1 Monday, 2 March 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [Accused Popovic not present]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, Madam Registrar, and good
7 morning, everybody.
8 Could you call the case, please.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
10 This is the case number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin
11 Popovic et al.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, madam.
13 For the record, we are sitting pursuant to Rule 15 bis.
14 Judge Stole is unwell. That's the reason for his absence.
15 I also put on record the absence of Accused Popovic. We have
16 already his waiver, which was just last Friday. I think it's today and
17 tomorrow, Mr. Zivanovic. Isn't that so?
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: That's correct, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
20 So composition or presentation: Prosecution, Mr. McCloskey,
21 Mr. Mitchell; Defence teams, I notice the absence of Mr. Sarapa,
22 Mr. Ostojic, and I think that's -- is he here or not, because I can't
23 see -- and Mr. Petrusic. Thank you, Ms. Fauveau.
24 All right. You said you had about an hour left, Mr. McCloskey.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: I hope to finish in the first session, and if
1 we're lucky, it's an hour.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: When I said "an hour," I also meant approximately,
3 plus or minus the session, so let's proceed.
4 Good morning to you, Mr. Pandurevic.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
6 WITNESS: VINKO PANDUREVIC [Resumed]
7 [The witness answered through interpreter]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: And for planning purposes, Mr. Haynes, more or
9 less, your redirect is going to engage us for how many hours?
10 MR. HAYNES: I hope to finish today.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Oh, I see. Okay, that's good. Thank you.
12 Mr. McCloskey.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Good morning, everyone.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. McCloskey: [Continued]
16 Q. Good morning, General.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. A couple of, hopefully, quick things that I forgot to mention.
19 One, you were -- when you testified in direct about the 15th of July,
20 when you came up the stairs towards your office, and Obrenovic's office,
21 you said you saw the duty officer there, but my notes do not reflect you
22 ever identifying the person. Who did you see there as the duty officer
23 on the 15th?
24 A. I don't know if you have cited and quoted my answer verbatim. As
25 far as I can remember, the door to the office of the duty operations
1 officer was always open. In passing by, I saw a man there, but since I
2 established no contact with him, I had no chance of establishing his
3 identity either.
4 Q. So you saw a man in the duty office, but you don't know who it
6 A. That's right, I don't remember.
7 Q. So you don't remember. There's a difference. So back then, you
8 would have remembered, I take it. It was a long time ago.
9 A. No. I was in a hurry. I just had a precursory glance at him,
10 and I didn't want to stop and talk to him. And perhaps we can look in
11 the documents or in the log-book and see who that particular man was on
13 Q. Well, it was, according to the Prosecution, either Dragan Jokic
14 or Drago Nikolic, and as we both know, they don't look much like each
16 A. It's correct that they do not resemble each other. For a time,
17 Mr. Simic -- or at least he was supposed to be on duty that day, but for
18 some reasons he couldn't, but it could have been Mr. Nikolic then. But
19 they do not resemble each other. You just see a figure of a person in
20 passing and you just forget about it afterwards.
21 Q. Okay. Another -- something I forgot to ask you about. Do you
22 remember seeing a "Drinski" magazine article about -- out of 1995 about
23 the pig farm for the 4th Battalion?
24 A. I have seen many articles in the "Drinski" magazine. They wrote
25 about the life in the units and what the soldiers were doing, so that was
1 probably the topic of their reporting.
2 Q. Let's go to 65 ter number 4296, then, and this is something that
3 was on our original cross-examination list and you may recognise it.
4 We're going to have to use the computer for this one.
5 So now we can see this article, dated February 1995, entitled
6 "The First Furrow of the War," and there's a picture there of the man
7 they're talking to. Who is that?
8 A. This is Second Lieutenant Pero Vidakovic, commander of the 4th
10 Q. And he was the person that was not in the area during the time of
11 these events, correct, that we're talking about?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And do you remember seeing this article in preparation for your
14 testimony with -- and cross-examination, excuse me, not testimony but
16 A. I perused the documents received for cross-examination. I've
17 seen this article. I didn't read it completely, but I have the gist of
19 Q. Okay. And then I think we left off on Friday with 65 ter 4294,
20 but I don't think we need to get to it. You'll agree with me, I think,
21 that that was a conversation on Saturday, 23 September, where Krstic left
22 a message for you to be there with him on Monday morning, the 25th.
23 Remember that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. Let's go to 65 ter number 7D00701, a document that I
1 believe was discussed by you in direct. And as it's coming up, I'll just
2 note that it's a -- this is from the Drina Corps command, from
3 General Krstic, dated 25 September, to, it looks like, most of his
4 brigades, with your brigade on the top of the list, as commander, and to
5 the commanders of those brigades, and it's entitled "Very Urgent." And
6 you'll agree with me that this is the very urgent order for these
7 brigades to gather together parts of their units to go to the Krajina, I
8 believe; is that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And if we go to the third page in both the B/C/S and the
11 English, we can see that Krstic is ordering that the formation -- down in
12 paragraph 9, that:
13 "All the preparations and formations of units must be completed
14 by 25 September 1995."
15 And then it goes on:
16 "The unit commander and organs of the Brigade Command shall
17 review the troops of the unit and the unit's base garrison between 0700
18 and 0800 hours, and the units shall set off from their base garrisons
19 towards Kozluk and form marching columns between 0800 and 1000 hours on
20 the 26th of September."
21 So Krstic wants the units formed and marching out of their
22 particular areas by 10.00 a.m.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So when you get back to the Zvornik area on the 25th, you've got
25 a fair amount of work to do?
1 A. I didn't do any command-related job on the 26th relating to the
2 Zvornik Brigade. This job was done by Dragan Obrenovic, who stood in for
3 the brigade commander.
4 Q. How about Monday, the 25th; what did you do? We can see that
5 you're back in Zvornik. You've acknowledged that.
6 A. Yes, that's what I said in examination-in-chief, what I did when
7 I spoke to Krstic, and that the following day, that is, the 26th, I
8 arrived at the Zvornik Brigade Command.
9 Q. So when you spoke to Krstic, as you've described to us, was that
10 the first time you spoke to Krstic that day, the 25th?
11 A. As far as I can remember, that was our conversation that took
12 place on that day.
13 Q. Yes, but was that the first time you had spoken to him on the
15 A. Yes. As I said, to the best of my recollection, that was our
16 first conversation.
17 Q. All right. Now, let's go to -- if we have those two original
18 documents. Just as you recall, General, the first document I want to
19 mention was the one that you talked about in your direct examination, and
20 I believe that is 65 ter 2927. And after you testified about that
21 document, which is, as we know, the Zvornik Brigade version of gearing up
22 a unit to go to the Krajina, we found another document with the same --
23 which appears to be identical, and I wanted you to have a chance to look
24 at both these originals so you could study them to get a correct and
25 truthful response.
1 The first document that you went over with on direct, you had
2 said that you had signed it on the 26th, when you came to the office;
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. All right. And you said that the reason you knew that was
6 because you could tell that you'd signed over the top of the inked,
7 stamped -- the stamp that was on the document; correct?
8 A. Yes, because the order of things and the obligations of the Staff
9 office, as such, that signature comes first and then a stamp and comes
10 later. You can never have the other way around.
11 Q. But which way was it in this case, just to be clear, now that
12 you've seen both these orders?
13 A. You, yourself, saw the original. We showed it to Their Honours.
14 And I think you would agree that the stamp was put first, and then over
15 the stamp is my original signature.
16 Q. Yes, General. And as I recall, glancing at it, I did agree on
17 the record to that, but I'm sorry. After reviewing both documents now
18 and learning a little bit about ink, I'm going to have to change my mind
19 on that, and I want to see if we can clear this up.
20 After you've had a chance to look at both these originals, and
21 let me give them back to you. And that second one is 2972A and the
22 second one is 2927 -- sorry 2927, not 2972. General, you will agree with
23 me that both those documents are the same document; correct?
24 A. Yes, they are identical in substance, but I have to say that the
25 one that I have in my hand, I don't know what exhibit number is that, but
1 I have 0432-7194-2195. That is the original document which has "A/A" at
2 the top, which means that it has been filed in the archives. This
3 document is clearly an original, that the stamp was affixed first and the
4 signature came over the stamp. And we also see that it has been printed
5 by a mechanical printer.
6 However, the other document, if you compare it in terms of the
7 content, we see that the lines do not coincide in both documents. This
8 document was probably stored in a computer, as such, and then printed
9 later on. It does not constitute an original as the one that I described
11 At any rate, I am sure and I know that on the 25th September, I
12 was not at the Command HQ, and I didn't address these issues contained in
13 this order.
14 Meanwhile, I remembered one thing, and that is that the gentleman
15 who was in the Staff office had an opportunity to scan my signature. He
16 even did that on one occasion before for certain permits for people,
17 allowing them to cross the border, by scanning it with a computer. All
18 I can assume is that he put stamps on all these documents that he later
19 printed, which he shouldn't have done, and he knew that he couldn't bring
20 them in that condition to me for signing, and therefore he probably
21 scanned my signature and put them on the documents.
22 I am not an expert for this particular area, but I know for sure
23 that I didn't put my signature on this document that bears the date of
24 the 25th [as interpreted].
25 Q. And so the record is clear, the first document you spoke of that
1 you called the original, that is 65 ter 2927, according to the ERN number
2 that you gave us.
3 All right. General, I won't dwell on this. Let me just tell you
4 the Prosecution's position to see if we can clear it up, and then we'll
5 go on. It's the Prosecution's position, General, that the two documents
6 are identical.
7 You'll agree with me that both documents have original stamps
8 over the signature part; correct?
9 A. Yes, they do, and this other document has a black ink signature
10 over the stamp, and it is identical to the signature on the original
12 Q. It's the Prosecution's position that you signed the original
13 document, and then it was photocopied, and it's the photocopy version
14 that is the second document that you have there, 2927A, and that after
15 you had signed the original, the stamp went on top of the original
16 signature, and then somebody also put an original stamp on the
17 photocopied signature. And if you look carefully at the document, you
18 can see that one is a photocopy of the other, and that's what must have
20 A. Well, that's your position, which is diametrically opposed to the
21 one that you expressed a few days ago. You had agreed at the time, and
22 you cannot refute that on this first document without the letter E. This
23 is my original signature over the original stamp. If we now look at
24 another document, which also has an original stamp, but the signature is
25 a copy of the original signature from the original document; therefore,
1 the solution that you are proposing is impossible. It is possible to
2 scan the signature from the original document and use it and put it over
3 the stamp in the other document. Whether somebody was abusing something
4 during the war and doing some things that they shouldn't have been doing,
5 I don't know.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please speak into the microphone.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: You heard it. Okay, thank you.
9 Yes, Mr. Haynes.
10 MR. HAYNES: Just before it goes too far, there's a bit of
11 concern about the translation of an answer that Mr. Pandurevic gave on
12 the previous page at lines 20 to 22.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: And what is that?
14 MR. HAYNES: He said: "I'm not an expert for this particular
15 area, but I know for sure --" and I'm told he said "but I didn't put my
16 signature on this document on the 25th of September."
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you contest that, Mr. McCloskey, or do you want
18 to put it to the witness again?
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, I think that's what he's been saying, and I
20 wouldn't think --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: That's why I ask you, because I think I would agree
22 with Mr. Haynes.
23 Okay, let's proceed then. Thank you.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY:
25 Q. Well, General, I don't think it will help us further. We will
1 get a forensic person to look at this for us, which I imagine you
2 wouldn't object to. But you don't have to respond to that without
3 talking to your lawyer, and we'll see how that goes.
4 It's my view that we'll get a forensic person on this before we
5 give it to you, I think, unless you'd like to see this right now. It's
6 whatever you would like.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Go ahead.
8 JUDGE KWON: I'd like to see it.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay. Well, let's just take a moment so you can
10 see them.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could go to 65 ter 2926, and this -- I just
13 is a 25 September Zvornik Brigade regular combat report, and I just want
14 to direct your attention to paragraph 2 to help put us in a time
15 chronology. And if you can blow that section 2 up for you, we'll just
16 see that it -- it says:
17 "At 1500 hours, the Brigade commander, having returned from the
18 Corps where he presented his report, held a meeting with the
19 battalion/artillery battalion commanders and core members of the
21 Q. And as I recall, it's your position that this is Dragan
22 Obrenovic; correct?
23 A. Not only is this my position, but Dragan Obrenovic also said that
24 on that day, he was at the corps command, attending a meeting. And you
25 also saw the conversation on the 23rd where Krstic asks Petrovic, "Where
1 is your commander," and he meant Obrenovic.
2 Q. Well, the conversation we saw, it was -- he wanted Vinko to
3 report on Monday morning; right?
