1 Wednesday, 21 January 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Registrar, could you call the case, please.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
7 IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam, and good afternoon to you and to
9 everybody. All the accused are here. Prosecution, Mr. McCloskey and
10 Mr. Vanderpuye. Defence teams, only Mr. Bourgon absent.
11 I understand there are some preliminaries, Mr. Haynes.
12 MR. HAYNES: Yes. Earlier this morning I sent everybody an
13 e-mail, including your senior legal officer, so I am hopeful that you are
14 familiar with the contents of it. I am ready to start my case, but the
15 evidence which will begin it requires a degree of logistical preparation,
16 and there is still a degree of uncertainty about when we will come to the
17 end of what is ahead of me. And I suppose what I am looking for from you
18 is what in my jurisdiction we would call a time-marking.
19 Where there is, as it were, a bit of a traffic ahead of a trial
20 it's not uncommon for a Court listing officer or a judge to say, Your
21 case will not start before, say, 9.00 Monday morning or 4.00 tomorrow
22 afternoon. I think, with respect, I am not assisted by further
23 information from Mr. Josse or Mr. Vanderpuye. I am really looking for
24 your help so that you can tell me, We want you to start tomorrow, or, We
25 don't think there is any point on that, start Monday morning. And that's
1 really all I've come here today to ask you for so that I can amass my
2 forces accordingly, and I have no doubt that my client would appreciate
3 some certainty in that regard also.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you, Mr. Haynes. We will come to that
5 later on after we have heard Mr. Josse, unless he has got some
6 information readily available now?
7 MR. JOSSE: There is nothing I can add to what I have previously
8 said. I sent a communication to all counsel in the case today as
10 Your Honour --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: No. We are not aware of that, obviously, because
12 you said you sent it to co-counsel.
13 MR. JOSSE: I sent it to all --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: All counsel.
15 MR. JOSSE: -- all counsel in the case.
16 Your Honour, I am not sure exactly what Mr. McCloskey's stance is
17 in relation to what Mr. Haynes has said save for the fact that there has
18 been some e-mail correspondence between counsel, and he, I think, is
19 probably supportive of Mr. Haynes's position. We certainly are.
20 I don't want to be overly critical of the Prosecution, but the
21 fact of the matter is that when he started cross-examining this witness,
22 Mr. Vanderpuye was asked by Your Honour whether he was still going to be
23 eight hours, and he said considerably less than that. Yesterday, the
24 issue was again addressed just after the second break, and he indicated
25 that he might be a session or two today. The list of exhibits has
1 extended still further, and the Prosecution understandably want
2 information from us, but we are unhappy with the way that they are
3 playing with the time estimate of their cross-examination of this witness
4 which impacts on our decision and even more so on Mr. Haynes's.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's not open a hole, literally, of
6 unhappiness because you are not the only one who is unhappy, obviously.
7 Mr. McCloskey, supposedly, is also unhappy and so am I. Yes,
8 Mr. McCloskey.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. They have not followed your order, and I
10 would ask that they -- if you read the e-mail, they continue to hedge.
11 We are very happy to have their expert testify next week. We look
12 forward to cross-examining him. I don't think that their expert should
13 interrupt the testimony of any of the Pandurevic witnesses, and we don't
14 think it should be put off until after that, but we are happy to -- if it
15 takes next week to get the expert here, we are happy to do that. We
16 would like to have a chance to cross-examine that witness.
17 And on the subject of any other potential witnesses that may
18 testify in the Gvero case, I wish that that issue be cleared up while the
19 accused is in court, because that has not been clarified while the
20 accused was in court. The issue is an important issue that if an accused
21 is choosing not to testify that that be clear on the record. It's not
22 clear now because when it was made clear by Mr. Josse, his client was not
23 in court. So, I don't want to be involved in that but I do think, for
24 the record, it does need to be made clear that Mr. Gvero is not
1 And so both those issues I would hope could be made clear today.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I will only comment on the first part of
3 your intervention; namely, that Mr. Josse hasn't complied with what we
4 said yesterday or what we ordered yesterday. I think I made it clear
5 that we were splitting the difference, sort of, between you, and we gave
6 him up to noon -- up to -- sorry, I said noon, what I meant was halfway
7 through the -- today's sitting. My --
8 MR. JOSSE: But, Your Honour -- Your Honour, could I -- let me
9 read out the e-mail. It won't take a moment. This is what I -- was
10 addressed to Mr. McCloskey, it said:
11 "As things stand at the moment, it is not our intention to call
12 General Kovacevic. This present intention is based in part on what was
13 stated during yesterday's proceedings, in particular, that the present
14 witness will be completed today and that after the Gvero opening
15 statement, the Pandurevic case will start tomorrow."
16 Now, I sent that at about the same time that Mr. Haynes sent his
17 e-mail. They crossed. I don't want to put Mr. Haynes in an embarrassing
18 or difficult position because he is not to blame for any of this. That
19 is for certain. And though it's not perhaps a matter for me to comment
20 upon it, I would endorse his request that his client start on Monday.
21 Realistically, we are just asking the Prosecution to finish with
22 this witness, and then we will state categorically what our position is,
23 but they have not been frank, we go that far, we use the word "frank,"
24 with how long they are going to take with it. They keep chopping and
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we have heard enough about this.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We are not happy with all this as you
4 may have noticed, however, by majority we have decided to proceed for the
5 time being and reserve our position in due course as we go along.
6 And in the meantime, Mr. Vanderpuye, please, you are enjoined to
7 conclude your cross-examination as soon as possible. Of course, we are
8 not putting any limitations on you.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: We have to bring in the witness, of course.
11 And, Mr. Haynes, I haven't left your -- the matter raised by you
12 as an unfinished symphony. We will come back to you later on because of
13 course everything depends -- we're talking of Monday. We are all
14 assuming, for argument's sake, that we won't have anything between --
15 intervening between the end of this gentleman's testimony and your case
16 except for the opening statement of the Gvero Defence team.
17 MR. HAYNES: I wonder whether I could push my luck to this
19 [The witness entered court]
20 MR. HAYNES: I hope you are not expecting me to start today?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, no. That's --
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we can safely tell you, Mr. Haynes, that
24 you can start on Monday.
25 MR. HAYNES: I am very, very, grateful.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: But it could well happen that things will move in a
2 way in which it would be impossible for you to start on Monday.
3 MR. HAYNES: That's fine. That's really all I was asking for.
4 I'm very grateful.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. But if things go as anticipated, then
6 yes, you can start on Monday.
7 MR. HAYNES: Thank you very much.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Haynes.
9 General, good afternoon to you. Once more, my apologies for
10 keeping you waiting. You are still testifying under oath and
11 Mr. Vanderpuye will hopefully conclude his cross-examination.
12 Mr. Vanderpuye.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. And good afternoon to
14 you and Your Honours. Good afternoon to my colleagues.
15 WITNESS: SLOBODAN KOSOVAC [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpretation]
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]
18 Q. Good afternoon to you, General.
19 A. Good afternoon to everybody.
20 Q. General, yesterday when we left off I was asking you about
21 General Gvero's relationship or -- with international organisations and
22 whether or not he was authorised to maintain contacts with them as the
23 scope of his duties for assistant commander for morale, religious, and
24 legal affairs.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could 65 ter 4156 in e-court, please.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse.
2 MR. JOSSE: It could be put into e-court. It's probably best if
3 the witness takes his earphones off, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: General, can you kindly take off -- remove your
5 headphones, please.
6 Yes, Mr. Josse.
7 MR. JOSSE: This is a new document that deals with Gvero --
8 alleged Gvero related dealings with the ICRC. Mr. Vanderpuye explained
9 to the Chamber yesterday why this line arises from our cross-examination,
10 and we accept that the Trial Chamber upheld his submissions in this
11 regard. Our observation and objection in effect is this: Why can't he
12 use P536 which is already in evidence to ask the witness about the same
13 area. P536, perhaps that could be put into e-court. That's another
14 document that alleges Gvero's dealings with the ICRC at the same point.
15 In short, why are the Prosecution deliberately choosing to use a
16 new document to conduct this line of cross-examination rather than a
17 piece of evidence that's already been adduced as part of their case?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I hope the answer is not that we haven't got enough
19 documents in the case. What's your reaction or remark, Mr. Vanderpuye?
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I think this document fairly
21 addresses the issue that was raised during the cross-examination of this
22 witness. I think it's appropriate, and I don't know that it's within the
23 purview of the Defence to dictate to the Prosecution which evidence it
24 chooses to use. The Defence has been provided with this document. He
25 evidently is ready and knows what it's about. So it's not an issue of
1 surprise or unfairness with respect to its use. So --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: What do you intend to prove by this document?
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: What I intend to show with this document is the
4 role that General Gvero played with respect to his interaction with
5 international organisations. And the reason for that is because it ties
6 to the language of Directive 7, from which the Gvero Defence seeks to
7 distance Mr. Gvero as a potential contributor.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: And would you have been able to prove the same
9 thing by using P536? There's opportunity to look at it. I don't have it
10 in front of me.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do. I'm looking at it just now.
12 [Prosecution Counsel Confer]
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think if we can see them both.
14 MR. JOSSE: As I've repeatedly said, I have no objection to the
15 Court looking and reading both documents --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. That's what I'm trying to --
17 MR. JOSSE: -- in deciding whether there is any substance in the
18 submission I am making, which is, in effect, the Prosecution are
19 deliberately trying to introduce new evidence.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: The difficulties are two, Mr. Josse. One is it's
21 not normal that a party is told which documents to use in the course of
22 direct or cross-examination. That's number one. And secondly, we
23 haven't seen either of these two documents. We are seeing one now, and I
24 have asked for the other one to be shown on e-court. And exactly which
25 is P536?
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the one to the left is 536. The one
2 to the right is 4156.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. Yes, Madam Fauveau, in the
4 meantime --
5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I would just like to add one thing
6 to what has been said. The document that the Prosecutor wanted to use,
7 well, we consider that it also has exculpatory elements for our client.
8 MR. JOSSE: If my learned friend Madam Fauveau is saying that she
9 wants to adduce that document in any event, then there is no point for
10 the Trial Chamber ruling on the submission. Perhaps she could make that
11 clear, and I will withdraw my objection.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I think Ms. Fauveau has made that clear. I don't
13 think we should make it clear that the document contains exculpatory
14 material for --
15 MR. JOSSE: Sorry, Your Honour misunderstood. I am simply asking
16 her to make it clear that she wishes it to be adduced. If she does, I
17 will withdraw my objection on that basis, and let's make it clear on the
18 basis that she wants it in and not the Prosecution.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- I would just like to clarify that as far as
22 my colleague has alleged or is saying that we can prove the same point by
23 using the same document, that's a separate issue on whether or not we are
24 trying to introduce new evidence because what we are talking about is
25 evidence that is corroborative of evidence that has already been adduced
1 in the case. That's a separate issue than whether it is completely new
2 to the Defence or new to the case. It's not because it bears upon a
3 similar matter but it's corroborative of it, and to that extent, it is
4 appropriate to introduce on cross-examination. And we are not
5 constrained to use the same evidence over and over again for the same
6 witnesses, particularly to the extent that it doesn't raise --
7 particularly to the extent that it doesn't raise a completely new issue
8 in the case.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right.
10 Yes, Ms. Fauveau. Do you wish to react to Mr. Josse's ...
11 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I think I said
12 all that I wish to say for the time being, and I will see during my
13 questioning how exactly I would like to proceed.
14 MR. JOSSE: Then I pursue my objection on that basis, and
15 Mr. Vanderpuye really said it all, Your Honour. What we submit is what
16 he has just said is not acceptable. That is not a proper way to conduct
17 the Prosecution.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Irrespective and independently of the point
21 raised by Madam Fauveau and what it carries in its wake, our position is
22 unanimous on this. We believe that the Prosecution has every right to
23 use additional documents to make a point, and accordingly we are giving
24 the go-ahead.
25 General -- we don't need the two of them now on the monitor. We
1 only need the new one.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: May I proceed, Mr. President?
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
5 Q. General, this is a document that is issued by the ICRC. It's
6 dated 17 July 1995. And it's an update on ICR activities in the former
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could turn page 3 of this document.
