090303ED

Page 32379

1 Tuesday, 3 March 2009

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: So good afternoon to you, Registrar. Could you

6 call the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to

8 everyone in and around the courtroom much.

9 This is case number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus

10 Vujadin Popovic et al.

11 Thank you, Your Honours.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, sir.

13 For the record, Mr. Popovic is not present today. We are in

14 possession of his waiver. Representation: Prosecution, Mr. McCloskey,

15 Mr. Mitchell; absent from amongst the Defence teams -- I have problems

16 already with this - absent I notice Mr. -- Mr. Nikolic is here.

17 Mr. Bourgon, Mr. Josse. Is Mr. Petrusic here or not?

18 MR. NIKOLIC: No.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: And Mr. Petrusic.

20 Where is Mr. Bourgon? He hadn't finished yesterday.

21 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon suddenly had to leave.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Nothing serious, I hope.

23 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] No, it isn't. Thank you for your

24 consideration, Your Honours.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

Page 32380

1 Now, before we start, we are sitting again today, unfortunately,

2 pursuant to Rule 15 bis. Mr. Justice Stole is still unwell.

3 Mr. Ostojic, it was my understanding yesterday that you wished to

4 address the Trial Chamber. Since Mr. Bourgon is not here, maybe you

5 wish, if you still have a mind to address us. Proceed.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: Good afternoon to Your Honours.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: My apologies to Judge Kwon, I can't see him, but I

9 know he's there.

10 Your Honour, I certainly echo the objection raised by my learned

11 friend Mr. Bourgon yesterday and the decisional and authoritative cites

12 that he relied on, and I was glad to hear that the Prosecution found them

13 also to be reliable, as did Mr. Haynes for the Pandurevic Defence. We,

14 however, also have two specific and two general objections with respect

15 to this line of questioning.

16 First, as a general matter, we believe that it's an improper use

17 of documents which the Pandurevic Defence team is using in their

18 redirect, which could have been used in their direct examination, and we

19 refer the Court specifically to its earlier decision on the 14th of July,

20 2006, specifically under Roman numeral II, subsections E and F.

21 The Defence of Mr. Pandurevic, in its direct examination, covered

22 many documents which it tried to use and elicit corroborative evidence to

23 support the position of Mr. Pandurevic. Now they claim and admit that

24 they have carefully -- actually, they say "very carefully" orchestrated

25 this redirect, which would purportedly, "point to features of the

Page 32381

1 evidence where he, Mr. Pandurevic, could not possibly have known about

2 which go to support the accuracy of his account." We submit that this is

3 not proper redirect, and it should have been done on direct examination,

4 and therefore ask the Court to sustain our objection.

5 Specifically --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment before you continue.

7 I don't know whether you were precisely going to deal with this,

8 but you mentioned the use of certain documents very generically. Could

9 you be more specific and indicate which documents, in particular, you're

10 referring to?

11 MR. OSTOJIC: Sure.

12 For example, Mr. Pandurevic, during his direct examination,

13 utilised P377 and P378. He also used the tactical log-book to support

14 some of his -- or to corroborate some of his testimony about his

15 whereabouts and movements during that time, among other orders, but those

16 come to mind specifically with that reference point.

17 Presently on redirect, we've had approximately 33 new documents

18 that have not been on their list that they're trying to utilise for the

19 same purpose, which they should have done on direct examination, we

20 submit, based on their own admission.

21 Furthermore, if I may, Your Honour, specifically with respect to

22 the use of 7D423, which is the statement of facts of Momir Nikolic,

23 there's a -- we object to that -- use of that document, and that's where,

24 I think, we ended yesterday.

25 There's a specific order that this Trial Chamber rendered on

Page 32382

1 February 6th, 2008, and if we look at paragraph 22 of that order, it

2 clearly states and quite plainly that the sole purpose and use of that

3 document is to be utilised against the Prosecution witnesses, which were

4 used by two Defence counsel in their cross-examination, namely, of

5 Mr. Boering at that time. So we suggest that the use and the manner that

6 the Pandurevic team is suggesting is improper and highly prejudicial.

7 Our next objection as a general matter is that we've never

8 received a proofing note even before the testimony of Mr. Pandurevic or

9 during his redirect, which is a general matter that violates the rules

10 and the practice in this Chamber.

11 And, fourthly, the attempt to rehabilitate this witness cannot be

12 done in the manner proposed by the Defence of Mr. Pandurevic. It would

13 be proper, in our view, if Mr. Haynes would inquire of Mr. Pandurevic

14 specifics and even notes that were taken from his meetings with the

15 Krstic Defence team, with his meetings with Mr. Obrenovic and others, as

16 well as his meetings with Mr. Zivanovic, but to utilise something like

17 evidence in 2003 and to claim that somehow that corroborates his

18 testimony is highly improper. So we ask that the Court sustain our

19 objection.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Ostojic.

21 Do you wish to comment at all, Mr. McCloskey?

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure.

24 And does any other Defence team, with the exception of

25 Mr. Haynes, wish to comment?

Page 32383

1 Right. Mr. Haynes, if you could address, briefly, the points

2 raised yesterday by Mr. Bourgon and today by Mr. Ostojic.

3 MR. HAYNES: The one legal authority which I looked at concerning

4 re-examination or redirect examination in this Tribunal stated that

5 nothing much needs to be said about it, and I agree with that. Nothing

6 much needs to be said about re-examination.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me stop you.

8 I had, after discussing with my colleagues, every intention to

9 make it clear that we don't need any lectures on what the state of the

10 law is, especially since we have in the past pronounced ourselves, in one

11 Chamber or another, on these issues already, and you should understand

12 that we are fully aware what the state of the law is.

13 MR. HAYNES: I didn't -- I didn't propose to.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

15 MR. HAYNES: But it is a reactive form of examination, and it is

16 triggered by cross-examination.

17 We spent a little time yesterday evening and this morning

18 compiling hundreds of references in the cross-examination conducted by

19 Mr. Bourgon and Mr. Pandurevic to augment the headings that I set out in

20 my re-examination of him yesterday, but perhaps the best summary of the

21 way in which Mr. Pandurevic was cross-examined was the commencement of

22 the cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic, which is on the 19th of February at

23 page 31773, lines 17 and following, and it ran like this:

24 "I do not believe, with all due respect, you on several issues.

25 I think what you've testified to is a post facto construct in order to

Page 32384

1 create a defence, a failed defence, which was used by the Krstic Defence

2 team as well as the Blagojevic-Jokic Defence team, and you're not

3 surprised at all by our position, would I be correct?"

4 And you may recall he then asked Mr. Ostojic to lower his voice.

5 Mr. Ostojic said:

6 "Mr. Pandurevic, I will try and keep my voice down," then moved

7 the mike a little lower. "I don't mean to yell at you, but we are close

8 to one another here."

9 And he goes on:

10 "Sir, I also want to tell you that I don't agree on a number of

11 issues. So there's no surprises, I'm going to highlight some of them,

12 and we'll have a discussion about them in the next few days.

13 "For example, these are not an exclusive list, but, for example,

14 I do not agree with your position or your theory of absence of commander

15 and this senior officer issue that you raised. I don't agree with you on

16 your zone of defence versus zone of responsibility. I don't agree with

17 you with the issue of POWs and whether they're my POWs or Main Staff

18 POWs. I don't agree with you about the contents of the purported

19 conversations you had with Mr. Obrenovic."

20 THE INTERPRETER: Could Counsel please slow down when reading.

21 MR. HAYNES: I'm very sorry:

22 " ... and the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th of July, 1995. Further,

23 I don't agree with you for the reasons you gave us as to the opening of

24 the corridor. And also on smaller issues, I don't agree with you on the

25 issue that you raised with respect to brotherhood and unity --"

Page 32385

1 JUDGE AGIUS: You are running even faster now. Please slow down,

2 thank you.

3 MR. HAYNES: "As well as your tenure in Slovenia."

4 And over the page, and when I rediscovered this last night, it

5 was with some incredulity. Mr. Ostojic went on to say:

6 "I suggest to you, sir, that your Defence team didn't know about

7 the conversations you purportedly had with Mr. Obrenovic on the 16th and

8 17th."

9 I pause. It was, I imagine, having forgotten that, that

10 Mr. Ostojic rose to object to my asking my client about what he had told

11 me in re-examination earlier on in the case, and it didn't include, and

12 it was merely as I said in my opening introduction, it was construct by

13 you, and you looked at me at some of the evidence, and you fit this

14 neatly in a package in order to prepare your defence; wouldn't I be right

15 about that?"

16 Now, each of those accusations and allegations were put

17 skillfully, repetitively, and forcefully throughout the course of,

18 I think, something like seven days of cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon

19 and Mr. Ostojic, and it is my right now to repair those suggestions. It

20 is not in any way intended as a counter-attack against those who made

21 them, but it is intended to clarify and rebut the suggestion of a

22 constructed case, of telling lies, of putting his head together with

23 Dragan Obrenovic, for a start.

24 Now, the second and perhaps equally important issue is: The very

25 heart of this case is the question of command responsibility, and you

Page 32386

1 know it is my client's case, that though he had the title of commander of

2 the Zvornik Brigade, the operations that were being carried on in the

3 Zvornik area between the 15th and the 18th of July, approximately, were

4 not under his command. And it was put to him again forcefully,

5 repetitively, and skillfully that they were. And we're now going to turn

6 to rebut that suggestion by showing the growing -- by showing the

7 developing events, from Bratunac on the 13th of July, through tot he

8 events in Zvornik on the 14th and 15th of July, which show, as it were,

9 an alternative command structure in place, and all that arises directly

10 from the questions he was asked in cross-examination. I don't really

11 want to say anymore.

12 Cross-examination is a skillful art, and it's one which has to be

13 conducted responsibly and carefully, because if you get careless, you

14 open the door to re-examination. And I submit that every door which I

15 now -- will now seek to walk through has been opened by Mr. Bourgon and

16 Mr. Ostojic principally.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. Briefly in reply --

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Briefly, please.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. Two points.

21 One, he ignores the fact that his position, when he put this

22 witness on the stand, has never changed. His claim that command

23 responsibility is something that they want to rebut now, they've

24 contradicted that in their direct examination. To go back to it

25 certainly is not proper redirect examination.

Page 32387

1 Secondly, for him to claim that we've opened the door because

2 we've challenged his evidence, that's exactly what cross-examination is.

3 He should have, and I'm sure he did, based on the level of preparation

4 that they had and the request for leave to prepare with this witness and

5 with documents throughout his testimony is really unfair to the Defence

6 and unfair to my client specifically. They had an opportunity to

7 prepare; they know what our respective decisions are. And for him to say

8 that he's somewhat surprised by our questions on cross-examination is a

9 bit, with all due respect, disingenuous when we had no idea, under any of

10 the documents or evidence that's been brought forth, that Mr. Pandurevic

11 now claims at the 12th hour that he had these purported conversations

12 that never have been provided to any of the Defence formally or

13 informally. So for him now to go on and do another direct examination,

14 we believe is improper. And that's all he's doing.

15 Momir Nikolic and his --- specifically this exhibit that we're

16 talking about, I mean, 7D423, he doesn't even address that, so I assume

17 he either concedes it or realises that that should not have been utilized

18 in this redirect and only could have been opened if he wanted to on his

19 direct examination.

20 Thank you.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Do you wish to comment, Mr. McCloskey?

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

24 Mr. Haynes, I do notice, actually, that there were some issues

25 raised by Mr. Ostojic which you did not address. One, in particular,

Page 32388

1 relates to the allegation that you did not make available, the proofing

2 notes.

3 MR. HAYNES: Well, I hope I don't need to dwell on that for very

4 long -- [Overlapping speakers]

5 If Mr. Ostojic was standing in my shoes and somebody suggested to

6 him that his clients should provide details of their conversations with

7 their lawyers to anybody, I imagine he would faint, frankly. He's not an

8 ordinary witness, he's an accused person, and those sorts of exchanges

9 are never disclosable, in my view.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: And about the allegation that you've made use of

11 new documents that you could have made use of during your direct?