4 A. Yes, he wanted to talk to Vinko. However, on Monday morning,
5 Vinko did not report to the corps command. You also saw the travel log
6 by Dragan Obrenovic which says that he was in Vlasenica on that day. He
7 himself said that he was at that meeting. You also saw the travel logs
8 for my vehicles, and you saw that on the 25th I did not use a single
9 vehicle that I could have used because they were at my disposal.
10 Q. Well, I agree with you that Dragan Obrenovic did go to Vlasenica
11 that day, but let's explore whether or not you went as well.
12 So let's go to 65 ter number 2929. This is an intercept, and go
13 to the one that we've marked on the intercept report. It's page 1 of the
14 English, page 2 of the B/C/S. It's an intercept that begins at 1540
15 hours, so roughly 40 minutes after a meeting was supposed to have started
16 at the Zvornik Brigade that day. And as we may recall, the English
17 translation has left out that this was between 01 Centrala and Vinko, but
18 that's clear in the original.
19 Now, as we see, it starts out with Vinko saying:
20 "Hello. Put 01 on the line.
21 "One moment."
22 And then 01 gets on the line and says:
23 "Yes. I was resting a bit.
24 "Vinko: I'm sorry.
25 "That's okay. Tell me.
1 "Vinko: Legenda is here with me.
3 "We have now defined those tasks and obligations.
5 "Now, he is explicit in his demand to act as one. No one should
6 join him, and he does not want to join a larger formation.
7 "Well, okay, let them go as one.
8 "And he would like to use the armoured section.
10 "Well, would he be able to for those other reasons?
11 "To do what?
12 "He wants to use his tanks.
13 "His tanks?
15 "Well, how is he going to do that? We don't have a freight
16 train, my Vinko. How much fuel would we need to get there?
17 "Well, is that a blitz variant?
18 "Well, it is. No, no, not blitz.
20 "Further on.
21 "Yes, ah-hah.
22 "Further on.
23 "Well, I don't know. Then that is a restrictive factor?
25 "Just a second, please."
1 So now this is you saying: "Just a second, please," and it
2 appears you're getting off the phone for a moment. You're doing that to
3 talk to someone, I take it. So, is that right, you took a moment to
4 speak to someone in the middle of this conversation?
5 A. I don't know there's a break. I did ask for a moment, but I
6 can't remember why as I sit here today.
7 Q. And as we look at the rest of the conversation, it appears clear
8 that General Krstic is allowing Legenda to take his tank crew but not his
9 tanks; correct?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And this conversation occurred some 40 minutes after the meeting
12 that the commander was supposed to have at the brigade to talk about
13 important things, and you've told us that this was a conversation you had
14 from a friend's house in Zvornik; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And if we go to the first page, back to the first page of this
17 conversation, page 2 in the B/C/S, page 1 in the English, right in the
18 beginning you tell General Krstic that:
19 "Legenda is here with me."
20 So is Legenda there with you at your friend's house in Zvornik?
21 A. No. I've already explained why I said what I said. I did it on
22 examination-in-chief. If you look at the conversation, you read "blitz
23 variant," but it's not "blitz," it's a closer and further variant. Those
24 who were typing used two Zs to denote a different sound. You can see
25 from the conversation that I didn't know where Legenda was supposed to
1 go, whether he was supposed to be used. If I had been at the meeting in
2 Vlasenica, I would have known where that unit was being sent, whether it
3 was closer to Banja Luka or further away from Banja Luka. And you can
4 see that I say here:
5 "Is this the closer variant?"
6 Krstic says:
7 "Yes, it's no -- not closer."
8 And then I say:
10 And then I said:
11 "Not further, but further away."
12 And then I say:
13 "I understand."
14 So I didn't know what was the plan for Legenda, where was he to
15 be used. If I'd been at the meeting at Vlasenica, then I would have
17 Q. Well, we see you requesting General Krstic for Legenda to use his
18 tanks, and General Krstic refusing because of fuel, but let me take you
19 back to the first page. After you say: "Legenda is here with me," you
21 "We have now defined these tasks and obligations."
22 Those are the tasks and obligations under the Drina Corps order
23 that we just went over; correct?
24 A. Yes, I said that I had spoken to Legenda and that this had been
25 said. He told me that everything had been regulated and that he wanted
1 to act in the way as described here. If I had been at this meeting with
2 Krstic in Vlasenica, I'm sure I would have raised those issues up there,
3 and I would have regulated things in advance, and I would have known
4 exactly what would happen with Legenda.
5 Q. Why would you lie to General Krstic about Legenda being "here"
6 with you? I'm sure General Krstic allows you to go into town briefly
7 from Standard. We've all been there. We all know how close Standard is
8 to town. Why would you have to lie to General Krstic and say, "Legenda
9 is here with me"?
10 A. He did not allow me to go to town or not allow me. On that day,
11 I was supposed to be with him, but I did not arrive in time. I arrived
12 in Zvornik in the afternoon, and I did not want to go straight to the
13 Command to deal with anything and to disturb the rhythm that was already
14 in place. I reported to Krstic, and that's how I made it clear that I
15 was already at the Command, working. There was no logic in both me and
16 Obrenovic going to the Command HQ to receive our orders. This had never
17 happened. This never happened throughout the war.
18 Q. My question is: Why would you have to lie to General Krstic
19 about this?
20 A. It's not a lie. I simply told him, "Legenda is here with me,"
21 which meant, in essence, that I had spoken with Legenda. Legenda was in
22 Zvornik, but he was not standing next to me when I was talking to Krstic.
23 That's -- that was just my way of putting things.
24 Q. All right. Let's go to 65 ter 7D771. This is the trip log that
25 you spoke of. And if we go to the next page of the document in both
1 languages, and if we could blow up the section for 25 September.
2 And could we just put the B/C/S on there. We don't -- and we
3 need the signature side. Right there, perfect. Well, we actually also
4 need the date. Okay. Well, we've just missed the date. Okay, well that
5 will have to be a start.
6 Now, do you remember what you said about this document? I think
7 you said you recognised the signature on the 23rd and 24th, didn't you?
8 A. At the 23rd, no, I didn't say that I recognised the signature.
9 And there's no signature on the 24th document.
10 Q. Okay. How about the 25th? Let's blow that -- let's blow that
11 up, if we could, and go over to the signature section, which is right
12 below the blank spot. You testified that on direct that you didn't
13 recognise the name or the signature of that?
14 A. Yes. This is between Zvornik and Belgrade. That was the route.
15 In pencil, the mileage, the number of people, and the number of journeys,
16 and the signature is in ballpoint pen.
17 Q. And you can read that as "Danojlovic," can't you?
18 A. Yes, one could also read it that way.
19 Q. So if this is correct, that means Obrenovic's driver went to
21 A. It is possible he went to Belgrade
22 another driver, the one who drove Obrenovic.
23 Q. And who would that be?
24 A. I don't know his name. I saw it in the document that there was
25 another driver who would drive him occasionally. His name may have been
1 Tojic, but I'm not sure.
2 Q. All right. Let's look at another document that was used, 7D772.
3 You can take it out of the package, if you want. And if we could -- we
4 could see that this is only noted for the 20th, the 23rd, the 26th and
5 the 28th. Let's go to the next page to see where it says it's going.
6 And we need the dates on this so we can see. The English cut the dates
8 JUDGE KWON: Do you have only English?
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, there's the B/C/S as well, and I think we
10 should try to use the B/C/S. But if we could just.
11 I'm told this was a Defence exhibit, but there's no B/C/S in the
12 record, so I guess we better resurrect ELMO. If we could get the ELMO
13 going, please. Lots of multi-taskings with these things.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.
15 MR. HAYNES: I'm told it's 7D261.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's helpful, thank you.
18 Q. And General, we just note that this is for a vehicle, and the
19 drivers interestingly are Danojlovic and Bogdan Pandurevic, and that we
20 see on the September 25th this vehicle goes to Vlasenica. So isn't this
21 the vehicle that was driven by Bogdan Pandurevic and took you to
23 A. No, Mr. McCloskey, you're mistaken. You see that the handwriting
24 is the same on the whole page, and this is Ljubisa Danojlovic's
25 handwriting, and you can see that this is Dragan Obrenovic's signature,
1 not mine. And nowhere in this travel log do you see Bogdan Pandurevic's
2 handwriting. He was a possible reserve. That's why his name was
3 recorded here, as a possible reserve driver.
4 Q. All right. Who is Milutin Tojic?
5 A. Milutin Tojic was another driver in the command.
6 Q. Let's go to 65 ter number 4405, and we do not have an English of
8 And at times, Milutin Tojic took Obrenovic around, didn't he?
9 A. Since he was a driver at the Command, he was engaged as needed,
10 and he drove the other officers and commanders from the Brigade Command.
11 Q. Can you read that original for us for the date of the 25th?
12 Perhaps we can blow it up on the screen, too. I think we can. As best
13 as you can see, where does it go on the 25th?
14 A. It says "Zvornik-Vlasenica-Zvornik-Kozluk."
15 Q. And do you recognise the signature on that date?
16 A. No. I'm not familiar with the signature, and I see that he made
17 two journeys, and I don't know why. Why would he make two journeys?
18 Q. All right. Thank you, General.
19 Now, we noted in your pre-trial brief, on page 9 and
20 paragraph 26, that you say:
21 "In particular, he asserts that during three significant material
22 periods in the indictment, command of the Zvornik Brigade was de facto
23 and de jure assigned to brigade staff -- sorry, Brigade Chief of Staff
24 Deputy Commander Dragan Obrenovic. These periods were ..."
25 And then on, you say, from 7 August to 16 September, and from 18
1 September to 24 September. So according to your pre-trial brief, on 25
2 September Dragan Obrenovic would no longer be the person in command, and
3 is that a mistake, we sometimes make mistakes in our briefs, or is this
5 A. You see that this was done in English after consultations with
6 me, and if I had looked at it, I'm sure that I would have noticed the
7 mistake. It says here that on the 3rd of August, I was appointed the
8 commander of the brigade, and as of that day, I started issuing orders
9 and being in command of that brigade. And up to the 16th and including
10 the 16th, I did not take the command over the Zvornik Brigade. On the
11 17th, I reported to Krstic, I got my days off, and then until the 26th of
12 September I did not take the command over the Zvornik Brigade, which
13 means between the 3rd August and the 26th September.
14 Q. Okay, General. So then this is a mistake, as you've said.
15 Let's go to 65 ter number 7D680, and this is a -- I think it's a
16 regular combat report from the Zvornik Brigade. And if my recollection
17 is correct, you have acknowledged you are back in the brigade now and you
18 are in command.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And according to this, there was a team of officers from the
21 Brigade Command analysing operational tasks carried out "last month" and
22 is working on operational task plan for the coming month. And it goes on
23 to say:
24 "The brigade commander held a briefing for artillery battalion
25 commanders, and a command reconnaissance commission is currently
1 underway, led by the brigade commander."
2 And in this report, the brigade commander is you; right?
3 A. Yes. That was after my arrival, and I invited the commanders of
4 the battalions and divisions in order to get an insight into them -- into
5 the overall situation. If I'd been able to do it the previous day, I
6 would have done it, the one day before.
7 Q. Okay. And in your testimony on the 11th of February, page 31242,
8 beginning line 17, you were asked the question by Mr. Haynes:
9 "Now, upon your return to the brigade, did you come to learn
10 about something unusual going on in Zvornik during your absence?
11 "Yes. A few days later, I learned that some trucks had passed
12 through Zvornik and that these trucks were carrying some sort of material
13 which left behind an unbearable stench. I discussed this with Mijo
14 Dragutinovic. He said that probably corpses had been transported and
15 that he knew that the trucks came from the transport company because they
16 had Steyr-make trucks and that the local citizens were upset by that, and
17 this happened in the course of the night."
18 You go on:
19 "I asked him whether the brigade had been assigned any sort of
20 task or issued any sort of order in connection with this, and his answer
21 was, 'No.' He said he had no knowledge and he knew of no details."
22 The Zvornik Brigade was, in fact, involved in that process,
23 wasn't it?
24 A. Not the Zvornik Brigade, Mr. McCloskey. You cannot say that two
25 men equal the Zvornik Brigade. The Zvornik Brigade was not involved at
1 the time.
2 Q. Which two men are you referring to?
3 A. The two that I'm referring to are the ones that were mentioned by
4 several witnesses. One of the witnesses was protected, or maybe not, and
5 he said that one piece of machinery was working and that the operator was
6 the person who was involved in the burials, and he was not on the list of
7 the Engineers Company. For this to have been the whole Zvornik Brigade,
8 things should have looked differently. The corps command should have
9 issued an order to the Command of the Zvornik Brigade, and then the
10 Zvornik Brigade would have allocated the resources in the way things
11 would be done, and if several individuals -- two or three people from the
12 Zvornik Brigade are engaged without the knowledge of the Brigade Command,
13 you cannot speak about the participation of the Zvornik Brigade but,
14 rather, about the participation of the two or three individuals in
16 Q. You go on to say that you received information that the 5th
17 Engineers was involved as well; correct?
18 A. The 5th Engineers Battalion.
19 Q. Right, the folks down in Konjevic Polje, the Drina Corps.
20 A. Yes. This battalion was billeted there.
21 Q. Okay. Let's go to 65 ter number 1801. This, just as a reminder
22 of what was going on on 27 September, is an aerial image from the United
23 States, dated 27 September, of the Branjevo Farm, with notations from the
25 Can we blow that up? Thank you. Can we keep bringing it up a
1 bit. All right.