9 Q. The second paragraph of this document reads as follows:
10 "After a meeting held in Belgrade, the European Union envoy
11 Mr. Carl Bildt declared to the media on 16 July that the ICRC would be
12 granted access to all detainees around Bratunac. The ICRC delegates in
13 Pale then had a meeting with General Gvero of the BSA, who ensured them
14 that the ICRC would be given access to all detainees once the security
15 conditions in the area allowed."
16 Now, with respect to that particular conduct, is that consistent
17 with General Gvero's position as the assistant commander for morale,
18 legal, and religious affairs, as a member of the Main Staff?
19 A. This paragraph can only mean that General Gvero had authorisation
20 from the military authorities to enter into contact with and speak to
21 UNPROFOR and ICRC representatives. Yesterday, I already said something,
22 and I'll repeat what I said, not a single document regulating the
23 responsibilities and functioning of organisational units of the VRS
24 contains provisions that regulate how one should cooperate with the ICRC
25 and so on. The Main Staff of the VRS has its own documents that
1 regulates these matters. They are ad hoc documents. And one can
2 probably come to the conclusion that he had such authority, and as a
3 result, Mr. Carl Bildt evoked the authorisation that he had received.
4 Q. These documents that -- these VRS document that contain
5 provisions that regulate cooperation with the ICRC, international
6 organisations, et cetera, did you review those documents prior to
7 preparing your report, sir?
8 A. The ones I examined have been referred to quite precisely. In
9 the report, in the footnotes, you know which ones are concerned.
10 Q. Did you review those documents in reference to your analysis of
11 General Miletic's role as concerns UNPROFOR, UNHCR or other international
13 A. Item 5 in my report that deals with humanitarian assistance
14 refers to the fact that I examined the decision on cooperation with
15 UNPROFOR and international organisations. Footnote 137, I examined the
16 order of the Main Staff; 138, I examined a document from the Main Staff.
17 And for a period of time I performed a detailed analysis and examined the
18 overall concept, but I thought it wasn't important to include this in the
19 report, but I did state that I had reviewed these documents.
20 Q. And so which one of those documents authorises General Gvero to
21 engage in contact with ICRC, UNPROFOR, et cetera?
22 A. As far as I can remember, the cooperation remained at the level
23 of General Mladic and General Milovanovic, and then they would authorise
24 him. I'd like to have a look at the document again to refresh my memory
25 about the subject.
1 Q. Let me show you another document.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: This is 65 ter 4157.
3 Q. This is also another ICRC document that concerns an interview
4 that was given to Deutsche Welle broadcasting, and it's dated 20 July
5 1995. In the first part of this document, it reads as follows:
6 "The spokesman of the ICRC Belgrade office Josue Anselmo has
7 stated here today that early this week an oral agreement was reached with
8 General Gvero in Pale, according to which the ICRC delegates are, in
9 principle, authorised to visit the Srebrenica Muslims detained by the BSA
10 when it took over this UN protected area."
11 If we go to the bottom of the page, the paragraph at the bottom
12 of the page reads as follows:
13 "According to Mr. Anselmo, General Gvero agreed with the usual
14 conditions for the ICRC visits to detention centres, which means
15 registration of all detainees, interview carried out in private, giving
16 the detainees the possibility to write Red Cross messages and in this way
17 inform their families that they are alive, repeated visits to the --
18 repeated visits and the assessment of the conditions of detention."
19 If we go to the next page. In the second sentence it reads:
20 "After the agreement with General Gvero, the ICRC vehicles
21 evacuated two days ago 87 seriously wounded people from Bratunac to
22 Tuzla" --
23 MR. JOSSE: Sorry to interrupt. Could my learned friend read the
24 whole of that paragraph, please. Particularly bearing in mind the
25 witness doesn't have a translation.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: I will be happy to oblige. It reads as follows
2 from the top of the page:
3 "As for the medical and other assistance, the ICRC delegation was
4 persistently negotiating with medical evacuation -- negotiating medical
5 evacuation of the wounded and sick people who stayed behind on the
6 Bosnian Serb territory in Bratunac and in the UNPROFOR compound in
7 Potocari. After the agreement with General Gvero, the ICRC vehicles
8 evacuated two days ago 87 seriously wounded people from Bratunac to
9 Tuzla. Apart from this, the ICRC teams used their armoured vehicles to
10 transport over 20 people who were unable to walk from the separation
11 lines to Kladanj."
12 Now, in light of what I've read you here as concerns
13 General Gvero's agreement with the ICRC concerning the terms and
14 conditions of access to prisoners, is this something that is consistent
15 with your understanding of General Gvero's role in his capacity as
16 assistant commander for morale, religious, and legal affairs?
17 A. It's not a very gratifying task to testify as an expert if the
18 minimum efforts haven't been made, and that would involve translating the
19 entire document that we have here. An expert has to examine all the
20 aspects of a given document. But given what I have heard, there are
21 sufficient arguments for me to provide you with an answer identical to my
22 previous answer.
23 The way things were organised were as follows: This wasn't an
24 integral part of the procedure, but on the basis of subsequent acts and
25 given there were no problems, it's possible to draw the conclusion that
1 such contact was established pursuant to authority received from his
3 Q. In your analysis of the structure and the order of the Main Staff
4 as it was in July 1995, were you aware that General Gvero played such a
5 role with respect to international organisations?
6 A. Having analysed many of the things that were done, I gained a
7 certain impression, the impression that there was a level of
8 organisation, and to an extent UNPROFOR remained in contact with
9 General Mladic and Milovanovic. As far as logistics are concerned,
10 assistants dealt with this. And as far as logistics -- that concerns
11 logistics in the rear, but this area was the responsibility of the
12 assistant for morale, religious, and other affairs. I think this would
13 be part of his field of activity, and as military expert, I would say
14 that as a commander he made very reasonable assessments about those who
15 cooperated with particular organisations.
16 Q. In respect particularly to the issue of the conditions of
17 detention for prisoners, is that something that would fall within the
18 sphere of General Gvero's responsibilities or perhaps General Tolimir's
20 A. Your Honours, it's very difficult to provide you with a precise
21 answer to this question. This opens up the way for speculation. It's a
22 problem for us to answer this precisely because the person who had
23 responsibility didn't make an effort to reconstruct the way in which the
24 VRS was organised.
25 Why am I emphasizing this now? The procedure that concerned
1 prisoners and detainees was the responsibility of the security organ;
2 however, the military prisons in the territory of the former Yugoslavia
3 were regulated in different ways at different stages. So those military
4 prisons that were the responsibility of the organ for legal affairs --
5 well, they were their responsibility for a certain period of time and
6 then they were the responsibility of the logistics organ for a certain
7 time, and I'm not sure whether the security organ was ever responsible
8 for the prisons. Without determining how things were organised, it's
9 impossible to provide you with a precise answer on responsibility, but
10 it's possible to and easy to reconstruct how things were.
11 Q. Well, General, given the -- given the materials that you viewed,
12 it showed General Miletic communicating with UNPROFOR and international
13 organisations, wouldn't it be important for you to know what the duties
14 of other members of the Main Staff were in order to evaluate that?
15 JUDGE AGIUS: That's what we have in the transcript. Line 11, it
16 says General Miletic. Is that correct?
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: It is.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure.
19 Thank you. I thought it was but I wanted to make sure.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] General Miletic, line 11. In
21 chapter 5, I stated quite precisely that General Miletic didn't have any
22 responsibility for UNPROFOR, and I said that it was my responsibility to
23 check this, and I also said - and I stated this in the report - that we
24 didn't have an overview of the organisation. When you asked me whether
25 it's normal, well, that's the minimum you should have done before
1 starting on anything.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE:
3 Q. Paragraph 190 of your report, it says:
4 "Major General Radivoje Miletic participated in decision-making
5 regarding the approval of humanitarian aid and the passage of convoys."
6 Now, with respect to reaching that conclusion, sir, isn't it
7 important for you to know whether or not other Main Staff members had
8 responsibilities as concerns humanitarian aid and the passage of convoys?
9 A. The worst thing one can do is take things out of context.
10 Similarly -- well, this question was also put to me in the course of the
11 examination-in-chief, I don't know when exactly, and I referred to
12 Article 191 immediately, and not a single sentence in itself has any
13 meaning taken on its own. And under 191 I stated that the documents that
14 General Miletic signed were information notes that didn't have the
15 character of orders. So 191 explains item 190.
16 As far as examining one's responsibilities are concerned, well,
17 the responsibilities of the organisational units of the Main Staff of the
18 VRS, in many of the items this was examined far more than the
19 responsibility of particular units. I adhered to the subject I had been
20 assigned. If the subject had been broader, I would probably have done
21 what I was referring to a minute ago. I would probably have referred to
22 the organisational development of the VRS and of the ABiH, and then it
23 would have been possible to see where the various parties were at a given
24 point in time.
25 Q. To the extent that you actually evaluated the decision-making
1 process regarding the approving of humanitarian aid in the passage of
2 convoys, isn't it important for you to have determined what the relative
3 roles of Main Staff members were with respect to that decision-making
4 process? You can answer that yes or no.
5 A. Your Honours, it's not a serious approach if one puts a yes-or-no
6 question to an expert witness.
7 Q. Can I take it that you are refusing to answer the question,
9 A. No, God forbid. I am here at your disposal. I am prepared to
10 answer any question, but you can't instruct me to answer a question by
11 saying yes or no. Experts don't answer questions in such a manner.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Still let's proceed with your answer, please, then,
13 if it goes beyond yes or no.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. It's not
15 going to be lengthy. I will try and be as brief as possible.
16 When analysing the subject I was assigned, I also examined the
17 way in which humanitarian aid in the Republika Srpska was authorised, and
18 in that analysis -- that concerned the responsibilities of the VRS, in
19 fact, in that analysis I also included an analysis of all forms of
20 humanitarian aid. When I had finished this work and saw that the subject
21 was not the precise subject I had been assigned, well, then, I just went
22 on to draft item 5 where I quite precisely analysed how things worked at
23 the state level, at the army level, and I also analysed how
24 General Miletic was involved in humanitarian aid.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Can I have 65 ter 1401 in evidence -- in
1 e-court, please.
2 Q. General, this is an intercept, as you can see -- well, 1401 B is
3 the --
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. If we could have 1401 B also. I
5 think that's in B/C/S and the General will be able to read it.
6 Q. It's an intercept that's dated 4th August 1995. It indicates
7 that it was taken by the SDB, State Security Service, Tuzla, CSB. And
8 it's at 1120 hours on 4th of August. Now, if you can see in the title it
9 indicates that this is a conversation between General Miletic and Darko,
10 UN Colonel Quape's translator. This is a conversation that involves
11 General Miletic's approval of certain matters related to the UN forces.
12 And here's what it says.
13 If we go to the middle of the page in the English, it reads:
14 "The colonel says" -- this is D, Darko.
15 "The colonel says that ... that if they are compelled to evacuate
16 the patient by land, you, General, will be responsible for anything that
17 might happen to this severely sick patient as a result of the transport."
18 This is in response the General Miletic's statement where he says:
19 "Impossible, sir. I have attempted to be cooperative with
20 Colonel Quape and in general with all of you. However, the more
21 cooperative someone is with you, the more you take advantage of it. And
22 I no longer wish, until you show that you are as -- that you are as much
23 as you ought to ..."
24 And that's when he gets cut off. What's important about this
25 particular intercept is, if you look at the last part of it, it starts
1 with D.
2 "The Colonel asks if we can please not talk about the past now
3 but about this medivac of this patient, who is in critical condition."
4 The answer to that attributed to General Miletic is:
5 "No, sir, no. The Colonel could have, if he had already made a
6 mistake, and landed the helicopter at," it looks like, "Inzinjering, when
7 he picked those wounded he could have landed at Sarajevo airport, so that
8 we could check on who you were carrying. And I have information that you
9 were not carrying just those two, your wounded. And I have no desire
10 whatsoever to take on any more responsibility myself, because at that
11 time I approved it on my own responsibility, not with the agreement of my
12 commander. I have no desire to take on that responsibility myself,
13 because of your improper behavior."
