Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 37387

1 Tuesday, 15 March 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's deal first with the outstanding matter of

6 the exhibits. We will admit the videotape and the ten clips as one

7 exhibit.

8 THE REGISTRAR: That will be under D287. Under seal?

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And then we'll mark for identity, pending

10 translation of the pages referred to, tab 1, excluding pages 47 to 126.

11 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D28 -- D288, and marked for

12 identification, MFI.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Tab 2. Tab 2 is not admitted. We will admit the

14 two Prosecution statements, one from Investigator Sutch and Witness number

15 3.

16 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm grateful. I remember that there's an

17 outstanding Prosecution Exhibit issue. It's the CNN clip, played in the

18 cross-examination of Bakic, and I recall when I applied to have it

19 produced as an exhibit Ms. Higgins was on her feet, ready to argue the

20 point. She's not here today but no doubt Mr. Kay is ready to deal with

21 it.

22 The Chamber will recall that the clip had sound but at its playing

23 there was no sound heard. Under the usual pressures of time, I said I

24 didn't want it to be played again and for the audiovisual booth to connect

25 the sound because what was important was what was seen, and the witness

Page 37388

1 acknowledged that indeed part of the clip was one of the camps at Blace.

2 So on that grounds I ask the Chamber to admit it, but I haven't heard the

3 grounds of objection, if any.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't know if Mr. Kay is ready to deal with it.

5 MR. KAY: Ms. Higgins was going to take the objection but I am

6 aware of the issues. It was a tape that was produced where the witness

7 indeed only accepted that one of the clips was of Blace, so in our

8 submission that is a clip that would be material evidence and should be

9 admitted.

10 In relation to the other clips that weren't admitted, there was no

11 evidence of the date of those particular film shots, that they were indeed

12 of Blace, or any other details that spoke of their provenance - date, time

13 and place being the most important matters - so in our submission, they

14 didn't take the evidence in the trial any further.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic.

16 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: I didn't get that in translation.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English interpretation now?


20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness challenged everything

21 that was said on that recording, and if Mr. Nice wishes to exhibit this,

22 he has to do it through another witness.

23 Now that I've taken the floor, may I say that in relation to the

24 previous witness, tab number 1, that is to say the tapes, I wish to point

25 out at the very outset, as I did already, that the tapes are pretty long,

Page 37389

1 about 3 hours, and only by way of illustration I played a few clips, but I

2 am tendering the tapes in their entirety. I want them to be admitted into

3 evidence in their entirety, because they contain the interviews conducted

4 in extenso with Albanians, Egyptians, and Roma.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]


7 MR. NICE: On the last point, so far as I am aware, the tapes that

8 were provided covered pages 1 to whatever it is, 44, 127 to the end of tab

9 1, and I assume that those tapes are the subject of your order that they

10 be admitted, and we'd have no observation on that. If the accused is able

11 to show us that there are other tapes with broader interviews, then

12 clearly we would object to them because we've never had them and they

13 haven't been the subject of evidence. There is a tape that covers tab 2

14 and clearly that's excluded by the order that you've made.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: So you say it's only those parts that were --

16 MR. NICE: Yes. It's only pages 1 to 44 of tab 1, and 127 to the

17 end of tab 1, and that's it.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 MR. NICE: But, Your Honours, that is pretty well all we got. I

20 mean, we did review them over the weekend, and that's what we got, along

21 with tab 2.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we maintain the order that what

24 will be admitted or marked for identity is all those portions of the tape

25 which cover pages 1 to 44 and 127 to the end.

Page 37390

1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the number to the statements, two

2 statements; 837 for the statement given by Sutch and then 838 Witness 3,

3 yes.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think Mr. Milosevic wanted to say something,

5 Mr. Nice.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that it is inappropriate

7 to take these statements, to admit these statements over the telephone.

8 This is Witness number 3. We have the tapes. If Mr. Nice wishes to

9 challenge anything that Witness number 3 said on the tapes, he can call

10 the witness himself. Getting statements by telephone that we don't even

11 know what they are, and on the other hand not challenging what is on the

12 tapes, that is totally inappropriate. He can call the witness any time.