2 So what we see here, General, is, in the area where the mass
3 grave was originally from the previous photograph we saw from the 17th of
4 July, the United States has noted: "Newly excavated trench." And we see
5 what looks like a shaded area with something piled next to it. And over
6 at the Branjevo farm facilities, we see a blow-up that is identified as:
7 "Backhoe and front loader."
8 So you'll agree with me, sir, that on the 27th, work has clearly
9 begun on picking up the dead bodies and moving them to where we know is
10 on that road to the Cancari village and the Snagovo area; correct?
11 A. I don't dispute at all that the bodies were removed. However,
12 within which time-frame and the exact dates, I don't know. You are now
13 reading these aerial photographs as if you were an expert. We didn't
14 have any expert coming in here and explaining to us what this is, because
15 there were quite a few agricultural machineries on the farm that might
16 resemble excavator.
17 What you say, that on the left-hand side we can see some
18 excavation, maybe that took place on the 25th, 26th, or even 27th.
19 Affixing these dates, you yourself said was done at a later stage. An
20 aerial photograph must have an automatic inscription of the date when the
21 shot was made.
22 And I have nothing to do with these reburial and transfers
23 regarding these mass graves, irrespective of the dates.
24 Q. All I said, General, was that we see this is dated 27th
25 September. There's a large pit that the United States has pointed out to
1 us. We don't need to be an expert. It says: "Newly excavated trench."
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes.
3 MR. HAYNES: I think we can only go so far with this. The United
4 States hasn't come here and pointed out to us anything on these
5 photographs or, indeed, told us what date they were taken on.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. But isn't that a submission? I mean ...
7 MR. HAYNES: Well, this is a submission being made to the witness
8 by Mr. McCloskey, then. If that's what you say to me, then it's equally
9 true of him.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, we are fully aware of that, Mr. Haynes.
11 MR. HAYNES: And I think the question has been answered.
12 Mr. Pandurevic has made every comment he can upon this.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Perhaps Mr. Haynes has forgotten, but the United
15 States -- the evidence is the United States stands by the markings in
16 black and white that they have made on these. These are not Mr. Ruez's
17 markings, and that is in the evidence.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, let's proceed. Basically, don't you agree
19 that he has already answered your question, as such, expressing doubts as
20 to the exact date when the trench could have been excavated, the newly --
21 new trench?
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, and as is the case many times, I agree with
23 the general, and it cannot be determined to be the exact date. All it
24 is, as my question was, is that we see an open trench with heavy
25 equipment close by.
1 Q. And won't you -- can't you conclude this is ongoing work at this
2 point? This isn't the kind of thing you're going to leave an open trench
3 for for very long?
4 A. I agree perhaps the trench had already been finished, there were
5 no bodies there, the trench needed to be backfilled only.
6 Secondly, according to these photographs, there's only one
7 possible conclusion, and that is that this area was photographed on a
8 daily basis at all time, which I find to be very unlikely.
9 Q. Well, we don't want to speculate how often the United States was
10 photographing this area, so I don't think we should.
11 Let's go to another exhibit that will help resolve some of this.
12 It's something that's in evidence, has been there for a long time. It's
13 65 ter number 1868, and this is a close-up aerial image on the same date.
14 And if we could blow that up a little bit more.
15 This is at the site which is known as "Cancari 12," where over
16 100 human beings were taken out of at an ICTY exhumation, as testified by
17 Mr. Ruez. And you'll agree with me that we see, in this picture, an open
18 pit at the same time we see an open pit at Branjevo Farm? Or the same
19 day, I should say. I won't get into the times since they're not down
21 A. I would kindly ask you to point to me, with your pencil, what you
22 call the pit in this photograph.
23 Q. You can't see it?
24 A. I see a lot of things here, but I don't know what particular hole
25 or pit you are referring to.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Re-ask the question. I mean, I would ask you the
2 same question. There are at least three or four items distinguishable on
3 the photo that I wouldn't know what they are, because they haven't got a
4 marking next to them.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Q. You see the white line that is next to the dark pit right in the
7 center of the photograph. You can see the tracks of the vehicle that
8 went back and forth, back and forth, in digging that?
9 A. I don't see it that way.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. Well, just for the record, there is
11 65 ter number 1865 and 186 -- well, let's go to 1865.
12 Q. All right. General, let's -- the road on this aerial imagery is
13 the road that goes through the villages in the Snagovo area to the
14 Cancari village. And as we go from right to the left, if you turn left
15 to go towards that house with no roof --
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we blow this up a bit, getting the house
17 and the left turn?
18 Q. Sir, that is a -- as we turn in towards that house, you can see a
19 darkened area. It doesn't come through quite as well on this, but that
20 is -- does that appear to you to be a pit?
21 A. These dark areas look to me like forests.
22 Q. Well, I can tell you the evidence in this case will show that
23 it's these -- this particular area in both these photos is where mass
24 graves were exhumed, and many, many people were taken out of this
25 particular area, as it's identified in very particularity on -- in the
1 evidence, and so I'm -- and that is part of the evidence of this case,
2 which I'm sure that if you would compare, you would agree. So if we can
3 conclude that these are open pits on the same day that the pit is open at
4 Branjevo Farm, then on the 27th, during the day, when these photos were
5 taken, the work is not complete yet; isn't that correct?
6 A. I agree with you concerning the exhumation of the burial sites
7 and their discovery, et cetera, et cetera, only I don't think it's
8 logical to open a primary pit and secondary pits on the same day. I
9 suppose that the secondary pits would have been prepared in advance in
10 order to move the bodies from the primary pit to them. We've seen the
11 village of Cancari, and maybe it would be good if we put these two
12 photographs together on the screen, and let us compare the pits that we
13 saw in the previous photograph and the one that we see here. I do not
14 deny the existence of the pit, but I do deny the time and the dates when
15 they were opened and closed.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, let's go to 65 ter 1866, which is a
17 photograph of this very pit that we just looked at, but a few days later,
18 2 October, and this is earth, showing it to be filled in.
19 Q. So you would agree with me that while we see an open pit on the
20 27th and we see a closed pit on October 2nd, we don't really know what
21 date between the 27th and October 2nd that it was filled in?
22 A. Yes, I see that something was done by the road, but what
23 specifically was done, I don't know. It is interesting how both Branjevo
24 and Cancari were a photographed on the same date, and that is on the 27th
25 September, how the persons taking photographs knew where the secondary
1 pit was going to be. Why don't we have pictures of any other areas that
2 there were no grave -- mass graves in the same period?
3 Q. Well, General, Mr. Ruez and Mr. Manning went through all that,
4 but it was a long time ago, so I don't think we need to go over it.
5 Let me now go to the testimony in open session of a member of the
6 Engineering Battalion, Damjan Lazarevic, and you may recall that during
7 his testimony, it was the first time he'd ever mentioned anything about
8 the secondary graves. And on page 14467, by Mr. Thayer, he's asked:
9 "Did you become aware at any time after these events of an
10 operation to dig up all those bodies and rebury them elsewhere?
11 "A. After the initial burial, you mean?
12 "Q. That's correct, sir.
13 "A. I heard about it.
14 "Q. When did you hear about it, sir?
15 "A. After some time. I don't know how much later exactly.
16 "Q. And do you have any information or knowledge about your
17 engineering company being involved in any way in such activities?"
18 The answer that he gave for the first time was:
20 And he goes on to say the next page:
21 "I heard that machine operators went somewhere. The ones who did
22 the initial burying were called to dig the bodies out.
23 "Q. And, sir -- I'm sorry, please continue."
24 And he goes on and says:
25 "I was assigned to do that the same way it was done the first
1 time from the engineering base. I was told to go there with them when
2 they began working. They made a list of men. Major Jokic and Slavko
3 Bogicevic did that. They were the people who were supposed to do that."
4 Major Jokic, we know who he is, he is the chief of the
5 engineering company, and Slavko Bogicevic is his deputy, for a better
6 word; correct?
7 A. No, Jokic was not the chief of the engineering company. He was
8 the chief of engineering, but he spent most of his time with that
9 company. Slavko Bogicevic was assistant for morale and also a deputy
10 company commander.
11 Q. Thank you for the correction. Of course, he's chief of
12 Engineering. He goes on to say, page 14484, and Mr. Thayer says:
13 "Now, sir, I just want to ask you some additional questions about
14 the reburial of these bodies. You referred to a list of people that had
15 been compiled and shown to you of people that, I believe, were supposed
16 to work, people that belonged to your company during this operation. Do
17 you know who compiled that list, sir?
18 "A. From my company, two or, rather, three operators were singled
19 out. The rest were from other units, not from the engineering unit.
20 There were only three of our men from our unit.
21 "Q. And when you say 'unit,' sir, are you referring to other
22 units or battalions of the Zvornik Brigade or are you talking about other
24 "A. I mean other units. From my unit, from the engineering unit,
25 there were only three men. The rest were from the Zvornik Brigade, from
1 its different units."
2 So, so far we have Slavko Bogicevic, Dragan Jokic, Damjan
3 Lazarevic, and the three excavator operators who did the first burial
4 process. And then on page 14485, it says:
5 "Can you describe what kind of vehicles were used in the
6 transport of those bodies?
7 "A. The vehicles of the company, trucks from various companies.
8 Our vehicles were old and we couldn't use them to complete the work."
9 So they're using -- from the Zvornik Brigade, people from the
10 engineering unit are coordinating with private companies because the
11 Zvornik Brigade trucks were not able for the work; is that right? Is
12 that your understanding of what he's saying?
13 A. No, this is not how I understand his words. Obviously, it was
14 someone else who was directing and coordinating this job. I discussed
15 this with Mr. Jokic, and he told me that no one from the engineering
16 company of the Zvornik Brigade was involved in that.
17 After ten
18 information only recently, so this tells us that this was very difficult
19 to discover and find out, particularly at that time. It was impossible
20 for these three men to coordinate this with private companies. This must
21 have done by someone at a much higher level.
22 Q. General, you know that the information regarding the reburials
23 comes from many different sources, not just this person; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Perhaps this is a good time for a break. I will
1 definitely finish up by the next session, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.20 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.48 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. So, General, you'll agree with me that from Damjan Lazarevic, we
8 know that Dragan Jokic was involved in this process, Bogicevic was
9 involved, three excavator operators were involved, private companies
10 owning the trucks were involved, and from what you, yourself, said, the
11 5th Engineering was involved, so this would have taken coordination and
12 communication involving significant Zvornik Brigade assets; correct?
13 A. I don't know about -- what you said at the end about the assets
14 belonging to the Zvornik Brigade's significant use thereof, I don't know
15 about that. I do agree that we learned about this from Mr. Lazarevic.
16 Q. Okay. Let's go to 65 ter 379. This is an entry from the duty
17 officer notebook of 27 September. It's just a one-liner, so we'll
18 just --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, and I'm sorry to interrupt you,
20 Mr. McCloskey.
21 Mr. Pandurevic, your answer addresses the part of the question
22 allegedly involving significant Zvornik Brigade assets, but doesn't
23 address coordination. If you could answer that part of the question too,
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honours. I think
1 that the assets of the Zvornik Brigade were not engaged to a great
2 extent. The coordination of all these activities that Mr. McCloskey
3 spoke about was evidently necessary.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY:
6 Q. And that would have been Dragan Jokic, as the chief of the
7 engineers, as a major coordinator working with, well, at that time you?
8 Obrenovic wasn't around.
9 A. You have heard from Mr. Lazarevic what Jokic was doing. He said
10 that Jokic didn't coordinate any other activities except for making the
11 list of men. We both agree that these activities had started much earlier,
12 before my return from Montenegro
13 and the engagement of men started in this area much before and without
14 my knowledge. If I had stayed by any chance in Krajina for another month
15 or until the end of the war, these activities would have been completed
16 without my knowledge and participation. These activities definitely
17 started while I was absent and while Dragan Obrenovic was in command of
18 the brigade. I'm not saying that he, himself, was involved in that, because
19 what he told me upon my return from Krajina was that this activity had been
20 organised from the highest level, i.e., from the Main Staff, that it did
21 not have anything to do with the Zvornik Brigade, but rather someone was
22 appointed to coordinate these activities as a chief coordinator and singled
23 out men to do it without -- or actually by bypassing the Zvornik Command.
