplied with a dozen new ERN numbers relating to Gvero to show and
12 illustrate that particular point, and the Trial Chamber should put a stop
13 to it now.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to comment -- thank you, Mr. Josse. Do
15 you wish to comment, Mr. Vanderpuye?
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Well, I think some comment is necessary,
17 Mr. President.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, then, go ahead.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: First of all, as I indicated and I prefaced this
20 entire line of cross-examination on reading back to the witness his
21 statements in connection to a question that was put to him by Mr. Krgovic
22 during his cross-examination, if you would like to call it that, of this
23 witness, considering the fact that they proofed him and met with him for
24 a substantial period of time prior to his testimony.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Still a cross-examination.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: I know. In particular the question was, if you
2 analyse this particular document, referring to Directive 7 and in
3 specific reference to 6.1, Mr. Krgovic stated:
4 "This entire paragraph does not contain anything, at least in my
5 view, that corresponds with morale and psychological support."
6 Which this witness has identified as falling relatively within
7 the competence of the organ for which General Gvero was in charge in
9 The witness responded saying, "Not only does this correspond --
10 not only does this not correspond with this element for support," meaning
11 the element of psychological and morale support, "this entire paragraph
12 is not in keeping with its purpose."
13 This line of cross-examination continued for a substantial period
14 of time during the cross-examination of this witness. Because the report
15 itself suggests that that language could not have been written by the
16 organ over which General Miletic was responsible, putting in parentheses
17 morale and psychological support, that is the basis upon which my learned
18 friends decided to cross-examine this witness because what's contained in
19 the expert report suggests that the organ for which General Gvero is
20 responsible may have contributed to the items that is being contested by
21 the Miletic Defence in Directive 7, 6.1 in particular.
22 We have introduced these documents to respond specifically to
23 that issue because that issue concerns the role and responsibilities of
24 General Gvero as the assistant commander for moral guidance, religious,
25 and legal affairs, which is the subject -- which was specifically the
1 subject of the cross-examination and is a relevant part of the expert
2 report insofar as it relates to the attribution of General Miletic as the
3 drafter of the entirety of that directive.
4 And so it seems abundantly clear that anything having to do with
5 what General Gvero's role was in respect of discharging his duties as
6 they are articulated in Directive 7, that is information and propaganda,
7 are directly responsive to the arguments that are raised by the Defence
8 and are directly relevant to the material that is proffered in the expert
9 report itself.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Do you wish to comment further
11 Mr. Josse?
12 MR. JOSSE: Yes, just this. Mr. Vanderpuye, we submit is
13 conceding that he is opening up the ambit well beyond the scope of the
14 cross-examination; but secondly, and more importantly than that, the
15 cross-examination was responsive, as Mr. Vanderpuye has in effect just
16 conceded, to what the expert just said in his report. In other words, a
17 certain amount of it we really had to cross-examine upon. And in
18 particular, so far as this gentleman is concerned, for Mr. Vanderpuye to
19 throw in our face the fact that we had proofed him is rather unfair,
20 very -- well, yes. I saw your reaction, Your Honour, because the witness
21 is a problem to us. He doesn't help our case.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, you had every right to --
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, it is simply indefensible to say
24 that, Well, because we had to cross-examine him, we were put in a
25 position where we had to open the door to introduce evidence that you
1 have a right to cross-examine on. That's simply indefensible. It's a
2 non sequitur and it makes no sense whatsoever legally or in any other
4 My colleague has articulated a position which, number one, is
5 completely incorrect. I do not concede that they had to cross-examine
6 this witness. I've been a Defence attorney for 13 years before I came
7 here, and no, you did not have to cross-examine this witness even if the
8 witness presents evidence that is troublesome to you. But the fact that
9 you choose to cross-examine the witness -- and I have to admit I am
10 somewhat surprised that my colleague is making this argument because he
11 submitted a position with respect to the use of documents on this very
12 issue that was supportive of the fact that you cross-examine at your own
13 peril. And in this particular instance, this was an issue that was
14 specifically targeted and raised by Mr. Krgovic.
15 The words, "This entire paragraph does not contain anything, at
16 least in my view, that would correspond with morale and psychological
17 support ..." did not come from the witness. These were words that
18 Mr. Krgovic spoke in guiding the witness to the answer that he wanted to
19 get from him, and these documents, in our position, is directly and
20 specifically responsive to that.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I think we have heard enough.
22 MR. JOSSE: Just this, Your Honour. Your Honours observed before
23 that as far as Mr. Vanderpuye and I are concerned, we used the same
24 language but with we come from different legal cultures. Rule 92,
25 Rule 90(b) -- give me a moment.
1 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the counsel to slow
2 down, please.
3 MR. JOSSE: I will do, I apologise.
4 Your Honour, Rule 90(h)(2), we say we are under a duty to put our
5 case. I say it's a matter of legal culture because I know that American
6 lawyers and English lawyers take a radically different approach to that
7 particular issue.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: We are all agreed here. We come to the conclusion,
11 Mr. Josse and Mr. Vanderpuye, that the line of questions that have been
12 put so far on this issue by Mr. Vanderpuye arise out of both the
13 witness's report and part of the cross-examination of the Gvero Defence
14 team of this witness. So we authorise the continuation of this line of
15 questions --
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: -- until we decide otherwise.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: What happened?