14 Now, the intercept continues, but before I continue with the
15 intercept I ask you this: With respect to the approval of this medivac
16 process, it's clear here that General Miletic approved this matter on his
17 own accord, and he says explicitly, "without the agreement of my
19 Can you explain how that could be, given your evaluation of what
20 General Miletic's role and responsibilities were with respect to the UN
22 A. Absolutely. In the intercept I -- in the excerpt thereof, you
23 can see that this was a process, an ongoing process, and at one point in
24 time General Miletic was in a place where the -- from which his superior
25 was absent and that -- that was probably the basic command post. I can't
1 tell from the document. Something urgent happened and had to be
2 regulated, and in compliance with all the existing regulations, faced
3 with the urgency, the most senior officer passed the decision as to what
4 to do. That was the only moment when the most superior officer made the
5 decision instead of the commander. This is because of this urgency.
6 In the second part I can see that this urgency, and I repeat it
7 was an urgent matter, this gentleman, a lieutenant whose name I can't
8 remember, again called General Miletic, again put pressure on him, which
9 means that it may be easily concluded that he wanted to introduce some
10 extraordinary procedures to interfere with regular procedures and thus
11 create some problems in the military. The statement that it was easier
12 to cooperate with General Mladic is absolutely normal because he is a man
13 who makes very important decisions, because that is his right. And the
14 statement that he has a better cooperation with General Tolimir is also
15 normal because General Tolimir was the assistant commander or
16 higher-ranking officer, and he had the right to issue different
18 According to what we have seen in this document, this is a
19 by-the-book example of replacing a superior officer following all the
20 rules and regulations that were in place at the moment.
21 Q. Yes. My colleague reminds me that we have a translation of what
22 you said is "replacing," and what I want to know is whether you mean
23 "standing in"?
24 A. I heard your colleague and we had the same thing in mind.
25 "Standing in" is what I had in mind.
1 Q. All right. Let me take you to a different area.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Fauveau.
3 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe there is a
4 mistake on the transcript. I don't think the witness has said what is
5 actually written on the transcript. "Standing in." I don't think that
6 matches what the witness has said.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: In that case, I think we'll need a further
8 explanation from you, and I would ask the witness to remove his
10 Madam Fauveau, what did the witness say? If you can avoid using
11 any B/C/S language, please, and speak in French. Thank you.
12 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the confusion is of --
13 made between "representing" and "standing in for." In B/C/S, the witness
14 used the term "replacement," to replace, like General Milovanovic who is
15 the Chief of Staff and at the same time deputy commander. The deputy
16 commander is translated with "replace" in B/C/S, which has nothing to do
17 with the term "stand in for."
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you for that. But then when the question was
19 put to him on line 20 -- lines 20 and 21 of the previous page, he said:
20 "I heard your colleague," that means Mr. McCloskey, "and we had
21 the same thing in mind. Standing in is what I had in mind."
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter used the word "standing in" but is
23 not sure that that is what the witness said.
24 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
25 in B/C/S used the word "replacement."
1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Are we agreed on this? Mr. Vanderpuye,
2 do you wish to clarify this matter further?
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would prefer for the witness actually to use
4 the word in B/C/S that he used so that it's clear on the record at
5 least --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- and then we will go from there.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me put the question myself to him.
9 General, could you please replace your headphones.
10 I take you back a minute or so ago and when you heard
11 Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye exchanging some words and you gave an
12 answer. And you said, "I heard your colleague and we had the same thing
13 in mind." What word did you actually use in your language that you could
14 repeat to us, please.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Replacing, "zamijenjivanje."
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Then we can proceed. Thank you.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE:
18 Q. And when you say that you heard my colleague, could you tell us
19 what you heard that you said that you agreed with or you had the same
20 thing in mind? What word did you hear?
21 A. Your colleague used the Serbian word "zastupa," and then I said
22 that we meant the same thing, not standing in for but replacing, which
23 means that Mr. McCloskey and I understood each other in the Serbian
24 language. This is what I meant.
25 Q. All right. Well, then, I seem little bit -- I seem to be a
1 little bit confused and maybe you can clarify it. "Zastupa," in the way
2 that you have used it in your answer, is that the same thing as the other
3 word that you used, which I think was "zamjenik." Is that how you meant
5 A. I am a very precise person. To my great fortune, I now make a
6 clear distinction among the three words that you used. The first one is
7 a "zastupa," a situation in service. Another one is "zamijenjivanje,"
8 that is a moment in time. And the third word is "zamjenik," which is the
9 name of a duty in the Army of Republika Srpska. When I was answering
10 your question very precisely and when I told you what was done by
11 General Miletic about the issue of the helicopter and when I was also
12 very precise and I said that in keeping with the regulations, the
13 textbook example of applying regulations in urgent situations as a person
14 who was replacing the commander probably in the command post, and that's
15 how things ended. Then Mr. McCloskey addressed you and used the word
16 "zastupa," "zastupa," probably wanting us to make a distinction between
17 the two things. Then I told him that I understood what he said, that we
18 meant the same thing, that we were not saying the same thing, and I was
19 using the word "zaminjevete" [phoen] --
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter believes it's "replacing."
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and this is what I meant.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE:
23 Q. All right. Let me take you to another area. During your direct
24 examination you were shown Directive number 4.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: And if we could have that in e-court, please,
1 that's 65 ter 29, 29. And if we could just go to page 5 in the English,
2 and I believe it is page 11 in the B/C/S.
3 Q. Yes. At the bottom of the page in the English you can see the
4 tasks that were assigned to the Drina Corps, and I think you see that at
5 the top or the middle of the page in the B/C/S, or top as it seems to be.
6 You were asked some questions concerning paragraph marked D,
7 Drina Corps, where it says:
8 "From its present positions its main forces shall persistently
9 defend Visegrad (the dam), Zvornik, and the corridor, while the rest of
10 its forces in the wider Podrinje region shall exhaust the enemy, inflict
11 the heaviest possible losses on him, and force him to leave the Birac,
12 Zepa and Gorazde areas, together with the Muslim population."
13 Do you recall being asked questions about that on your direct
15 A. Please repeat your question.
16 Q. Do you recall being asked questions about the part of this
17 directive as concerns the tasks of the Drina Corps where it says: "To
18 inflict the heaviest possible losses on of him," meaning the enemy, "and
19 force him to leave the Birac, Zepa, and Gorazde areas, together with the
20 Muslim population"?
21 A. Although I remember the whole thing, now you have read to me only
22 50 percent of the task of the Drina Corps. Based on only 50 percent of a
23 corps' task, I never provide my answer. I believe that at that moment I
24 insist on -- on my answer as a whole and now I don't know what to say. I
25 think it would be good for you to read the whole task and then ask
1 whatever you think you should ask because in the Serbian language it's
2 rather illegible.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Fauveau.
4 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] This is not an objection. It's
5 that recently we have found another copy of Directive 4. I have informed
6 the Prosecutor about this. Perhaps the witness would like to look at the
7 hard copy of this version which is much more legible and which in
8 addition bears the signature of the author of the document.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye. Are you happy with that?
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: I am fine with that.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, okay.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have no problem.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Fauveau.
14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] In the meantime, if I may correct
15 the transcript. On page 26, line 1, what I said precisely was "Signature
16 of the person who signed it." I did not say it was the author of the
17 document I just said it was the person who signed the document.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE:
20 Q. General, I guess you are able to read what's written under
21 section 5(d) of this document now. Does that refresh your recollection
22 as to whether or not you were asked questions about it by my learned
23 colleague during your direct examination?
24 A. I've read the paragraph. I don't -- I'm not really keen on
25 trying to remember what I said. Either you quote it back to me -- it's
1 very difficult for me to remember every answer of mine, and now it seems
2 that you are actually putting my memory to a test, which is not at all
3 pleasant, is it? So can you please read my answer back to me.
4 Q. Rather than dwell on the issue, let me just ask you: As you've
5 read this paragraph (d), which is the task that is assigned to the
6 Drina Corps, does this have anything to do with the movement of the
7 Muslim population?
8 A. As I am reading this paragraph (d) carefully - and I've read it
9 already several times - my first opinion would be that this is a very
10 awkwardly worded paragraph, but one can conclude very clearly based on
11 the context that for those who lay down their arms, there would be no
12 problem because there is a very unusual sentence in the middle, "First
13 offer the able-bodied and armed men to surrender," and so on and so
15 It may be concluded based on that that the objective of the
16 Drina Corps was the troops or armed men in this area.
17 Q. Are you aware that Momcilo Krajisnik testified in this case on
18 3rd June 2008?
19 A. I heard of that but I don't know.
20 Q. And are you aware in respect of this specific provision he was
21 put the following question:
22 "Now, just very quickly" -- and this was on the transcript of
23 this day, it's at page 21656. I won't read the whole question but I'll
24 read part of the question and the answer. It's between lines 4 and 13:
25 "Now just very quickly you discussed this order in your trial,
1 and in a question -- and you agreed that this language was an order for
2 ethnic cleansing; correct?"
3 "A. Yes." And he qualifies the answer and continues.
4 Do you agree that this is essentially an order for ethnic
6 A. Am I supposed to answer? Is that a question put to me?
7 Q. That is a question put to you. I'm sorry, I see that it appears
8 in quotes. My question to you is: Do you agree that this is essentially
9 an order for ethnic cleansing?
10 A. Again, extracting such an order from its context creates some
11 preconditions which you tried to impose on me from the outset and that is
12 bias, and an expert is never biased. If they did not participate in the
13 event they can only answer questions and the answers can just be, I don't
14 know, or I do know. If I were to assess this task as a soldier, despite
15 of the fact that I know who the signatory of the document is, that person
16 would be given a negative mark because when you start by saying one thing
17 and then saying how to do it in a different way, it's impossible from the
18 military point of view.
19 Here a reference is made to disarming, an offer to lay down
20 weapons which does not point to any sort of ethnic cleansing to me. And
21 now, whether I or you have understood the sentence properly may be
22 answered when you look at all the documents of the Drina Corps and its
23 units which were created based on this task. All the rest would be pure
25 Q. That's your expert opinion, sir?
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
2 MR. JOSSE: I think we can go on.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: We were actually discussing whether we should have
4 a break now.
5 MR. JOSSE: I'm -- I'm sorry, Your Honours. Yes. I'd invite
6 that, bearing in mind what happened.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. So let's have a break now rather
8 than in six minutes time. 25 minutes please. Thank you.
9 --- Recess taken at 3.38 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 4.11 p.m.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 May I have 65 ter 3029 in e-court, please.
14 Q. While that document is getting loaded, General, I had asked you
15 whether your conclusion with respect to Directive 4 as concerns its
16 language referring to -- referring to exhausting the enemy and forcing
17 him to leave Birac, Zepa, Gorazde, those areas together with the Muslim
18 population, in your view, constituted ethnic cleansing, you had indicated
19 that that would be speculative and that you didn't see any language to
20 that effect; is that fair to say?
21 A. Yes, on the whole. I said that the level of literacy of the
22 person who drafted this sentence -- well, perhaps this person was
23 exceptionally intelligent but not very literate. One should check these
24 things in depth. I said -- you asked me whether this was my professional
25 opinion and then there was a break so I didn't answer that question. But
1 I feel the need to tell you that I am under oath, I am an expert, I am
2 not expressing the opinions of a layperson and all the opinions I have
3 expressed were expressed in a structured manner, and I told you how this
4 could be checked and how you could reach a different conclusion.
5 Q. All right. Let's take a look at 65 ter 3029. I think it should
6 be up in e-court, now, and let me refer you specifically to item 1. This
7 is a Drina Corps document. It is signed by Milenko Zivanovic as
8 commander, and it is dated 24th November 1992, and it refers to
9 number 02/3 of 19 November 1992, Directive 4. And in item 1 it reads as
11 "Launch an attack using the main body of troops and major
12 equipment to inflict on the enemy the highest possible losses, exhaust
13 them, break them up or force them to surrender, and force the Muslim
14 local population to abandon the area of Cerska, Zepa, Srebrenica, and
16 Now, it is obvious to you, is it not, that this language comes
17 straight out of Directive 4?
18 A. Are you quite clear about the nature of what you have just read
19 out to me?