24 Q. Did you try to speak to Mr. Ovramovic, the commander of the 5th
25 Engineers, on the 25th of September?
1 A. I don't remember speaking to Mr. Ovramovic in September. I saw
2 him very rarely. Therefore, I cannot tell you anything more with any
3 degree of certainty.
4 Q. Well, you've seen the intercept of 27th September, 65 ter
5 number 4293?
6 A. Yes, I've seen it.
7 Q. So do you remember trying to -- we can see that -- we should see
8 it at 65 ter 4293. It seems to be passing on a message from
9 Lieutenant-Colonel Pandurevic to Ovramovic about wanting military
10 policemen. What's this about?
11 A. When I saw this intercept, I tried to understand what this is all
12 about. Judging by the contents of the conversation, I can establish a
13 link between the engagement of these policemen in that particular period
14 with the activities carried out in terms of controlling the territory
15 because some Serbs came and tried to settle in the abandoned area, and
16 I'm talking about the area of Birac and refugees from Krajina. There
17 were also soldiers who had deserted from the Krajina, and the process of
18 taking them into custody had started.
19 I find it peculiar that someone from the military police is
20 passing on my request to someone else. Therefore, I don't understand why
21 this policeman made this call and why did he speak in this way. This --
22 if this question had to be resolved, I would directly call the battalion
23 command or the corps command. Otherwise, I really don't understand why
24 they chose to do it this way.
25 Q. And, General, I agree that the military police would have been
1 partaking in many appropriate tasks, such as you've described. That
2 would be normal. My question is: Why is Major Ovramovic -- why do you
3 need to speak -- why do they need to speak to Major Obramovic --
4 Ovramovic, excuse me, the commander of the 5th Engineering Unit, if you
6 A. I don't remember this conversation or this event. It would be
7 necessary to speak to him, because his unit was involved and he was to
8 accept these men. This is what ensues from this conversation. But if
9 you establish a link between the engagement of these men with something
10 else, then the distance to Konjevic Polje and these places is much
11 longer --
12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the last part of
13 the last sentence. Apologies.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: The interpreters didn't hear the last part of the
15 last sentence. If you could repeat it, please, Mr. Pandurevic.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was speaking about
17 the fact that if Mr. McCloskey establishes a link between these
18 activities and this conversation with reburials that we discussed
19 earlier, then these sites where the secondary pits were much further from
20 Konjevic Polje than from Zvornik. Therefore, I don't see why these
21 policemen should be deployed in Konjevic Polje and doing some job there.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY:
23 Q. Well, General, you brought up the 5th Engineers as someone that
24 was reported to you they have been involved in these reburials, and we
25 know from Damjan Lazarevic that his guys were involved in digging up the
1 bodies that they'd originally buried, but he didn't know about what
2 happened to them on the other end. And you have, as I said, suggested
3 the 5th Engineer involvement, so that's why I ask you.
4 A. Yes, but these can be completely different jobs in which these
5 policemen were involved and the jobs that involved the 5th Engineer
6 Battalion. You see that Lazarevic himself said that where the bodies
7 that were dug up ended. That tells me that at the time, somebody was
8 coordinating this action in such a way that each participant knew only
9 one portion of the operation, starting from the burial site to the site
10 of the subsequent burial.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.
12 MR. HAYNES: I don't wish to stop this line of cross-examination.
13 I'd just like to know what the Prosecution's position is. This is
14 apparently an intercept between Palma
15 Brigade, and the Customs. Is that accepted to be accurate, or is it now
16 suggested that the participants are other people?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
18 Thank you, Mr. Haynes.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: As the questions are clear, I'm asking him.
20 There haven't been really many leading questions. I'm trying to get
21 information from the General, because it says "Lieutenant-Colonel
22 Pandurevic asked you to receive five of his military policemen for five
23 days," and it goes on:
24 "Did Lieutenant-Colonel Pandurevic order that?"
25 And Palma
1 "He asked."
2 So the Palma
3 something to Ovramovic to do with MPs, and I'm asking him if he
4 remembers. That's as simple as that.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you.
6 Mr. Haynes?
7 MR. HAYNES: Yes, but the intercepters of this conversation on
8 which I assume the Prosecution rely, assert that they can identify the
9 participants in the conversation as Palma and Customs, and I just want to
10 know: The Prosecution produced this exhibit, that's what it says, do
11 they assert that this is a conversation between Palma and the Customs?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm trying to find information about this
14 conversation before I decide what it is. I've got a person that's
15 mentioned it here.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed, let's proceed. I think it's clear
18 Yes, your next question, Mr. McCloskey.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY:
20 Q. General, under "Participants," it says "Palma
21 the Serbian word? Between "Palma
22 A. You mean the second participant?
23 Q. Right.
24 A. I believe that this was the secret name for the 5th Engineers
25 Battalion, but I can't be sure of that. I can't really remember.
1 Q. Thank you, General. Okay. Let's -- and to be clear, I did not
2 remember that.
3 Let's go to --
4 MR. HAYNES: To be clear, I didn't even know it.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think we're getting near the end.
6 Q. All right. Let's go back. I think we were at the duty officer
7 notebook of 27 September, and this is a one-liner. If we could -- it's
8 65 ter 379. B/C/S, page 140; English, 140. And it's the segment between
9 1113 hours and 1925 hours that I want you to look at, so if we could go
10 down a little bit on the B/C/S. There we go.
11 I'm sure you've read this, and you were the commander at that
12 point, and it says:
13 "Remind the commander about the construction work."
14 Now, I'm sure you read this and you thought about it. Do you
15 remember what construction work you would have been reminded of?
16 A. It's about construction workers, the handymen who were repairing
17 things. So it's not about constructions or construction work, but
18 construction workers.
19 Q. Well, what about them?
20 A. Those were people who were working in the HQ Administration, in
21 the Logistics, repairing facilities. They had to be engaged somewhere.
22 At the time, there was a course attended by company commanders. The
23 accommodation had to be provided for them. Things had to be repaired,
24 put in good working order, so I suppose they were engaged on such things.
25 Q. So somebody reminded you about looking after some construction
1 workers for some construction project in the HQ?
2 A. For some construction works, whether in the Command or in a
3 facility -- or some other facility. I know that the course for the
4 company commanders had been underway in the youth camp. That's where
5 they were accommodated. I suppose that some facilities needed to be
6 repaired there, or something to that effect. I really don't know. I
7 can't remember.
8 Q. Okay. Let's go to 65 ter 4299. This is also dated 27 September,
9 from the Zvornik Brigade, signed, I believe, by you. If you could
10 confirm that for us.
11 A. Yes, my signature.
12 Q. And it's a longer document than some we've seen, so it's -- it's
13 entitled "Report on the state of morale for September 1995. Submission."
14 And then it says: "Short description of the activities of the brigade in
15 the last period." And I really only want to ask you about two things.
16 It's page 4 of the English, page 2 of the B/C/S, and it's right at the
17 bottom, maybe the bottom of page 1 of the B/C/S. It's under the B/C/S
18 section for negative morale factors, and it's the last negative morale
19 factor. It's page 4, if we could bring the English down a little bit.
20 It's probably down at the bottom of page 1 of the B/C/S, and it's on
21 page 4 of the English.
22 Let's try page 2 of the B/C/S, and could we go up with the
23 English to get that last -- that sentence, it's just. There you go.
24 So this factor, it says:
25 "The worn-down condition of quartermaster supplies, especially
1 clothing and footwear of the majority of the soldiers, which will make
2 life and work of the units significantly more difficult in the upcoming
3 winter conditions, and the insecurity of a quick resolution of the
5 So were your uniforms and your boots in bad repair, like this
7 A. Well, nothing new. It was that way throughout the war. We
8 always had that problem.
9 Q. Okay. Now let's go to "Positive Morale Factors." And looking at
10 the second paragraph under the positive morale factors section, it says:
11 "A high level of trust in the Brigade among the commanding staff,
12 the soldiers, and amongst each other, which is constantly increased with
13 the process of building a military organisation and the direct presence
14 of members of the Command at the units."
15 Do you stand by that?
16 A. Yes, this was one of the positive factors that had a positive
17 impact on morale. Maybe it was not to that particular degree, the high
18 degree of confidence in the brigade. However, if that is high, it has a
19 high impact. My assistant for morale had to highlight certain positive
20 factors. In any case, a certain degree of confidence did exist. If that
21 confidence had not exited, we would not have been able to function.
22 Q. So you signed off on this document firmly believing in what was
23 said in that paragraph at the time?
24 A. I signed it. I'm sure I did not read it. But if you look at the
25 October document, which analyses the participation of the Drina Brigade
1 in the fighting in Krajina, you will see things described in a different
2 way. I was the one who had compiled that report, and I highlighted the
3 organisational problems and the problems of command in the Army of
4 Republika Srpska, and I also said that the level of those was not as high
5 as is described in this report that we're looking at. We should have
6 only been so lucky to have things this way.
7 Q. Did you read this or not - it was a little unclear from the
8 interpretation - before signing it?
9 A. I don't think that I read the entire document, no.
10 Q. General, you just don't seem like the kind of general that signs
11 your name without reading a document that's going out to your people or
12 your superiors. You're saying you didn't read all this, huh?
13 A. Well, you see, the assistant commanders are responsible for their
14 own work to the commander, and the state of morale is within the purview
15 of the assistant commander for morale. The commander is responsible for
16 all the elements of combat preparedness. This is a standard monthly
17 report on the state of morale, and if we were to compare this one with
18 the reports for any of the previous months, you would not see a major
19 difference. Unless there had been some drastic changes on the
20 front-lines, this would have been reflected in a report.
21 Q. Well, let's go on, General, but try to listen to my question and
22 we'll get through here.
23 Now I want to take you -- if we could go into private session
24 briefly, and I'll try to remember to get out of it.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Let's go into private session for a short
2 [Private session]
11 Pages 32325-32329 redacted. Private session.
18 [Open session]
19 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session, Mr. McCloskey.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right.
21 All right, and if we could go to 65 ter number 389.
22 Q. General, this -- I'm not going to get into the details. This is
23 the statement the military police took. You'll remember the testimony of
24 the military police officer, and this is the person named Sakib Kiviric,
25 age 31, from the village of Jagonje
1 other statements, 65 ter 390, we would have Emin Mustafavic, age 25,
2 providing a similar statement; Fuad Dosic, age 30, providing a similar
3 statement; that's 65 ter 399. And we can see from these statements there
4 is no discussion of surviving a mass execution, which I'm sure you notice
5 from the statements, but that in these statements they describe getting
6 helped by a Serb farmer and his son, and they give them clothes, they
7 give them some food, and they point them in the direction of Teocak. And
8 after these Muslims -- four Muslims get arrested, they tell the military
9 police or they tell their captors this story, and these statements are
10 taken by the military police pursuant to a prosecution of this farmer and
11 his son for aiding the enemy. And this is documented by the military
12 police, isn't it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And let's go to 65 ter number 392. This is the statement of
15 Almir Halilovic, son of Suljo and Dika, born 25 August 1980 in the
16 village of Bajramovici in Srebrenica. So Almir at the time is a
17 14-year-old boy; right?
18 A. 25th August 1980
19 time. He was a minor, yes.
20 Q. He was 14 at the time, right, General?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Let's go to 65 ter number 343. This is a statement taken by the
23 military police, the military post of Zvornik, the Crime Prevention
24 Service. And I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but this is
25 the interview of the father, the man that helped this boy and his three
1 adult companions, and he says, in the first paragraph, this is:
2 "On 18 July 1995
3 for my cattle from a field which is about 150 metres from the house."
4 So 18 July, we know, would be two days after the executions at
5 Branjevo were finished, because they finished the evening of 16 July.
6 And he goes on to say:
7 "I knew immediately that they were Muslims, since they were
8 covered with blood, and also by their clothes, because they had been
9 fleeing from Srebrenica towards their territory at that time."
10 So the fact that they were covered with blood two days after
11 crawling out from underneath a mass execution is a pretty good
12 indication, along with their location, that they are from Branjevo Farm,
13 one of them being from the same village as a guy that Amo Hasic
14 remembers; correct?
15 A. Yeah, yes, this is what the statement says.
16 Q. And in the end, Mr. Djokic says:
17 "My son probably did not report them because he was afraid for
18 me, since I had not reported them. I still don't understand why I did
19 not do so. Money cannot be the reason, since they did not have any. I
20 wanted to inform my son about their presence, and in the end everything
21 came out the worst."
22 This is a Serb farmer looking after a Muslim neighbour that
23 needed food and clothing, isn't it?
24 A. Yes, they tried to help them and provide protection for them.
25 Q. All right. And let's go to 65 ter 385. This is a document
1 indicating a "Ruling," against the father and the son, providing for
2 detention, providing the reasons, in the name of Chief of Security Drago
3 Nikolic. You would have had to approve any punishment of your soldiers
4 for assisting Muslims like this, wouldn't you?