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Nothing. May I continue, Mr. President?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think you have the transcript of what I
22 said that means that you are authorised to continue unless we stop you.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Headphones again.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
1 Q. I think you just indicated that you didn't believe that this fell
2 within the competence -- that what is being requested within this
3 document, did not fall within the competence of the organ for morale,
4 religious, and legal affairs; is that right? That is, in your expert
6 A. Yes. According to the information I had, that was the case
7 because the activities of those bodies were mainly focused on the
8 internal organisation of the Army of Republika Srpska and of the other
9 armies that were created subsequent to the JNA.
10 Q. And so it wouldn't be appropriate for someone like -- or someone
11 in General Gvero's position or General Gvero himself to have direct
12 contact, for example, with international organisations concerning the
13 Srebrenica situation in 1995, would it?
14 A. As for whether it was appropriate for him to have contact with
15 international organisations, well, I can't link that up to these requests
16 because in the request mention is made to offensive and informative work
17 that is supposed to have other consequences. So I can't establish a link
18 between the two.
19 Q. Well, you know that this particular request followed the campaign
20 that occurred on the heels of Directive 4; right? You can tell that just
21 by looking at the date, can't you?
22 A. Yes. According to the date it's the period after the
23 Directive number 4 and prior to Directive number 5.
24 Q. Okay.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could have 65 ter 4201 in e-court, please.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could I have it on the monitor,
2 please? Could the Registrar be of assistance?
3 MR. VANDERPUYE:
4 Q. As you can -- well, this document is not translated, but I will
5 read to you what it says. It's dated 23rd May 1993. It's entitled
6 "Conflict in the Balkans: Exuding Confidence, Serbian Nationalists Act
7 As if War for Bosnia is Won," and this is a New York Times article.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we turn to the last page of the article --
9 it's 3 pages it should be page 3. What's that? One page.
10 Q. All right. Let me just put this to you and you can comment on
11 it. The last paragraph of the document - we will find it and get it into
12 e-court - reads:
13 "Antipathy for Muslims" --
14 Well, it's the fourth from the bottom of that paragraph -- of the
15 end of the article.
16 "Antipathy for Muslims and hostility toward anybody suspected of
17 having sympathy for them is widespread. Allied to the suspicion is a
18 conviction belied by every fact of the war that Serbs have been its
19 principle victims. On Monday, nationalist officials organised a trip to
20 the village of Fakovici to what officials said had been a massacre of
21 Serbian civilians by Muslims fighters. On arrival, reporters found
22 forensic experts from the military hospital in Belgrade, the Serbian
23 capital, at open air tables examining the remains of 20 Serbs said to
24 have been killed on June 21, 1992. At least seven were males wearing
25 military uniforms. Mosques reduced to rubble.
1 "The event appeared to have been presented for political
2 purposes. Grieving relatives said the bodies had been buried soon after
3 the villagers were killed and then exhumed, exhibited to reporters, and
4 reburied. The deputy commander of the Serbian nationalist forces,
5 General Milan Gvero, presided.
6 "Reporters driving to the event travelled 35 miles down the
7 Drina Valley past houses that had been blasted by tank fire, mosques that
8 had been reduced to rubble, and tractors blown up by the roadside. At
9 every stop there was nothing but silence. But one point that Serbian
10 officials were keen to make seemed uncontrovertible: That Serbs who
11 lived in the valley are implacably opposed to living with Muslims again,
12 much less to surrendering political control to Muslims as required by the
13 peace plan. General Gvero put it bluntly. 'We say everybody has to live
14 on his own territory: Muslims on Muslim territory, Serbs on Serbian,' he
15 said, 'This is pure Serbian territory and no power on earth can make it
16 surrender it.'"
17 In the context of what we have been discussing, is what
18 General Gvero is engaged in, that is meeting with reporters, making
19 statements concerning the objectives or the purposes of the Serbian
20 position, is that appropriate to his position as assistant commander for
21 moral guidance and religious, and legal affairs?
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes -- are you ready? Yes, Mr. Josse.
23 MR. JOSSE: I repeat my objection. This is nothing but veiled --
24 or perhaps veiled is the wrong word. This is nothing but prejudice.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Any remarks?
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes --
5 THE ACCUSED GVERO: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do apologise
6 for getting to the feet in the course of these proceedings, however,
7 there is one thing that I was particularly affected by in addition to all
8 the other fabrications. There is a reporter here, but we don't have a
9 text. We don't have evidence according to which this was written
10 somewhere, but this text says that Gvero presided over a funeral. I
11 don't know what that means in any civilized country. General Gvero was
12 at the funeral of these people who had been killed, and as far as I can
13 remember, he said a few appropriate things. Never would it be possible
14 for anyone to prove that Muslims had to live apart from the Serbs and on
15 different land. That's a pure lie. Is there a single piece of evidence
16 from the Prosecution according to which someone else said that when loads
17 of journalists were present?
