Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 32284

 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

Page 32285

 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

Page 32286

 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

 5     was?

 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

12     duty.

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

15     other.

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

Page 32287

 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

 9     Battalion.

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

15     cross-examination?

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

18     it.

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

Page 32288

 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., the 26th; correct?

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?

Page 32289

 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

14     25th?

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.

Page 32290

 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;

 3     correct?

 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

Page 32291

 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

10     before.

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

Page 32292

 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

11     document.

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

19     happened.

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,

Page 32293

 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

Page 32294

 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

20     Command."

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

Page 32295

 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.

Page 32296

 1             "Vinko:  Legenda is here with me.

 2             "Yes.

 3             "We have now defined those tasks and obligations.

 4             "Yes.

 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.

 9             "Yes.

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?

14             "Yes.

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.

19             "Yes.

20             "Further on.

21             "Yes, ah-hah.

22             "Further on.

23             "Well, I don't know.  Then that is a restrictive factor?

24             "Yes.

25             "Just a second, please."

Page 32297

 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

Page 32298

 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:

 9             "Yes."

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

16     known.

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

20     say:

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

Page 32299

 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

Page 32300

 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

20     Belgrade on the 25th?

21        A.   It is possible he went to Belgrade on the 25th, but there's also

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

Page 32301

 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

 7     off.

 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

22     Vlasenica?

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,

Page 32302

 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

 7     this.

 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

Page 32303

 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

 4     correct?

 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

Page 32304

 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

Page 32305

 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

15     question.

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

24     US.

25             Can we blow that up?  Thank you.  Can we keep bringing it up a

Page 32306

 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

Page 32307

 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.

Page 32308

 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

20     there.

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.

Page 32309

 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

Page 32310

 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

Page 32311

 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:

19             "Yes."

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

Page 32312

 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

23     brigades?

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

Page 32313

 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 years of investigation, you have obtained this

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

Page 32314

 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,

24     please.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honours.  I think

Page 32315

 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.  In other words, the coordination

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?

Page 32316

 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

Page 32317

 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

 5     recall?

 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

Page 32318

 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, which we know to be the Zvornik

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 says:

Page 32319

 1             "He asked."

 2             So the Palma duty officer is saying that Pandurevic is asking

 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

17     enough.

18             Yes, your next question, Mr. McCloskey.

19             MR. McCLOSKEY:

20        Q.   General, under "Participants," it says "Palma" and then what is

21     the Serbian word?  Between "Palma" and what?

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.

Page 32320

 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

Page 32321

 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

Page 32322

 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

 4     issue."

 5             So were your uniforms and your boots in bad repair, like this

 6     says?

 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

Page 32323

 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

Page 32324

 1     while.

 2                           [Private session]

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 32325











11 Pages 32325-32329 redacted. Private session.















Page 32330

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

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.  And as we -- if we went through the

Page 32331

 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, so he would be 15 in a month's time at the

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

Page 32332

 1     adult companions, and he says, in the first paragraph, this is:

 2             "On 18 July 1995, I got up early in the morning to bring grass

 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

Page 32333

 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

14     thing.

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

Page 32334

 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?

Page 32335

 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

Page 32336

 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 Staff with an order probably issued by the commander of the

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

Page 32337

 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

Page 32338

 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

 7     voluntarily?

 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

10     specific?

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

25     questions.

Page 32339

 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

Page 32340

 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

Page 32341

 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.

Page 32342

 1             Thank you, Mr. President.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  You will soon hear our decision on

 3     that.

 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,

Page 32343

 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

16     matter.

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

24     knew.

25             We are going to have the break now, and I want to make sure that

Page 32344

 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

Page 32345

 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

Page 32346

 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

 9     correct?

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   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 32347

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

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

Page 32348

 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, when you sent your interim combat report to the

 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

Page 32349

 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

 8     future.

 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?

Page 32350

 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

21     longer.

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

Page 32351

 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,

15     reversely.

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

Page 32352

 1     down a little further to the entry one line from the bottom, and it's a

 2     number.

 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

 8     September?

 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.

Page 32353

 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

10     question?

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

13     courtroom.

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

Page 32354

 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.

Page 32355

 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

Page 32356

 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

20     further.

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

23     evidence?

24             MR. OSTOJIC:  Same objection, Mr. President.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  I don't think we need to hear submissions.

Page 32357

 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

14     summary?

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.

Page 32358

 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

16     decide.

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

Page 32359

 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

 8     July?

 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

Page 32360

 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

23     meeting.

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

Page 32361

 1     conversation?

 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,

16     please.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's go into private session, please.

18                           [Private session]

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 32362

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 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

24     co-accused.

25        Q.   What did you understand Mr. Bourgon to mean when he said to you,

Page 32363

 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.

Page 32364

 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?

Page 32365

 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

17     record.

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

23     Conventions."

24        Q.   And was that the position, as you understood it to be?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 32366

 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]

Page 32367

 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

12     him?

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:

Page 32368

 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

Page 32369

 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;

19     correct?

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

Page 32370

 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 ..."

Page 32371

 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

 9     together."

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.

Page 32372

 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?

Page 32373

 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

Page 32374

 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.  It was also highlighted in the

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

Page 32375

 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

 4     viewpoint."

 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

 9     cross-examination."

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

Page 32376

 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

Page 32377

 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.,

Page 32378

 1                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 3rd day of March,

 2                           2009, at 2.15 p.m.