5 A. I don't know what you mean by I would have had to confirm the
6 punishment of my soldiers. The security organ, acting ex officio and in
7 compliance with their obligations according to the rules, estimated that
8 this constituted cooperation with the enemy and punished these two men by
9 imposing three days of -- in detention, and then submitted a criminal
10 charge to the prosecutors. This did not require any authorisations
11 either from the commander or from someone else. I don't remember at all
12 punishing anyone for cooperating with the enemy. If there is any such
13 order, I would really like to see it, but I don't remember doing any such
15 Q. But you would have, as the commander, have to know and approve
16 any punishment of your troops. Certainly, you're not suggesting Second
17 Lieutenant Drago Nikolic can, on his own, punish your troops.
18 A. If there's a provision in the law allowing him to do this, he
19 doesn't need my consent. If he's entitled to put somebody in custody for
20 three days or 72 hours, he doesn't need my consent. If a battalion
21 commander can punish a soldier by a term of imprisonment or detention,
22 seven days or fourteen days, it's his right, it's his legal right.
23 I never saw this ruling before. As I can see from this material,
24 this criminal charge was rejected by the prosecutor.
25 Q. And you have no knowledge whatsoever of this investigation, the
1 conclusions, the results, the punishment, and if anyone does, it's only
2 little Drago Nikolic?
3 A. What I can conclude from all this is that the whole proceedings
4 were conducted by Drago Nikolic. He was the one issuing the rulings. He
5 took the statement. We see that the four gave almost identical
6 statements, that they were apparently or obviously dictated, and that
7 they signed them as such.
8 Q. All right. General, one last question, and I want to ask you
9 about the brief statement a witness said in this case, and he said it, in
10 particular, in the Krstic case, a statement I'll never forget. I want to
11 read it to you and ask you if you agree with it.
12 The Judges in the Krstic case asked him, and this was the -- he
13 testified in this case as PW-113, a survivor of the Petkovski Dam, one of
14 the two that helped each other survive, and it's a young guy, a young
15 Muslim man. You may remember him. He was the one that remembered seeing
16 his teacher right as he was getting off the truck. And when the Judge
17 asked him if he had anything else to say, he said this:
18 "From all of whatever I have said and what I saw, I could come to
19 the conclusion that this was extremely well organised. It was systematic
20 killing and that the organisers of that do not deserve to be at liberty.
21 And if I had the right and courage, in the name of all those innocents
22 and all those victims, I would forgive the actual perpetrators of the
23 executions because they were misled."
24 That's all. Were the actual -- do you agree with him? Were the
25 actual perpetrators of this, the shooters, were they misled?
1 A. I fully understand. I have compassion for the victims. It is
2 very difficult for me to talk about them. I agree, however, what -- with
3 what this gentleman said. This couldn't have been done without proper
4 organisation. Whether that was organised at a higher level, I don't
5 know, because I don't have any authentic information about this. Those
6 who participated in the executions themselves, whether they were misled
7 or not, I believe that some individuals did it consciously because that
8 was in their nature. But at any rate, that was a wrong approach, it was
9 a wrong step, and it sowed poison in this area that is for many years to
10 come help wheat grow among the Serbian people, and this is more
11 harmful and this is a bigger crime than anything else that could have
12 happened there. As much as the people who were executed for -- victims,
13 so are the people who live in the area are victims, too.
14 Q. Let me, in response to that, you said on page 31962, in response
15 to Mr. Ostojic:
16 "Let me interpret that for you. Drago Nikolic was duty-bound to
17 act upon Popovic -- Popovic and Beara's orders, and they were not from
18 the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, and they did not ask for any man to be taken
19 from some way. They just asked for assistance to carry out the job that
20 was given to them, the job that they were given to do."
21 I think we'll agree that Drago Nikolic was given the job to
22 detain and organise the detention, the transportation, and the execution.
23 Are you standing by this, that he was duty-bound to do that?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes.
25 MR. HAYNES: He's putting to him Mr. Ostojic's words and asking
1 him if he stands by Mr. Ostojic's words. That's not a fair question.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Those aren't Mr. Ostojic's words. I can read the
4 whole thing, if you'd like. That's his answer:
5 "So tell me this --"
6 This is Ostojic:
7 "So tell me this. Can someone from the corps, a colonel or a
8 general from the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, come into the Zvornik Brigade
9 and move a battalion, a platoon, a unit, or even a soldier and say,
10 'Well, come out of the Zvornik Brigade and come and do this for me, like
11 help me on the front-line, where I'm fighting near Sarajevo'? Do you
12 think that's prescribed by the rules anywhere, sir?"
13 Your answer:
14 "It is prescribed, but let's not go all the way to Sarajevo
15 There are events that took place closer. If that was needed by Sarajevo
16 Romanija Corps, you would have asked for that from the Main Staff and
17 then the order would arrive at the Drina Corps and then at the brigade.
18 We had a very specific situation in which people came from the Corps and
19 the Main
20 Main Staff, and they got in touch by the functional line of work with the
21 people of the Zvornik Brigade, and that functional relationship became
22 the relationship that's binding on both parties upon the request of the
23 people from the Corps and the Main Staff."
24 You go on:
25 "Let me interpret that for you. Drago Nikolic was duty-bound to
1 act upon Popovic -- Popovic and Beara's orders."
2 And my question is: As you'll agree, Drago Nikolic was assigned
3 this awful task. Are you standing by this and saying that he was
4 duty-bound to follow it, or do you want to change your testimony?
5 A. I'm not changing my testimony. I stand by what I said, that it
6 was his duty to carry out the orders of Mr. Popovic and Beara. What
7 Obrenovic told him was no indication or not indicative at all that he was
8 going to carry out the task of execution. If he carried out this task,
9 he would have done that on the orders of these two men.
10 Q. General, you were talking about the murder operation, and you
11 said he was duty-bound?
12 A. It was his duty to obey their orders. If he carried out illegal
13 orders and which constitute serious crimes, then he knew how to act in
14 this situation. If he acted upon their orders and took part in the
15 killing, then he did so. If he didn't, he didn't. If he followed their
16 orders, he committed a crime.
17 Q. So you'll agree with me that Drago, Popovic, anyone, yourself,
18 but anyone that received an order to take part in this murder operation
19 was duty-bound not to follow it; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right. So -- and that was under the JNA, the VRS, the Geneva
22 Conventions, correct, which you knew?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So if someone, despite their duty not to carry out an order to
25 take part in this operation, took part in the operation, they would have
1 done so on their own free will, against their duty; correct?
2 A. Correct. We have been construing rules here the whole time. Had
3 everybody stuck to the rules, there wouldn't have been any crime. There
4 is no rule prescribing how to commit a crime, but rather rules that say
5 how not to commit a crime and how to prevent it.
6 Q. But my point is: When you walk away from your duty, you do it
8 A. I'm not quite sure if I understand you correctly, if we do not
9 fulfill our duty, that we do it voluntarily. Can you please be more
11 Q. When Drago or you, or anyone that's ordered to commit a heinous
12 crime, knowing it's their duty not to do it, in fact does it, they are
13 doing it voluntarily, no one's putting a gun to their head?
14 A. Correct, nobody was putting a gun to their head. Somebody had
15 given them these tasks. They carried out these tasks.
16 THE INTERPRETERS: Witness please repeat whether he said "they
17 were aware" or "weren't aware" of committing the crime.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: The interpreters would like to know whether you
19 said that they were aware or were not aware of committing a crime.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were aware.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY:
23 Q. Thank you, General.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. I have no further
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. McCloskey.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon. I'm also coming to you, Mr. Haynes.
3 MR. HAYNES: Well, perhaps I can start. With 20 -- well, a
4 little under 20 minutes to the next break, I had been alerted by
5 Mr. Josse that there's something he wants to raise before I start. I see
6 now Mr. Bourgon is rising. I'd like a little time to set up, so can we
7 deal with these procedural matters and then take the next break?
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you.
9 I saw you first, Mr. Bourgon. I haven't seen Mr. Josse
10 indicating that he wants to intervene as well. You do, I assume.
11 MR. JOSSE: Well, what I'm interested in is totally unrelated to
12 the evidence of this witness, but I would quite like to deal with it in a
13 few minutes' time.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's hear Mr. Bourgon first.
15 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President, good morning.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning.
17 MR. BOURGON: Good morning Judges.
18 Mr. President, at the beginning of the testimony of this witness
19 or at the beginning of the cross-examination, upon our request for the
20 Prosecution to go first which was denied by the Trial Chamber we were
21 informed that should any matter new be brought up during the
22 cross-examination by the Prosecution that we could seek leave of the
23 Trial Chamber to address these issues in further cross-examination. Four
24 such issues have arisen today which I would like to address in further
25 cross-examination. And, Mr. President, I draw your attention to page 3
1 of the transcript today, at lines 15 and 16, about the identity of the
2 duty officer as something entirely new that was raised today. On
3 page 41, lines 16 to 20, and on the same issue, page 49, lines 7 to 16,
4 in relation to document 65 ter 385, whether the proceedings were
5 instituted by Drago Nikolic alone and whether those charges against the
6 two members of the Zvornik Brigade, where they apparently assisted the
7 enemy, were brought by Drago Nikolic. And finally, Mr. President, the
8 other issue is the one that was just raised by my colleague from the
9 Prosecution at page 52, lines 9 to 25, and page 53.
10 So it's actually three issues that I'd like to briefly address in
11 cross-examination, but I do require some time to speak with Mr. Nikolic
12 before I do so, especially the part with page 41 and page 49. There is
13 one question I need to discuss with Mr. Nikolic before I do this
14 additional cross-examination.
15 Thank you, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
17 Mr. Josse, do you wish -- well, let's hear what Mr. Josse has
18 to --
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: It is unrelated. Do you wish to comment on -- and
21 I will ask you, Mr. Haynes, as well on Mr. Bourgon's --
22 MR. HAYNES: Thank you very much.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yeah, I do not object to 2 and 3. 1 has been an
25 issue that was clearly part of the testimony, but it's a short issue, so
1 as long as we don't take forever on it, I won't object to that, either.
2 It's something that came up in direct, and it was -- kind of left a very
3 obvious question to be asked. As you'll recall, he describes going up
4 the stairs and seeing the duty officer, but never names them. So -- but
5 it's a short issue. I don't have -- as long as we don't go on forever.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
7 Mr. Haynes.
8 MR. HAYNES: Well, I do object.
9 The first issue is plain on the face of the Zvornik Brigade
10 records and is capable of stipulation. The second is in the indictment
11 and has previously been heavily litigated, amongst other people, with a
12 witness called Nebojsa Jeremic, and the third is a matter of trite law.
13 They could all have been well anticipated as being matters that should
14 have been dealt with in cross-examination the first time 'round.
15 The witness has been giving evidence now for a very long time.
16 He's looking very tired, if I may say so, and there's no need to deal
17 with these matters now.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to reply to that, Mr. Bourgon?
19 MR. BOURGON: Indeed, Mr. President.
20 These issues were not raised during examination-in-chief, and
21 they were not -- they were raised for the first time during
22 cross-examination of the Prosecution, which is conducted after the
23 cross-examination which was conducted by all Defence teams. And I need
24 very little time to address all of these issues, no more than ten minutes
25 to cover all issues, after I speak with Mr. Nikolic.
1 Thank you, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. You will soon hear our decision on
4 Mr. Josse, on a completely unrelated matter.
5 MR. JOSSE: Yes. Two matters which are related to each other,
6 but are completely unrelated to the evidence of the present witness.
7 The Defence, Your Honours, are aware of a decision of the
8 Appeals Chamber in the Prlic case, dated the 26th of February of this
9 year, that may have some impact on the two outstanding objection motions.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
11 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour's clearly aware of that. You're also
12 aware that filings are complete so far as those various objections are
13 concerned. Really, we wanted guidance as to whether the Trial Chamber
14 wanted any further submission from any interested party on that
15 particular topic. I'm not inviting the Trial Chamber to allow further
16 submissions, but if you do, could you indicate that they all be filed on
17 the same day by any interested party, rather than having a ping-pong
18 situation of one party putting in a submission and then another. The
19 decision clearly impacts on the issue, and also the Trial Chamber's
20 guidance of the 17th of December of last year, so we are, on behalf of
21 General Gvero, quite content to leave it to the Trial Chamber to indicate
22 whether further submissions are required.
23 The second related issue is this, and I'm just going to read this
24 out verbatim.
25 Following discussions between the Prosecution and the Gvero team,
1 the Gvero team wish to make it clear that they are not objecting, or we
2 are not objecting, to the admission into evidence of P4208. In those
3 circumstances, the Prosecution are not pursuing their application to have
4 P4220 admitted.
5 The Trial Chamber can refer back to what all that relates to, but
6 it's basically matters that came out of Mr. Kosovac' testimony.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I'll start with you, Mr. Josse, in
10 relation to the first issue you raised. Okay, you can remain -- you may
11 remain seated.