12 MR. HAYNES: I don't -- I don't think that's right. In fact, I'm

13 sure it's not right. Had I put Momir Nikolic's plea agreement on the

14 screen and read it out to my client in direct examination, people would

15 have been horrified. That's why I say this is a reactive form of

16 examination. It's a reaction to the way in which he's been

17 cross-examined. And I think I dealt with it, as it were, the reasons why

18 briefly yesterday, my words quoted back at me yet again, that I'm

19 entitled now, given the manner of the attack on my client, the suggestion

20 that he got his head together with Obrenovic in 1999, that he composed

21 his account piecing together the evidence ex post facto, that he didn't

22 tell his lawyers about things he gave evidence about, to deal with all

23 those things, by reference, as it were, reference points that were not

24 obvious or available to me in direct examination. And the use of

25 documents that I propose to make is entirely consistent with the use of

Page 32389

1 documents throughout the whole history of this trial, most particularly,

2 I'd have thought, in re-examination. And there was some spectacular

3 examples during the course of the Prosecution's case of this sort of

4 thing.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, thank you.

6 Yes, Ms. Nikolic.

7 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Good

8 afternoon to everyone.

9 Just a few sentences I would like to join into in what my learned

10 friend Ostojic already said.

11 Concerning the statement of Mr. Nikolic, Momir Nikolic, this

12 Trial Chamber has already admitted 4D16 into evidence. As concerned in

13 examination in chief and in, specifically, cross-examination of

14 Mr. Pandurevic, not a single event mentioned in the statement of

15 Mr. Nikolic was subject to his examination. Mr. Pandurevic did not take

16 part in the events that constitute an integral part or a part of this

17 statement of fact of Mr. Nikolic, at least according to what he said.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We are unanimous in what I'm going to

21 communicate to you.

22 Overall, we are satisfied that the line of questions that

23 Mr. Haynes so far has put to the witness on redirect, and I say

24 "generally and overall," do constitute a reaction to the various

25 questions put on cross-examination by both the Prosecution and Defence --

Page 32390

1 and other Defence teams. However, we also wish to make it clear that

2 since we still have an ongoing redirect, should at any moment you feel

3 that questions are put that do not fall within the parameters of what the

4 law is about redirect examination, you should stand up, draw our

5 attention, and we will decide these issues on a case-by-case basis.

6 As regards the allegation made by you, Mr. Bourgon --

7 Mr. Ostojic, sorry, regarding the use of new documents, and in particular

8 the Momir Nikolic statement of facts, it's in our judgement Mr. Haynes

9 has not been seeking the introduction of that statement into evidence,

10 but has only been making use of parts of that statement of facts which he

11 is putting as a supposition to the witness for his reaction. As such,

12 there is nothing irregular in this practice, with the understanding, as I

13 said, that it's not being sought to tender that document as evidence of

14 its contents, as evidence of its contents.

15 So we can proceed now.

16 Incidentally, before you continue, because I'm sure we will come

17 to this in due course, and this may be the last sitting this week: We

18 haven't seen yet, although we know that it has been filed, your notice

19 for rebuttal. We have it now? Okay, but I haven't seen it, anyway. It

20 must have arrived now since we started the sitting. Okay.

21 And I am informed that you are preparing to have two of your

22 three witnesses already granted for reopening in line. I would like you

23 to keep in mind, in your scheduling process, that we do not intend to sit

24 next week on Friday, the 13th, so we are not sitting on that day not

25 because of superstition, but because we need to meet and discuss urgent

Page 32391

1 business that we have to decide.

2 Yes.

3 MR. HAYNES: While we're on that, my witness coordinator, I'm

4 just reminded, did ask me to say that the position with our potential

5 witnesses next week is that there's one ready for Monday; one, possibly

6 two, for Tuesday. I wouldn't have thought the witness for Monday would

7 fill a whole court day.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, thank you.

9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, if we think that the Pandurevic

10 case will be over by the end of Tuesday still, and if no one objects,

11 then we will try, and I'll, you know, formally request we get those two

12 witnesses here. They should be ready, but that's different than saying,

13 yes, bring them here. So if there is no objection, we're ready to bring

14 those two people here.

15 MR. HAYNES: We are talking about this anyway. I think you

16 should know that.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Okay. Thank you.

18 So, Mr. Haynes.

19 MR. HAYNES: Sorry for the interruption. Let's --

20 MR. HAYNES: [Overlapping speakers] ... it's absolutely right

21 that these things should be dealt with properly.

22 I thank Ms. Nikolic for her intervention, and in the light of

23 that I will not call up 7D423. I'll call up 4D16, which is in evidence,

24 please.

25 WITNESS: VINKO PANDUREVIC [Resumed]

Page 32392

1 [The witness answered through interpreter]

2 MR. HAYNES: And I think we need to go to paragraph 10, which is

3 certainly at page 6 of the English, and the B/C/S as well.

4 Re-examination by Mr. Haynes: [Continued]

5 Q. Now, I'm not going to read all this out, Mr. Pandurevic, so when

6 it comes up in your language, will you read down through paragraph 10

7 yourself, please, as far as you wish to, and let us know when you're

8 finished.

9 A. I've read it.

10 Q. You may have told us this yesterday. I simply can't remember.

11 When was the first time you were aware of the contents of this document?

12 A. That was when I saw it here at the Detention Unit.

13 Q. And it probably goes without saying, then, you didn't know what

14 this document said when you spoke to Eileen Gilleece in October of 2001;

15 is that right?

16 MR. OSTOJIC: I object to the form of the question,

17 Mr. President, because this document was created in 2003. So I think

18 it's improper.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Ostojic.

20 Yes, Mr. Haynes.

21 MR. HAYNES: Yes.

22 Q. Did you know what this document said when you spoke to

23 Eileen Gilleece?

24 A. No, I had no idea at all what knowledge Mr. Momir Nikolic had.

25 Q. And when you first learnt of the contents of this document, what

Page 32393

1 was your reaction?

2 A. I was simply surprised to learn about all the activities that

3 took place, if what is said in this statement of facts is true. This was

4 totally new to me.

5 Q. And if it is true, could you comment, please, on the sort of

6 command relationships that are in operation in this paragraph of this

7 statement of fact?

8 A. During this trial, we heard about several kinds of relationships

9 in the -- or communications line in the VRS. One of it was by courier.

10 It was normally used at the level of platoons or in companies. We hear

11 here that Momir Nikolic was acting as the courier. He left Bratunac and

12 went to visit Drago Nikolic and to impart to him certain information or

13 orders from Colonel Beara. This is not a standard chain of a command

14 which is in compliance with command and control. For that to be correct,

15 it was necessary for the commander of the Zvornik Brigade, or the person

16 standing in for him, to receive an order from the corps command, either

17 this one or some other one, and then comply with it.

18 This was one of the methods in which a number of officers are

19 involved or a group of officers are engaged to carry out a task, and it

20 is known who among them is the most senior and the most responsible for

21 the execution of the task.

22 Most probably, as I understand it, this task was not designed by

23 this person, himself, but rather from someone who has the right to

24 control and command in the VRS, and in this case I think it was his

25 immediate superior:

Page 32394

1 MR. HAYNES: Thank you. Can we have a look now, please, at

2 2D642. This is an untranslated Croatian intercept.

3 Q. You may have to read it out for us slowly, Mr. Pandurevic, when

4 it comes onto the screen. Nice and slowly for the interpreters, please,

5 Mr. Pandurevic.

6 A. I think I already read this intercept. It reads:

7 "13th July 1995, 1125. 924. Colonel Ljubo Beara (GS VRS) is

8 sending four buses, two trucks, and one trailer-truck to Kasaba for

9 transportation of the captured Muslims. These men will be transferred to

10 the camp in the village of Batkovici, where 'selection' between war

11 criminals and ordinary soldiers will be carried out."

12 Q. Yes. You were asked by Mr. Ostojic and, I think, the President

13 to interpret the word "selection." How does this fit in with what we now

14 know was going on in Bratunac with Deronjic and Momir Nikolic and others?

15 A. In response to the question of Their Honours, I tried to say that

16 this conversation was not conveyed in its integral form, it was kind of

17 shortened. The word "selection" was used in its literal meaning. That's

18 why inverted commas. In light of the entire context of these events and

19 the facts pertaining to them, I understand that this was necessary and

20 that a decision was made on the 13th of July to separate the prisoners

21 into those who were considered to have committed war crimes and to those

22 who are not to have committed those crimes.

23 Q. Very well. Now, you were asked by Mr. Bourgon a number of

24 questions about Drago Nikolic's motor car. Do you recall that?

25 A. Yes, I do.

Page 32395

1 Q. And in July of 1995, what was the position in relation to

2 Drago Nikolic's motor car?

3 A. My previous decision was altered at the time. By this decision,

4 I banned Drago Nikolic from using the official car for his purposes, but

5 rather to use it as the rest of the Command or members of the Command

6 were doing. In July, he already had a vehicle that he used at his own

7 discretion, meaning without my permission and without my consent.

8 Q. And do you know what sort of motor car that was?

9 A. I remember how it looked like. I think that it was an Opel

10 station wagon, painted olive-drab green, if I remember correctly.

11 Q. And do you remember who his drivers were?

12 A. I didn't know the names of the drivers or other people who used

13 to drive him. I saw these names here, in the work logs that were

14 presented here during the trial.

15 Q. Well, can we have a look, please, at P903. Sorry, I think I'm

16 wrong here. P904 is what I wanted to look at.

17 Is that the car you were talking about?

18 A. Yes, it is.

19 Q. And within the Zvornik Brigade, do you recall what function

20 Milorad Bircakovic, Mirko Ristic, had?

21 A. I think that they were all members of the a military police

22 company. I saw Mr. Bircakovic in person when he was here, and I remember

23 this face, and Arapovic, Misko. However, I don't remember a Mirko Ristic

24 at all.

25 Q. Okay. Can we go to page 2 of this document. And as far as is

Page 32396

1 possible for Mr. Pandurevic, unless you find it easier to read the

2 English, can we blow up the bottom entries for the 13th of July. Now,

3 can we leave that document to one side for a moment and just deal with

4 some matters of procedure.

5 You've told us, or at least if you haven't, other people have,

6 that in addition to the duty officer at the Command of the

7 Zvornik Brigade, there was a duty officer at the Forward Command Post; is

8 that right?

9 A. Yes, that's how it was at the time.

10 Q. And we've heard a plethora of evidence that at the Command, there

11 was also a deputy duty officer who, as it were, was on night duty. Is

12 that right?

13 A. Yes, and he was called assistant duty officer.

14 Q. Thank you for the correction. Was that the same position at the

15 Forward Command Post?

16 A. No. At the Forward Command Post, there was just one man.

17 Q. And what, principally, should a duty officer do at the Forward

18 Command Post?

19 A. In principal, at the Forward Command Post, was used, and some

20 critical situations, and when I say "critical," I'm referring to the

21 seriousness of the situation at the front-line i the combat sense, when

22 attacks or activities of the hostile side are expected. And the officer

23 who is present at the Forward Command Post, he is in direct combat

24 contact, if I may say so. He has a direct ability to observe and follow

25 what's happening at the front, and he can feel what's going on in a

Page 32397

1 battle. At the same time, he's receiving information from duty officers

2 and subordinate units, and from time to time he informs the duty officer

3 in the barracks about the situation in the area of the defence of the

4 brigade.

5 Q. What about leaving the Command Post; should he do that?

6 A. According to the regulations, he's not allowed to leave the

7 Forward Command Post without there being a substitute for him, or he

8 needs to receive, from his superior officer, a permit to leave the

9 Forward Command Post, and in the meantime another officer needs to be

10 sent to take over those duties.

11 Q. Well, can we have a look at the two sets of entries for the 13th

12 of July, please, in relation to this motor vehicle you're telling us

13 about. What's the first entry we see for the 13th of July?

14 A. We can see that this vehicle went, on the 13th of July, from

15 Standard in the barracks to the Forward Command Post. Then it returned

16 back to Zvornik and was used locally, was driven locally, meaning either

17 in Zvornik or in the immediate vicinity of Zvornik.