18 This witness is a witness for organisation and establishment, an
19 expert for that subject, but the Prosecution has been insisting on having
20 the witness address subtle and professional issues of morale and
21 intelligence. On five occasions he said that he competent for that
22 field. With all due respect for the Tribunal, for the Prosecution, I
23 think that this idea that the witness isn't competent to address the
24 issue is something that should be taken into account because this is
25 something that he has stated. And I say this with all due respect for
1 the Tribunal.
2 Once again, I am very sorry for having felt the need to get to my
3 feet, but I was seriously affected by this fabrication of a journalist
4 that hasn't been supported by any documents. He has written about things
5 that he probably hadn't experienced himself. I thank you very much and I
6 do apologise once again.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, General. For the future I would suggest
8 that when you have something like this on your mind, that you ask to
9 contact your Defence team who are here precisely to represent you and
10 also your complaints when they exist, and I am sure that they are best
11 placed and qualified to present them to the Tribunal, perhaps, in a
12 better way than you can, and also decide what should be said and what
13 should better not be said at all. So any time you need to consult with
14 your lawyers, please draw your attention and we will give you every
16 Yes, Mr. Josse.
17 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, there is a particular difficulty here
18 because I am told by Mr. Krgovic that we think that this document has
19 only just been released into e-court. It's certainly in English, of
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes --
22 MR. JOSSE: It's not been translated --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes --
24 MR. JOSSE: -- and indeed it wasn't on the screen. I've managed
25 to get it up on my screen, but I have access to different material than
1 my client. And that's fully compounded the problem. That was apparent
2 to me in translation from what my client was saying. I don't know
3 whether he would like a few minutes with his Counsel, whether that would
4 help matters or --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: This is what I am suggesting. I come from a
6 jurisdiction when normally we would advise the accused to be parsimonious
7 with his words and have consultation with Counsel, because we believe
8 that Counsel can present the case better.
9 MR. JOSSE: I don't want to be -- upset General Gvero at all, but
10 that's certainly the view of Mr. Krgovic and I. Although, to be fair to
11 General Gvero, I know that there is a prevailing view in some of the
12 Trial Chambers of this particular Tribunal that the accused should be
13 able to chip in every now and then as they please. But if he'd like to
14 speak to us, we would be more than happy to have a moment with him.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think my colleagues would agree to allow
16 the possibility to consultation between General Gvero and his counsel and
17 that can take place, if you wish to speak to your lawyers, but I
18 understand even his lawyers wish to speak to him. If I --
19 MR. JOSSE: I'm sure Mr. Krgovic can go and speak to him there
20 for a moment. Can I suggest that?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Even if they want to speak in one of the rooms
22 outside, I mean, I have no objection to that.
23 THE ACCUSED GVERO: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. President,
24 thank you for the useful advice you have given me. I have tried to
25 follow your advice at all times, but you yourselves have seen, and I
1 don't know whose fault it is, but in this courtroom we have certain
2 difficulties. I am in one corner and my Counsel in another. When I have
3 the opportunity of consulting my counsel, well, it's already too late.
4 So I would like you to bear this in mind. It's not necessary now for us
5 to speak.
6 MR. JOSSE: I understand -- thank you for that, and I understand
7 we can now proceed.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Josse. And, General Gvero, I do
9 appreciate that there is a problem. The way -- the layout of the
10 courtroom and the distance between accused and counsel is problematic,
11 and it is more problematic in a case like this where we have seven
12 accused and seven Defence teams. However, all you have to do - and this
13 applies to each one of you - is to stand up and draw our attention, and
14 we will give you every opportunity to discuss or consult with your
16 THE ACCUSED GVERO: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I
17 hope we are nearing the end and that it won't be necessary. Thank you.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye, have we sorted out? Because
19 we haven't sorted out the matter raised by Mr. Josse. There were no
20 remarks, but I need to consult with my colleagues.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: As I understand it, the objection has to do with
24 the information or the reliability of the information that General Gvero
25 raised: A, he hasn't had an opportunity to see the document; and B, he
1 contests the veracity of the reporter. That's what I understand the
2 issue to be. If it's a question of relevance, I think I can speak rather
3 readily to that, clearly to it, but I don't think that's the issue that
4 was raised by my colleague or by the General himself.