20 Q. That is the translation that we have. Let me refer you
21 specifically to the language that I'm -- that I'd like to focus you on
22 and that has to do with "... forcing the Muslim local population to
23 abandon the area of Cerska, Zepa, Srebrenica, and Gorazde."
24 A. I know what I asked and I know why. And what I have already
25 repeated on a number of occasions, Your Honours, is as follows. You
1 can't take combat documents out of context. You can't read through a
2 decision and then interpret the decision as a task.
3 This document for further action, this decision, is the result of
4 the task. This is the decision that the Drina Corps command drafted. In
5 my opinion it's very poor. We have to see what the nature of the task
6 is, the following item. The decision in itself doesn't mean anything
7 because the commander is assigning a task to his subordinates, a task
8 that they carry out.
9 Q. In your view, this task has nothing to do with Directive 4; is
10 that right?
11 A. In my opinion this is not a task, it's a decision. The
12 Drina Corps commander fully understood the task assigned to him by the
13 Main Staff, and the decision was poorly drafted by him. The decision
14 such as it is here has been -- has been very poorly drafted.
15 JUDGE KWON: General, can I ask you something. You tried to
16 distinguish the task itself and the result of the task. What did you
17 mean by the result of the task? Did you mean the purpose of the --
18 purpose of the operation? What's the result of the task?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for that question,
20 Your Honour. Perhaps it's a translation problem. I will be very
21 precise. When the commander of a unit is assigned a task by a superior
22 unit, having examined the nature of the task as the most responsible
23 officer, he follows a certain methodology and takes a decision as to what
24 his entire unit will undertake. This decision is relayed to subordinate
25 bodies and they are assigned tasks. His decision isn't important for the
1 subordinate units; the assigned task is important for the units. The
2 task is the mission that they have to carry out and that he defines for
3 them. I think that the task should be referred to on the following page,
4 somewhere, so I would like to have a look at that too, if possible.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's fine. If we could page forward.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a good time
8 for us to understand what it means to talk about something in context and
9 what happens when you take something out of context. In Directive 4, I
10 commented on a task. I said that it was very poorly put, that someone
11 who was illiterate had drafted it, but as a member of the military, I
12 analysed the order the words had been put in and I concluded that it
13 didn't contain any elements such as the elements Mr. Vanderpuye is trying
14 to attribute to it.
15 When I read through the first few paragraphs from the Drina Corps
16 commander, well, I must say that I was surprised by the catastrophic
17 nature of the decision. However, when I read through all the objectives,
18 and this is not something we could see in the excerpt, when I saw that
19 reference was made to the surrender, to breaking up the enemy and the
20 term -- the term "cleaning up" is used, and the enemy was in mind, well,
21 it was quite clear to me that the objectives were of a different nature.
22 When I read through the task assigned to the 1st Zvornik Brigade,
23 and this task doesn't contain any of these elements I have mentioned,
24 well, having done that, it's clear its unit can't and won't carry out
25 what Mr. Vanderpuye is trying to say is involved in the task. This is an
1 analysis of the entire directive up until this subsequent section. It
2 would also be good to have a look at the order from the battalion
3 commander or, rather, from the battalion -- from the brigade commander to
4 see how this matter was further dealt with.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE:
6 Q. General, why would this decision be catastrophic in any respect?
7 I am just asking because that's the translation we received.
8 A. Well, it would be catastrophic because it doesn't reflect the
9 objectives set forth in the best possible way. It doesn't reflect the
10 task that has to be carried out.
11 I gained the impression that the author - and this is a decision
12 from the corps commander - I gained the impression that the person who
13 drafted this wasn't taking into account the order in which things should
14 be done, and this isn't subject of military examinations. So the tasks
15 are a lot clearer. The objectives are a lot clearer. The task is very
16 precise. So it's a curious mixture here. But the task assigned to
17 subordinate units is important for me because it's the units that
18 implement Directive 6. Not you, not myself, nor does this depend on how
19 someone else understands the matter.
20 Q. We have a reference in the transcript to Directive 6. Is that
21 what you said?
22 A. Yes, but I had Directive number 4 in mind. I apologise. That's
23 the context that we are discussing. Thank you.
24 Q. I take it you disagree, then, with the testimony of one
25 Milenko Lazic who was put -- was shown this particular passage from
1 directive number -- from this particular order and who said it was
2 obvious that it came from the directive? That's at transcript
3 page 21831, lines 3 through 8. You disagree with that opinion.
4 A. If you're referring to Mr. Lazic, this Colonel, and you think he
5 was in the Drina Corps, he had a certain position there, I'm not quite
6 sure what the position was, and if he expressed this position on the
7 basis of an extract, well, I haven't heard his testimony. I haven't
8 heard what he said, but if that's what he said, then this only proves
9 that he didn't have a look at the entire context of everything and he
10 poorly understood the task assigned under Directive number 4. And it is
11 my impression that, in this way, he wanted in a certain manner to
12 rehabilitate the poor decision of his superior, and he didn't really see
13 that in the objectives and tasks assigned to subordinate units that
14 things were a lot clearer.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Can we have 65 ter 4147, please, in e-court.
16 This is another document from the command of the Drina Corps. It's dated
17 14 March 1993. It's entitled, "A combat order for further -- on further
19 Q. And what I would like to do is I'd like to refer you first to
20 item number 1 which reads:
21 "Following the successful attacks by the corps forces, the enemy
22 forces suffered heavy losses, especially in personnel, in the general
23 areas of Srebrenica, Skelani, Bratunac, Cerska, and Konjevic Polje. They
24 also lost much of the territory they held before the start of the
1 If we go down to the third paragraph, it reads:
2 "However, respectable enemy forces are still located in Pobudje,
3 Hrncici, Potocari, Srebrenica, and Osmace. According to available
4 information we believe that there are some 1500 to 2.000 Ustashas in the
5 area of Pobudje, Kravica and Glogova, and about 5.000 armed Ustashas in
6 the general area of Srebrenica and Osmace on.
7 "In addition to armed Ustashas in these areas, according to
8 available information, there are large numbers of unarmed persons, about
9 30.000 of them in the Srebrenica area and about -- and 25.000 to 30.000
10 in the Zepa area."
11 Did you have an opportunity to review this document in preparing
12 your expert report?
13 A. I've seen it but I didn't analyse it in detail.
14 Q. Is there any doubt in your mind, having reviewed this document,
15 that these 30.000 civilians in the -- 30.000 unarmed persons, I should
16 say because that's what the document reads, in Srebrenica area and 25.000
17 to 30.000 in the Zepa area, were the result of combat operations
18 conducted pursuant to Directive 4?
19 A. I apologise. There is something that I didn't understand. Here
20 it says that in the areas, according to the information available, there
21 are about 30.000 or, rather, 25.000 and 30.000 individuals in Zepa. Are
22 you asking whether this was the result of combat operations and the
23 result of Directive 4, something like that? I am not quite clear about
25 Q. Yes, that's exactly what I am asking you.
1 A. Well, then ask me.
2 Q. In your expert opinion, General, these 30.000 unarmed people that
3 are referred to in this document that are in the area of Srebrenica, was
4 that the result of the campaigns that were undertaken after or pursuant
5 to Directive 4?
6 A. Not a single concrete operation can be undertaken based on a
7 directive. This has been told you to a million times. You know it only
8 too well but you keep on repeating this. A directive is a general
9 document. It's a guiding document, a directional document. In order to
10 have a concrete task you have to have an order. So if I were to rephrase
11 your question, the question should read as follows: Is this a result of
12 the order which was draft based on Directive 4, and then it would be a
13 militarily sensible and reasonable question that might yield an answer
14 that you are striving for.
15 Q. Since you posed it, why don't you answer it?
16 A. Shall we change places? What you have asked me just now, the
17 answer cannot be such from what you said because that question could be
18 termed -- well, I am a soldier -- oh, let's say it would be speculation.
19 Based on Directive 4, which was a directive for the activities of
20 the Army of Republika Srpska, the Drina Corps had its orders that it
21 implemented with its own orders in carrying out combat operations. In
22 one zone of those operations, under item 1, we can see "estimate," which
23 is rather probable as they say, that there are some six -- 65000 to 70000
24 combatants and that in two places there are -- actually, in one place
25 there's about 30 and in another place about 25.000 to 30.000 inhabitants.
1 The consequence, which is 25.000 to 30.000 inhabitants assessing in
2 context in all the operations, may be such that the units that are listed
3 through the combatants took the population with them and that population
4 was their shield, they dragged them along, which is a very common
5 occurrence. Therefore, what I am saying now is only what is probable.
6 In order to assess the position that you incorporated into your
7 question, or that I incorporated into mine, one would have to analyse the
8 situation in much more detail. However, based on what I analyse, my
9 position is much closer to the truth than yours, which means that the
10 masses of population were the -- a consequence of the armed activities of
11 the BiH army.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could 65 ter 4148 in e-court, please.
13 Q. This is another document. It is typed signed Milenko Zivanovic,
14 commander of the Drina Corps. It's dated 13 April 1993. It is addressed
15 to the Main Staff of the Republika Srpska morale, religious, and legal
16 affairs section, and I direct your attention to the second sentence which
17 refers to or reads as follows:
18 "You are well aware that a large number of civilians from
19 Srebrenica and other locations have found refuge in Srebrenica."
20 Now having -- first of all, have you seen this document before?
21 A. Well, you showed it to me yesterday, for example.
22 Q. Having had an opportunity to review this document, does this
23 document have anything to do with the campaigns that were conducted
24 following Directive 4?
25 A. This document obviously analyses causes and consequences within
1 Directive 4. This is correct. However, what I said a while ago --
2 little while ago, stands in connection with this document. You are
3 trying as hard as you can to prove that Directive 4 was an organised
4 expulsion of the population, and I am putting entirely different
5 arguments to you.
6 I don't want to use excerpts for a single moment. What I want to
7 use is the whole. It is true that active -- the enemy forces in
8 Srebrenica are in a very difficult position due to our active operations.
9 It is true that in Srebrenica there are a lot of civilians from
10 Srebrenica and from elsewhere, from the places from which they were
11 expelled. The question is how they found themselves there. This is a
12 question that you are trying to define through this as an answer.
13 Q. You're the expert. What's your answer?
14 A. Thank you. This is what I expected. This is what you should be
15 asking me. My answer here is that you are well aware of the fact that in
16 the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina the population mostly followed their
17 respective militaries and very often they followed their own military in
18 such a way that the military very often or sometimes could not discourage
19 it. They were persistent. And also you know that in some cases, such as
20 the cases of protected areas, the militaries used the population there as
21 their shield, as their logistical support, and as an ambiance from which
22 they were in the position to carry out other campaigns. Bearing in mind
23 the context, and I am very familiar with the context from its very
24 beginning to its very end, in my view after the combat activities in 1992
25 and the problems that were created by the 8th OG in that part of the
1 front line, after the major counter-offensives the 8th OG was scaring its
2 population. It was dragging the population with them and turned them
3 into a shield. That's how the masses of population were created. This
4 is best seen from the fact that not for single moment they allowed the
5 population to abandon these desperate situations in which they found
6 themselves. And this would be my complex answer in my capacity as an
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could 65 ter 486, please, in e-court,
9 please. I think we need to go to page 7 of the document. One more page,
10 please. And if we could focus in on section E.
11 Q. General, this is a document that was published by the Economic
12 and Social Council of the United Nations. It's dated 5 May 1993. And
13 the section you have before you, Section E, under paragraph 30 and 31, it
14 reads as follows:
15 "In early March the estimated population of the enclave of
16 Srebrenica including the surrounding villages was 60.000, about half of
17 whom were said to be in the town itself. The pre-war population of the
18 town was estimated at about 7.000. The enclave had been under siege for
19 11 months. No humanitarian aid has been allowed in by Serb forces since
20 11 December 1992.
21 "Forcibly displaced people arrived in three ways, coinciding with
22 offensives by Serb forces from Vlasenica; then from
23 Cerska/Kamenica/Konjevic Polje; and finally from Osmace, Zeleni Jadar,
24 and other villages to the south of Srebrenica. It is estimated that
25 25.000 to 30.000 people arrived in Srebrenica from the Cerska area alone.