13 Call the witness and have him testify here.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: You're speaking so much like a common lawyer now,

15 Mr. Milosevic, but we do admit hearsay here.

16 MR. NICE: Your Honours, on the other argument that the accused

17 raised in relation to the Blace CNN tape, the Chamber will want to have in

18 mind that the witness, out of the blue, raised allegations that CNN, and

19 later the BBC, had really concocted evidence for its footage. That's what

20 led us to go and find a CNN tape so we could say to him here is a CNN tape

21 at the relevant time and it shows real events. And to some degree he

22 admitted it. If there's a problem of our not having heard the soundtrack,

23 we could, of course, listen to the soundtrack and see what it says about

24 the dating and location but my respectful submission would be that in

25 light of the way this issue was raised, not by us but by the witness, it

Page 37391

1 would be appropriate for the tape to go in as it is.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we'll need to examine the transcript to

4 remind ourselves of the evidence, and we'll give a decision later on that.

5 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm grateful. And in the meantime I'll

6 have the soundtrack listened to again in case that's something I want to

7 draw to your attention.


9 MR. NICE: Thank you.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Now, Mr. Milosevic, your next witness.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. I call

12 witness General Radomir Gojovic.

13 [The witness entered court]

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

16 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.


19 [Witness answered through interpreter]

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you may begin your examination.

21 Examined by Mr. Milosevic:

22 Q. [Interpretation] General Gojovic, where were you born and when?

23 A. I was born on the 1st of February, 1943 in the village of

24 Sekiraca, the municipality of Kursumlija, the Republic of Serbia.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to slow down.

Page 37392

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. What is your education?

3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that it is impossible to

4 follow the witness at this speed.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: General, I'm asking you to listen to me. The

6 interpreters can't follow you because you're speaking too quickly. Please

7 speak a little more slowly.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I repeat what I said?

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. More slowly.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After completing elementary school,

11 I completed the infantry school for non-commissioned officers in Sarajevo.

12 That is to say I completed high school in Sarajevo and university in

13 Sarajevo. I have a degree in law.

14 I got my Master's Degree at the University of Belgrade, the law

15 school of the University of Belgrade, the department for criminal law.

16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. General, tell us briefly, how did your career develop? What

18 positions have you held, and what ranks did you hold?

19 A. After completing school, I remained at the schooling centre in

20 Sarajevo, and I was there for five years. I was commander of the platoon

21 of cadets, but then I was transferred to another school, and I commanded a

22 platoon of 82 millimetre mortars for two and a half years, and then I was

23 commander of another platoon for recoilless guns. In the meantime, I got

24 my degree in law, and I started working in the legal department. I

25 started working for the military court in Sarajevo. After completing my

Page 37393

1 internship and after passing the bar examination, I was deputy military

2 prosecutor in Sarajevo for four years. Then I was an investigating judge

3 in the military court in Sarajevo for four years. That was the regular

4 term in those days. Then for five years I was deputy attorney-at-law in

5 Sarajevo and at the same time secretary of the disciplinary court of the

6 command of the 7th Army.

7 After that, I returned to the court again, and I was president of

8 the Chamber for four years, and then I was deputy president of the court

9 for four years, and then I was deputy military prosecutor and military

10 prosecutor in Sarajevo, respectively, until June 1992.

11 Then I was transferred to Belgrade, and I was deputy supreme

12 military prosecutor for about two and a half years, and then president to

13 the military court in Belgrade for five years from January 1994 until the

14 16th of June, 1999, when I was appointed chief of the legal department of

15 the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia, and then chief of the legal

16 department of the Ministry of Defence until the 31st of March, 2001, when

17 I retired after 40 years of active service.

18 I held all the regular ranks, that is to say starting from

19 private, private first class, and so on and so forth. When I got my

20 degree in law, I became a lieutenant, and I got my commission. Then I had

21 regular promotions. However, I had to pass an exam in order to become a

22 major. I had to take all the necessary military subjects, and I

23 successfully passed that examination. I got all my other ranks without

24 passing any examinations because that was not a requirement.

25 Q. Just to spell something out very precisely, General: After you

Page 37394












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 37395

1 got your degree in law, as an active military officer, you were

2 transferred to the legal department of the JNA at the time.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. When did you start working in the legal department? That is to

5 say from the troops you were sent to the legal department. When was that?

6 A. The 13th of October, 1971.

7 Q. So from the 13th of October, 1971, until 2001 you have -- you

8 worked without any interruption in the legal department, and you held

9 legal offices within the military?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Thank you, General. Just a brief question which does not have to

12 do with your very own activity, but what was the ethnic make-up of the

13 JNA?

14 A. As far as the soldiers are concerned, it was proportionate to the

15 ethnic make-up of the able-bodied men who came to do their military

16 service. As far as the officers are concerned, again it depended on the

17 number of personnel who opted for military service, because this was a

18 voluntary thing. People applied. However, at the highest level of

19 command, there was almost parity, and this was not proportionate to the

20 actual number of population of the different ethnic groups.