5 MR. JOSSE: I did raise the issue of relevance. Really, what I
6 was submitting - and I wanted to make it extremely short and it's now
7 taken a long time - was that this was a step too far. And I appreciate
8 the Trial Chamber, again, to monitor this cross-examination, and in
9 particular I appreciate the ruling has already been made, but this
10 document, if one compares it to what has been put hitherto, is, we
11 submit, far too far along the road, and my learned friend shouldn't be
12 allowed to put this sort of material to this witness in this context.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. --
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, as I've read Mr. Josse's previous
15 argument, he indicated that he felt that it was prejudicial which is a
16 different question --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Actually --
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- a different question than whether it's
20 JUDGE AGIUS: What he said is the following:
21 "I repeat my objection," and to me that means he's repeating all
22 the arguments brought forward before which we dealt with. "This is
23 nothing but veiled, or perhaps veiled is the wrong word. This is nothing
24 but prejudice." This is all we have because then we had --
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: In terms of prejudice, I would only respond that
1 it is clearly not unduly prejudicial. Any evidence that the Prosecution
2 puts in against an accused in a case is necessarily prejudicial because
3 it proves a position contrary to the position of the Defence. The issue
4 in terms of its admissibility or the propriety we wish to regard the
5 document is whether it's unduly prejudicial --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- and I think in light of the circumstances
8 that have been appraised, in light of the testimony of the expert
9 witness, and the questions put to him by Mr. Krgovic concerning the role
10 of General Gvero, in terms of -- in terms of linking him or not linking
11 him with Directive 7 and the specific terms related to morale and
12 psychological support contained in that document, that this document
13 responds specifically to that issue insofar as it concerns the
14 presentation of information, information which undoubtedly will reach the
15 Muslim community --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- to which it is targeted.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Because the witness is also following what
19 has been said.
20 Incidentally, on page 52, line 3, the transcript needs to show
21 that the speaker is accused Gvero, okay? All right. Let's me consult
22 with my colleagues, please.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE AGIUS: So our position isn't much changed from how we
25 explained it before in the sense that we consider the question --
1 questions put as rising out of the previous questions and report of the
2 witness and not being unduly prejudicial. At the same time, we do feel
3 duty-bound to point out that the nature of this document and suggest to
4 you that you should be in a position to make an assessment how much
5 weight or otherwise it can be given, being what it is, and proceed with
6 your next questions.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I am not sure if I
8 got an answer to the question I put to him last.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think you have.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE:
11 Q. If I may, General, the document that I -- well, that I read to
12 you, the New York Times article describing what General Gvero was doing
13 and saying, is that consistent with the role of an assistant commander
14 for religious -- morale, religious, and legal affairs as you understand
16 A. Could the text be scrolled up a little on the screen? Thank you.
17 I will provide a very precise answer as to how I see this article, and
18 I'm going to give my comments on it. My position here is unfavourable
19 because I have just been read out an excerpt from the article which does
20 not lend itself to any deeper analysis, but I can provide comments
21 because I am familiar with the context.
22 Judging by the article, it was published on the 23rd of May,
23 1993, and it was downloaded from the internet. 23rd of May, 1993, is
24 characterized by the lies about the demilitarisation of Srebrenica, and I
25 perceive this article as an offensive and propaganda war against
1 Republika Srpska because there is nothing else to it. I don't know about
2 the credibility of the article. And as for what has been said about what
3 General Gvero might have said, he may have, but as far as I could see
4 from the document, I never saw or read such a position coming from him in
5 any of the documents.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: May I have 65 ter 4154, please, in e-court.
7 Q. This is probably something you are more familiar with. It is a
8 document from the command of the Drina Corps. It's dated 8 July 1995,
9 and it's directed to the Main Staff to assistant commander for morale,
10 religious, and legal affairs. It's entitled "Correctness of Informing
11 the Public About Carrying Out of Combat Operations," and it reads in the
12 middle [indiscernible] proposal.
13 And it says:
14 "General, sir, we are increasingly reaching the conclusion that
15 the events connected to Srebrenica and around Srebrenica deserve
16 propaganda coverage of the highest possible level. So we suggest to you
17 to more immediately engage the press centre of the Main Staff of VRS, and
18 in particular the radio stations in Milici and Bratunac are supposed to
19 be under the jurisdiction of the Main Staff VRS press centre.
20 "The Muslim population in the Srebrenica enclave is attentively
21 following both of the above-mentioned radio stations, which is a good
22 opportunity to, from our side, work on this enclave by the media.
23 "We ask that this proposal begin to be realised as soon as
25 First, have you seen this document before, General?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Having read the document or having had it read to you, doesn't
3 this describe an appropriate function of the organ over which
4 General Gvero has, well, control?
5 A. When you read this document carefully, and I've just had the
6 occasion to read it carefully, indeed, then you can see that this is an
7 entirely different document. This is a document in which General Milenko
8 Zivanovic expresses his wish for the radio stations, both civilian and
9 military, to be placed under military authorities. They should have been
10 under the jurisdiction of the press centre of the Army of Republika
12 I find this document as unusual as the previous one, and that's
13 all I can say. And also I can see that he wants the activities of the
14 army to extend beyond the scope of the authorities of the army.
15 Q. Sir, are you aware of a statement that was made by General Gvero
16 on 10 July 1995, concerning the events surrounding Srebrenica? It's a
17 statement that was admitted in evidence.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: It is P02753.
19 Q. If you would like, I can put it on the screen and you can take a
20 look at the page --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Why don't you show it to him straight away?
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Could I please have that in e-court? Thanks.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I have the next one, please?