1 In addition, as the Srebrenica enclave itself fell to Serb forces, many
2 more people arrived throughout March and April."
3 First, have you had an opportunity to see this document before?
4 A. No, no.
5 Q. Then I take it you disagree with the factual accounting that is
6 given with respect to the population of Srebrenica in and around March
7 and April of 1995 -- 1993?
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse.
9 MR. JOSSE: How can this witness deal with that, I ask? And
10 secondly, are the Prosecution really inviting the opening up of this
11 complicated and difficult factual area of this case to this witness?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Do you wish to comment, Mr. Vanderpuye.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: No. I think it's a very straightforward issue
14 in respect of the witness's comments concerning the language of
15 Directive 4 and the other documents that I've shown him.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but I need to consult with my clients on this;
17 however, I would like to ask you -- with my colleagues, sorry, with my
18 colleagues. I'm sorry. However, I would like to ask you a question and
19 it's a matter of syllogism more than anything else.
20 First you asked him whether he had an opportunity to see this
21 document before, and his answer was "No."
22 Then your question is:
23 "Then I take it you disagree with the factual account that is
24 given ..." et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
25 How can the conclusion be what you are suggesting if his answer
1 was, No, I have never seen this document before?
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: You're right as a grammatical error -- as a
3 grammatical issue. The question only stems from his previous answers.
4 Whether he's seen the document or not, the document --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I understand -- I understand you better now.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: We are understanding the issue as follows: You put
8 a part, an extract from a document to the witness specifically asking him
9 whether he had read or he had come across this document before. His
10 answer was "No."
11 Now, he has read paragraph 30 of this document and you also
12 referred him, if I remember well, to paragraph 31, provided you detach
13 your -- and this is how we have understood your question now once you
14 have explained it. Provided you detach this -- detach your question
15 completely from the events which this paragraph specifically refers to in
16 a time -- in a time-frame, that is the events in 1992 and 1993, then you
17 can ask a general question. In other words, whether the witness agrees
18 or disagrees with displacement that this extract seems to point at or
19 point to. I don't know if I have made myself clear.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think so and I'll try to --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. In other words, if he hasn't read this
22 document, I don't think there is any point in asking him specifically on
23 those particular events. But those particular events seem or are meant
24 to indicate a pattern of events, and you can ask on that pattern of
1 MR. VANDERPUYE:
2 Q. Having had an opportunity to hear both what Mr. President has
3 said and having had an opportunity to hear what is written in this
4 article, are you aware of the circumstances that are actually related in
5 this article concerning the civilian population in Srebrenica and their
6 relationship to the Cerska/Kamenica/Konjevic Polje and Vlasenica areas as
7 concerns campaigns that were conducted that resulted in their
9 A. The second question was much more understandable. Although the
10 first question that you asked was very leading; you expected me not to
11 agree with the figure because it seems that you perceive me as a
12 representative of just one side. And I am going to repeat once again, I
13 am an expert and my expert report is based on professional reliability
14 and neutrality, and I based that on the fact that I was not a participant
15 in the events and there is nothing for me to hide.
16 As far as this document is concerned, in the interpretation
17 something was interesting, a sentence there, and that is that the Serbian
18 forces have entered an enclave and they have -- that the enclave had been
19 under siege for several months. This is how I heard it and I would like
20 you to either confirm it or dispel or -- this is what was translated to
21 me. The way I understood it or the way I noted the sentence -- the
22 sentence was that the enclave fell into the hands of the Serbian forces.
23 This is how I understood and noted the sentence as you were reading and
24 as it was interpreted to me.
25 Q. Are you able to give answer or do you want know read this all
1 back to you again?
2 A. Is this sentence in all that? This is what I want to know from
4 Q. The sentence you may be referring to is:
5 "In addition, as the Srebrenica enclave itself fell to Serb
6 forces, many more people arrived throughout March and April."
7 Is that what you -- is that what you are referring to?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Does that enable you to answer the question?
10 A. No. This enables me not to understand the document. When was it
11 that on the 5th of May, 1993, the enclave fell into the hands of the Serb
12 forces. This is how you read the sentence back to me.
13 Q. All right. Since you are unable to answer the question, we will
14 just move on.
15 A. No, no. I can answer the question. And please, do not speculate
16 about my abilities or inabilities to do something. I put some
17 sub-questions to you in order to arrive at a clear question from you.
18 Let's put it very simply. I read in great detail the report of
19 the Secretary-General of the United Nations and now I've seen this text
20 that is in front of me and I've seen many other texts. I did not analyse
21 them for my expert report because this is the area that had nothing to do
22 with the expert report, and opening the area would require a completely
23 different approach to the exercise.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: General, we have been very patient throughout, but
25 you've gradually taken on a habit of reacting to the questions put to you
1 in a way which goes beyond answering the question and criticizing
2 Mr. Vanderpuye for asking you some questions. You need to stop this.
3 Mr. Vanderpuye here is doing his duty like everyone else. He's
4 got the right to put questions to you. If he puts questions which are
5 not proper, we ourselves will stop him. Otherwise, please refrain from
6 commenting on whether he should or shouldn't ask you such questions or
7 that -- criticizing the way that the questions are being put to you.
8 I hope I have made myself clear because ultimately we will
9 need -- okay, in other words, for example, you have no right to tell
10 Mr. Vanderpuye, You asked me a leading question. He has got every right
11 to put a leading question to you. So stick to answering the question and
12 nothing beyond that, please. Thank you.
13 Mr. Josse.
14 MR. JOSSE: Sorry. But of course if the witness can't answer the
15 question --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: That's another matter, obviously. He can refer to
17 us and we can protect the witness, as we have done before with every
18 other witness. Thank you.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. General, would you like me to repeat my question?
21 A. Yes, please, could you repeat your question.
22 Q. My question was having heard an opportunity to hear both what
23 Mr. President had said and having an had an opportunity to hear what is
24 written in the article, are you aware of the circumstances that are
25 actually related in this article concerning the civilian population in
1 Srebrenica and their relationship to the Cerska/Kamenica/Konjevic Polje
2 and Vlasenica areas as concerns campaigns that were conducted that
3 resulted in their displacement?
4 A. I am aware of the campaigns that were conducted over a long
5 period of time in that area. I did not recognise in those campaigns in
6 that area what you have just mentioned, which is a displacement campaign
7 or a campaign to displace people.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could go to page -- I think it's page 13
10 of this same document.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you tell us the date of this report?
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's dated 5 -- 5 May 1993.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: 5th May. Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. We need to go to paragraph 86. It
15 should be about five pages up. That's good. Thank you.
16 Q. And I'm just going to read to you the conclusion, paragraph 87.
17 In that paragraph it reads as follows:
18 "Massive and repeated violations of the Geneva Convention of 1949
19 were perpetrated in recent combat in Eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina.
20 These were carried out by Serb forces in Cerska, Konjevic Polje, and
21 Srebrenica in attacking and ambushing civilians attempting to flee their
22 encirclement; in attacking the villages themselves; in refusing to allow
23 humanitarian aid to enter; in refusing to allow the evacuation of the
24 wounded; in attempting to link the above issues to the independent
25 question of freedom of movement for Serbs in Tuzla."
1 Are you aware of any of the circumstances that are related in
2 this part of the conclusion in this document?
3 A. The circumstances that prevailed in the area, yes, I am familiar
4 with them. I've perused a number of documents. I've seen a number of
6 Q. And the combat activities that this refers to, are they in any
7 way related to Directive 4?
8 A. It is impossible to tell based on one conclusion of one document
9 extracted from a whole and from combat activities in such a way.
10 Probably it did not arise from that directive. However, even the last
11 thing I said does not have any strong foundations. To put it simply, one
12 cannot expect such an analysis to yield a proper conclusion about that.
13 Q. I am not putting the question to you based on solely this
14 document; I am putting the question to you based upon your expertise
15 outside of what's contained in this document. Do you have knowledge of
16 the circumstances that are mentioned in this document outside of the
17 document, because I know you haven't seen it before.
18 A. I am familiar with that and the knowledge that I have I listed in
19 my expert report about the combat activities that took place in that area
20 and that are not comprised by this document. For some segments, I even
21 listed the incidents of such combat activities and their frequency.
22 Q. And based upon your examination of those documents, are you able
23 to say whether or not what I've read to you in this conclusion is in any
24 way related to Directive 4?
25 A. It's hard to say, but most probably this is not related to
1 Directive 4. Those were regular activities undertaken by the units that
2 were deployed in the area.
3 Q. I will take you to a different area, but related. In your report
4 at paragraph 144, you state that Directive 7/1 validated [sic]
5 Directive 7. Do you acknowledge that?
6 A. You're a little bit confused. I was a little perturbed by the
7 comment the Presiding Judge made a little while ago. But under 144 I
8 stated the following: Directive 7/1 gives an unnatural order to the
9 Drina Corps. That order was either accidentally or intentionally
10 incorporated, but it was invalidated. So at no point is it confirmed
11 that this task was, in fact, one that had to be carried out.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: My colleague has pointed out to me that we have
13 a -- I think a mistranscription in the record. At line 24, my question
14 was that the paragraph stated that Directive 7/1 invalidated Directive 7,
15 not validated.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: That's clear enough. Thank you. Let's proceed.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll be precise once more and say
18 what there is there. Directive 7/1, in practice the order -- the task
19 that the supreme commander gave to the Drina Corps, well, this task was
20 invalidated. I stated quite clearly what had been invalidated or made
21 redundant and what hadn't been invalidated. I never said that
22 Directive 7/1 had been completely annulled, but I did refer to what had
23 been invalidated in Directive 7.
24 Q. Thank you for that, General. And in fact, what you said was:
25 "In practice, Directive number 7/1 invalidated an unnatural and
1 unacceptable task which the Commander-in-Chief had given to the
2 Drina Corps by Directive 7."
3 And tell us what you mean by an "unnatural and unacceptable
5 A. I think the interpreter found it a little difficult to interpret
6 what you said, but I think I understood the interpreter correctly. And
7 in this paragraph 144, I said that the task was unnatural and
8 unacceptable and that Directive 7/1 rendered the task null and void.
9 Q. What task in Directive 7 was unnatural and unacceptable?
10 A. Could I see Directive 7, please, either on the monitor or could I
11 have the text?
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think it's 65 ter 5.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The task to the Drina Corps.
14 That's what I need.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: I believe that's page 10 in the English. I
16 think it may be page 14 in the B/C/S -- 15.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've got it up on the screen. It
18 is very precise. This is a directive from the supreme commander. This
19 means it's a document that was issued at the national level, and it was
20 intended for the strategic level in accordance with the directive. At
21 the beginning a task is assigned, and one can clearly see the
22 characteristics of the directive here. It has to do with its general
23 nature and with those it is addressed to.
24 The other elements of this task assigned to the Drina Corps that
25 concerns forces, cooperation, precision, and all these other elements,
1 all of these element are quite precisely defined, and on that basis the
2 commander can create his own decision and assign a task.
3 However, the part of the task that commences with the text, Use
4 every day planned and combat operations to create a climate of
5 insecurity, an intolerable climate, and to make it impossible for people
6 to continue living -- to make it impossible for the population in
7 Srebrenica and Zepa to continue living. Well, I added that this task
8 wasn't a military task.
9 The army doesn't have the forces or the equipment to carry out
10 such a task, and this is why this task is illogical. On the basis of all
11 the facts and on the base of analysis, this meant that the commander of
12 the VRS in Directive 7/1 assigned the Drina Corps a different task, a
13 task that could be carried out in a military manner.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE:
15 Q. And paragraph 44 [sic] of your report you say that Directive 7/1
16 invalidated this particular task that you've referred to regardless of
17 whether that task was inadvertent -- inadvertently or intentionally
18 inserted. Could you tell us how it could be -- a task like that could be
19 inadvertently inserted into this task assigned to the Drina Corps? Under
20 what scenario could that occur?
21 A. It would be difficult for me to tell you because having finished
22 all those military schools that I have mentioned and given all my
23 experience -- well, in light of all that experience, we never had such a
24 scenario. We never had such a case to deal with.