18 Q. And the second set of entries?

19 A. Also on the 13th, this vehicle made several trips. I don't know

20 what order they used to record it, but my conclusion would be that the

21 first trip was Standard-Bratunac-Zvornik, and then

22 Orahovac-Zvornik-Orahovac, or perhaps vice versa. Perhaps it is more

23 likely that it was vice versa.

24 Q. And what sort of distance did that vehicle apparently travel,

25 completing those journeys?

Page 32398

1 A. Well, this is some 200 kilometres of distance that was covered,

2 if the entries in this document are accurate.

3 Q. Would your Forward Command Post duty officer be doing his duty by

4 travelling 200 kilometres during the course of the day?

5 A. No. While he's on duty, he had to be on IKM. He could go on

6 foot to the observation post, to the neighbouring battalions and their

7 commands, but it wasn't his duty to tour units. So while on duty, he

8 would not have been able to travel this distance.

9 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Ostojic and you briefly discussed a man

10 called Zoran Zekic. Can you remind us who he was in July of 1995?

11 MR. OSTOJIC: Can I have a page reference, please .

12 MR. HAYNES: 19th of February, 2008, page 31810.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you need time, Mr. Ostojic, or can we proceed?

15 MR. OSTOJIC: He can proceed, yes.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

17 MR. HAYNES:

18 Q. Who was Zoran Zekic in July of 1995?

19 A. He was president of the Executive Board of the Zvornik Municipal

20 Assembly.

21 Q. And what sort of relationship did you have with him?

22 A. It was a business kind of a relationship, an official

23 relationship with a person who was performing certain duties. They had

24 to do with the matters of the brigade that could have been resolved by

25 the municipal government and had to do with members of the brigade who

Page 32408

1 Q. Now, you were asked a number of questions by Mr. Ostojic about a

2 man called Marko Milosevic, and by Mr. Bourgon a number of questions

3 about a man called Ostoja Stanisic. Can you remind us respectively who

4 those two people were?

5 A. Ostoja Stanisic was captain first class, at the time commander of

6 the 6th [realtime transcript read in error "1st"] Battalion. Marko

7 Milosevic, nicknamed Majo, was his deputy.

8 Q. And what working relationship, if any, had Milosevic had with

9 Drago Nikolic earlier in the war?

10 A. I apologise. It says in the transcript that he was commander of

11 the 1st Battalion, whereas he was the commander of the 6th Battalion.

12 As for the reply to your question, I didn't know what

13 relationship existed between Mr. Milosevic and Drago Nikolic.

14 Q. Thank you. Now, Marko Milosevic gave evidence before us on the

15 26th of June, 2007. Do you remember his evidence?

16 A. I do.

17 Q. He told us that the 6th Battalion received a call in the morning

18 of the 14th of July between 10.00 and 12.00, to tell them that prisoners

19 were coming to the school at Petkovci, and at about 4.00 or 5.00 in the

20 afternoon of the 14th of July, he was sent to Petkovci to pass a message

21 to Colonel Beara. He said he went to the school, where he saw

22 Drago Nikolic, who pointed out Beara to him, and he passed the message to

23 Beara. He said the school was surrounded by security which was not from

24 the Zvornik Brigade, and later that evening he heard gun-fire coming from

25 the school.

Page 32409

1 Now, in fairness, Mr. Ostojic put to us -- both Marko Milosevic

2 and Ostoja Stanisic that they made all this up, the fact that they'd seen

3 Colonel Beara. I'd like you, please, to -- I've not done it again, have

4 I?

5 MR. McCLOSKEY: No. It's misleading, but I won't object as long

6 as we get the fact correct that the call came from the office of the

7 Zvornik Brigade.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. McCloskey.

9 Mr. Haynes -- Ostojic.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.

11 It is leading. I do object that it's leading, but I also don't

12 see that this is proper redirect. If we're looking at the conduct of

13 Mr. Pandurevic and we challenged him on both his command and what he

14 claims that he's had certain conversations, to go over all the evidence

15 that the Prosecution may have called, unless all their entire defence is,

16 which I believe now it is more clearly than before, that all it is, is

17 adopting the Krstic and the Blagojevic Defence, but I don't think it's

18 proper in this context, and again I reiterate my objection that this is

19 improper redirect examination.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: He's referring precisely to questions, specific

21 questions put by you to the witness during your cross-examination. How

22 can it fall outside the parameters of redirect?

23 MR. OSTOJIC: With all due respect, Your Honour, he's not, and he

24 doesn't even cite a page or a line, because it's not what I asked him

25 about Marko Milosevic. The witness invited and only told us about

Page 32410

1 Marko Milosevic and Ostoja Stanisic, that they were pretty iter-related

2 or integrated with Dragomir Vasic, which was supposed to be the 6th

3 Battalion commander for Moral and Guidance and Religion. That was the

4 extent of the questioning for him, but I invite him to give me that

5 specific page cite where I question their credibility or not.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Fair enough.

7 Yes, Mr. Haynes.

8 Thank you, Mr. Ostojic.

9 MR. HAYNES: Yes, it's 1331 to -- 13331 to 13332.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: While it's right in front of you, why don't you

11 read up Mr. Ostojic's question to the witness so that we are in --

12 MR. HAYNES: I'm not sure what we're -- I'm being asked to do.

13 I've just given two pages that refer to his cross-examination of

14 Marko Milosevic, and I'm not going to read all of that out.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. But your question, as I have it in the

16 transcript, and therefore subject to the transcript being faithfully

17 reflecting the questions, says:

18 "Now, in fairness, Mr. Ostojic put to us that both

19 Marko Milosevic and Ostoja Stanisic, that they made all this up, the fact

20 that they had seen Colonel Beara ..."

21 Mr. Ostojic, as I understand him, is denying having ever put

22 these questions.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: No, I think, if I may interrupt, and I apologise,

24 I think you misunderstood me, with all due respect, and it's --

25 Mr. Haynes prefaced his questions to try to open a door to discuss

Page 32411

1 Marko Milosevic, to reiterate evidence as he may see it. We never asked

2 or inquired of this witness that. And proper, in our view, in proper

3 redirect examination if I had opened or cited Marko Milosevic or Ostoja

4 Stanisic's testimony, then he could go into it; we didn't. And I'm

5 advising the Court if he could give me the page number where I inquired

6 of this witness specifically where we inquired of -- but he's citing

7 page 13331 and 13312, which is testimony a year or two ago of those two

8 individuals, which is not what I'm objecting to. That testimony is in

9 evidence. I'm objecting, saying it's an improper scope of examination.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, I read you better now. Thank you.

11 Yes, Mr. Haynes.

12 MR. HAYNES: No, I'm not suggesting he -- he questioned the

13 credibility of Ostoja Stanisic or Marko Milosevic during his

14 cross-examination of Mr. Pandurevic. He did question their credibility

15 when he cross-examined them as witnesses. But what he did in this case

16 was question the credibility of my client, and in particular say that he

17 didn't agree with his position on his theory of the absence of commander

18 and the senior officer issue that you raised, and this is the very heart

19 of that very issue. This is where there are prisoners at a school being

20 guarded by members of a unit that are not part of the Zvornik Brigade,

21 Drago Nikolic, and the chief of security of the Main Staff. And I want

22 my client to, as it were, explain what command relationship is going on

23 there.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey.

25 MR. McCLOSKEY: That may be a submission, that they were not

Page 32412

1 being guarded by members of the Zvornik Brigade, but -- and that's what,

2 I think, Stanisic said. However, that is not an established fact in this

3 case.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. It's going to be a ping-pong game.

5 MR. OSTOJIC: No, it's not. Just very briefly, if I may. Thank

6 you, Mr. President.

7 And in fact he can just look to the admission by his deputy or

8 Chief of Staff, Obrenovic, where he says the 6th Battalion was involved,

9 and all those other things. So it's only a submission on their part, but

10 I think it's still improper redirect examination, and we object on those

11 grounds.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Your final word, Mr. Haynes, and we'll

13 decide.

14 MR. HAYNES: I don't want one. I think I've said all I need to

15 say, and it's nearly the break, isn't it?

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's have the break, then. Thank you.

17 Twenty-five minutes.

18 --- Recess taken at 3.34 p.m.

19 --- On resuming at 4.05 p.m.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Where were we?

21 Mr. Haynes.

22 MR. HAYNES: We were at Petkovci on the 14th of July, I think.

23 Q. You were asked some questions by Mr. Ostojic by reference to a

24 document that was an interview of his client's former driver, a man

25 called Milos Tomovic, and it's 2D639, and can we have that put into

Page 32413

1 e-court, please, quickly. It's not translated, this document, into

2 B/C/S, so far as I'm aware. We need to look at page 3.

3 The principal purpose of Mr. Ostojic's cross-examination of you

4 was to establish whether you knew that somebody else knew that his client

5 had an alibi, but I'd like to look at line 16. I'll read them out:

6 "Okay. Before we get ahead of us both, can I just stop by saying

7 in July of 95, when you drove Beara to these places, what kind of vehicle

8 did you have?

9 "It was Puch, military vehicle, and a Golf 3. Those two vehicles

10 I was assigned, I was given, and I drove them.

11 "And in which of these two vehicles did you drive Colonel Beara

12 down to Bratunac?

13 "Golf.

14 "And what colour was this Golf?

15 "Blue."

16 I'll give everyone else a transcript reference. It's 13305.

17 Do you remember the evidence of Marko Milosevic as to what sort

18 of vehicle he saw in the vicinity at Petkovci on the 14th of July?

19 A. Unfortunately, I don't.

20 Q. Very well. Now, before we broke, we had a little discussion, and

21 I'll cut straight to the chase. What command situation do you see in

22 operation at Petkovci, according to the evidence of Marko Milosevic and

23 Ostoja Stanisic, as you understand it to be?

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, hold it.

25 Yes, Mr. Ostojic.

Page 32414

1 MR. OSTOJIC: It calls for speculation and expert testimony that

2 this witness is not qualified to give, Mr. President, and so we object on

3 those grounds.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to comment, Mr. Haynes?

5 MR. HAYNES: No. I think he can answer it. He's a general.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE AGIUS: We believe it's a question that is related to his

8 office and that he can answer it. So, please, Mr. Pandurevic, could you

9 proceed with your answer.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will most certainly

11 do so, but I would kindly ask you for some patience because this is a

12 crucial thing, and I would like to explain it in more details, and I will

13 focus myself on the area of Petkovci.

14 In the period between the 10th and the 20th of July, the Army of

15 Republika Srpska was engaged in carrying out a variety of tasks.

16 Sometimes, these tasks were carried out by units as a whole, and

17 sometimes they were carried out by elements from different units combined

18 as temporary formations and under separate command.

19 If we look at the Drina Corps specifically, the Zvornik Brigade,

20 as a whole, was tasked with defending the defence zone and engaged in

21 combat with the 28th Division. The Sekovici Brigade was tasked with

22 defending its own defence zone, and so on and so forth. At the same

23 time, parts of these brigades, as well as parts of other brigades, were

24 in the Krajina as part of a temporary formation and were engaged in

25 carrying out tasks under separate command that had been established as a

Page 32415

1 provisional command for that specific task.

2 In addition to this, also carried out were tasks relating to the

3 events that are subject of this trial. For that purpose, in my judgement

4 and according to my conclusions, the commander of the Main Staff issued

5 tasks to a specific individual, gave him a number of men and assets, and

6 told him to carry out the task with them.

7 Specifically, I think that Mr. Beara, not before -- because he

8 was the head of the Security Administration but because he was given a

9 task by Mr. Mladic to deal with the prisoners of war, and based on all

10 the documents that we've seen here, whether through General Krstic or

11 directly through Mr. Furtula, he was also given a unit, buses, and other

12 assets required for the execution of this task. Also involved in this

13 task were a number of men who were working for the Security Service.

14 Now, in what way did this person in charge act? He acted as a

15 commanding officer and carried out a specific task. He had received his

16 orders from his superior. He was given powers and authority to put it

17 into practice. And all the men that were involved in the execution of

18 this task were under the direct command of the most senior individual

19 directing the mission. In other words, this was no parallel chain of

20 command or any chain of command within the security organ. This was, in

21 fact, the command structure established for the execution of a specific

22 task.