24 I am not sure that I have ever seen this statement or read it,
25 and now that I have, there is nothing in it that I should have
1 incorporated into my expert report that I submitted in due time.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE:
3 Q. Are you aware that this statement was picked up and broadcasted
4 by SRT
5 A. No, I am not aware of that.
6 Q. Is the fact that the statement was made on 10 July and in fact
7 broadcasted on 10 July consistent with what we saw on the document that I
8 presented with you earlier, 65 ter 4154, pointing out that the Muslims
9 were attentively paying -- attentively following the radio stations,
10 which would suggest they could be reached by other media? Isn't that
12 MR. JOSSE: Comment, we would suggest.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: What do you mean?
14 MR. JOSSE: It's a comment that could be made in due course by
15 the Prosecution. The witness can't really answer that.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me -- do you wish to comment, Mr. Vanderpuye,
17 or shall we proceed?
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think he's perfectly capable of responding to
19 that, Mr. President. He is an expert in this field. He's an expert in
20 the organisation, function of the Main Staff of the VRS, and this is the
21 conduct of one of the people who he necessarily had to evaluate in order
22 to prepare his report.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Have you understood the question, General, or not?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did, yes.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: [Previous translation continues] ... answer it?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am in a position to answer, yes.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the previous document, one could
6 see that General Zivanovic proposed for the radio stations to become part
7 of the military. I don't have any proof that this proposal was ever
8 accepted and that the radio station indeed became part of the army and
9 were under its jurisdiction. And now I've been faced with a text, and
10 the question is whether it is in agreement with the previous document. I
11 can't say that it is, because the previous document was about the
12 proposal for the radio stations to be placed under the jurisdiction of
13 the army and to be a part of it. These are two separate things.
14 I am an expert on organisation, indeed, and one part of the
15 organisation in the sphere that we are discussing at the moment stops
16 here. This is now a professional and expert analysis of the activity
17 that is a consequence of the established organisation.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE:
19 Q. Perhaps my question was a little inartful, because what I am
20 referring to is the part in the document, the 8th July document, where
21 Zivanovic says, very clearly:
22 "This is a good opportunity to, from our side, work this enclave
23 by the media."
24 And what I am asking you about is in relation to the statement
25 that you just read, whether or not that statement is consistent with that
2 A. With all due respect, I can't establish that relationship. In
3 order for me to establish that relationship irrespective of your
4 attempts, we would have to analyse more than just these two documents,
5 and we would have to analyse the authorities of the two generals that are
6 mentioned in the two documents. On the one hand, we have the proposal by
7 General Zivanovic, commander, and the second thing is the authorities of
8 General Gvero which is defined by his position and role in the military.
9 Q. All right. Let me just show you how this came out as it was
10 broadcasted, if I could.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's 65 ter 4155.
12 MR. JOSSE: Why? Where does this take matters?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Do you wish to comment?
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: I will if you would like me to. The reason why
15 it is relevant is because it shows precisely what this statement is,
16 precisely how it was intended to be communicated to the Muslims side
17 which is an information aspect of the function of the administration or
18 the sector for morale, religious, and legal affairs. That is entirely
19 within the purview of this witness's expertise, and it is, A, proof of
20 the statement itself, and it's also proof of the manner in which it was
21 intended to be communicated.
22 MR. JOSSE: We say it's well outside his expertise.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye, we don't think it is necessary to
25 proceed with your question or with what you intended to do with showing
1 us the video or showing it to the witness. Let's proceed.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE:
3 Q. General, as part of your testimony I believe you said, as far as
4 you were aware, contact with international officials and UNPROFOR in
5 particular was strictly regulated. And in fact, you indicated at
6 page 30, 032 -- 30032 of the transcript of your testimony, that only
7 Mladic and Milovanovic had the competence and authorisation. So only the
8 two of them were authorised to deal with UNPROFOR. Do you remember
9 giving that statement?
10 A. I absolutely remember, but this sentence has been taken out of
11 the context and my comment would be pointless. Whatever was done with
12 UNPROFOR in the contacts that General Mladic and Milovanovic had along
13 the line of command would be handed down to the units, and then their own
14 respective levels, the units had their own contacts involving controls,
15 conversations, exchanges of information, and many other things. Thus,
16 General Mladic and Milovanovic were at the top of the system which
17 regulated all the contacts with UNPROFOR and that was their exclusive
19 And then along the line of command, they would pass down the
20 contacts, and these contacts would be inconsistent with the situation
21 that was on the ground.
22 Q. Well, I am not going to read you back your testimony because it's
23 in the record.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Could I have 65 ter 41 --
25 THE WITNESS: Okay.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- 52, please in e-court. And I understand that
2 we don't have a translation of this particular document.
3 Q. Could you please read this into the record.
4 A. [Interpretation] The document was issued by the Main Staff of the
5 Army Republika Srpska. It's number is 09/21-534. The date is
6 1 December 1994. The addressee is the Drina Corps. The document is in
7 reference to the Main Staff document number 09/21-526. The text of the
8 document reads:
9 "We hereby inform you that we have approved the passage of the
10 UNPROFOR convoy from the strength of the Dutch Battalion and to travel on
11 the 1st of December, 1994, from Srebrenica to B Koviljacu," which
12 probably stands for Banja Koviljacu. "Please carry out the control and
13 enable unhindered movement."