25 JUDGE KWON: Give me the para number again, please.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Of the report?
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: It is paragraph 144. Maybe I should put it on
4 the e-court --
5 JUDGE KWON: No, no, transcript said just 44.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Oh, thank you. It's paragraph 144. It's 5D759
7 is the exhibit number.
8 Q. General, I am only using your words, because that's what's in
9 paragraph 144 when you said:
10 "Regardless of whether the task was inadvertently or
11 intentionally inserted ..."
12 What did you mean when you said "inadvertently"? What did you
13 contemplate? What were you thinking about?
14 A. What I had in mind -- well, I had in mind what we discussed with
15 regard to Directive 7 for three or four days. How it came to be, I had
16 in mind the illogical elements of the directive. Yesterday I mentioned
17 illogical elements in the directive that had been printed out. I
18 mentioned the illogical nature of the contents of the directive that
19 weren't in accordance with any military documents of any kind and I based
20 myself on that, and I asked myself whether someone wanted to incorporate
21 this somewhere or not, whether it was placed there intentionally or not
22 intentionally, but its place is not there. Such tasks could not be
23 carried out and such tasks were never carried out.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: As long as we have Directive 7 up, if we could
25 go to point 6.1. I believe that's 14 in the English; 19 in the B/C/S.
1 Q. I want to refer you to what is, in the English, the third
2 paragraph from the bottom which reads as follows:
3 "The relevant state military organs responsible for work with
4 UNPROFOR and humanitarian organisations shall through the planned and
5 unobtrusively restrictive issuing of permits, reduce, and limit the
6 logistics support of UNPROFOR to the enclaves and the supply of material
7 resources to the Muslim population, making them dependent on our goodwill
8 while at the same time avoiding condemnation by the international
9 community and international public opinion."
10 A. This paragraph can't be seen in the Serbian language on the
12 Q. Thank you. We need to go to the next page, page 21. Can you see
13 it now at the top of the page, General?
14 A. [No interpretation]
15 Q. Did you mention this particular provision anywhere in your
17 A. In my report I simply mentioned that item 6.1, in terms of its
18 contents or, rather, item 6 in terms of its contents was not part of the
19 work of the Special Administration for Operations and Training, and then
20 I briefly commented. And I have to find this now.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Fauveau.
22 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I'd just like to correct the
23 transcript on one point. On page 51, lines 7 through 9, the witness said
24 that point six -- [In English] [Previous translation continues] ...
25 Special Administration for Operation and Training was not work of the
1 staff and especially of the Administration for Operation and Training.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. You take that as correct,
3 Mr. Vanderpuye.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: You may proceed. Thank you.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't particularly dealt with
7 item 6 in the report; although, I analysed it when preparing to draft the
8 report. If I find it, I will comment on it.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE:
10 Q. You said that you reviewed a number of documents. Did you not
11 review documents indicating General Miletic's signature with respect to
12 managing or dealing with UNPROFOR convoys, in particular?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment before you answer. Yes,
14 Madam Fauveau.
15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could my learned colleague please
16 specify the document. If it's the document that I am thinking of, we
17 received it on the 25th of July, far after the report was drafted.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: You think actually refer straight to the
19 document straightaway.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: He --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thanks, Madam Fauveau.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm not referring to a particular document. He
23 said that he reviewed a number of documents with General Miletic's
24 signature on them, and I am asking him whether or not he reviewed any
25 documents indicating any dealings whatsoever General Miletic may have had
1 with UNPROFOR as regards UNPROFOR convoys.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, General, if you could provide us with your
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can answer that. Whatever I
5 saw with regard to that matter had the characteristics of information. I
6 think I have mentioned quite explicitly the documents I consulted, and
7 you have it in the report.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE:
9 Q. Having reviewed documents that indicate General Miletic's
10 participation in the decision-making regarding the approving of
11 humanitarian aid and the passage of convoys, as you have indicated in
12 paragraph 190 of your report, is there any particular reason why you
13 chose not to quote or expressly analyse the provision of point 6.1 of
14 Directive 7 as I have just put it to you?
15 A. What you can see under item 190, well, I answered that question.
16 You can find this in item 191. It's very precisely stated there.
17 Providing security for combat operations is an activity that is not the
18 responsibility of these bodies I mentioned. I didn't analyse this in
19 detail in the written text. I think there was a comment but I examined
20 the order in detail.
21 To understand all the aspects of the order, the similarities to
22 other orders or other directives, the differences, et cetera, and I did
23 this in order to compare it to cases such as this, for example, the
24 hearing or the cross-examination, whatever it's called.
25 Q. So you concede that General Miletic participated in the
1 decision-making regarding the approval of humanitarian aid and passage of
3 A. No, and I never said that.
4 Q. Let me read to you what your report says, because maybe you
5 haven't had a chance to look at it in a little while. It says, and I
7 "Major Radivoje -- General -- Major General Radivoje Miletic
8 participated in decision-making regarding the approving of humanitarian
9 aid and the passage of convoys."
10 So that's what you said, General. And that's true, based upon
11 your analysis, isn't it?
12 A. Your Honours, this is the first time I am asking you to protect
13 me as an expert witness from running around in circles. I am asking you
14 to do this as a human being, as an expert. The link between item 190 and
15 191 is something that I have discussed at least five or six times in this
16 courtroom, and this matter is being taken out of context again.
17 I'll repeat what I said if necessary. 190 is an item that is
18 explained in item 191, too. This cannot be taken out of context, and I
19 was very precise about that and I am repeating what I have already said,
20 that an information note was never a decision. That wasn't the case in
21 any of the systems in force, whatever one may attempt to do.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Could I have 5D759 in e-court, please. I'm
24 sorry, Mr. President?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's continue. Let's proceed. 5D759.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: It is page 85 in the English; page 67 in B/C/S.
2 I think we need to go one page back in the English, though.
3 Q. Now we have it in e-court so everybody can see what paragraph 100
4 says, and what it refers to is decision-making. Paragraph 191, that
5 you've repeatedly alluded to, refers to the character of an order
6 concerning the notifications or lack -- lack of such character.
7 What I am asking you about, General, and I'll be explicit about
8 it, is to tell us what you mean when you say "decision-making process"
9 because a decision-making process is not an order. And so paragraph 191
10 doesn't speak to the question of paragraph 190 in terms of
11 decision-making. So tell us what you mean.
12 A. What I have in mind, what I stated here is something I have shown
13 clearly -- or, rather, I didn't show it, I included it in figure 9. And
14 there it says that the process of the work of the command when taking
15 decisions -- well, it is such that you take the decision, then you relay
16 the decision and you control the implementation of the decision.
17 When relaying the decision, you transfer or relay information,
18 and when you do so, you are participant in that procedure. That's
19 why 191, item 191 related to figure 9 and the process of the working
20 method of the command and it also had to do with how one arrived at the
21 decision. Taking a decision is a complex matter.
22 Q. In what manner did General Miletic participant in this
23 decision-making process? What did he do, based upon your expert analysis
24 of the documents you reviewed?
25 A. As it says and as I have said, he was included in the final stage
1 of the process which involved a process that is well defined here. He
2 signed notifications that did not have the character of orders.
3 Q. How could a notification about a decision be part of the
4 decision-making, General? How could that be?
5 A. First we have to understand what a decision is. A decision is
6 not a single sentence or a single paragraph. A decision isn't a single
7 document. A decision is a system of documents, of notifications, of
8 reports, and of controls; and when you understand that these are the
9 elements that a decision contains, then you will see that in this process
10 notifications represent an important element of the way the entire
11 procedure functions.
12 Q. What you're telling us is that he just put it in the mail; is
13 that right, General?
14 A. The officer, warrant officer, put it in the mail. He relayed the
15 notification, and having signed it, the notification became part of the
17 Q. Did you have an opportunity to look at the documents that are
18 related to Operation Sadejstvo 95?
19 A. Yes. I did have the opportunity to do so and I have said so
21 Q. And Operation Sadejstvo is specifically referenced in
22 Directive 7?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you had an opportunity to review the work-plan associated
25 with that operation?
1 A. Did I have an opportunity? I did not understand your question,
2 I'm sorry.
3 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review the work-plan in relation
4 to that operation?
5 A. Unfortunately, I did not have an occasion to get familiar with
6 any work-plans for any of the directives, nor with anything that goes
7 with such documents. If I had had such an occasion, then my expert
8 report would not have the words "probably," "most probably." Judging by
9 all available elements, this should be the case in many of the bullet
10 points of my expert report.
11 Q. Did you ask for those documents, General, at any point during the
12 preparation or prior to the preparation of your report?
13 A. I asked for all the documents that you had, the Defence teams
14 have, the Trial Chambers have, and I was then to classify all the
15 documents consistently with my method of work and with the requirements
16 of my expert report. Among all the documents I was provided with, I did
17 not find any such document in my process of work.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Could I have in e-court, please, 65 ter 4202.
19 Q. What you should before you is a document entitled, "List of
20 documents of the Sadejstvo 95 offensive operation plan," dated
21 26 April 1995 and is signed by or submitted by, it reads,
22 Colonel Radivoje Miletic. And what it does is it lists accompanying
23 documents for that plan and it's addressed to the 1st Krajina Corps
25 Item 1, lists of documents to the Sadejstvo 95 offensive
1 operation; 2, it lists the Sadejstvo 95 offensive operation plan, graphic
2 representation; then it lists an offensive operation plan text form; at
3 4, it lists cryptographic data protection documents; 5, order for
4 engineering; 6, order for intelligence support; 7, intelligence support
5 plan; 8, plan of moral and psychological support for the operation; 9,
6 support -- security support plan.
7 What I would like to do is I would like to show you first number
8 3 --
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: And that would be 65 ter 4204.
10 Q. Under item 1.1(b) we will see that it reads:
11 "By conducting Operation Sadejstvo 95, improve the VRS
12 operational and strategic position, shorten the front line, liberate the
13 forces for maneuver thus creating realistic conditions for the full
14 performance of tasks from Directive number 7."
15 Does that suggest to you, sir, that Directive 7/1 did not
16 invalidate the tasks in Directive 7?
17 A. I never said that it invalidated the tasks. I never wrote that
18 it invalidated the tasks. I was precise only in saying that the task
19 given to the Drina Corps originally was subsequently corrected and made
20 null and void. It seems to me that in the textual part of my report I
21 also wrote that some tasks to be given to or that had been given to other
22 corps were never dealt with in this directive because it went without
23 saying that those tasks were being implemented without any further
25 Q. There was nothing in Directive 7/1 that says it invalidates or
1 supercedes any tasks that are assigned in Directive 7, is there?
2 A. Not correct. In order to answer this question one has to
3 understand the essence of command. When the commander of an operational
4 system receives two directives - and you will find that written precisely
5 in my expert report - which are of a general nature, he cannot implement
6 both. And by the nature of his task, the commander will then implement
7 the task that he received last because it sub-surmises all the other
8 things. It is never the case that one unit can carry out two general
9 tasks or two general directives at the same time.
10 Q. Well, you did point out in your report that that related to
11 inconsistent tasks, did you not? The rule applies to inconsistent tasks.
12 A. I don't think -- said -- that I wrote this in this way. Let me
13 find it. I think that I wrote what happened -- what happens when the
14 commander receives two -- when he receives two tasks and two directives,
15 what happens then. Then he implements the last directive that he
16 received, and I said that precisely somewhere, and I am now going to find
17 it for you in the text.
18 Q. While you're looking for that, General --
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: I am going to ask if I said in e-court, please,
20 4208 and that relates to the plan for moral and psychological support for
21 the operation.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse.
23 MR. JOSSE: Bearing in mind this question, I think we'd better
24 take a break now, please, Your Honour, because my client has absented
25 himself again.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes -- okay.
2 MR. JOSSE: This shouldn't proceed in his absence.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Fair enough. We will have a break.
4 Anyway, we are only five minutes away from the break. 25 minutes once
5 more please. Thank you.
6 --- Recess taken at 5.40 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 6.10 p.m.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I think we had an
10 exhibit in e-court. I have a hard copy of this available to the -- for
11 the expert. Perhaps that might be -- might make it easier for him to see
13 Q. General, what you have in front of you is the plan of moral and
14 psychological support for the Operation Sadejstvo.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse.