23 Mr. Beara had an opportunity and the possibility to command all

24 the men engaged in this task for three reasons. The first and the most

25 important one was because he was appointed to do that by the commander of

Page 32416

1 the Staff. He didn't do it of his own accord and not because he was in

2 the Security Service. Secondly, as a member and chief of the Security

3 Service, he could engage any VRS security officer. And, thirdly, because

4 he was the most senior officer on the ground at the time.

5 Therefore, in Petkovci, all the men engaged around the school

6 building and in dealing with the prisoners of war were directly

7 subordinated to Mr. Beara. Regardless of the fact that for formerly

8 there were members of the Bratunac brigade, Zvornik Brigade, MUP, the

9 10th Sabotage Platoon, et cetera. But within the system of command in

10 this specific circumstances, they were subordinate to Mr. Beara, and he

11 had command responsibility over them.

12 I apologise for this lengthy answer.

13 MR. HAYNES:

14 Q. Thank you. Now, as I asked you a few moments ago, it was

15 suggested by Mr. Ostojic, of course, that Mr. Beara was in Belgrade at

16 the relevant times, and I would just like to have a look at a couple of

17 documents with you.

18 MR. HAYNES: Could we look at P377, page 751 for you and page 133

19 for the rest of us?

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: This may be my last objection if the Court just

22 gives me a clear indication that they are going to deny all these

23 objections, but this is clearly outside the scope of cross-examination.

24 I didn't challenge this to the witness, nor, with all do respect to him,

25 do I care what his thoughts are about witnesses or his evidence. I

Page 32417

1 didn't ask him what he thought about our witnesses or about Mr. Beara

2 being in Belgrade. What I did try to do with this witness is to show,

3 which apparently somewhat successfully, because all we're doing is

4 reiterating some of these questions, his conduct and his responsibility

5 and his credibility and veracity. I didn't address the issue of

6 Mr. Beara being in Belgrade, although it was undisputed, when the

7 witnesses were brought forth by the Prosecution, in my opinion, but most

8 certainly by the Pandurevic Defence, since they raised no questions at

9 that time.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, but we haven't heard the question, as

11 yet. This is it. I mean, I need to hear the question first before I can

12 properly ask my colleagues to assess with me your objection.

13 So let's hear the question --

14 MR. OSTOJIC: I apologise then, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's hear the question first, because I don't

16 know -- or even before the question, your remarks, if you have any,

17 Mr. Haynes, and then we'll decide on the objection.

18 MR. HAYNES: No, I can take the questions very quickly. It was

19 probably my fault, but I thought it was a courtesy to introduce the

20 purpose of the questions, but the questions, themselves, are quite

21 straightforward.

22 Q. If we have a look at page 751 in P377. That's 133 in e-court.

23 There's an entry about halfway down that page. Can you help us,

24 General Pandurevic, as to the date and time of that entry, approximately,

25 by reference to the other pages in the book?

Page 32418

1 A. This is the date when Mr. Jokic was on duty. He began on the

2 14th. Let me just check whether we are still on the 14th. Yes, the

3 14th. And this entry: "155, Beara to call," was entered after the last

4 one, which was at 2000 hours. So that would be after 2000 hours on the

5 evening of the 14th.

6 Q. And do you know what "155" is?

7 A. I think that's an extension number. That's what I knew at the

8 time. That was an extension number at the Main Staff, panorama.

9 Obviously, the duty officer had received a message to tell Beara to call

10 this extension number.

11 Q. Now can we go over the page, please, to 752 for you, 134 for the

12 rest of us. It's probably obvious from the fact we've gone forward in

13 the book, but how close is that entry made to the end of the day on the

14 14th of July? In particular, I'm referring to: "0900, Beara is coming."

15 A. I think it says: "900 hours, Beara is coming." I think what it

16 means is that he would be there at 9.00 the following day, because if it

17 had been in the unit, it would have been written "2100 hours," because

18 that's how the duty operations officer used to record times.

19 Q. Thank you very much. Now can we go to P1177.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: And, Mr. Ostojic, do you still maintain your

21 objection, having heard the question and the answer?

22 MR. OSTOJIC: I do, Mr. President, on this whole line. I think

23 it's way outside the scope of cross-examination. And if their point is

24 to prove the involvement of Beara, they should have gave us some notice

25 of that being their tactic. It's certainly not on any of the material

Page 32419

1 that we received from them, so we're also raising that.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's continue and keep your objection in

3 mind for digestion in due course. Thank you.

4 Yes, Mr. Haynes.

5 MR. HAYNES:

6 Q. You've seen this before, I think, in cross-examination by

7 Mr. McCloskey.

8 A. Yes, I did.

9 Q. Do you recall the evidence of Richard Butler as to who could be

10 found on extension 139 at the Zvornik Brigade?

11 A. I think that Mr. McCloskey also mentioned this extension, and

12 I think that this extension number belonged to Drago Nikolic, if I

13 remember correctly.

14 Q. Now, just a piece of geographical information. What time would

15 you have to leave Belgrade in the morning to be at the Command of the

16 Zvornik Brigade for about 10.00?

17 A. Well, there are various things that have to be taken into

18 consideration, but if you drive very fast, you would need one and a half

19 hours or one hour and forty-five minutes. Therefore, one should set off

20 at 8.00, at the latest.

21 MR. HAYNES: I'd like to call P1179 into e-court now, please.

22 The B/C/S is under seal. I'm wrong about that. It's not under seal.

23 Q. Now, this is a fairly famous document in this case, but please

24 take your time to read it through, and I want to put a few questions to

25 you about it.

Page 32420

1 A. Could I please have a look at the next page. Thank you. Can you

2 please scroll down a bit.

3 I've read these two pages.

4 Q. Thank you. Now, you've told us that at about this time, at 10.00

5 in the morning on the 15th of July, you were pulling your units out at

6 the front, Zepa. Were you still in radio contact with the Forward

7 Command Post?

8 A. Yes, I was, with the former command post of the Drina Corps.

9 Q. And would it have been possible for General Krstic to call you

10 and ask you to give 20 or 30 men to Colonel Beara when you got back to

11 Zvornik?

12 A. Yes, it would have been possible.

13 Q. Did he do that?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Can you imagine why not?

16 MR. OSTOJIC: Calls for speculation.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. We don't want you to speculate. You either

18 know or not, or Mr. Haynes moves to his next question.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't like to speculate,

20 Your Honours.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Your next question, Mr. Haynes.

22 MR. HAYNES:

23 Q. How many men did you return to Zvornik with?

24 A. I returned with the whole TG-1; not all at once, but the total

25 was about 400 men. They came in groups.

Page 32421

1 Q. How many names are mentioned in this conversation, so far as you

2 can see?

3 A. In addition to the participants, Krstic and Beara, also mentioned

4 are Nastic and Blagojevic. And there was a misspelled name, Tasic and

5 Sladojevic, referring to the latter two ones. And I also see the name

6 Idjic [phoen] or Indjic.

7 Q. Would it have been possible for General Krstic to say during this

8 conversation, Don't worry, Ljubo, Vinko will be back in a little while,

9 and he's got 400 men with him?

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. Anything is possible, and that's

11 really speculation.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Let's move on to your next, please,

13 Mr. Haynes. Objection sustained.

14 MR. HAYNES: Can we look back at P377, page 756 for you and 138

15 in e-court.

16 Q. The entry at the very bottom of the page, Mr. Pandurevic, what

17 does that refer to, "Badem dispatched reinforcements"?

18 A. This entry made at 0921 hours: "Obrenovic ordered an urgent

19 request for reinforcements from the corps, reported Badem dispatched

20 reinforcements," therefore this was a request by Dragan Obrenovic for the

21 corps to find additional men to reinforce the Zvornik Brigade.

22 Q. Any reference there or on the following page that Colonel Beara

23 should be informed of that?

24 A. No, I don't seen one. I haven't seen anything like that.

25 Q. Let's move on.

Page 32422

1 Now, Mr. Bourgon cross-examined you about the role of

2 Drago Nikolic and the screening of volunteers to join the

3 Zvornik Brigade, and in particular about a group of men who came from

4 Serbia. Why was that a particular cause of concern?

5 A. I think that I tried to explain this during cross-examination as

6 well. Especially at the beginning of war, there was a large number of

7 volunteers who came there with various motives in mind, so therefore it

8 was always necessary to check their true motives and their human

9 qualities. Later on during the war, their numbers dwindled, but the

10 screening procedure remained the same in order to verify whether they had

11 honourable intentions or they had some other intentions, such as trying

12 to clear their past records or to acquire some personal gains and things

13 like that.

14 Q. In relation to the group you told us about, who I think came from

15 Uzicka Pozega, what were your concerns?

16 A. Well, in that particular instance, as far as I remember, a larger

17 group came of some 30 men, and it was dangerous to keep them as one unit,

18 as one whole unit, because there would be a tendency to do various bad

19 things. And they were housed in a Serbian village, and they created

20 trouble there. And, as such, they were returned back. Other volunteers

21 that were sent individually to various units and the Zvornik Brigade were

22 known to their superiors and also to security organs. They knew of their

23 qualities, and they were in our units in that capacity throughout the

24 war.

25 Q. This may be difficult to answer, but during the period of time

Page 32423

1 that you were in command of the Zvornik Brigade, about how many

2 volunteers were there to join the brigade?

3 A. Well, they would join the brigade and then leave. Some of them

4 stayed for a longer period of time, some for shorter. There were some

5 who stayed longer. I wouldn't be able to give you the exact number, but

6 there were other kinds of volunteers, soldiers from the Zvornik Brigade

7 itself. For example, if a unit had to be sent out for a special mission,

8 or a certain group of soldiers had to be sent to another unit temporarily

9 to accomplish a task there, then officers from battalions and companies

10 would ask for volunteers who wanted to do that voluntarily, and if nobody

11 volunteered to do that, then they would designate the people who would be

12 sent on these special missions.

13 Q. What was the screening procedure, as far as you know?

14 A. If volunteers came from other areas outside of Republika Srpska,

15 sometimes security organs of higher commands would do the screening and

16 simply inform the subordinate commands that everything was all right with

17 these people, that they had been screened, or that the security organ of

18 the unit they were joining should conduct the screening. Their

19 biographical data was screened, their past, whether they had any

20 convictions, whether some of them that escaped from prison and so on.

21 Those kinds of things were checked.

22 Q. Were records kept?

23 A. I really don't know what kind of records were kept by security

24 organs regarding that. There probably were some records. And later on,

25 they were kept on the record of the units where they served.

Page 32424

1 Q. So if somebody was looking for a gang of dangerous people, who

2 would be the best person in any army unit to ask?

3 A. Well, it's a difficult question, who would be --

4 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm going to object. It's --

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: You know, what is the question, what's the

7 relevance, where are we going with this?

8 MR. HAYNES: I'll move on.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. McCloskey.

10 MR. HAYNES: Let's for the last time, I think, in this case have

11 a look at P2741, and I'm going to provide you with a hard copy,

12 General Pandurevic.

13 Q. I'm sure you're very familiar with this document, but would you

14 just read through it for a couple of minutes, and I've only got a couple

15 of questions about it for you at this stage.

16 A. Yes, I am familiar with this document, more or less.

17 Q. Just to clear up something you were -- that was put to you by

18 Mr. Bourgon: Does that instruction prevent the deployment of a security

19 officer as duty officer at the Brigade Command?

20 A. I think that it doesn't say anything about that explicitly.

21 There is no ban on that. But in order for me to be 100 per cent sure, I

22 would need to read the entire document. However, my recollections

23 indicate what I have just told you.

24 Q. I'll move on, because I'm anxious that we should finish today.

25 What was the practical effect of a determination that

Page 32425

1 intelligence -- sorry, I'll start again.

2 What was the practical effect of a determination that a certain

3 task fell under the heading "Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence"?