14 And it says below that:
15 "The assistant commander, General Lieutenant --
16 Lieutenant-General Milan Gvero.
17 Q. It is, in effect, a notification, as you call it, or an
18 instruction to the Drina Corps in respect of a convoy related to
20 A. Yes. This document, unambiguously, says that the assistant
21 commander Lieutenant-General Milan Gvero informs the Drina Corps what to
22 do in respect of the fact that somebody authorised somebody with powers
23 to do so had issued a certain decision.
24 Q. All right. And is there anything in the document in and of
25 itself that suggests to you that the somebody who was authorised with
1 respect to this convoy wasn't General Gvero?
2 A. Two important elements point to that fact. First of all, you can
3 see that the system is well established and it is well known who informs
4 whom. That's why you have this certain text "Hereby we inform you ..."
5 and then the body of the text which contains instructions as to what to
7 Second of all, it wouldn't be a common practice for General Gvero
8 to address themselves by their second name in a polite way. One can tell
9 that he informs somebody else and conveys somebody else's message by
10 sheer form of address.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. We will have the break now, and we will
12 resume at 6.25. Thank you.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 --- Recess taken at 5.54 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 6.29 p.m.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse.
17 MR. JOSSE: Your Honours, Mr. McCloskey has understandably asked
18 that I provide some information about where we are up to and what
19 progress is being made. The bad news is that the Gvero expert is still
20 in hospital in Belgrade. We understand that he's going to be discharged
21 from there tomorrow, and were we to call him, we believe that he could be
22 ready to start on Monday morning.
23 So far as that decision is concerned, we are confident that we
24 will make it during the course of tomorrow and be able to relay it to the
25 Trial Chamber perhaps towards the end of tomorrow's sitting.
1 The good news is - and this is really over to my learned friends
2 from the Prosecution - is it seems to me that the Prosecution have some
3 way to go with the present witness, and therefore, were we to call our
4 expert, the time lost might be very small indeed. I would have thought
5 they were going to be most of tomorrow, perhaps even into Thursday. Of
6 course, we don't know how long the re-examination is going to take. I
7 simply make those observations for timetabling purposes.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Josse. Mr. McCloskey.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. I don't understand why we
10 can't have a decision on this. Perhaps in the spirit of compromise we
11 can have a decision first thing in the morning. I mean, whether you are
12 going to call an expert? I mean, we have been doing this for a long
13 time. You've heard a lot of this expert. You've heard the guts of what
14 the Prosecution is going to say about him.
15 Can't we have this by tomorrow morning?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. On the other hand, perhaps one should not
17 underestimate the difficulties one can encounter in trying to discuss
18 something with someone who is lying on a bed in a hospital.
19 MR. JOSSE: That's not really the issue, Your Honour. The
20 issue - although I'm grateful for that - is when the Prosecution have
21 finished asking this witness about our client, then we will be a position
22 to make a final decision.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I was only trying to help, Mr. Josse.
24 MR. JOSSE: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Your Honour. And excuse me
25 for being so robust, and I hope -- I hope I wasn't impolite, but --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Even if you were, I'm used to it. So -- yes,
2 Mr. McCloskey.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: We are having these discussions and we know what
4 they are doing, and they know what our concern is. They have seen the
5 rest of Mr. Vanderpuye's list. We are almost out of gas on this subject.
6 So I think it's fair to -- to have the decision now, frankly. I think I
7 may be time for a Court order. But tomorrow at the very least, tomorrow
8 morning, please.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Anything else? Nothing. Okay.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: So we understand you both, of course, and we do
12 appreciate your problems and concerns. We don't want to sound Solomonic,
13 but I think we are going to impose splitting the difference, and
14 therefore we are calling upon you to come back with a definitive
15 position, an answer, Mr. Josse, before noon tomorrow.
16 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Incidentally, before we bring in the witness, how
18 much longer do you think you have, Mr. Vanderpuye, so that we can
19 calculate better our scheduling.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I -- certainly until
21 the end of today. And to tomorrow I would say at least one session, and
22 I suspect it will be a second session.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And you, Madam Fauveau, as things
24 stand, I take it you would have a re-direct? What's your estimate?
25 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think not more than
1 15 minutes for the moment, but I -- it might last up until an hour.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. Let's bring the witness in,
3 continue and finish at 7.00.
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Sorry for keeping you waiting, General.
6 Mr. Vanderpuye will continue with his cross-examination.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 If we could have 65 ter 4153, please.
9 Q. This is another document, and I'm afraid that the translation is
10 not completed yet, but you can see from the top left-hand corner that
11 this is a Main Staff -- it says Main Staff Republika Srpska. It has a
12 document number of 09/23-321, and is dated 8 December 1994. And you can
13 see that it's addressed to the Drina Corps.
14 If you could just read the text of this document into the record,
15 please, General.