16 MR. JOSSE: I think the witness should take his headphones off
17 for a moment. I'm sorry.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I think so, too. General. Thank you.
19 MR. JOSSE: We tried to sort this out during the break. The
20 Prosecution have been very cooperative and have given me what answers
21 that they can. Can we make it clear that we do not at this point accept
22 what has just been said, that this document relates to the operation.
23 What is not in dispute - its a double negative about to come up - I'll --
24 sorry. Let me start again.
25 It is not in dispute that this document does not mention
1 Sadejstvo; in other words, it does not mention Sadejstvo 95. There is no
2 question about that. And there is no date upon it, I am also told. So
3 the proposition in the question is not accepted. How we should proceed
4 from here is perhaps a matter for the Prosecution. I accept they are
5 entitled to ask the witness about it, but they need to make that clear.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye. No, please respond to -- no,
7 because I saw you looking at the General --
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: I was just checking to see if his headphones
9 were on.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes. Okay.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Mr. President, we have had an opportunity to review these
13 documents and we've spoken with Mr. Josse and explained to him the
14 circumstances under which the particular document I am putting to the
15 witness was arrived at. We have a good faith basis for the question that
16 I've put to the witness because this document was in a sequence of
17 documents that are directly related to Sadejstvo 95. These documents
18 also match up to the plan that I displayed before the witness immediately
19 before I -- immediately before I put this document on -- in e-court. It
20 was 65 ter 4202, and it listed a series of nine documents that correspond
21 to that plan.
22 It is our position that this is one of those documents. And
23 furthermore, I believe it is certainly within the ken of this expert --
24 this expert's testimony and experience to be able to comment upon the
25 document, in any event, in terms of its documents.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, and what would your question be to the
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: I actually have several questions for the
4 witness, but what this document does it is it outlines, A, who's
5 responsible -- who is the responsible person for putting together this
6 plan for moral and psychological support for this operation, in our view
7 which is Sadejstvo, but any operation, for example, and in particular,
8 issues relating to what those responsibilities are. For example, and I
9 can tell you quite candidly, the document talks about consideration for
10 the plan of moral and psychological support for the operation, the role
11 and tasks of the person responsible for its implementation, and then it
12 will indicate -- in this case, it indicates the commander -- assistant
13 commander for morale, religious, and legal affairs. It talks about
14 informing the public of combat operations of the VRS, and it talks about
15 the types of activities that are associated with that. It talks about
16 psychological and propaganda activities aimed at the enemy, which was the
17 subject directly, I think, of 6.1 in Directive 7, and it talks about the
18 means and the process involved in that.
19 And so these are the questions that I intend to put to the
20 witness in respect of this document.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let me consult with my colleagues, please.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Again we are perfectly in agreement here.
24 We have taken note of your comment for the record, Mr. Josse. I suppose
25 Mr. Vanderpuye has done the same. Otherwise, the question is perfectly
1 legitimate. I suppose you also need to put to the witness that according
2 to the Prosecution this is a document that refers to -- but that's
3 according to the Prosecution, so ultimately he can come up immediately
4 with telling you, No, I don't agree. So that's the position. Go ahead.
6 Mr. Vanderpuye.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. General, what you have before you is the plan of moral and
9 psychological support for the operation that the Prosecution believes to
10 be Sadejstvo 1995, Sadejstvo 95. And I want to put some questions to you
11 in particular with respect to what is designated as the functions and the
12 responsibilities as concerns this plan.
13 If we look at item number 1, we can see that item number 1,
14 subject, it says:
15 "Consideration of the plan of moral and psychological support for
16 the operation, the role and tasks of the persons responsible for its
18 Here -- and you can see under column 5 that that designates the
19 assistant commander for moral guidance, religious and legal affairs.
20 That would be correct; isn't that right?
21 A. If I may I would like to say that from the previous session I am
22 still due to present a point from my expert report. You said that while
23 I was looking for that point you would prepare this document that you are
24 now showing to me. If that is no longer of importance, then I suppose I
25 don't have to show it to you. At least that's how we left it off. I
1 don't know what to do now.
2 Q. You're referring to the issue of which do you follow, the
3 directive or the subsequent order?
4 A. Well, the question was about how to proceed when two directives
5 arrive, and when I said that I defined this very precisely in my expert
6 report, your reply to that was, While you are searching for that point, I
7 am going to prepare something else.
8 I believe that now is the right moment to deal with that point
9 and do away with it, and then to move on to what you are asking me now.
10 Thank you.
11 In point 141 of the directive, which is short therefore I propose
12 that I should read it, so it does not have to appear on the screen. It
13 says very precisely:
14 "Given the fact that part of the task that the supreme commander
15 provided to the Drina Corps is inappropriate in military terms, the
16 commander of the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska formally
17 elaborated and basically changed the task previously given to the
18 Drina Corps."
19 It is a well-known position in the army when several orders
20 arrive that are in contradiction, one is duty-bound to carry out the last
21 arriving order. Your Honour, if there was no such precise regulation, a
22 lot of the units would still be carrying out the first task, and whenever
23 they received any subsequent tasks, their answer would be, I am still on
24 my first mission, I can't move on.
25 Such a precise definition of the order and the tasks provides for
1 the execution of tasks and unity of command, and this is the explanation
2 of what happens when two directives arrive. The two directives cannot
3 simultaneously prevail in any of the commands, units or systems of the
5 And now I can answer the question that you have just put to me
6 now. First it says "Commander" in column 5, and then, "Assistant
7 commander for morale, religious, and legal affairs." The fact that it
8 says "Commander," although I am not an expert for this part of military
9 activities, this means very precisely that the commander is responsible
10 for all the plans and everything in the units, and for the part after
11 that, the responsible person is the assistant for morale, religious, and
12 legal affairs. As a professional organ that elaborates the matter
14 Second of all, a list disappeared from the screen very quickly.
15 As a professional, I am saying that this should contain the code-name why
16 the plan of morale and psychological support for the operation has been
17 drafted. In the right-hand column, it should say either "Sadejstvo" or
18 "Spreca" or anything else. It says here only "Attachment 8"
19 "Attachment 2." What we should see here would be the code-name of the
20 relevant operation.
21 Q. So it's correct that the assistant commander for moral guidance,
22 religious, and legal affairs should be named as a person responsible for
23 this plan; right?
24 A. Yes. He's the one who actually drafted the plan.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could go to item number 3, please. I
1 believe that's the next page of both documents. No -- all right. It's
2 page 1 of the B/C/S. It's page 2 of the English.
3 Q. With respect to item number 3, General, the subject of that is
4 informing the public about VRS, combat readiness, and activities of the
5 unit. And in respect of that subject, the persons designated as
6 responsible are assistants for moral guidance, religious, propaganda and
7 information. Does that correct to you?
8 A. What it says here is an erroneously interpreted abbreviation.
9 The abbreviation stands for assistant commanders for morale, religious,
10 and legal affairs. Assistant commanders.
11 Q. What does CIPPD stand for?
12 A. This abbreviation may be expanded as Centre for Information and
13 Propaganda, or something to that effect. I really don't know what it
14 means. It is probably a centre, but since I've already told you I never
15 saw the organisational development of the military, I don't know the
16 exact name of this unit, but it may as well be a centre. Centre for
17 Information, Propaganda, and Psychological Activities, but this is only
18 in realm of assumptions. It doesn't have to be that way.
19 Q. All right. Let's go to point number 4 -- well, before we leave
20 number 3, I'm sorry. It is correct that the subject, informing the
21 public about VRS combat readiness and activities of the units, is an
22 appropriate subject for this type of a plan, that is, a moral and
23 psychological support plan?
24 A. I have to highlight something that I've already said several
25 times. I am not an expert on the development of this plan. It has its
1 rules, how it's done. It has the rule of the work dynamics, the exact
2 items that have to be incorporated. The only thing that I, as an expert,
3 had to analyse was the course of combat activities, because I thought
4 that this had been taken from somebody else's competencies, but then I
5 revised that it belonged here. I am not the best suited person to tell
6 you whether this is in the spirit of regulations and whether it comprises
7 everything that it should comprise.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse.
9 MR. JOSSE: Can the witness take his headphones off --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
11 MR. JOSSE: -- I am very sorry.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: General, once more. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Josse.
13 MR. JOSSE: Could we endorse those remarks from this witness. We
14 submit that this is a blatant attempt to cross-examine this man on the
15 basis that they are not going to have an opportunity to cross-examine our
17 This document appeared on this list overnight. It wasn't on the
18 list yesterday. It rouses our suspicions as the submissions we have been
19 making as to why we were not anxious to disclose our hand. The witness
20 has said it with no prompting whatsoever from us, and we submit the Court
21 should say to the Prosecution, Ask him about what he knows about, by all
22 means, but not about things which are clearly outside the scope of his
23 expertise as he has just made clear.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Josse. Do you wish to
25 comment, Mr. Vanderpuye?
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, this witness has repeatedly and
2 throughout his report referenced work plans, referenced the process by
3 which directives are developed, referenced the necessity for contributing
4 organs to participate in that process, and in respect of that he has made
5 certain conclusions as to General Miletic's involvement in the drafting
6 of Directive number 7, which is obviously a very central issue. He's
7 also made remarks concerning General Gvero's potential contribution to
8 that instrument.
9 This goes directly to the heart of this witness's ability to put
10 forward expert testimony concerning the work-plans that were followed,
11 the method of work that was employed, the methodology of the work that
12 was followed in the VRS in terms of creating directives and in terms of
13 implementing directives. And so this is an entirely appropriate line of
14 questioning considering also that the basis upon which Mr. Krgovic
15 examined this witness in order to distance General Gvero from any
16 contribution to Directive 7 was based upon the nature and the type of
17 information that 6.1 of that directive calls for, that is, the
18 psychological and moral support section of that document. This goes
19 directly to the heart of what it is that organ is supposed to be doing
20 and whether or not what this document shows is consistent with what
21 appears in Directive 7.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. That's your point of view, but on the
23 other hand every witness tells you, "I am not the best suited person to
24 tell you whether this is and it's dispute of regulations and whether it
25 comprises everything that it should comprise." And before that he has
1 also told you, "I am not an expert on the development of this plan, if it
2 has its rules, how it's done."
3 Where do we go from there? The whole thing is that I would
4 expect the witness to say, "I am not qualified to answer this question."
5 And you move to your next question. But he is not doing that, so in
6 other words I am not blaming you, and I can understand also the way the
7 witness is trying to fill up his answers when he is faced with difficult
8 questions like this one. But on the other hand, if he tells us I am not
9 qualified to answer this question, where do you go from there?
10 Shall we proceed?
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: He's answered you more or less. I don't think
13 under the circumstances you can proceed with the same matter unless you
14 are not satisfied with the truthfulness of his answer in which case you
15 can contest that. But other -- beyond that, I don't think you can go.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: If you would bear with me for a moment, I would
17 like to confer with my colleague.
18 [Prosecution Counsel Confer]
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I may address the Court, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course, Mr. Vanderpuye.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, this witness has offered rather
22 extensive testimony on his direct examination and on his
23 cross-examination with respect to these fundamental issues, his concerns,
24 the process -- work process, et cetera, as related to the drafting of
25 directives and implementation of directives and th relative roles of
1 responsibilities of the participants in that work process. He has
2 answered a number of questions that have been put to him by Mr. Krgovic
3 as well as a number of questions that have been put to him by
4 Ms. Fauveau, and you've heard these answers --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: We are aware of that.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's our position that at this position for this
7 witness to now suddenly claim - and I do mean suddenly claim - that he's
8 not in a position to answer a question about whether or not propaganda
9 aimed at -- aimed at the enemy, for example, is an appropriate subject
10 matter falling within the organ of morale, religious and legal affairs,
11 it is simply not credible. It's not believable and that's the reason why
12 I am continuing to put these questions to this witness. And I think that
13 he has at certain points been cooperative in answering questions; and at
14 other points he's been, frankly, belligerent about answering questions,
15 and I don't -- we don't accept his statement that he's now claiming that
16 he's not an expert in these areas.