4 A. Well, these instructions define, per se, the method of work of

5 security organs. As I have said earlier, this is entitled somewhat

6 different than in the book on formations. In the book, it is simply

7 framed -- phrased differently, because the security organs are mentioned

8 first here, and then the intelligence organs. However, what is important

9 for me, from these instructions, is item 5, paragraph 2, where it says

10 Sector for Security and Intelligence organs of the Main Staff of VRS

11 decides on transferring and sending, on special missions, members of the

12 security and intelligence organs within their scope of work, which is to

13 say that they could be assigned special tasks by the assistant Chief of

14 Staff of the Main Staff. And also there are provisions about special

15 measures, awards and so on.

16 Q. What would you know about what a security officer was doing if he

17 determined what he was doing was intelligence or counter-intelligence?

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

19 MR. McCLOSKEY: You know, that sounds speculative to me, and

20 we're also -- the general nature of this document has been discussed over

21 and over again, and unless we have something very specific we're

22 responding to Mr. Bourgon on, I think this is going beyond the scope. As

23 to the last answer, I don't know where that's coming from or what it's

24 responding to.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to comment, Mr. Haynes?

Page 32426

1 MR. HAYNES: I'll go straight to the point. Never mind an

2 invitation to go straight to the point, and as Mr. McCloskey knows, I'm

3 never afraid to go straight to the point.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Refrain from --

5 MR. HAYNES: No, no, that's --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's refrain from unnecessary comments. Just go

7 to the point.

8 MR. HAYNES:

9 Q. You had a prolonged debate with Mr. Bourgon about what tasks

10 might or might not amount to counter-intelligence. A simple question:

11 Did Drago Nikolic ever report to you what he was doing with Colonel Beara

12 at Petkovski on the 14th of July?

13 A. No, never.

14 Q. Did he ever submit any report to you about events at Orahovac?

15 A. No, never.

16 Q. Or Rocevic?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Now, I'm going to move away from that.

19 People touched briefly, in their cross-examination of you, upon

20 various items of literature that you'd written. How many books have you

21 written?

22 A. I think four or five.

23 Q. And what post-graduate qualifications do you have?

24 A. In Ljubljana, in Slovenia, I completed post-graduate studies in

25 Sociology, and I -- my minor was Social Ecology. My PhD studies were in

Page 32427

1 the field of Sociology of the Military, as a separate and distinct field

2 of Sociology.

3 Q. Now, Mr. Bourgon cross-examined you on the basis that your

4 evidence contradicted certain other opinions expressed in this case, and

5 I'm going to ask you your views on some of those people.

6 Can we start with Remy Landry. How would you compare your

7 knowledge of the relevant facts in this case to his?

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey.

9 MR. McCLOSKEY: This seems to just be getting into argumentative.

10 Your Honours can make the judgements about, you know, personal

11 qualifications. You know, "I'm better than he is," what's the point to

12 that, or, "He's better than I am"? The form of the question is improper.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: What are you trying to --

14 MR. HAYNES: Well, Mr. Bourgon put to him this question: "So

15 you're right and three military experts are wrong?" He's brought into

16 question their expertise. That puts that ball squarely in play. It was

17 a stupid question, if I may say so, but I'm going to deal with it.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And if he says -- makes a statement now

19 that tries to nullify the effects of the Bourgon question, where do we go

20 from there? Ultimately, as Mr. McCloskey said, it's us who are going to

21 make an assessment.

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: I have no objection to taking an opinion or a

23 statement of Landry and asking the general to comment on his view of it,

24 but the way that was phrased was not getting us anywhere.

25 MR. HAYNES: I'll let you make a decision on that while I sit

Page 32428

1 down.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Nikolic.

3 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we please be

4 given a reference to the page that Mr. Haynes is referring to when

5 speaking of the question put by Mr. Bourgon?

6 MR. HAYNES: 17th of February, 2009, page 31648, line 19, and

7 page 31650, line 20.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

9 Mr. Ostojic, sorry.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm sorry to make this point, but I just -- it

11 leaves a bad taste when a colleague, even on the opposing side, would say

12 that a question is stupid. I know yesterday there were some references,

13 and we do do that from time to time, but I would just ask the Court, as

14 it did just moments ago, just to refrain from making those comments. He

15 could have objected at that point when Mr. Bourgon asked the question, I

16 don't know that it a basis to say a question is stupid, but I find it

17 actually distasteful. I just want it on the record.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.

19 MR. HAYNES: I'll try to keep my temper. That's a man who

20 invited me to go onto the witness box yesterday, but I won't say anything

21 like that again.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: Only because they raised the issue.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop it, please. We've travelled a long way in a

25 very smooth -- on a very smooth journey, and let's not spoil it at the

Page 32429

1 end.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE AGIUS: In anticipation of what the witness's answer could

4 be, especially following your question, Mr. Haynes, I don't think we need

5 it. We are in a position later on to make an assessment. We've heard

6 him testify; we've heard Landry testify; we've heard Butler testify;

7 we've heard others testify.

8 MR. HAYNES: Thank you. Then I will move on and we'll get --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: And I can assure you that until now, we haven't

10 made up our minds as to who is more qualified than who and who gave a

11 better expert opinion, so let's leave it and move to your next question.

12 MR. HAYNES: Thank you.

13 I want to just sweep up a few minor points. Can we have a look,

14 please, at P30. And again this is quite a long document, so I'll see if

15 I can provide you with a hard copy to read through.

16 Q. Now, this is the order amending directive number 4. What's the

17 effect of an amending order?

18 A. As far as I remember from my previous readings of this document,

19 this is an amendment to the directive number 4, shortening the dead-lines

20 for executing certain tasks. At that time, they suppose that it is

21 possible to bring the war to an end by way of negotiations. These

22 amendments to directives, or to orders, or any other combat documents,

23 can amend it in the way of supplementing it or changing the place of

24 execution, engagement of forces, and so on. These are the kinds of

25 details that can be amended.

Page 32430

1 Q. And does that order amending directive 4 make any reference to

2 civilians?

3 A. No, I don't see that. No such mention.

4 Q. Did you receive any order, in the combat actions you've described

5 for us in the early part of 1993, to remove civilian populations from

6 their homes?

7 A. No.

8 Q. And was that ever your objective in carrying out combat

9 operations in that period of time?

10 A. No.

11 Q. I just want to give you the opportunity of looking at P409,

12 please, page 25 in both languages.

13 And the document will need to go to the left a little bit so that

14 Mr. Pandurevic can see paragraphs 52, 53, and 54.

15 In answering questions to Mr. McCloskey, you had in mind,

16 I think, some legal provisions. Are these what you were referring to?

17 A. Yes. These are the regulations on the application of the -- of

18 the International Laws of War within the armed forces of the SFRY. I was

19 referring to the regulations which deal with civilian population and how

20 they need to be protected, and also exceptions to the rule on general

21 protection and item 53, which is where it is specified in what

22 circumstances the commander will not have such responsibility or when

23 combat operations cause or inflict -- inflict casualties amongst

24 civilians. Then we have three cases that represent exceptions. I spoke

25 about the category of civilian population which is with an armed unit,

Page 32431

1 when I spoke about the reports shown to me by Mr. McCloskey.

2 Q. One last thing on, as it were, 1993. You pointed out, on a map

3 that came from General Zivanovic, I think, 146 burnt Serbian villages,

4 and we saw much earlier in the trial, I think, with PW-168, some

5 underlying, as it were, video footage of the way in which people were

6 murdered in those places.

7 Did you see things like that, yourself, during that period of

8 time?

9 A. During the war, I did see exhumed bodies from the area of

10 Glodjansko Brdo, from the area of Kravica, and I also saw mutilated

11 bodies in the area of Visegrad, near a village called Jelasci.

12 Q. Were the people you were fighting combat with farmers defending

13 their homesteads, as was suggested to you?

14 A. Those were members of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As for

15 their basic occupation previously, whether some of them were farmers or

16 workers, that's something I don't know.

17 Q. Now, in answer to a question from Mr. McCloskey about how you

18 interpreted Directive 7, you made reference to some NATO generals.

19 And I'd like now, please, if we could put 7D1126 into e-court.

20 And we need to go to the very last page of this document.

21 I'll read it for you slowly so that it's translated:

22 "General Short noted that he is stepping up attacks on Serbian

23 troops in Kosovo.

24 "'General Clark has set for me as my number 1 priority the

25 killing of that army in Kosovo,' he said, 'And I think I am going to be

Page 32432

1 able to do that. Not tomorrow or the next day, but we have flown our

2 first day-time B-52 air-strikes in Kosovo, dropping Mark-82s. And if I'm

3 a young Serb soldier, eating my lunch at 2.00 in the afternoon, and out

4 of the grey skies over my head comes a hundred-plus Mark-82s, that ought

5 to be a signal that we're entering a new phase of the air campaign and

6 we're taking the gloves off a little more.'

7 "These days, striking directly at the Milosevic government is

8 very much on his mind. While NATO says it is not fighting against the

9 Serbian people, General Short also hopes that the distress of the

10 Yugoslav public will undermine support for the authorities in Belgrade.

11 "'I think no power to your refrigerator, no gas to your stove,

12 you can't get to work because the bridge is down - the bridge on which

13 you held your rock concerts - and you all stood with targets on your

14 heads. That needs to disappear at 3.00 in the morning.'"

15 Was this what you had in mind, as it were, when you talked about

16 the bombing of Belgrade?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And what combat activity is General Short describing in this

19 document?

20 A. He described activities which could directly affect the morale

21 and the mood of the population and the enemy forces.

22 Q. Thank you. Now, just moving on very quickly: How long after the

23 conversation with Brano Grujic on the 15th of July, at the IKM, was your

24 conversation with Ljubo Bojanovic?

25 A. Well, as far as I remember, I said an hour, hour and a half. I'm

Page 32433

1 not sure. Not a long time went by.

2 Q. And the information that you received from Brano Grujic,

3 Ljubo Bojanovic, and Dragan Obrenovic, did it suggest that the prisoners

4 had arrived in one large group at roughly at the same time or that they

5 were arriving over a protracted period?

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Leading.

8 MR. HAYNES: It's not.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.

10 MR. HAYNES: No, it's not. There were two alternatives there.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: He can ask, "What does this suggest to you?"

12 JUDGE AGIUS: That would be simpler, but it's true that there are

13 two alternatives, and that, in my mind, could make it a leading question,

14 because you're only offering two when there could be even more.

15 MR. HAYNES:

16 Q. How did you understand the prisoners to have arrived in Zvornik?

17 A. Well, given that I did not receive information at the same time

18 from all of these three men, my impression was that they were arriving in

19 convoys, but I had no idea whether they had all arrived in one day or

20 over two days.

21 Q. And what about their presence in schools? Similarly deal with

22 that.

23 A. I knew about their presence in school based on what I had been

24 told by Mr. Grujic, and I understood this to be a temporary place for

25 them, especially when Ljubo Bojanovic provided additional information,

Page 32434

1 saying that he knew that buses passed by the barracks but that the

2 Zvornik Brigade had not been given any task relating to them.

3 Q. When Obrenovic told you that the prisoners had been executed at

4 Orahovac, when did you understand that that had occurred?

5 A. I understood it the way he told me. He explained that that took

6 place on the evening of the 14th.

7 Q. And what did you think then was the likely fate of all the

8 prisoners?

9 A. Since he later mentioned Petkovci, and what Mr. Ostojic had told

10 me, my conclusion was that all these unfortunate men had their fate

11 sealed.

12 Q. And what impact on your views did your journey pass to Orahovac

13 on the evening of the 17th have?

14 A. On the evening of the 17th, I passed by Orahovac. I saw the

15 disturbed earth there, and I understood that what Obrenovic had told me

16 was actually true.

17 MR. HAYNES: Now, can we just look quickly at 7D686 [realtime

18 transcript read in error "7D866"], please. It appears as "866" in the

19 transcript. What I wanted was 686, and this is the right document that's

20 in e-court. Thank you.

21 Q. Now, you were asked some questions by Mr. Ostojic in relation to

22 this document about capturing prisoners. Can you just remind us,

23 according to your understanding, what the situation of the prisoners in

24 the schools was at the time General Krstic wrote this order.