16 A. "We hereby inform you that we agree to implement the
17 authorisation for the coordinating body for the HP," I assume it's
18 humanitarian assistance, that's my comment, "RS number 786-MSF-112, dated
19 the 6th of December 1994."
20 "On the 10th of December, 1994, the MSF team shall move along the
21 following axis: Belgrade, Zvornik, Bratunac, Srebrenica, and back.
22 Individuals concerned: Goran Bakic, identity card, Driver, Frederique
23 [phoen] C-h-a-p-u-i-s," if that's correct. "Passport number such and
24 such, vehicle Toyota jeep, BG033 RP. Carry out a check-up and ensure
25 that movement is unhindered. Assistant commander, Lieutenant-Colonel --
1 General Lieutenant-Colonel Milan Gvero."
2 Q. All right. Thank you for that, General. Now, this document
3 similar to the last document shows an approval for an NGO, Medecins Sans
4 Frontieres, that is being passed down to the Drina Corps through
5 General Gvero. Is that fair to say? And it's approval for a convoy.
6 A. No. This is not an approval for a convoy. It's information, an
7 information according to which the coordinating body from the Republika
8 Srpska that is responsible for humanitarian aid probably sent a document
9 to the relevant body in the Main Staff of the VRS, and that body in the
10 Main Staff of the VRS agreed to have this carried out and the axis was
11 established, et cetera. So this is information according to which
12 authorisation has been provided for this act.
13 Q. In respect of this act, as you call it, why would it be necessary
14 for the Main Staff to agree with a decision that's already been made?
15 A. The entire system in Republika Srpska functioned in the following
16 way. There was always the possibility for the Main Staff could make an
17 assessment in military terms to see whether there were any problems; and
18 if there were any problems, it would intervene with the coordinating
20 In this specific case, the assessment was that there were no
21 problems, and as a result, this mission was authorised. In fact, this
22 authorisation simply means that the army didn't see that there were any
23 obstacles to the implementation of this plan.
24 Q. Well, why would that be necessary to communicate that to a
25 subordinate unit such as the Drina Corps?
1 A. It's not necessary, but it's correct to say that they are
2 informing them that they agree with this. It's not necessary, but it
3 doesn't hurt.
4 Q. Aside from the fact that it doesn't hurt, can you explain
5 militarily why it's there?
6 A. This information note exists because one can see that this
7 assistant, this team, this vehicle have to pass through the positions of
8 the VRS, and the VRS is responsible for anything that is located in their
9 zone or anything passing through their zone. They have to ensure that
10 everything runs smoothly. This doesn't mean that if the Main Staff isn't
11 in agreement -- the Main Staff of the VRS isn't in agreement with
12 providing authorisation that this decision would be final. That doesn't
14 They could say that they don't agree, but in that case the
15 supreme commander would probably issue an order according to which the
16 convoy should be allowed to pass through.
17 Q. What I want to know, General, is why wouldn't it be simply
18 sufficient to advise the Drina Corps that the convoy is coming, has
19 already been approved and is coming? Why wouldn't that be sufficient?
20 Why is it necessary to tell the Drina Corps that the Main Staff agrees,
21 from a military standpoint?
22 A. I think we both agree that can be seen in the previous answer.
23 We would both regulate matters in the following way: We would say we
24 agree that the convoy should pass through and that's it. But matters
25 have been dealt with differently here and I don't think that that poses a
1 particular problem, and I don't think that any problems were created. It
2 wasn't necessary to regulate matters in this way, but doing so does no
3 harm either.
4 Q. As far as you're aware of the issuance of this kind of a
5 notification, this statement of agreement, however you want to put it, is
6 it appropriate for a person in General Gvero's position to be sending
7 this type of information on to the Drina Corps?
8 A. As information for his subordinates, it's his duty to inform his
9 subordinates as to what his superior has decided. He relays -- he is
10 responsible for relaying this information. He probably literally
11 transmitted this information.
12 Q. Does that particular function fall within General Gvero's
13 position by establishment as the assistant commander for morale,
14 religious, and legal affairs? Does the fact that he's sending apparent
15 approvals of convoys to the Drina Corps fall within the functions that
16 would normally be ascribed to him given his position?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse.
18 MR. JOSSE: I am being told by the gentleman to my left that the
19 document doesn't actually refer to a convoy. Of course, I don't know
20 that because I don't understand it and there is no translation. Perhaps
21 we could clarify that.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you. Perhaps you can do that,
23 Mr. Vanderpuye. We are not in a position to know.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Well --
25 Q. How do you --
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Maybe I could clarify it through the witness,
2 with the Court's permission.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE:
5 Q. How do you understand this document, General? What do you
6 understand it to be?
7 A. I said this at the outset. I'll repeat what I said. This is a
8 note informing the subordinate unit as to what has been decided. As far
9 as I could see what the responsibilities of the organisational units
10 were, as far as I could see what responsibilities they had with regard to
11 humanitarian organisations, well, I can't see that this is his
12 responsibility; but as for the duty to relay the order issued to him by
13 the commander, well, there is such a duty and it has to be fulfilled in
14 spite of the fact that this is not his sphere of activity.