21 Specifically, in the legal department, there was practically

22 proportionality. I'm talking about the Sarajevo court and the

23 prosecutor's office as far as the legal department is concerned. However,

24 as far as the other regular units are concerned, the situation was the way

25 I described it.

Page 37396

1 Q. Very well, General. We do not have any detailed information about

2 the ethnic composition of the officers of the JNA, but we do have a

3 review, a survey, in tab 1. I am sorry. I seem to have a problem here

4 with the binder in tab 1.

5 See please take a look at tab 1. You can put on the ELMO. My

6 photocopy is not very good. If you have a copy of your own that is more

7 legible, I would appreciate it if --

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With the permission of the Chamber,

9 I can take out my own copy. I have a good one.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you may use your own copy.

11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. I emphasised here -- I must say we don't have data here covering a

13 large -- a long period, but this is a review of the national structure of

14 the JNA, and staff attrition, staff drain during 1992. That is the year

15 when Slovenia, Croatia, followed by Bosnia and Herzegovina, seceded.

16 Would you please put that on the ELMO.

17 A. I will have to look at my own copy.

18 Q. Here it is. The English copy is quite clear. No need to put on

19 the ELMO the other one.

20 A. This is a review of the national structure of the JNA from end

21 1992. By that time, a part of the staff had already left, but under

22 number 1 we see Montenegrins - we're speaking now about officers - 5.46

23 per cent; Croats 7.41 per cent or 2.678; Macedonians 2.915 or 8.07 per

24 cent; Muslims 2.079 or 5.75 per cent; Slovenians 396, that is 1.10 per

25 cent; Serbs 21.338, that is 59.04 per cent; Albanians 472, that is 1.31

Page 37397

1 per cent; Yugoslavs 3.386 or 9.37 per cent; and others, that is other

2 national minorities, 902, that is 2.50 per cent.

3 Q. Sorry to interrupt you, General. We are talking here exclusively

4 about commissioned personnel. We're not talking about conscripts or

5 non-commissioned personnel; exclusively officers.

6 A. That is correct.

7 Q. So this is dated 31st December, 1992, by which time --

8 A. Yes. The greatest part of Slovenes and Croats had already left,

9 whereas personnel of other ethnicities still remained.

10 Q. And now we have data for 1992.

11 A. Yes. Montenegrins 295, that is 2.46 per cent; Croats 1.517, that

12 is 12.64 per cent; Macedonians 2.190, that is 18.25 per cent; Muslims

13 1.363, that is 11.36 per cent; Slovenes 211, that is 1.76 per cent; Serbs

14 4.771, that is 39.75 per cent; Albanians 319, that is 2.66; Yugoslavs

15 1.116, that is 9.30 per cent; others 220, that is 1.83 per cent. And in

16 the last column we see the numbers remaining at the end of the year.

17 Q. So we can see the structure, the composition.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should like to tender this tab 1

19 into evidence.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, admitted.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Can I give one number to the whole binder?

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, give a number for the binder.

23 THE REGISTRAR: It will be D289.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. General, you spent your entire career in the army. I would like

Page 37398

1 to ask you if it was important who belonged to which ethnicity in the

2 functioning of the JNA.

3 A. It really didn't matter at all, except that in political terms

4 care was taken that the ethnic structure of the country was represented in

5 the composition of the personnel. What mattered was the quality of work

6 and performance.

7 Q. Is it fair to say that in terms of composition and tasks the JNA

8 was a truly Yugoslav institution?

9 A. The very name of the Yugoslav People's Army speaks to the fact

10 that it was really Yugoslav People's Army, and that's how it was created

11 during the national liberation war. It was on those bases that it grew

12 and continued to develop until the former Yugoslavia broke up.

13 Q. We are coming to the increased tensions in the former SFRY and the

14 aggravation of the crisis. Would you tell me how those forces in

15 Slovenia, then Croatia, followed by some other parts of the former

16 Yugoslavia, worked towards secession and how they viewed the JNA. What

17 was their attitude towards it?