12 As you can imagine, I mean, the Appeals Chamber decision in Prlic
13 is something that we went through very careful, and I'm grateful for
14 you -- grateful to you for having raised the issue, and I can confirm to
15 you that we don't need any further submissions from any of you on that
17 In relation to your second submission, those two documents,
18 I think we need to digest it a little bit further.
19 As regards your request, Mr. Bourgon, for a further
20 cross-examination, we are granting your request. We suggest to you to
21 dedicate very little time on the first one, because I think much of the
22 submissions made are very valid. Ultimately, you can refer to the
23 witness's answer this morning, which doesn't add much to what we already
25 We are going to have the break now, and I want to make sure that
1 the security people make it possible for Mr. Bourgon to have
2 consultations with his client.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course, you will need to stick to your promise
5 to keep your cross-examination limited to ten minutes.
6 We'll have a 25 minutes' break from now. Thank you.
7 --- Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: So Mr. Bourgon, it's 12.30.
10 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Further cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon:
12 Q. Good morning, sir.
13 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Bourgon.
14 Q. I have some further questions for you this morning, further to
15 the cross-examination conducted by my colleague from the Prosecution.
16 The first one relates to an answer you gave on page 3, lines 15 to 16.
17 Of course, I just say the page number to allow my colleagues to follow.
18 And you mentioned on that moment, and I quote:
19 "It's correct that they do not resemble each other."
20 And that's because the Prosecutor was asking you to make a
21 parallel between Jokic and Drago Nikolic. And you went on to say:
22 "For a time Mr. Simic, or at least he was supposed to be on duty
23 that day, but for some reasons he couldn't, but it could have been
24 Mr. Nikolic then."
25 My question is the following: Is the first time that you name of
1 Simic is mentioned by yourself throughout your testimony, I'd just like
2 to confirm with this was not information that you had at the time; is
3 that correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And on the 15th of July, correct me if I'm wrong, but it would
6 have been normal for Mr. Simic, being the assistant commander for morale
7 and religious affairs, to be quite busy on that day because of the number
8 of people killed from the Zvornik Brigade; is that correct?
9 A. He was also doing that, but on the 15th there were no major
10 losses. He was involved in something that concerned burials as well.
11 Q. When you say "burials," what burials are you referring to?
12 You're talking about members of the Zvornik Brigade who were killed in
13 action; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The second issue that I'd like to address was raised by yourself
16 or by the Prosecution at page 41, lines 16 to 20, and then again page 49,
17 lines 7 to 16.
18 If I can have in e-court, please, P385.
19 Sir, this is a document that was shown to you by the Prosecution,
20 and it was your testimony that you were not made aware of this document
21 at the time. Now, my first question is the following: Can you confirm
22 that this is not any type of judgement or punishment, but that it is
23 nothing more than detention being ordered by the security organ while the
24 matter is being assessed by the security organ; is that correct?
25 A. This is a decision that was issued by the security organ. When
1 it came to crimes within the jurisdiction of military courts, this is
2 done ex officio. The person that committed a crime may be kept in
3 custody for up to three days, and later that person's destiny is decided
4 by the military prosecutor. And it says in the rules of the security
5 services that this custody is within the jurisdiction of the security
6 organs at the army level. Whether Drago had the right to do it by law or
7 not, I don't know.
8 Q. But you can confirm that this is not a punishment; is that
10 A. No, this is part of the investigation stage.
11 Q. And you have seen, at some point in this case, the criminal
12 report that was filed by Drago Nikolic concerning the father and son
13 Djokic; you recall that?
14 A. Yes, I saw those documents together with the rest of them.
15 Q. And my last question on this topic is the following: The
16 Prosecution -- maybe we need to go into closed session -- private
17 session, Mr. President, for a few seconds.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's do that. Let's go into private session for a
19 short while, please.
20 [Private session]
21 [Open session]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: We are back in open session.
23 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. Sir, on page 52 and 53, my colleague raised with you a long
25 hypothetical with "if there was an order," and "if they abide by the
1 order" or "if they refuse the order." My question is not so much related
2 to the hypothetical itself, but rather to the following: During the
3 period 18 July 1995
4 corps, first I'd like to confirm that you know which combat report I'm
5 talking about. Do you recall your combat report that you sent on the
6 18th of July?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. Now, between the moment when you send that interim combat report
9 on 18 July and the meeting you had with all the brigade commanders, as
10 well as your assistant commander, on 23 July, can you confirm that at no
11 point you met with Drago Nikolic to discuss any type of involvement he
12 would have had in the activities which you had learned by 18 July?
13 A. Correct.
14 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, sir. No further questions.
15 Thank you, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
17 Mr. Haynes, I take it you won't finish today now.
18 MR. HAYNES: Sadly, no, but I was going to commence, actually, by
19 telling everybody the good news.
20 I'm pretty precise with these things, and I think I have an hour
21 and a half to two hours re-examination, no more. So I will take the rest
22 of today and no more than one session tomorrow. I've let everybody know
23 this privately, because they've all inquired, and that is that having
24 seen the cross-examination of my client and what has been put to him and,
25 more particularly, what has not been put to him, we have already taken a
1 pretty bold view of the remainder of our case, and granted your very kind
2 break starting tomorrow, we will commence to call evidence next Monday.
3 But I think I can say now it will not occupy a week of the Court's time,
4 and it may only involve the Court sitting on one or two days next week.
5 Now, everybody knows that, and when Mr. Pandurevic and I have had a day's
6 rest, we will confirm that in writing to everybody, but I let you know
7 that and I let everybody else know that so that we can programme for the
9 So I'll say no more now, unless anybody else wants to comment
10 before I start asking questions, but those who want to call further
11 evidence better start making preparations to do so next week, unless
12 we're to have another hiatus.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
14 Mr. McCloskey, are you still expecting to file your motion for
15 rebuttal by today?
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, okay, thank you.
18 So, Mr. Haynes, take your time.
19 MR. HAYNES: Thank you very much.
20 Re-examination by Mr. Haynes:
21 Q. I just want to start, Mr. Pandurevic, by tidying up a day about
22 which you've been asked quite a lot of questions, and that is the 25th of
23 September. And I think we need to start by looking at P67 -- sorry,
24 7D679, the regular combat report for the 25th of September.
25 JUDGE KWON: P2926 is the same thing?
1 MR. HAYNES: I'll take your word for it, Judge Kwon. You're
2 almost certainly right.
3 Q. We see there a reference to a meeting or an event at 1500 hours.
4 What does it apparently describe?
5 A. In paragraph 2, it says that at 1500 hours, the brigade
6 commander, having returned from the corps where he presented his report,
7 held a meeting with the battalion -- artillery battalion commanders and
8 the core members of the command. This means that in the course of that
9 day, Obrenovic, who had attended a meeting in Vlasenica and received his
10 orders there, with regard to the engagement of the units in the area of
11 the 1st Krajina Corps, called battalion commanders and the core members
12 of the Command and regulated all the issues that arose from the orders
13 given to him by General Krstic.
14 Q. Presumably, at some stage you've held a meeting like that, have
15 you, as commander?
16 A. Yes, of course.
17 Q. And how long would a meeting like that take?
18 A. In this case, when you had battalion commanders, artillery
19 battalion commanders, and inner command, the meetings are not short.
20 They last anything above one hour, one and a half hours, sometimes even
22 Q. Thank you. Now can we have a look, please, at P379, the duty
23 operations officer's log-book for the month of September, amongst other
24 things, page 137 in e-court, that is.
25 Now, the English, of course, is typed and far more easy to
1 understand, but can you find an entry that relates to the time 1515 or
2 quarter past 3.00 in the afternoon?
3 A. I can see an entry at 1500 hours, being in the ops room, a
4 telegram sent at 1300, if that's what you had in mind.
5 Q. The entry I had in mind refers to Velika Pecina, which I think
6 means "caves," doesn't it?
7 A. I can't see the whole page. Maybe that is towards the end of the
8 page. I really can't --
9 JUDGE KWON: I think I see it there.
10 MR. HAYNES: Yes.
11 Q. It's about a third of the way down, you can see on the right --
12 towards the right-hand side of the page "1515." Can you see it.
13 Well, I'll read the English.
14 JUDGE KWON: Two lines above the number which is written,
16 JUDGE AGIUS: The cursor is pointing to the relevant line, if you
17 look at the right-hand --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can now see it.
19 MR. HAYNES:
20 Q. And what does that say in the original so that we can check that
21 the translation is accurate?
22 A. "Observing at Velika Pecina at 1515, from the Ramici sector ...,"
23 and then I can't read the next word, "... from the direction of Sapna,
24 four buses."
25 Q. Okay. Now, that's quarter past 3.00 in the afternoon. Can we go
1 down a little further to the entry one line from the bottom, and it's a
3 A. "584-726 Commander."
4 Q. And whose number is that?
5 A. That's the number that was mentioned in the directory from which
6 I would phone in, and that's the number of my friends in Zvornik.
7 Q. And where were you in the mid to late afternoon of the 25th of
9 A. I spent some time with the friend, and then I went to the house
10 in Celopek to spend some time with the lady with whom I was involved at
11 the time and where I spent time.
12 Q. And who provided that number to be entered in the duty operations
13 officer's log-book?
14 A. I was the one who provided them with the number where they can
15 call me.
16 Q. Thank you. Well, we'll leave that topic now.
17 Something completely different, Mr. Pandurevic. Do you remember
18 when I first became your counsel?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. When was it?
21 A. In February 2006, that's when we met for the first time.
22 Q. And have you got any idea how many hours we've spent together
23 since then?
24 A. It's very hard for me to give you any numbers, but I can say that
25 it was hours and hours.
1 Q. And just for all of our benefits: Do we discuss together topics
2 to be asked of witnesses who come to give evidence in the case?
3 A. Yes, we have discussed that as well.
4 Q. Do you write the questions I ask of witnesses?
5 A. Well, the questions that you put to the witnesses, I've never
6 written them down, but they differed quite a lot from what I considered
7 to be important to put to the witnesses when they come to the courtroom.
8 Q. You've probably already, therefore, answered this next question,
9 which is: Does everything we discuss end up being put to a witness as a
11 A. No, our discussions are much longer. We discuss a lot more
12 issues and facts, and much less is being presented by yourself in the
14 Q. And what about your own evidence before this Court? Were there
15 things that we discussed in preparation that you haven't told us about?
16 A. No.
17 Q. You write your own filings and submissions for presentation to
18 the Trial Chamber?
19 A. No, I've never written a single submission for the Trial Chamber.
20 I have still not advanced that far.
21 Q. In particular, did --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
23 Mr. Bourgon, yes.
24 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. It's not -- I would like
25 to avoid interrupting my colleague. However, during cross-examination of
1 Mr. Pandurevic we made a point, and it was even brought quite forcefully
2 to my attention by my colleague from the Prosecution, not to enter into
3 the area of solicitor-client privilege. Now, I have a feeling that what
4 my colleague is doing now is that he is kind of waiving the
5 solicitor-client privilege by entering into discussions and entering into
6 what was discussed between him and his client.
7 Should that be the case, Mr. President, this opens up a whole new
8 area of cross-examination, which may of course call us to ask for further
9 cross-examination to enter into those discussions, and to examine those,
10 and to cross-examine what happened between, you know, my colleague and
11 his client, if he's waiving that privilege, because that's what he's
12 doing with the kind of questions he's putting.
13 I waited until I was confident that this was the case, and I am
14 now confident that this is the case, Mr. President. Thank you.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
16 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm starting to have similar concerns. But if
18 it's just to the area that I brought up about the filing regarding the
19 25th of September, and it ends there, I think we're okay, and that seems
20 to me where he's going. But much further, and it is getting into an area
21 that, frankly, is an area that we're not used to going into, and I don't
22 think -- we've got to be careful.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
24 Mr. Ostojic.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 I agree with Mr. Bourgon, and I think he not only kind of waives
2 the attorney-client privilege, I think he actually does waive it with
3 this line of questioning. We were prohibiting from going into these
4 discussions because they raised an issue of attorney-client privilege,
5 which we respected. Now he wants to come through the back door when he
6 wouldn't allow us to ask through the front door, which is inappropriate.
7 And certainly if he's going to ask these questions, we would have leave
8 to ask further questions of Mr. Pandurevic on these issues.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.
10 Thank you, Mr. Ostojic.
11 MR. HAYNES: I didn't stop them. I let them --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: You couldn't, either.
13 MR. HAYNES: No. I let them ask questions about Mr. Pandurevic's
14 instructions to me and whether they were reflected in his Rule 65 ter
15 summary, whether they were reflected in his pre-trial brief, whether they
16 were reflected in the cross-examination of PW-168, and so this is a
17 classic example of an issue in re-examination arising directly from the
18 cross-examination, and I'm perfectly entitled to establish whether any,
19 on the face of it, deficiencies in those documents are attributable to
20 Mr. Pandurevic or are attributable to his lawyer.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: So I've had consultations with my colleagues, and
23 the unanimous position here is that there is absolutely nothing irregular
24 going on. And provided this is limited to what Mr. Haynes has just
25 stated, we see no grounds for any further cross-examinations. So let's
1 proceed and conclude on this part, Mr. Haynes.