15 Q. Thank you, for that. I hope that satisfies my colleague, but my
16 follow-up question is: Understanding that it's a duty that has to be
17 fulfilled, why should it have been General Gvero to fulfill it, given
18 your understanding of the Main Staff and the way the Main Staff works?
19 A. I can assume that this was so because that's what the commander
20 had decided, and this information could have been relayed by any
21 assistant commander if the commander so decided.
22 Q. So an assistant commander can do pretty much anything as long as
23 he has the authorisation of his superior, the commander; isn't that
25 A. You're a lawyer, but no, far from it. An assistant commander
1 couldn't do whatever he wanted to do. An assistant commander has clearly
2 defined duties. In the course of my testimony, I have mentioned where
3 these duties set out and this is the field of activities that such a
4 commander is involved in.
5 In addition, an assistant commander can also deal with other
6 tasks assigned to him by the commander if it's possible for him to carry
7 out the task in question and if it's not necessary to be involved in
8 other activities to carry out the task. It's quite obvious that in order
9 to inform troops all you need to know is whom you have to inform and you
10 have to know what they have to be informed of, and each and every
11 assistant commander has been trained to act in this manner and is
12 competent to do so if his commander issues him such an order.
13 Q. Do you know, given your examination of many documents, whether or
14 not General Gvero was authorised to maintain contacts with international
15 organisations, NGOs, et cetera?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse.
17 MR. JOSSE: We have not objected hitherto, but this line
18 undoubtedly arises purely from the words that Mr. Vanderpuye quoted
19 earlier, which were really words that the witness mentioned in passing in
20 his examination-in-chief. Significantly, this was not an area that we
21 dealt with at all in our cross-examination. They were the words that --
22 if I could have a moment. At 30032 -- and it might be worth the
23 Trial Chamber looking at them and deciding whether this line should be
24 permitted, but the essential difference is this was not cross-examined
25 upon at all.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to comment, Mr. Vanderpuye?
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do, but regrettably I would like the witness
3 to take his headphones off because I'm --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes. General, could you take your headphones
5 off, please.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I -- this particular
8 issue was specifically dealt with on cross-examination because it arises
9 precisely out of the language of Directive 7 insofar as it concerns
10 morale and psychological support. It arises directly out of that
11 language. The -- under 6.1 it says:
12 "Externally, a more aggressive propaganda and information
13 presence should be maintained aimed at gaining allies, deepening discord
14 in the coalition, unmasking the biased and hostile activities of certain
15 individuals in parts of UNPROFOR, in some humanitarian organisations, and
16 undermining the enemies fighting morale. This is to be achieved through
17 a planned and organised information and propaganda activities coordinated
18 from the state level."
19 This specific language was challenged by the Defence in order to
20 distance General Gvero from potentially attributing to its creation.
21 That was the whole purpose of Mr. Krgovic's cross-examination of this
22 witness. When the witness responded he agreed, and he said that that
23 language was far removed from what would normally be expected in effect -
24 I'm paraphrasing at this point because I don't have it in front of me -
25 in effect was far removed from the responsibilities that General Gvero
1 would have as the assistant of moral -- assistant commander for morale,
2 legal -- morale affairs.
3 What this is pointing at is what the extent is or the nature of
4 General Gvero's responsibilities are insofar as they relate to the
5 language in the document that the Defence specifically challenged. They
6 are saying he couldn't have contributed to it because it doesn't sound
7 like it came from him and it's not within the scope of his authorities.
8 And what I am demonstrating -- trying to demonstrate through my cross is
9 that that's not the case, simple and plain.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
12 General, the question that Mr. Vanderpuye put to you and which
13 was objected to and on which we have heard some submissions, was the
15 "Do you know, given your examination of many documents, whether
16 or not General Gvero was authorised to maintain contacts with
17 international organisations, NGOs, et cetera?"
18 If you have come across documents or in the course of your
19 research obtained information which enables you to answer this question,
20 then please go ahead and answer it. Otherwise, we will proceed to the
21 next question.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can provide you with the
23 following answer: Cooperation with UNPROFOR hadn't been systematically
24 regulated. It was an ongoing process when it came to organisation and
25 responsibilities. Milovanovic, Manojlo's statement and other documents
1 show that contact with UNPROFOR was dealt with at the highest level of
2 the army and that meant through Generals Milovanovic and Mladic. In
3 certain documents I saw that on the basis of their decision they
4 specifically authorised certain officers in the rear to have contact or
5 to become involved in other activities. Since I wasn't really involved
6 in investigating the responsibilities and sphere of activities of
7 General Gvero, as to whether he had an order to cooperate in specific
8 cases, well, I could not say.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. I am afraid we have to leave it
10 at that for today. We will resume tomorrow at 2.15. I am confident that
11 we will finish with your testimony tomorrow, hopefully. So that's all.
12 Thank you all, and we stand adjourned.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.59 p.m.,
14 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 21st day
15 of January, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.