17 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, could I say this is a bizarre situation
18 because in one sense we agree with Mr. Vanderpuye. We are not asserting
19 that this gentleman's a credible witness, obviously, and those
20 representing Miletic are, and that's understandable, but this is a
21 completely bizarre situation. But if he really takes that view -- the
22 jurisdiction I come from, he should put it to the witness robustly and
23 say, You're -- you're -- this is what you are now doing.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. I mean there is no more place and space
25 for mixing up submissions and what Mr. Josse has just pointed out now.
1 If, as you put it to us, you are not believing the assertion or the
2 statement made by the witness in reply to your last question, on the
3 basis of what you have explained to us, then you are free to face him
4 with that but be specific and go for the kill, if necessary.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Otherwise, keep it as a submission for later. I
7 mean, we are in a perfectly -- in a perfect position to weigh the entire
8 testimony of every witness because we pay attention to what is being
9 stated and what applies to this witness applies to every other witness.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, General.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE:
13 Q. General, you've commented in your report and in your testimony
14 about the work plans that were implemented and followed by the VRS with
15 respect to directives and orders, et cetera. And with respect to that
16 testimony, it's fair to say, given what you've said now, that you are not
17 an expert in that area at all?
18 A. Are you referring to the field of planning?
19 Q. I'm referring to the field of planning in respect of the report
20 that you generated concerning the contributions that are made by
21 respective organs of the General Staff to the creation of a directive.
22 Main Staff. I'm sorry if I have misspoken.
23 A. No problem, unless it's a problem for the transcript. Given the
24 material made available and presented to the Tribunal and in my CV and
25 the list of works, you can find among other things my reference to
1 military management or, rather, command. If we try to refresh our
2 memories, the first process in military management or in command is
3 planning. That's my natural activity, and so on that basis that I dealt
4 with development and organisation, and it's on that basis that we dealt
5 with functioning.
6 However, within the context of that planning -- well, this wasn't
7 a sphere of activity for myself or my organs. As an expert, I dealt with
8 the organisation of military hospitals, but I never discussed operations,
9 the method of operating --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm not happy with the interpretation. I am not
11 happy in the sense I am not criticizing the interpreters. I want to make
12 sure that I have understood what the witness has said or that -- or that
13 what he has said has completely been translated to us.
14 Here I have:
15 "However within the context of that planning -- well, this wasn't
16 a sphere of activity for myself or the organs. As an expert I dealt with
17 the organisation of military hospitals, but I never discussed operations,
18 the method of operating."
19 Is this -- does this reflect completely what you wanted to tell
20 us, General, or what you said? Or do you wish to explain it further?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that perfectly reflects what I
22 said. We dealt with the organisation of organs for morale,
23 psychological, legal, and religious affairs. We dealt with the way they
24 were functionally linked up. We dealt with the number of actors they
25 had. We will dealt with the number of responsibilities they had and how
1 they were distinct from others, but I never dealt with the contents of
2 their work itself.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: That's his answer, Mr. Vanderpuye.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE:
5 Q. If you never dealt with the contents of their work, how can you
6 exclude, for example, General Gvero as a contributor to 6.1 of
7 Directive 7 based upon its content? How do you do that as an expert,
9 A. Can you tell me which example I provided you with and then I can
10 provide you with an precise answer. If I said that it's his sphere of
11 activity, well, it's his. If I said it's his sphere of activity, I am
12 not talking about things were done. Give me an example. Organisation --
13 or the organs for organisation can locate where certain activities are
14 carried out, but they are not responsible for analysing the quality of
15 the operations carried out, and that's the essential distinction that has
16 to be made.
17 Q. What you said in response to my colleague Mr. Krgovic's question,
18 on page 30244 of this transcript is that:
19 "Not only does it not correspond with this element of support,"
20 speaking of this entire paragraph 6.1 of Directive 7. "Not only does it
21 not correspond with this element for support," meaning morale, religious,
22 and legal affairs, "for this kind of support for a combat operation, this
23 entire paragraph is not in keeping with its purpose."
24 That paragraph describes specific actions to be undertaken in
25 relation to the dissemination of information, in relation to contact with
1 international organisations, UNPROFOR, et cetera. You've distinguished
2 that on the basis of its content. I am asking you whether or not you
3 consider yourself sufficiently expert enough to make that kind of a
4 determination when you can't even answer the question about whether or
5 not informing the public about the VRS combat readiness and activities of
6 the units is properly within the organ of -- under General Gvero's
8 A. Four questions. I will start with the first one. When I
9 analysed item 6, support for combat operations, well, I was very precise
10 and I said that item 6 has its structure, it's very own structure, and
11 that structure is the element that the organs for planning have to be
12 familiar with. They have to be familiar with item 6 with regard to this
13 element. 6.1 has to do with information, intelligence, self-protection,
14 combat engineering, moral and psychological support, and logistics
15 support. This is elementary information that one has to have to know
16 something about the support for the combat operations.
17 When I read through the item, support for combat operations, then
18 I saw that under moral and psychological support other activities are
19 mentioned, and someone who has a certain elementary knowledge, I said
20 that this isn't in the right place. Not in any case did I -- not in any
21 case did I assess the contents with regard to the material you have
22 referred to. The material you gave me as a retired military expert as
23 someone who has worked on a number of studies, with regard to that
24 material I can provide you with my professional opinion. It's not the
25 opinion of a layman. However, at this point in time I am making a
1 distinction between that opinion and the opinion of an expert, and I
2 believe that for you and your Tribunal, if you want a detailed analysis
3 of the contents you need an expert to deal with these elements, with this
5 What I said had to do with the person who was responsible. I
6 said I had no reliable information according to which the plan for the
7 psychological and moral support was part of the Operation Sadejstvo 95
8 because it has a precise designation. We can discuss things at length.
9 You'll have the appearance of a General, I can present you with the
10 opinions of a General, but not with the opinions of someone who is an
11 expert on this particular matter.
12 I am very precise and very clear.
13 Q. If you are not an expert in being able to determine what properly
14 falls within the jurisdiction or competence of one organ of the
15 Main Staff, how do you propose to be an expert to comment upon what falls
16 within the jurisdiction or competence of another administration,
17 department, whatever you want to call it, of the Main Staff? How do you
18 propose to distinguish between those two aspects in terms of your
20 A. I am under a lot of pressure.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: General, if you are feeling tired and you wish to
22 stop, we can stop here for today and continue tomorrow. I don't want you
23 to feel -- answer a question -- questions when you feel under pressure.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not under that kind of
25 pressure, but I have to accept certain conclusions, certain language, for
1 example, you're an expert, you're not an expert, and so on and so forth,
2 and then I have to answer in a manner that won't irritate you because,
3 above all, I want to make a contribution here. That's my main mission.
4 The question has confused two issues: First of all, the fact
5 that I am an expert, and that has been demonstrated. It has been checked
6 by NATO representatives. Two, I know how to organise and recognise
7 functional responsibilities of all organisational units in an army. But
8 I am not an expert, and this is natural because I don't deal with all
9 matters, I am not an expert in assessing how certain functional
10 responsibilities are carried out in certain organisational units.
11 What I analysed under item 6 had to do with the first domain. I
12 just made a distinction, and this relates to the domain of contents.
13 There is absolutely no dilemma about this.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE:
15 Q. If you don't know how functional responsibilities are carried
16 out, how can you possibly comment on what it is that General Miletic was
17 doing in July 1995? Because whatever it is he was doing is functional by
19 A. I have a plan for moral and psychological support for the
20 operation before me. I was quite precise about that. The organisational
21 work of the staff, of the command of the operational staff organs is an
22 integral part of every military academy. These are subjects that are
23 dealt with in all military academies, in military academies I went
24 through, and it's part of my duties to deal with this. There's no
25 dilemma about this.
1 As for moral and psychological support, well, I never we went to
2 a school that dealt with this and it's not part of my duty. So let's
3 make a distinction. An expert on organisation, an expert on management,
4 an expert on planning, an expert on human resources, this is what I dealt
5 with, for example, such a person is not by definition, as you would
6 expect, an expert on moral and psychological support, on intelligence
7 support, on logistics support, on finance, or on anything else.
8 Q. So when you say, for example, that General Miletic's involvement
9 with UNPROFOR in terms of the decision-making process concerning
10 approvals of convoys, you are talking about that from a purely
11 theoretical point of view. You don't know what he actually does or what
12 he's supposed to do, because that would be his functional responsibility
13 and you've told us that you are not an expert in that?
14 A. I never said that.
15 Q. That's right. You haven't said that. So I am asking you a
16 pretty basic question about what it is that a person that's assistant
17 commander for moral guidance, religious, and legal affairs ought to be
18 doing or what he oversees in terms of a plan for moral and psychological
20 And if the answer is "I don't know," just tell us so.
21 A. The basis is precise. I know that such a person has to have a
22 plan for moral and psychological support for the operation. As for the
23 contents of the plan, that's not my subject and I am not familiar with
24 the contents of the plan. So I know that such a person has to create a
25 plan, but I don't know what the contents of that plan might be. That's
2 Q. And the same goes for every other organ in the Main Staff, as far
3 as your knowledge is concerned; isn't that true?
4 A. That's not correct. I have to remind you of everything that I
5 have already said and of everything that has been written down and of
6 everything that I have drafted here. Organisation and the functioning,
7 operations and staff duties and human resources, well, these are things
8 that I am an expert on. No one asked me to do any studies that dealt
9 with issues beyond that field. So military management or command, all
10 those processes, organisation, functioning, human resources, I deal with
11 all of this.
12 Q. In light of the answers that you've given us in response to the
13 questions I've put to you, don't you think it's incumbent upon you to
14 withdraw your answers to what Mr. Krgovic asked you concerning the role
15 of the organ that General Gvero is in charge of, concerning the role of
16 the organ for morale, religious and legal affairs in terms of its
17 contribution to Directive number 7, in particular point 6.1?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could the witness
20 please be read back the question and the answer. I did not speak about
21 the responsibilities of General Gvero or of his organ. I just had one
22 question whether this was in keeping with the functional powers, whether
23 the parts under the part psychological and moral support are part of the
24 functional competencies. I did not mention any contents or anything.
25 That was the essence and gist of my question, and the witness agreed with
1 that. Could the witness please be read back both my question and his
2 answer to that question.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: That's fair enough. Could you direct the witness
4 straight to the questions and answers that you referred to in your
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President, I will. Thank you.
7 Q. You were asked by Mr. Krgovic, and this is again at page 30244,
8 lines 13 through 22:
9 "If you analyse the portion right here, you can see that these
10 elements being introduced, such as logistics, PVO support, things to do
11 with mobilisation, this entire paragraph does not contain anything, at
12 least in my view, that would correspond with moral and psychological
13 support. Not something that would seem to be in keeping with the rules
14 of the military profession; right?"
15 "A. Not only does it not correspond with this element of support
16 for combat operations, this entire paragraph is not in keeping with its
17 purpose. This entire paragraph that relates to support for combat
18 operations and then with the specific emphasis on 6.1."
19 My reference to the contents refers -- is derived directly from
20 Mr. Krgovic's question where he says what the paragraph contains. Given
21 what you responded to Mr. Krgovic's question, do you feel that your
22 answer is sufficiently informed by your expertise?
23 A. I absolutely believe and I have answered what I just told you a
24 while ago. The powers of a military officer, of a commander is to know
25 what points and sub-points are contained in the support to combat
1 operations. And I answered.
2 Not only does this paragraph not correspond to that, it is not in
3 consistency with the structure that is laid out, and it is not in
4 consistency laid out in the structure because there is a reference to
5 engineers and many other things, and we that the engineer support of
6 combat is a special point. Combat support is a special support. This is
7 what you are being taught in the basic military academy, and I dwelled
8 upon the contents of the structure. I did not analyse. I did not enter
9 the contents of the point that is in that structure.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: It's 7.00. Shall we stop here? How much longer do
11 you have, Mr. Vanderpuye?
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have quite a few numbers -- quite a few areas
13 to cover. I will do my best to cut down what I address with him
14 tomorrow. I -- the problem is, Mr. President, I have not as much control
15 over the situation as I might otherwise because of the nature of the way
16 the witness answers questions and the nature of the way the witness
17 conducts himself.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's stop here. We will continue
19 tomorrow at 2.15 in the afternoon. Thank you.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 22nd day of
22 January, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.