25 A. They had already been taken prisoner, and there was no need for

Page 32435

1 them to be captured again. This order referred to the forces of the

2 28th Division that were trying to make a breakthrough towards Tuzla.

3 Q. Were any prisoners captured by your forces -- I'm sorry, I'll ask

4 it in an open way.

5 What happened to the prisoners captured by your forces between

6 the 15th and the 26th of July?

7 A. These prisoners were taken to the military remand prison at the

8 Standard Barracks. At my intervention, the Drina Corps decided to

9 transfer them to Batkovic, and that is what happened.

10 Q. Were any prisoners captured by your forces taken to any of the

11 schools in the indictment?

12 A. No.

13 Q. I just want to revisit a document shown to you by Mr. McCloskey,

14 P295, at page 227 in B/C/S and 228 in English.

15 Can we take the document in B/C/S to the right a little bit, and

16 blow it up a little bit.

17 Now, when you looked at this with Mr. McCloskey, it was quite

18 hard to read. Can you read the entries for the 16th and 17th of July as

19 to where that vehicle went?

20 MR. McCLOSKEY: The record should reflect he had the original

21 when he did this. I'm told it's upstairs at the moment.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

23 MR. HAYNES: The photocopy is not bad. I'll try -- I'll see if

24 it's any better.

25 MR. McCLOSKEY: This particular document had some white-outs on

Page 32436

1 it, as the general will remember, so it's a bit of a strange document.

2 We can get it, if you like.

3 MR. HAYNES: Well, no, I'll see if he recalls it from the other

4 day.

5 Q. On the 16th and 17th of July, on this document, what was the

6 finishing point of the journey made, so far as you could work out?

7 A. On the 17th of July, from 18 to 15, it says "All Staro Selo," and

8 I remember that there were two lines for correcting typos with

9 typewriters. Therefore, this does not correspond to the original.

10 Q. Very well. I think we can see, in relation to the 17th of July,

11 quite clearly what the last destination written in there is. Can you

12 confirm that for us, please.

13 A. I said that the final destination on the 17th was Papraca.

14 Q. And where is that?

15 A. Papraca is situated on the Memici-Sekovici road, and it was in

16 the zone of defence of the Sekovici Brigade.

17 Q. Thank you. Can we have a look at P336, please.

18 Again, something about which you were asked questions by

19 Mr. McCloskey, the 13 eliminated Muslim soldiers. Do you recall the

20 evidence of Zoran Jovanovic on this point?

21 A. I remember his testimony. Particularly about this issue, I am

22 not sure.

23 Q. How would this information find its way into a regular combat

24 report? Who would tell who what?

25 A. For the duty operations officer to be able to compile a regular

Page 32440

1 change-over of duty, but -- to me or to the Chief of Staff, and I don't

2 see this book anywhere.

3 Q. From where does the obligation arise to keep a log-book, as duty

4 officer?

5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, continuing objection. I can't

6 respond to any of this, and so he's going off into areas that I'm not

7 going to be able to respond to and areas that could have been brought up

8 that I don't see that are contested.

9 MR. HAYNES: I don't want to say too much, because it will be

10 said that I'm leading the witness, but this doesn't arise from

11 Mr. McCloskey's cross-examination. It arises from criticism of another

12 document, and I want to draw the comparison between P377 and P379 and the

13 other document, which is P378.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: If the witness will stick to answering specific

16 questions, we won't get into the problem. If there's something he has in

17 specific -- but what we're seeing is we're going into the history of what

18 is not available to us, and that is a very long history which I don't

19 think we want to get into. So if it's specific and it's responsive to

20 something Mr. Bourgon or someone else, no problem, but right now we're

21 going into histories of what we don't have in the Zvornik Brigade, and

22 that is an area that we didn't get into in our --

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but --

24 MR. McCLOSKEY: God knows how many days.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I know as much as you do, Mr. McCloskey, so you

Page 32441

1 want to know exactly how far Mr. Haynes intends to go.

2 MR. HAYNES: Let me see if I can --

3 Q. What's the difference between the diary kept by the duty officer

4 and the log-book kept by the duty officer?

5 A. These terms are somewhat complicated. I understand what I have

6 in front of me, 5377, which is a working work log of duty operations

7 officer, as an ancillary document in which the duty officer records

8 information, messages, orders, conveyed communications, et cetera. Then

9 based on this book and the entries contained there in, keeps an

10 operations diary or log-book. Therefore, the entries in this book and

11 the operations log-book are almost identical. A lot can be also found of

12 an identical nature in regular combat reports. Therefore, there is a

13 direct link between these three sources, which is a working log-book of

14 the duty operations officer, duty operations diary, and regular combat

15 reports.

16 Q. Did every brigade have a log-book or should every brigade have

17 had a log-book?

18 A. I cannot remember exactly what the instructions on operations

19 duty provide, whether this was a mandatory book or an auxiliary book. We

20 had one, and I think it was a good idea to have it, and I think that each

21 brigade should have had one.

22 Q. And I'll try this one more time. What about the diary?

23 A. The operations diary is something different. It's a mandatory

24 instrument that has to be kept by each brigade.

25 Q. The three books are all about the same size, and we've seen them

Page 32442

1 in your hands. What was your view as to the preservation of those

2 records?

3 A. These documents were kept in the safe with the operations duty

4 officer. It's a metal cabinet which was locked and which was under the

5 control of the operations duty officer.

6 Q. And where were they when you left your term of office as

7 commander of the Zvornik Brigade?

8 MR. McCLOSKEY: This has been asked and answered, as has most of

9 the other explanations that the generals have. If we can get to a point,

10 I really do not want to make the request to be able -- allowed to

11 re-cross.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we move ahead, Mr. Haynes?

13 MR. HAYNES: We can, and --

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's do that.

15 MR. HAYNES: I want to look at another record, please. It's

16 P354, and I'm going to hand you a hard copy of that.

17 Q. Help us as to what this is, firstly, General Pandurevic.

18 A. This is another auxiliary document which represents the survey of

19 the engagement of unit -- of men from a specific unit, and here we have a

20 military police unit in July 1995. We heard here why these documents

21 were established, and I kept a similar record in the JNA, referring to

22 the presence and absence of members of the company, although the original

23 idea and the original format of the document is not as we see it here.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes, it's break time.

25 MR. HAYNES: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise. I get lost in

Page 32443

1 these 80-minute --

2 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll have a 25-minute break now. Thank you.

3 --- Recess taken at 5.25 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 5.53 p.m.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.

6 MR. HAYNES:

7 Q. Mr. Pandurevic, just -- just before the break, you were looking

8 at P354 with me, and I've not got many questions on this. But according

9 to that document, how many military policemen were there in the

10 Zvornik Brigade in July 1995?

11 A. We can see that in the beginning of the month, and then all the

12 way up until the 14th, there were 89 soldiers, according to the list, and

13 at the end of the month there were 80 of them. So there was this

14 strength.

15 Q. Now, could we go to page 3 in this document, please. Thank you.

16 Now, just remind us how many military policemen you believed had been

17 deployed to guard prisoners from the Zvornik Brigade.

18 A. Well, I have said what I knew, and what I was told by

19 Dragan Obrenovic is that on the 13th, five or six were given to Nikolic.

20 Q. Now, have you -- are you familiar with what Richard Butler says

21 about this particular page of that record?

22 A. I really don't remember.

23 Q. Okay. I'll ask it another way. Did your belief, that there were

24 five men deployed, ever change from anything you learnt during the

25 following 14 years?

Page 32444

1 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, one moment.

2 Yes, Ms. Nikolic.

3 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think this involves

4 speculation, and the witness is asked to speculate about the opinion he

5 had today or 14 years ago, about the events that had taken place in 1995.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: The witness has been here for a good two and a half

7 years. He knows that if answering the question means speculating, he

8 shouldn't answer it. But if he can answer it, then let's proceed and get

9 his answer.

10 Can you answer this question without speculating, Mr. Pandurevic?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. I have seen

12 here a large number of soldiers who testified, and who testified about

13 where they were and where they saw other soldiers, so based on that, my

14 information about people present in various locations changed during this

15 trial.

16 MR. HAYNES:

17 Q. And do you still think only five military policemen were deployed

18 in relation to the guarding of prisoners?

19 A. I don't think that any longer. Perhaps the same people changed

20 locations, but we heard here that there were members of military police

21 in various locations, and most likely it was at least that number. As

22 for the total number, I don't know what it was.

23 Q. Now, who would have kept this document? Where would it have been

24 kept, and who by?

25 A. This document was in the Military Police Company, and I think we

Page 32445

1 have heard here, from a man who testified here, about the list and how he

2 kept this list. He was a clerk in the company, as far as I can remember,

3 a records clerk.

4 Q. According to your evidence, was Obrenovic's consent required for

5 the deployment of military policemen?

6 A. No. Had those people been available immediately, they would have

7 been taken without previous consent of Dragan Obrenovic.

8 Q. Thank you. I just -- we're very near the end now. I just want

9 to move on to the question of Semso Muminovic very, very briefly. Remind

10 us when you first learned that Muminovic was trying to get in touch with

11 you and what he wanted.

12 A. I have said that according to my recollection, this was conveyed

13 to me by Jevdjevic at the Krivace IKM that Semso was looking for me. I

14 didn't know the details about what he wanted form me and I received that

15 information again when I came to the IKM at the Delici village.

16 Q. When you spoke to him, was the conversation being recorded at

17 your end?

18 A. No, not on my end.

19 Q. When you spoke to him, did you know it was being recorded by

20 anybody?

21 A. I didn't know that anybody was recording it, but I assumed that

22 all of those who had a Motorola and who had that frequency could have

23 listened to that, and they did listen.

24 Q. When you spoke to Semso Muminovic in 2001, did you know then that

25 there were tape-recordings of your any of your conversations with him on

Page 32446

1 July the 15th and 16th?

2 A. I didn't know.

3 Q. And did he say anything during that meeting that indicated that

4 he knew about it?

5 A. I am not sure that he gave me any sort of a signal, that he

6 indicated in any way that he had a recording of that conversation of

7 ours.

8 Q. When did you first learn about the recording?

9 A. Well, I heard -- I saw some of his statements here, where he

10 mentioned cameramen and journalists who were present on the day of the

11 conversation, and most likely the cameraman recorded that. And I also

12 saw in the statement of Sabic, Veiz, who said that he was aware of this

13 recorded conversation on the 15th, the conversation between me and Semso.

14 Q. And when did you first hear the recording?

15 A. I heard it here, when I received it on a CD. You handed it to

16 me, and most likely you, yourself, had received it from the Prosecution,

17 because it bears their number.

18 Q. Just to clear something up, so far you're aware, does he -- does

19 he remain a witness on your list of witnesses?

20 A. Yes. He gave a statement under 92 bis, and I don't know what

21 became of it, what your final decision will be. As far as I know, he is

22 still on our witness list.

23 Q. Thank you. Now, just a few questions about the -- about

24 Mr. Popovic.

25 Can we look again, please, at P291.

Page 32447

1 You've answered, really, rather too many questions about this

2 transaction already, so I'm not going to exasperate you further, but how

3 could this have been done differently, by which I mean accounted? What

4 documents could have been used to indicate the movement of fuel to

5 Mr. Popovic from the Zvornik Brigade dump?

6 A. Given that the fuel was leaving the Zvornik Brigade and was going

7 to another unit or to another financial organ, in this particular case

8 the Command of the Drina Corps, this sort of a list had to be drawn up

9 for this to be sent over. I don't know -- I'm not aware of any other way

10 in which this could have been given over. This could have been given

11 over as a loan. But this is a document that is sent to the bookkeeping,

12 and in the bookkeeping records it is said that the Zvornik Brigade is

13 divested of this amount of fuel, as indicated here.

14 Q. What other documentation can be used to show the dispensing of

15 fuel?

16 A. There is a so-called LIP, the list of the fuel issued and

17 received. We saw it in relation to the 13th and 14th, when TG-1 received

18 fuel in Vlasenica. That's one method. And these records are kept at the

19 gas station or in the location where the fuel is given. Such a

20 possibility also existed in the Zvornik Brigade.