18 A. With the arrival the separatist forces on the political scene, the

19 first thing that happened was that a groundlessly negative campaign of

20 slander began against the JNA. They began saying that the army was

21 superfluous, that it was an unnecessary expenditure from the budget and

22 that it was not in the interests of all the republics. This was followed

23 by various incidents in public places, provocations against soldiers

24 serving their duty outside their home republics. This happened at

25 football matches, in coffee bars. Officers became targets later as well.

Page 37399

1 And among other measures to counter this, the order was issued to go to

2 work in mufti instead of uniform. That is a measure that was accepted by

3 our personnel with great difficulty, but it was something intended to help

4 them save -- to help save them from provocations.

5 The second measure was that --

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, General.

7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Where were you when the Yugoslav crisis that you just began

9 describing began? Where were you when the first problems occurred in the

10 functioning of the Yugoslav army as the common army of all the republics?

11 A. I was the military prosecutor in Sarajevo, so I was very well --

12 very familiar with all these problems, because all the criminal and other

13 reports arrived at my desk regarding attacks against JNA personnel.

14 Q. And where were you just before the war broke out in Bosnia and

15 Herzegovina?

16 A. In the barracks of Viktor Bubanj.

17 Q. Could you tell us very briefly something about your experience

18 from the time you spent in the Viktor Bubanj barracks. I'm speaking only

19 of the time when incidents began until the time you left Sarajevo. Give

20 us first the time frame, if you can tell us the dates, and then describe

21 your experience. But before that, tell us one thing: This Viktor Bubanj

22 barracks, was it the headquarters of the military justice organs?

23 A. Yes. That was the seat of the military court and the military

24 prosecutor's office. That was also the place where the detention units,

25 the office for the development of military maps, and there was a section

Page 37400

1 of military police which partly catered to the military justice organs and

2 partly to staff, to the staff.

3 Q. In any case, it was the seat of non-combat units, with the

4 exception of this military police unit that served as security for the

5 military court and military prosecutor's office, the map development unit,

6 et cetera.

7 A. As for attacks against the barracks, I would like to give you one

8 illustration. The first conflict began much earlier, in a place called

9 Listica, near Mostar. A freight vehicle was hauling a broken tank. It

10 was escorted by a team of military police from Mostar, and when they

11 arrived at a place between two rocks, the road was blocked by stones. The

12 driver got out of the vehicle, fire was opened at him, and he was killed.

13 Behind him a lance corporal who accompanied him opened fire in the

14 direction of the attackers, and after that, Ludvig Pavlovic, Ludvig

15 Pavlovic's body was found. It was a man who served ten years in prison as

16 member of a group that -- a terrorist group that infiltrated Yugoslavia at

17 that time. He was not executed, although he was given the death sentence,

18 because he was below 21 years of age. He had served his sentence and was

19 released a year before this incident.

20 So the first incident involving a killing happened at that time.

21 The perpetrator was Ludvig Pavlovic, a man who, after serving ten years in

22 prison, immediately joined those forces.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are these incidents --

24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 19 years in prison.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are these incidents of attacks on the barracks

Page 37401

1 the subject of any allegation in the indictment?

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As you well know --

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is this evidence responding to an allegation in

4 the indictment? If it is not, we don't want to hear anything more about

5 it. Move on to something that is relevant to the charges in the

6 indictment.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, the very substance of

8 what is written in what you call the indictment to the effect that there

9 were some joint criminal enterprise in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina

10 aimed at expelling the Muslims begs the question what kind of joint

11 criminal enterprise it could be. If it was the other side whose conduct

12 provoked this rather than the side which is indicted, if we're talking

13 about a plan, who would have been able in Yugoslavia, in Serbia, or the

14 JNA to plan attacks against the JNA? What the general is telling us came

15 as a great surprise for him, for other officers, and for the Yugoslav

16 public in general.

17 In peacetime, for a peaceful freight transport of the JNA to be

18 attacked, for soldiers to be killed -- and this is relevant, because this

19 is how it all started.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: So this is sort of background evidence. You're

21 leading up to something which is definitely related and specifically

22 related to allegations in the indictment.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Because I want to be quite clear that

25 we're not going to accept evidence which is not related to the indictment.

Page 37402












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 37403

1 I'm not going to accept evidence for evidence's sake. It must be related

2 to allegations in the indictment. If the barracks were attacked and the

3 Serbs responded and out of that response Serbs were killed or Muslims were

4 killed and that is an allegation in the indictment, then that is obviously

5 relevant. But if not, you will have to struggle, as you're now doing, to

6 establish relevance. But I will allow this. Move on.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. General, for how long were you under siege in the barracks of

10 Viktor Bubanj?

11 A. We were under siege, a complete siege, for about a month and a

12 half. Just before that, we were under surveillance, under observations by

13 people who watched who was coming in and out of the barracks. And after

14 that, our electricity and water supply were cut off, and we were

15 completely isolated.