2 MR. HAYNES: I'll be as quick as I can.
3 Q. Did you write the 65 ter summary of your evidence or the evidence
4 of any other witness on your witness list?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you compose the cross-examination of PW-168?
7 A. Yes, within the scope of the possible examination.
8 Q. Did you feel that the cross-examination of PW-168 had covered all
9 the ground you wanted it to?
10 A. No, not in the least.
11 Q. Was it your decision that it shouldn't cover all the ground you
12 wanted it to?
13 A. No, it wasn't, it wasn't my decision.
14 Q. How did you feel about that at the time?
15 A. I was not entirely happy with the whole thing.
16 Q. What, in particular, were you unhappy about?
17 A. In particular, because there was some areas that I wanted the
18 witness to be questioned, and at some points you were interrupted by the
19 Honourable Trial Chamber disallowing you to explore those matters any
21 Q. Was it your decision not to include details of the conversation
22 with Dragan Obrenovic on the 16th of July in your 65 ter summary of your
24 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objection, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I don't think we need to hear submissions.
1 Let's proceed.
2 Can you answer the question, please.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. My answer is, "No."
4 MR. HAYNES:
5 Q. Was it your decision not to include reference to the involvement
6 of the security organ in the bringing of prisoners to Zvornik in your
7 65 ter summary?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Or the meeting with Dragan Obrenovic on the 23rd of July?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Or the meeting with General Krstic on the 27th of July?
12 A. No.
13 Q. When did you first notice those omissions in your Rule 65 ter
15 A. I saw some when the dead-line expired for the submission of the
16 65 ter submission, so I was shown the final version, the one that was
17 then submitted.
18 Q. Did you tell Eileen Gilleece about the meeting with Dragan
19 Obrenovic on the 16th of July?
20 A. Not about the details. I just told her when he informed me about
21 the presence of prisoners in the area of Zvornik.
22 Q. Did you tell your own lawyers about it?
23 A. I did. I told them everything I knew.
24 Q. When did you first tell them about it?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
1 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, we are definitely getting into
2 solicitor-client privilege issues.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: The solicitor-client privilege is none of your
4 concern, Mr. Bourgon. It only becomes your concern when you try to
5 violate it, and then you are stopped. Otherwise, it's a subject matter
6 of relationship between client and counsel, and counsel can deal with
7 this matter provided his client does not object to it. Otherwise, please
8 sit down, both of you, and let's proceed.
9 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, I'd like to address the Court, I'd
10 like to address this Trial Chamber.
11 I'm not saying that it's a violation. I'm just saying that he is
12 waiving the privilege, and then I will be asking for further
13 cross-examination on the basis that the privilege has been waived. The
14 rule --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. You can ask later on, and then we will
17 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you for your patience, Mr. President.
20 We also would just like to be -- put the Court on notice. We are
21 inviting Mr. Haynes and Mr. Sarapa to testify, based on this incredible
22 evidence that we are hearing now, although they could have amended 65 ter
23 lists and other things, but we're just putting them on notice if they're
24 entering into this discussion. The only person who could possibly even
25 remotely corroborate any of this would be their very own counsel, and we
1 will be asking the Court for leave to do that.
2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Please do.
4 Yes, Mr. Haynes.
5 MR. HAYNES:
6 Q. Would you answer the question, please, Mr. Pandurevic, which was:
7 When did you first tell your lawyers about the meeting on the 16th of
9 A. I know it was a long time ago. We analysed facts and events, and
10 that must have been over too long -- two years ago.
11 Q. Now, you're not a lawyer, but what was your understanding of the
12 purpose of preparing Rule 65 ter summaries?
13 A. I understood the Rule this way: I believed that it was a way to
14 submit documents from which the Prosecutor and the Honourable Chamber
15 would see what the Defence case was, what witnesses would be brought, and
16 the principal facts that they would testify about, in order for everybody
17 to be prepared and to be able to prepare for their work.
18 Q. And have you read many 65 ter summaries in this case?
19 A. I have read the 65 ter summaries of all the co-accused.
20 Q. And how enlightening have you found them to be?
21 A. There was some submissions, but only two or three main points
22 outlined in them, and no inferences could be made based on those.
23 Q. Any particular criticisms you've got to make?
24 A. No, I don't want to make any criticisms. I only remember
25 Mr. Beara's submission, in which he mentioned some witnesses only by
1 their initials or by their names, and I never knew what they would be
2 testifying about.
3 Q. Now let's move on.
4 You told us, when you were being cross-examined by Mr. Bourgon,
5 that in 2005 you sat down to talk to Mr. Bourgon and Ms. Nikolic. What
6 was your motivation for doing that?
7 A. They expressed a desire to talk to me. I accepted that. I did
8 not know what they wanted to hear from me, but there was no reason for me
9 to refuse that meeting with them.
10 Q. Did you do so happily and willingly?
11 A. Yes, I did willingly, of my own will, yes.
12 Q. And were you content that notes of your conversation should be
13 kept by Drago Nikolic's lawyers?
14 A. That was at the very beginning, when I was still not very
15 familiar with the Rules of Evidence, and I didn't know whether they were
16 supposed to take notes or not.
17 Q. Can you recall whether at that stage you had already decided that
18 you would give evidence in your own defence?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. That's an ambiguous answer. Do you mean, yes, you had decided
21 or, yes, you recall?
22 A. I had already decided to testify in my own case before that
24 Q. This may not be clear from your previous answers, but were you
25 aware that notes were being taken by Drago Nikolic's lawyers of your
2 A. I don't know. They had papers on the desk. They put some
3 questions. Whether they made notes and, if they did, what notes those
4 were, I really can't tell you with any degree of certainty.
5 Q. Were you ever shown any note?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Did you give an interview to the lawyers for any of the other
8 accused on this indictment?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Was that because you weren't asked or because of some special
11 relationship with Drago Nikolic?
12 A. There was no special relationship. Nobody explicitly asked for
13 an interview, and when I applied to testify, nobody expressed an explicit
14 desire to talk to me; hence, I haven't spoken to any other Defence team.
15 MR. HAYNES: Thank you. Can we go into private session now,
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session, please.
18 [Private session]
6 [Open session]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: We are whack in open session.
8 MR. HAYNES:
9 Q. Just remind us what it was that Drago Nikolic told you about the
10 involve -- sorry, that Dragan Obrenovic told you about the involvement of
11 Drago Nikolic in the events of 13th to 16th of July.
12 A. He told me that on the 13th, Drago conveyed a message to him that
13 a certain number of prisoners would arrive in the territory of Zvornik
14 that they should be accommodated there, that a triage should be carried
15 out, and that the rest should be sent to either the Batkovici camp or to
16 be exchanged, that they should be escorted and secured, and that he
17 required a few policemen for that purpose, because he was supposed to
18 wait for the column with prisoners of war.
19 Q. Was it your intention, in giving evidence in your defence, to
20 cause any additional problems for Drago Nikolic that were not already
21 disclosed by the evidence in this case?
22 A. No, I don't think that I have added any -- anything new that has
23 not already been heard in evidence in this case about any of my
25 Q. What did you understand Mr. Bourgon to mean when he said to you,
1 as he did on several occasions to preface a question, "I'm putting this
2 to you because of the way you testified against Drago Nikolic"?
3 A. I have not testified against anybody in this case. I have just
4 spoken about the facts that I know, and I've only answered questions. I
5 believe that it is my duty. I have taken an oath to tell the truth, and
6 I believe that this is my duty. How the facts are related to each of the
7 co-accused and how each of them experienced and perceived the way the
8 facts are being described, that's their personal matter.
9 Q. Now, I want to see if you understand what was put to you by, in
10 particular, Mr. Bourgon and Mr. Ostojic. Did you understand that it was
11 being suggested to you that you had lied on oath?
12 A. Yes.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
14 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 I just waited until the answer was on the record for this last
16 answer. I'd like to refer the Trial Chamber to page 78, line 19 and 20,
17 where my colleague said:
18 "What did you understand Mr. Bourgon, when he said to you, as he
19 did on several occasions to preface a question, 'I'm putting this to you
20 because of the way you testified against Drago Nikolic.'"
21 I don't recall I used the word "against" Drago Nikolic, but I
22 used the word "concerning" Drago Nikolic. Unless my colleague can
23 provide me with a reference. I've just checked two of those references
24 and twice I had the word "concerning," on the record, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
1 MR. HAYNES: Accepted.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Accepted. I am pretty sure you are right,
3 Mr. Bourgon.
4 MR. HAYNES: I'm pretty sure he is, too. I've got all the
5 references here.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
7 MR. HAYNES:
8 Q. Did you also understand that Mr. Bourgon was suggesting to you
9 that you had conspired together with Dragan Obrenovic to tell lies or
10 pervert the course of justice in a conversation in 1999 or 2000?
11 A. Yes, that's how I understood it.
12 Q. And did you understand that Mr. Ostojic was suggesting to you
13 that you had copied the failed Defence of General Krstic?
14 A. Yes. But if I had copied something that failed, that would have
15 made me a lunatic, I suppose.
16 Q. When did you first learn that General Krstic had received a
17 sentence of 43 years imprisonment?
18 A. When the sentence was handed down.
19 Q. Was that before or after you spoke to Eileen Gilleece at the
20 Peti Puk Restaurant?
21 A. I remember the conversation with Eileen Gilleece, and I believe
22 the sentence was handed down after that conversation, but I'm not sure.
23 Q. And did you understand that it was being suggested that you had
24 invented the involvement of both of their clients and the security organs
25 at the Main Staff, corps, and brigade level in the killing operation?
1 A. Yes, and particularly Mr. Bourgon understood that I was telling
2 the truth when I was putting forth positions that are contrary to
3 Mr. Obrenovic's statement and they're not targeting his client. And as
4 for all of my other positions, he believed that they were a lie.
5 Q. Now, I want to look at some sources of evidence, most of which
6 were put to you in cross-examination, but I want to start with P107,
7 please, the Krivaja 95 plan, for want of a better explanation, and we
8 need to look at B/C/S page 5 and English page 7.
9 Of course, you've seen that before, haven't you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. When you first saw it, did you read it all the way through?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And did you discover who was responsible for prisoners of war
14 under Krivaja 95?
15 A. Yes, I can read it in this document.
16 Q. Could you read it out for us, please, so we have it in the
18 A. This is 10(B), second paragraph:
19 "Security organs and military police will determine the sectors
20 where prisoners of war will be collected and secured, as well as the war
21 booty. In treating the prisoners of war and the civilian population,
22 you're strictly ordered to adhere to the provisions of the Geneva
24 Q. And was that the position, as you understood it to be?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, I think everybody, with the exception possibly of
2 Mr. Gosnell, who cross-examined you, referred you at some stage to the
3 evidence of Miroslav Deronjic, which of course is admitted in this case
4 under Rule 92 quater, and can we have now in e-court, please, P3139,
5 which is under seal for reasons I don't understand, but there is a
6 redacted version which is 3139A. And I don't believe any of the passages
7 I'm going to refer to need to be prevented from broadcast, but if
8 anybody's got any explanation or submissions to make, perhaps I'd welcome
9 them now.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Does anyone wish to make observations on this?
11 None. So let's proceed, then.
12 One moment. Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, I'm told by Ms. Stewart that the reason
14 that it was under seal was that apparently the testimony was in private
15 session at some point, some of it was, and so that's why it's been
16 limited in that way. And so 3139A is the one that's redacted, the
17 private session testimony, and that was done a long time ago. Have we
18 review that now, you know, we may be able to undo that if it's an issue.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: We are fine with remaining in open session, so
21 let's proceed.
22 MR. HAYNES: Thank you very much, and I thank Ms. Stewart and
23 Mr. McCloskey for their help, as always.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: To be clear, because I think you ought to know what
2 went on just now, I was reminded that there are two versions of the
3 document. One is redacted and one not. The one which is not redacted is
4 under seal, so we'll be making use of the redacted one, which then
5 removes the obstruction that we might otherwise have.
6 Thank you. Let's proceed.
7 MR. HAYNES: Thank you.
8 Well, let's hope this poses no problems. The P3139A, and I want
9 to start at the bottom of page 87 and go to page 88. And it begins with
10 a question from Mr. Karnavas:
11 "On the 13th, you met with Mr. Beara, right, you had contact with
13 "A. Correct."
14 Can we go over the page, please:
15 "And at that time, according to your testimony, Mr. Beara
16 indicated that he was there to kill all of the Muslims that were there
17 being warehoused in schools and in buses. Correct?
18 "A. That's correct."