21 Q. And what would have been required to do it in that way?

22 A. In order for the fuel to be issued for the use of own units via

23 the so-called LIP, there needs to be an order and an approval for the

24 fuel to be issued or given, and there need to be justified reasons for

25 that, or, rather, this needs to be given for the tasks to be

Page 32448

1 accomplished.

2 Q. Any other way?

3 A. There are no other regular ways. If somebody comes directly with

4 a vehicle to a gas station, and if Mr. Pantic, who took care about the

5 usage of fuel, and if he issued a receipt saying that such and such

6 amount of fuel is approved for that person, then such a person could have

7 gone to a gas station with such a receipt, and whoever was operating the

8 gas station would have issued to him the amount of fuel indicated in the

9 receipt.

10 Q. Okay, thank you. And I now want to just look at, I think for the

11 last time, P377, page 770 in the hard copy that you have, and in e-court

12 page 152.

13 A. Yes, I have the page.

14 Q. It's the entry at 2125. Can we just back up in history a little

15 bit, and you can remind us about when it was the self-propelled guns were

16 taken and what happened to them after that, as precisely in time as you

17 can, please.

18 A. I think that these self-propelled guns were taken sometime in the

19 morning. I wouldn't be able to say exactly what time it was on the 16th.

20 I know that they were taken out of action soon thereafter, in terms of

21 firing at us, and that throughout the day they remained in the same

22 positions where they were, because they could not be moved. They were

23 dug in, and they were facing the enemy positions in the area of Nezuk.

24 Whether it was 9.00, 10.00, I'm not sure. It could have been earlier.

25 Q. And so that it's clear on the transcript, are we talking about

Page 32449

1 9.00 or 10.00 in the morning or evening?

2 A. In the morning.

3 Q. Now, when was the last combat action on the 16th of July?

4 A. I think at around 11.00. Or after 11.00 there was an

5 interruption in combat, and there were perhaps occasional exchanges of

6 gun-fire, sporadic ones, because not all of the units on the ground had

7 perhaps received the information that negotiations were in progress and

8 that people were working on a truce.

9 Q. And by 9.00 in the evening, what was going on at Baljkovica?

10 A. Well, at the time it was already getting dark. It was the time

11 when the passage of the column on the 28th Division was halted. It was

12 then that Semso and I, with his superior command, Malkic, agreed on what

13 the situation should be overnight so that in the morning we could

14 continue letting through the columns of the 28th Division.

15 Q. And how long had the self-propelled guns been back in your

16 possession by then?

17 A. Well, at least as early as 12.00, the crew was around them, and

18 then further on as well.

19 Q. I'm just shifting slight. How -- remind us how it was you

20 composed the interim combat report of the 16th of July and how it got to

21 be sent from the Zvornik Brigade Command.

22 A. Well, I dictated the report to Captain Milisav Petrovic, and it

23 could have been sent to the corps only from the Zvornik Brigade via a

24 coded teleprinter, because they did not have that kind of encoding at the

25 IKM.

Page 32450

1 Q. And I'm not sure whether you've told us this or not, frankly, but

2 did Milisav Petrovic take it to the Zvornik Brigade or ring it through,

3 as it were?

4 A. No, somebody had to take it. A vehicle had to go, or a courier,

5 or Milisav Petrovic himself, but a vehicle had to go there and take the

6 paper to the Command of the Zvornik Brigade.

7 Q. Let's come back to this entry at 2125. Who's this an inquiry

8 from, and about what?

9 A. On the same page?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. Well, from Zlatar. Mostly likely, duty operations officer from

12 the Drina Corps asked the duty operations officer at Palma, that is to

13 say, in the Zvornik Brigade, whether self-propelled guns had remained in

14 our hands.

15 Q. And had that been an important issue at any time earlier in the

16 day?

17 A. I don't know in what sense and for whom it could have been

18 important. Whether it was important for the corps command and what they

19 knew about that, I'm not sure about that. It was important for me to put

20 them out of action as soon as possible so that they wouldn't fire on my

21 forces.

22 Q. It's just that you were looking the other day at an intercepted

23 communication involving Mr. Popovic at about 9.16 on the evening of the

24 16th of July, and you might recall Mr. McCloskey suggesting that in that

25 conversation, he was defending you. Do you remember the conversation?

Page 32451

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Had anybody come to the Forward Command Post on the 16th and

3 asked you what the situation was in relation to these self-propelled

4 guns?

5 A. No, nobody from the superior command came to see me on the 16th,

6 the evening, at the IKM, nor did they ask me in relation to these, to

7 these self-propelled guns.

8 Q. And at 9.00 or quarter past 9.00 on the evening of the 16th of

9 July, would you have described the situation at horrible?

10 A. No, not at that time, not at all. The situation was completely

11 calm.

12 MR. HAYNES: Right.

13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Haynes, if you could ask your witness to read

14 the entry at 2125 again so that I can hear the translation.

15 MR. HAYNES: Yes, certainly.

16 Q. Can you -- you heard Judge Kwon's question?

17 A. Yes. Your Honour, it says, from Zlatar, they require information

18 as to whether the self-propelled guns remained in our hands at 2125.

19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

20 MR. HAYNES:

21 Q. The final strait, Mr. Pandurevic. I want quickly, in response

22 really to the totality of what's been put to you, to run you through the

23 events of the 4th to the 20th of July, or there -- and thereabouts.

24 Which brigade was responsible for the conduct of combat operations in the

25 Zeleni Jadar area?

Page 32452

1 A. If you're referring to Krivaja 95, the direction of the axis of

2 the operation was Zeleni Jadar. Rajne Bojna was the axis of Tactical

3 Group 1, which was under my command.

4 Q. I wasn't. I was referring to the situation generally.

5 A. The positions facing the 28th Division in the area of

6 Zeleni Jadar were held by Tactical Group Pribicevac, which comprised an

7 independent battalion from Skelani and parts of the Bratunac Brigade. In

8 the area of Zeleni Jadar, there were units of the Independent Battalion

9 from Skelani.

10 Q. Who was responsible for the conduct of troops carrying out the

11 combat operations under Krivaja 95?

12 A. The forces which participated in the Krivaja 95 operation -- or,

13 rather, the forces that carried out active combat operations were under

14 the command of General Krstic.

15 Q. And was he at that time a commander in his own right?

16 A. No. At the time, he was Chief of Staff and deputy corps

17 commander, but in that particular situation he was appointed to command

18 those forces in that particular task, and he at the time held the

19 position of the commander, or, rather, he was the officer in command.

20 Q. Generally, who was responsible for the conduct of combat

21 operations in Orahovac, Petkovci, Rocevic, Kula, Pilica, Kozluk and

22 Branjevo?

23 A. The person who was given the task to transport the prisoners and

24 to put them into the facilities that you mentioned.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Did you speak in the -- I just want to make sure

Page 32453

1 that the transcript is correct. Did you speak in the singular or in the

2 plural? In the transcript, we have "the person," one person. Is that

3 what you said?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, one person was

5 in command of all of those forces, and he had people who were

6 subordinated to him.

7 MR. HAYNES:

8 Q. I better clear that up, because I was, in fact, asking you about

9 the situation outside the period with which we're concerned. Let's take

10 the month of June 1995. Who was responsible for the conduct of combat

11 operations in those places then?

12 A. If you are referring to the facilities and the schools in the

13 villages that you have just mentioned -- is that what you're referring

14 to?

15 Q. I'm referring to the responsibility to conduct combat operations

16 in those villages.

17 A. Should armed forces of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina

18 appeared in those locations at any point in time, it would have been the

19 Zvornik Brigade who would have been responsible for engaging them and

20 waging combat against them.

21 Q. But perhaps we can come now to the question you may already have

22 answered. Who was responsible for carrying out the illegal operation to

23 kill prisoners of war in those areas?

24 A. Well, the person who was given the order to transport them, to

25 put them up in these facilities, and to organise the execution. And it

Page 32454

1 certainly wasn't an officer from the Zvornik Brigade.

2 Q. What authority did you have to give orders to military policemen

3 from Bratunac?

4 A. None.

5 Q. What authority did you have orders -- sorry. What authority did

6 you have to give orders to members of the 65th Protection Regiment?

7 A. None.

8 Q. You now know that certain members of the Zvornik Brigade carried

9 out guard duties, digging work, burial work, transportation, et cetera.

10 Did any of them act on your orders?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Under whose command were those people at the time?

13 A. They were under the command of the person who was in charge of

14 all of those tasks.

15 MR. HAYNES: General Pandurevic, thank you very much indeed.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.

19 Your Honours, in the interests of justice and in the spirit of

20 fairness, I would respectfully request that the Court use their

21 discretion and allow me 30 minutes to conduct a re-cross-examination.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: We have to follow the usual practice. First we

23 want to know what questions you wish to ask, and then we decide if to

24 allow any or all of them.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: I don't -- the areas that I would -- I don't

Page 32455

1 typically read out my questions, but the areas that I would like to

2 question him is related to a document P196 --

3 JUDGE AGIUS: What's that?

4 MR. OSTOJIC: Which references -- it is in evidence, and it's an

5 order from the Drina Corps, excuse me, dated the 15th of April, 1995,

6 which in paragraph 2, the instructions, states:

7 "All commands - from battalion level upwards, are to determine

8 places behind the front-line at which captured members of the enemy army

9 are to be collected."

10 JUDGE AGIUS: And what's your question?

11 MR. OSTOJIC: Whether or not this specific order that was

12 received purportedly, although it says 1st Zvornik infantry Brigade, so

13 when it was received by the 1st Zvornik Infantry Brigade, was it ever

14 modified, amended, or altered.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes, because after all you also have a

16 voice.

17 MR. HAYNES: Well, it's a document dated the 15th of April, 1995,

18 sent to intelligence and security organ heads. I can't see the relevance

19 of that. I can't see why he couldn't have been asked that the first time

20 'round. Mr. Ostojic had about four days with him.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's stick to the essentials.

22 What's your next question, Mr. Ostojic.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: It similarly relates to P107, which was a document

24 that was sent -- as we see who should be in charge of the detainees, and

25 it was changed in the Bratunac Brigade, and also we would use 7D382,

Page 32456

1 which in English shows on page -- I apologise, it's not paginated, but

2 under section 10, subsection B, certain changes with mark-outs of the

3 security organ, and then handwritten sections as to who should be

4 utilising those --

5 JUDGE AGIUS: And what do you want to prove? What do you seek to

6 prove with both questions?

7 MR. OSTOJIC: Specifically, to rebut Mr. Pandurevic's testimony

8 in connection with this command-and-control issue with respect to the

9 detainees.

10 And also, just to respond briefly to Mr. Haynes' comment, this

11 wasn't sent -- the first one which we're discussing, P196, was actually

12 sent to the Command of the 1st Zvornik Brigade, not to the sections that

13 Mr. Haynes references. It's on the face of the document.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: That should appear on the face of the document. I

15 was going to precisely say that. So why don't you tell us which other

16 questions you have in mind.

17 MR. OSTOJIC: In addition, in light of the fact that Mr. Haynes

18 and the witness -- or the witness is actually now shifting the failure to

19 include parts of his testimony on the 65 ter list, we would like to

20 revisit the 65 ter list with his interview on the 2nd of October, 2001,

21 which is 7D1154. And I would ask to inquire also with respect to whether

22 it was his attorney's omission, the issue of Ljubo Bojanovic as well,

23 because today on page 53, lines 15 through 19, he mentions him, and to

24 have -- to know from this witness whether it was counsel's decision not

25 to object to the admission of Mr. Bojanovic's statement, where it's

Page 32457

1 completely inconsistent with what this witness said, or was that

2 Mr. Pandurevic's decision.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Do you wish to comment on that,

4 Mr. Haynes?

5 MR. HAYNES: Asked and answered, I think.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think so.

7 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, since we have one accused so

9 pointedly accusing another accused of actually being in command, and I

10 don't recall that being part of the direct examination, that we have a

11 chief of security actually exercising now command, clearly over and over

12 again it's mentioned, I think five or ten minutes for Mr. Beara to get

13 into that, I wouldn't object to. I don't wish to get involved in it.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes.