16 Q. General, tell us kindly, whether the army - and when I say "the

17 army," I mean the army in the broadest sense; your institution including

18 your court, the military unit guarding you apart - the army in general in

19 Sarajevo, did it do anything that could possibly serve as a provocation

20 for this incident?

21 A. The Yugoslav army at the time did not do anything that could be

22 remotely provocative to the other side. On the contrary, it acted with

23 utmost restraint at the cost even of great losses to itself so as to be

24 safe from any allegations of provocation.

25 Q. Was the Viktor Bubanj barracks shot at? Was there any shooting

Page 37404

1 around the barracks while you were there?

2 A. Yes. I was there around in May 1992. At the beginning, as I

3 said, there was surveillance and blocking of the entrance. Freight trucks

4 and buses were used to make a roadblock in front of the barracks, and

5 provocations started. I will describe it.

6 As soon as dusk would come, they fired flares and started shooting

7 at a nearby settlement. The barracks is on a hill, and there are houses

8 overlooking the barracks. So the -- these forces surrounding us kept

9 using these tracer ammunition.

10 I kept asking my subordinates, What's going on? Why are they

11 doing this? Until I heard a report on the radio, a journalist saying that

12 he was near the waterworks watching and reporting that the Viktor Bubanj

13 barracks is shooting at the settlement nearby with barrage fire. So they

14 kept shooting with this tracer ammunition, and anyone watching could

15 mistakenly be under the impression that there is shooting from the

16 barracks.

17 In addition, they also opened fire at Hrasno, which is also a

18 nearby populated centre, and it has a school for handicapped children.

19 They also shot at this school from the mortar. And the reporter kept

20 reporting, "Now they are shooting from the mortar at the school for

21 handicapped children."

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: I must tell you that I want short answers and,

23 Mr. Milosevic, you must pose specific questions, and short answers. That

24 way the evidence is better appreciated and understood.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson, on

Page 37405

1 several occasions exhibits were shown which were the map -- a map of

2 Sarajevo. So I think that it will be permissible for us to place the map

3 of Sarajevo on the overhead projector for the general to show us all this,

4 because this is very important. The Viktor Bubanj barracks had no combat

5 units. He's already explained that. And from Mojmilo hill or from

6 underneath Mojmilo hill on one side of the barracks Muslim paramilitaries

7 shot civilian targets across the barracks and broadcast over the radio

8 that it was the army who was firing at civilian targets from the Viktor

9 Bubanj barracks. That's what he told us. And I think it would be a good

10 idea if he were to indicate this on the map. The map of Sarajevo has been

11 an exhibit in this case. I don't think I need tender it especially here.

12 I just want the general to use it and to show us what happened where.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, show it. But bear in mind that I asked you

14 whether the attack on these barracks was the subject of any allegation in

15 the indictment, and you were not able to point to any particular section

16 of the indictment. You gave a very general answer. This is not advancing

17 your case.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, a lot is said in the

19 indictment about Serb forces, as they're called, and you for the JNA said

20 the Serbs for a moment ago, although you can see that the JNA, and you had

21 an exhibit to show this out, was composed of different ethnic groups. It

22 says that the Serb forces allegedly committed crimes against the civilian

23 population. There's a great deal of that in the indictment. So that's

24 not something that is in dispute, the fact that this is contained in the

25 indictment.

Page 37406

1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Can you show us General, now, please?

3 A. Well, this isn't a very good copy. I can't really see what's on

4 this map. I haven't brought my strong reading glasses.

5 Yes. This is the Viktor Bubanj barracks here.

6 Q. General, you have to point on the overhead projector, not on the

7 screen.

8 A. This is the Viktor Bubanj barracks. That's it here. And then

9 this empty space. Then there's the settlement called Otoka here, which is

10 full of high-rise buildings, more than 20 floors, and they overlook the

11 barracks. This is Mojmilo hills, as some people call it, or the Mojmilo

12 range. And here it says Novi Grad. That's where the waterworks is, the

13 water supply for the city. The water flows down naturally, down the

14 slopes of the hill. And the shooting across the barracks came from this

15 area here, across the buildings towards this settlement here. And the

16 mortars --

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you, General.