19 Further down the page:
20 "On the 13th, when Beara came to my office, I said literally what
21 he conveyed to me, you know, how I acted. This is described in my
22 interview. Up until that time in Bratunac, there was no systematic
23 killing of people, except a major crime, an event, which happened in
24 Kravica ..."
25 And then the last paragraph:
1 "On the 13th, in the evening, or the 14th, in the morning,
2 prevented," I assume it must have been "I prevented Mr. Beara from
3 committing any kind of killings, even systematic ones in Bratunac.
4 According to the instructions of Karadzic, the way I interpreted it, the
5 detainees were taken from Bratunac to Zvornik. So a large number of
6 prisoners were alive on the 14th, and they were transported to Zvornik.
7 On the 14th in the morning, I went to see Karadzic - I think you'll come
8 to these questions - and I conveyed Mr. Beara's intentions the way he
9 told them to Mr. Karadzic."
10 Page 89:
11 "Mr. Karadzic reacted -- please allow me to finish ..."
12 I think he's talking to Mr. Karnavas there:
13 "So allow me to explain that. Mr. Karadzic reacted the way he
14 did, and I got the impression he was going to do something, and I
15 returned to Bratunac. I did not have any particular information over
16 those few days from Zvornik."
17 Can we go to page 136, please. And halfway down the first
18 question on that page:
19 "I would like to refer to you of the evening of the 13th, and
20 we're going to discuss that in the greatest of detail, but just as a way
21 of example. You have testified on previous occasions, and there are some
22 conflicting views, but you have testified nonetheless that you had had
23 this meeting with Colonel Beara; correct?
24 "A. Yes, of course it's correct.
25 "Q. And you've said that Colonel Beara came there and said that
1 he was going to kill all the prisoners in Bratunac; correct?
2 "A. Correct.
3 "Q. And you were able to exercise your authority to ensure that
4 those killings did not take place in Bratunac; isn't that a fact?
5 "A. Correct.
6 "Q. And you, according to your testimony - if we are to believe
7 your testimony - you were able to say, I have an order from President
8 Karadzic, and I'm telling you, Colonel Beara, that there is not going to
9 be any killings; correct?
10 "A. Correct.
11 "Q. And on the evening of the 13th before you went to bed in your
12 safe and sound environment at home, you were under the impression that
13 Colonel Beara had accepted the order that you had given him; correct?
14 "A. Yes ..."
15 And going down to the next question:
16 "Now, on the morning of the 14th, you wake up or somebody wakes
17 you up and you learn, according to your testimony, that Colonel Beara is
18 searching for the brick factory in order to put some prisoners there;
20 "A. Correct, correct.
21 "Q. And the brick factory happens to be in the Bratunac or within
22 the Bratunac municipality?
23 "A. Yes.
24 "Q. Once again we see your de facto, if not de jure, powers,
25 where you have a confrontation with Beara, and you order him out of
1 Bratunac, that there shall be no killing in Bratunac; correct?
2 "A. Correct."
3 Can we go now to page 139, about halfway down, halfway --
4 Mr. Karnavas says:
5 "Okay, I accept that, that you, in your position, had never heard
6 of Beara. Fine. Now, you were able to have this confrontation, because
7 it was somewhat confrontational, with Mr. Beara on the 14th of July, the
8 head of a security organ of the VRS army. And you were to order him not
9 to have any killings in Bratunac. Correct?"
10 Two questions down:
11 "All right. And in fact that is exactly what Beara did. He left
12 angrily, according to you, according to your prior testimony; right?
13 "A. Yes."
14 And it goes on if we go to page 141, and he says halfway down
15 that page:
16 "But it's true that Beara acted in an angry manner, that he left
17 the premises. I waited for a while and I realised that convoys were
18 heading out to Zvornik."
19 And then much further on, just to pages 298 and 299, again about
20 halfway down the page, the middle of an answer:
21 "Mr. Karnavas, after all it is an undisputable fact that
22 Mr. Beara came to my office after my conversation with the president.
23 That does not mean anything in itself, but it lends plausibility to what
24 I stated. I agree with you that it is not fool-proof evidence.
25 "Q. Okay. Since you mentioned that ..."
1 He asked a question.
2 "We talked about it. I didn't ask the questions directly. I
3 just said, 'Mr. Beara I don't have any such orders. I did talk to
4 President Karadzic, and I have orders of a different kind, but I didn't
5 ask the question --"
6 Over the page:
7 "... in so many words. I have the conversation with Karadzic.
8 After that, I received the visit of this gentleman, and I put two and two
10 And lastly page 301, at the very bottom:
11 "Q. And when you saw the president the next day, did you
12 concretely and directly ask the president whether Beara was the one that
13 he had ordered to come and grab or take the prisoners out of there so he
14 could kill them or have them killed?
15 "A. I said to Karadzic, word for word, Mr. Beara came to my
16 offices, told me this and this. I didn't ask the question ..."
17 Now, Mr. Pandurevic, that evidence was given in January 2004.
18 When did you last read or hear about what Mr. Deronjic had said in
19 evidence in the Blagojevic case?
20 A. I listened to this testimony upon my arrival at the
21 Detention Unit in the second half of 2005, I believe, and that is when I
22 was given the material from that trial.
23 Q. So that we're clear, did you know that Mr. Deronjic would or
24 could give this account before you met with Dragan Obrenovic in Belgrade
25 A. No, I didn't know at all what Deronjic knew.
1 Q. [Previous translation continues]... or before you met Eileen
2 Gilleece at the Peti Puk Restaurant?
3 A. No. At that time, I also didn't know what Deronjic knew and what
4 he was talking about.
5 Q. And obviously we've summarised his account of events in Bratunac
6 on the 13th and 14th of July, but you've listened to it all. What kind
7 of command structure can you identify in operation in relation to the
8 prisoners in Bratunac on those dates?
9 A. In view of what we've heard from Mr. Deronjic's testimony, we can
10 see that the order was not addressed to the Bratunac Brigade, but rather
11 a man came with very specific orders, and whether he was given certain
12 assets to be used in Bratunac or some other assets, I don't know. But at
13 any rate, this wasn't in compliance with the usual chain of command that
14 goes from the Main Staff via the corps and down to the brigade; rather,
15 this chain of command started at the Main Staff, went via security organs
16 who had the power and the authority from the Main Staff Command --
17 commander and carried out these tasks within their structures. Also,
18 based on the powers and the authorisation that they had from the
19 Main Staff commander, they had the right to engage the assets that they
20 required for that operation.
21 Q. Thank you. Can we move on, please, and have 7D423 in e-court.
22 And I think we'll just go straight to page 6 in the English, which is
23 paragraph 10.
24 Now, in May of 2003, Momir Nikolic entered a plea agreement with
25 the Prosecution. When did you first learn of that fact?
1 A. I saw the statement of facts of Mr. Momir Nikolic here as part of
2 the set of the material that was given to me at the Detention Unit.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
4 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 I'd like to object to the questions being put to the witness.
6 This is not an issue that was raised, whether in any of the
7 cross-examination conducted by -- whether the Prosecution or any of the
8 Defence team. And I'm very well prepared to make an argument on to what
9 is meant by matters arising to matters raised in cross-examination, if
10 need be, but this is not an issue that was raised during
11 cross-examination, and questions should not be permitted under
12 re-examination in this regard. But if you need more argument,
13 Mr. President, I'm pretty well ready to make all the submissions that are
14 required for this purpose.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's hear what Mr. Haynes has to say first.
16 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I would join to the objection.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: As do we, Mr. President.
19 MR. HAYNES: But of course.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.
21 MR. HAYNES: When you opened the number of doors in
22 cross-examination that were opened by principally Mr. Bourgon, but
23 secondly by Mr. Ostojic, you have to expect that people will go through
24 those doors. And when you suggest to somebody that he has invented a
25 whole account, starting in 1999 or 2000, and then in 2001, by reference
1 to facts within his possession, it's perfectly proper, in re-examination,
2 to point to features in the evidence in the case - and these are features
3 in the evidence in the case - which he couldn't possibly have known about
4 and which go to support the accuracy of his account. And that's really
5 the purpose of doing all this.
6 I can, in fact, probably refer to particular references to every
7 piece of evidence I'm going to deal with. I've done this very carefully.
8 But the principal point is this: You can't cross-examine a man in the
9 way that Mr. Bourgon did and then say he's not entitled to come back and
10 say, I can show you why what I'm saying is accurate, because it has a
11 number of independent reference points I can point to.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Don't rush. Mr. Bourgon first.
13 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Well, indeed I'm going to ask for all the specific references my
15 colleague is referring to, but I'd like to make this argument,
16 Mr. President: There are a number of references which explain what is
17 meant by "matters arising out of cross-examination."
18 Now, the fact that this is the rule was highlighted by this Trial
19 Chamber in its own order of 14 July 2006
20 order setting out the guide-lines for the presentation of evidence and
21 the conduct of the parties during the trial in Seselj case on 15 November
22 2007, that was at the annex paragraph 27. It was also raised on a number
23 of occasions in the Blagojevic case, and I'd like to refer to something
24 which was put by my colleague for the Prosecution in that case, talking
25 about the limits of questions permitted in re-examination. My colleague
1 said, and that was from Mr. McCloskey:
2 "Mr. President, I think we need to be very strict upon that
3 particular rule, because then it requires us to change our old
5 And the Trial Chamber ruling on the same comments by
6 Mr. McCloskey said:
7 "Well, Mr. Karnavas, I think this Bench has warned you on many
8 times before that redirect should be strictly within the
10 Mr. President, as to the meaning to be given to the phrase
11 "within the scope of cross-examination," I take this opportunity to raise
12 the following references: I refer to "McWilliams, Canadian Criminal
13 Evidence," 4th edition, Chapter 18..130 on re-examination. If I may
14 quote from this text, it reads as follows:
15 "The right to re-examine exists only when there has been
16 cross-examination and must be confined to the explanation of matters
17 arising thereon."
18 Moving on a little further in the same paragraph:
19 "Since counsel should elicit anything of relevance that a witness
20 has to say on examination-in-chief, it follows that re-examination should
21 be confined to matters arising from cross-examination."
22 And there is, of course, one exception to this rule, which is
23 very well known, and that is to allow counsel to adduce evidence as to
24 matters they omitted on examination-in-chief by oversight, and this is --
25 the reason for this is obvious. It is because the object of the rule on
1 limiting re-examination is to prevent counsel from intentionally putting
2 their case in piecemeal, and that is not defeated when it's just to cover
3 up an oversight.
4 Now, this was a quote also in the McWilliams Canadian Criminal
5 Cases evidence, and I can quote. That was from the Queen's case of 1820,
6 and I would like to make that quote, which is -- no, sorry, I -- sorry,
7 to "Archbold, 2006, Criminal Pleading Evidence and Practice,"
8 paragraph 8-247, and also citing from the same trial of Queen Carol Ann
9 case, and I would like to cite this paragraph here:
10 "There is a right in re-examination to ask all questions which
11 may be proper to draw forth an explanation of the sense and meaning of
12 the expressions used by the witness in cross-examination, if they be
13 themselves doubtful, and also of the motif by which the witness was
14 induced to use those expressions, but there is no right to go further and
15 to introduce matters new in itself and not suited for the purpose of
16 explaining either the expressions or motifs of the witness; Queen Carol
17 Ann's case, 1820. Questions falling outside these limitations require,
18 of course, the leave of the Judge."
19 Moving on, Mr. President, in "Earl Levy, QC, Examination of
20 Witnesses in Criminal Cases," 4th edition. I would like to quote from
21 this case -- or from this book, and this is in Chapter 18 on
22 re-examination. On the law, Earl Levy states:
23 "When cross-examination is finished, opposing counsel may
24 re-examine his or her witness to explain ambiguities, qualify admissions,
25 or to put answers in cross-examination into proper perspective, and then
1 a re-examination can be used only to explain or to qualify answers given
2 in cross-examination, and no new material may be introduced unless with
3 leave of the Court. In other words, re-examination is limited to what
4 was raised in the cross-examination. However ..."
5 And then we go to that same exception, which is matters which
6 were forgotten as part of examination-in-chief with oversight.
7 I can go on, Mr. President, to cite from McCormick on Evidence --
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: I object at this point. I think the Court is
9 fully aware of this. It's been making decisions on this Rule for three
10 years. We understand the role of Mr. Bourgon.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Is there anything you don't agree with so far,
12 Mr. Haynes?
13 MR. HAYNES: No, and I'm just pleased to see I haven't taken them
14 by surprise.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So let's stop here for today, because
16 it's time. We'll pick on this -- I just put on record that you also
17 wished to intervene, Mr. Ostojic, but that has to take place tomorrow.
18 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
20 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment.
22 I tried to see if we could shift the sitting from the afternoon
23 to the morning tomorrow but we can't, so tomorrow afternoon at 2.15.
24 Thank you.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.
1 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 3rd day of March,
2 2009, at 2.15 p.m.