15 MR. HAYNES: Well, I do. We have procedures here, and we've

16 adhered to them for two and a half years. All of this could have been

17 dealt with in cross-examination. Half an hour, he wants. He just wants

18 to have another bluff and bluster and make a few loud speeches, and the

19 witness is very, very tired.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Please refrain from passing certain comments which

21 don't do anyone any good.

22 MR. HAYNES: I will, but if you're talking about fairness,

23 there's a very, very tired man sitting here who's had enough now.

24 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm actually not tired.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 32458

1 JUDGE AGIUS: What other questions do you have? We are reserving

2 our decision on this command structure issue that you have referred to.

3 We want to hear what other questions you have.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, thank you.

5 The next issue I'd like to visit with the witness, with your

6 leave, is Exhibit 2D642, which is the exculpatory Croat intercept, where

7 today, on pages 15, lines 24 and 25, and then page 16, lines 1 through 9,

8 Mr. Pandurevic gave some testimony on that, and it's not clear, so I'd

9 like to clarify it. Given the plain text of the --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: What do you want to clarify?

11 MR. OSTOJIC: Specifically, when he testified on those pages, it

12 was implied that there was going to be a selection and then a transfer to

13 Batkovici, but if we look at the Croat intercept, specifically the word

14 "gdje" or "where," and the selection, it would first put them in

15 Batkovici and then a selection to be made.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. That's clear from the document, itself,

17 I think.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: I'll withdraw that one.

19 The next issue, if permitted, is the issue of Momir Nikolic's

20 plea. I would like to ask him concretely, on page 2 of this statement of

21 facts, at paragraph 6, where Mr. Nikolic includes the Drina Wolves of the

22 Zvornik Brigade, to hear his comments about that, because Mr. Nikolic

23 says they were involved in the -- some of the criminal activities, and he

24 was there at the time or close to it.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to comment on that, Mr. Haynes?

Page 32459

1 MR. HAYNES: No, I think we've established who had command of the

2 Drina Wolves when they're outside the zone of the Zvornik Brigade, and

3 I think it's a rather contradictory attitude to the Momir Nikolic plea

4 agreement.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Which is your next question?

6 MR. OSTOJIC: And further with sticking with Mr. Nikolic,

7 although Mr. Pandurevic claims that he only saw the statement of facts in

8 2005, upon his arrival to the UNDU, the plea was public for two years, or

9 possibly even more, two and a half years, I would like to ask him, since

10 he was following the proceedings, if he had learned from other sources,

11 not the statement itself, but from other sources, what was contained

12 within that statement.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: It can be the subject of a submission later on by

14 anyone who is interested in it.

15 Your next question would be what?

16 MR. OSTOJIC: My next area would be to learn from this witness

17 whether it was his decision or his Defence team not to challenge or

18 otherwise --

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Forget that. Move to the next one.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: If I could just put it on the record,

21 Mr. President, so I have --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, and I apologise. Or otherwise refuse to

24 cross-examine any witnesses such as Svetlana Gavrilovic, Mira Cekic, or

25 Milan Kerkez.

Page 32460

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Next question.

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Finally, I would like to -- although I find it

3 surprising they would use the Milos Tomanovic interview, we have three

4 documents in our initial submission with respect to our line of

5 questioning before the Court sustained an objection from my learned

6 friend of the Pandurevic Defence team, even though they challenged us to

7 put our case to him, and those two exhibits relate to a statement that I

8 personally received from the witness, and also what the Prosecution has

9 said from their investigator, specifically when they asked Mr. Tomovic

10 that they had information that Mr. Beara was in Belgrade in July of 1995.

11 If the Court remembers, I was limited in asking that question, but now --

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course I remember.

13 Do you wish to comment on that, Mr. Haynes?

14 MR. HAYNES: I don't understand what the question is or could be,

15 but --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Anyway, let's proceed with your next question.

17 MR. OSTOJIC: [Indiscernible] that I would like, although there's

18 more questions in each of those areas, just so the Court knows.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Of course, we could stay here even the entire

20 of next week. Let me consult with my colleagues, please, and we'll come

21 back to you shortly.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Mr. Ostojic, as briefly as possible, you are

24 allowed to put some questions to the witness on the matter of the command

25 structure. That's about it. We'd like you to restrict it to ten

Page 32461

1 minutes.

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Just so I'm clear, is that it, or is that about it?

3 Can I ask you to reconsider --

4 JUDGE AGIUS: No, that's it. When I say it, forgive my English,

5 it's not my native language.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: I apologise. Thank you, Mr. President, and

7 Your Honours.

8 Can we have P196, please, on e-court.

9 Further cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:

10 Q. Mr. Pandurevic, this is a Drina Corps command order, and although

11 your counsel says it's only to intelligence and security organs, can you

12 tell me, at the top portion of it, to whom this was sent to, in addition

13 to intelligence and security organ heads? Read it out loud, please.

14 A. You see, the Drina Corps units are enumerated here, and it says

15 specifically heads of the organs for intelligence. In order for everyone

16 to know which organ, they had to specify the units where these organs

17 are. Therefore, this document refers exclusively to security organs,

18 because in the title, we have security organ, and security organ cannot

19 send an order to me. This is just an instruction issued by the

20 Drina Corps or, rather, its security organ, instructing the security

21 organs of subordinate units how to conduct this business of arresting and

22 treating the prisoners of war and other prisoners.

23 Q. So you never received this, although it says on the top, first

24 line: "To Command of ...," and then the second one is the 1st Zvornik

25 Infantry Brigade; is that what your testimony is?

Page 32462

1 A. Yes. If he put, as an addressee, the chief of Security, it

2 wouldn't be clear to whom it was addressed. You see that this is sent by

3 the security organ of the Drina Corps, not by Zivanovic.

4 Q. So if it says: "To Command of 1st Zvornik Infantry Brigade,"

5 that's not you, even though it's the fourth month, the 15th day, and the

6 1995, the year; correct?

7 A. If it says only the Command of the 1st Bratunac, the 1st Zvornik,

8 et cetera, et cetera, without specifying to the chief of security and

9 intelligence, then this document would come directly to me. As the case

10 is, it went to the chief of security. If he deemed necessary, he would

11 have informed me about it, and maybe he did so.

12 Q. And then let's look at page 2 of this document in B/C/S -- in

13 English and in B/C/S. It's under the word "Instruction," and it's

14 identified as paragraph number 2 numerically. It says as follows, and

15 I think you've heard this already:

16 "All commands - from battalion level upwards, are to determined

17 places behind the front-line at which captured members of the enemy are

18 to be collected."

19 It obviously has more. You're welcome to read the rest. This

20 also refers to not you but someone else, correct, even though it plainly

21 says: "All commands - from battalion level upwards"?

22 A. I can agree with you in that respect, but it will then turn out

23 that the security organ of the Drina Corps is issuing orders to brigade

24 commanders from battalion upwards. These locations should have been

25 decided by the security organs of the battalions. If I accept that this

Page 32463

1 should be done from the battalion commands upwards, then it explicitly

2 states that the chief of security from of the Drina Corps is directly

3 issuing orders to me.

4 Q. Help me with this: Are you familiar with the second amended

5 consolidated indictment, which I'm sure you are, in this case wherein the

6 Prosecution from the outset has never charged Mr. Beara with any command

7 responsibility? You're aware of that, aren't you?

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes.

9 MR. HAYNES: What's that got to do with the price of fish,

10 really?

11 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, depending on how he answers, though, I'm sure

12 I know the answer, I would have a follow-up question on that, and then we

13 can --

14 MR. HAYNES: None of this arises from any of the re-examination.

15 This is all the same theme that was developed in cross-examination a week

16 or so ago.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

18 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's precisely the issue that I had in mind.

19 Because they made a big emphasis on commander, as Krstic was a combat

20 commander, and this was really the redirect, where they really have

21 rammed that home, and so I think five or ten minutes on that topic is not

22 unfair.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Proceed with your next question, because actually

25 whether he's aware of that or not is irrelevant at this stage.

Page 32464

1 MR. OSTOJIC:

2 Q. And isn't it true -- and isn't it true, Mr. Pandurevic, that you

3 knew that, and in light of that, you decided to create your defence to

4 shift the responsibility on Mr. Beara specifically as it relates to

5 command because you full well know he's not charged with any command

6 responsibility?

7 A. You see, I don't remember what is stated in the amended

8 indictment regarding the charges against Mr. Beara. He doesn't have

9 command responsibility, but he has personal responsibility.

10 You have to understand one thing, and I've already said that:

11 Mr. Beara didn't find himself where he did in those days because he was

12 the chief of Security Administration and he didn't have the right to

13 command. He was given a specific task, and he was appointed a person in

14 charge of command during that task. So all the people assigned to him

15 were under his command, and he commanded them temporarily.

16 For example, my assistant for morale, Ljubo Bojanovic, was a

17 temporary battalion commander. The chief of artillery -- anti-aircraft

18 units, Milenko Kajtaz, was temporarily commanding a battalion in Krajina.

19 And operations officer Petrovic was also temporarily commanding a

20 battalion. Therefore, each and every officer, regardless of his position

21 per establishment, can be appointed as a temporary commander over a

22 certain unit or to conduct the execution of a certain task, and that

23 includes a security organ. And he is not responsible, in terms of

24 command, because he is a commander, but because he commanded those men in

25 those days. And we saw from the document who issued these illegal

Page 32465

1 orders. He is responsible under 7(1) personally.

2 Q. Thank you for your legal opinion on that, although I respectfully

3 disagree. Did you see at any time one specific document or one witness

4 that said under oath here that Mr. Beara was given this specific task

5 from Mladic?

6 A. No, I didn't see any document --

7 Q. So --

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Let him finish the answer.

9 MR. OSTOJIC: Sorry, there was a pause, and I thought he was

10 done. I wasn't looking at him. Sorry.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Finish your answer, please, Mr. Pandurevic.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

13 Similarly, somebody organised the transportation of POWs and bus

14 convoys. They didn't organise themselves by themselves. And this wasn't

15 organised either by Blagojevic, as the brigade commander, nor the

16 Zvornik Brigade.

17 MR. OSTOJIC:

18 Q. Mr. Pandurevic, and we've heard that, and the Prosecution talked

19 about that in the Krstic and Blagojevic case. With respect to Mr. Beara

20 specifically, and Mr. Mladic, do you know where Mr. Mladic was on the

21 14th of July, 1995?

22 A. I don't know where he was. Even worse, if Ljubo Beara decided on

23 his own to do something like that without anyone's order, which I think

24 is highly unlikely.

25 Q. You don't have any evidence, you've heard from no witnesses,

Page 32466

1 you've reviewed no documents, that there was this purported order from

2 Mladic to Beara; that's correct, right?

3 A. I've seen and heard what appeared in this case here in the form

4 of witness statements, intercepts, duty operations officer work log of

5 the Zvornik Brigade, et cetera. This is what gives me a right to draw a

6 conclusion that this operation was commanded by your client.

7 Q. Now, you've also not seen --

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic, your last question --

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

10 MR. OSTOJIC:

11 Q. Mr. Pandurevic, you have not seen one piece of evidence, other

12 than to know that Mr. Mladic was in Belgrade, meeting with Milosevic, and

13 Ambassador Bildt, I think, on the 14th of July. We've seen the Croat

14 intercept. Why don't you, sir, as the commander you claim to be, admit

15 that this is a complete construct and this is only being presented by you

16 in order to give a defence? Be the gentleman we think you are.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: This could be an argument that you can bring later

18 on, if you want to discredit this witness. It's not a question that you

19 put to him now, knowing what the answer is going to be in any case.

20 Do you wish to answer this question, Mr. Pandurevic? Then go

21 ahead, answer.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.

23 If Mr. Mladic, on the 14th, was in Belgrade, you have an

24 abundance of evidence that Mr. Beara was in Bratunac on the 13th, and

25 Mladic was not in Belgrade on that day.