18 Mr. Nice, is the attack on the Viktor Bubanj barracks mentioned

19 anywhere in the indictment?

20 MR. NICE: To my recollection, no, it doesn't feature.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: I will not hear any more evidence on this

22 specific incident. Move on to another topic.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that putting things in

24 formal terms like this, Mr. Robinson, is highly improper, because if we

25 look at counts 4 to 7, page 14 of the B/C/S version of the indictment, and

Page 37407

1 I'll find it in English as well in other counts, that's no problem --

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the page?

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The B/C/S translation is page 14. I

4 have the indictment in Serbian, and it refers to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and

5 it says: From the 1st of March or around about that date 1992 to 31st of

6 December, 1995, Slobodan Milosevic, acting alone or in concert with others

7 in a joint criminal enterprise planned, aided and abetted, ordered,

8 perpetrated or in other ways supported and aided and abetted the planning

9 or execution of the annihilation, killing and deprivation of life of

10 principally Bosnian Muslims, et cetera, et cetera. And then it goes on to

11 enumerate and list Sarajevo among the towns mentioned.

12 You have 1 million and 1 nonsensical things in this indictment and

13 now you tell me that something isn't relevant. And we're talking about

14 the testimony of General Gojovic here who was present in the Viktor Bubanj

15 barracks, who was watching the Muslim forces targeting their own civilian

16 targets and facilities and accusing me and the army of doing what you are

17 accusing me here of.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: I have already ruled that I will not hear any

19 more evidence. You have not satisfied me as to the relevance of this.

20 The paragraph that you've referred to does not substantiate the relevance.

21 Move on to another topic.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Robinson. Then --

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me make it clear, Mr. Milosevic: Evidence of

24 Serb suffering, it may be relevant. It may be relevant if, as I indicated

25 before, if the barracks were attacked and the Serbs responded to the

Page 37408

1 attack and in that response Serbs were killed, then, yes, if that is an

2 allegation in the indictment, because that would be your answer to it.

3 But merely to bring evidence of violence against Serbs when it is not

4 included in the indictment does not satisfy the requirements of relevance.

5 If there is a paragraph in the indictment relating to this, then

6 you should show it to me, but you have not. Mr. Nice said there wasn't.

7 But I'm still trying to find if there is a paragraph. If there is a

8 paragraph, then we can look at it, because it is a very big indictment.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just let's get one thing clear:

10 Mr. Robinson, I am not moving to prove the Serb suffering here. General

11 Gojovic, in this specific case and in the answer to my question, is

12 testifying how the Muslim forces shot at civilian parts of Sarajevo,

13 targeted civilian parts of Sarajevo, and those crimes were ascribed to the

14 JNA. So we're not talking about the suffering of the Serbs. We're

15 talking about the overall civilian population which was targeted by the

16 Muslims and then this ascribed to the barracks he was in. So it would

17 appear that the military court or military attorney's office,

18 prosecution's office shot at the surrounding buildings. This was

19 anti-Serb propaganda or, rather, anti-Yugoslav propaganda at that time and

20 anti-JNA propaganda, whereas it was a crime to which he is testifying.

21 And we're not talking about the Serbs here, we're talking about the

22 suffering of the civilian population, and he is saying that it was the

23 Muslim forces shooting the high-rise buildings.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: You should have explained that earlier. You

25 should have explained that earlier. Your contention, then, is that what

Page 37409

1 is ascribed in the indictment to the Serbs is properly attributable to the

2 Muslims. That's a different matter.

3 What section is that? What section of the indictment? Same, 37?

4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, if you can help us. The only remaining

5 charge in relation to Sarajevo is Markale shelling?

6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, Mr. Milosevic is directing attention to

8 page 13 of the Bosnia indictment, counts 47, extermination, murder and

9 wilful killing, and at two parts of that there is reference to Sarajevo,

10 and then particular parts in brackets. And the case that he is making, as

11 I understand it, or suggesting he might make, is that the attacks were

12 attributed to the JNA when they were carried out by others, and that's a

13 defence, if made out. But as I understand the witness so far, all he's

14 talking about is flares and some sort of tracer bullets. He's not, as I

15 recollect it, so far given any evidence of an actual attack on the Muslims

16 carried out by anyone. It was a sort of attempt to set up the JNA and the

17 press, and then the press reported it as if the JNA were carrying out an

18 attack. But what was being used was, I think, flares and tracer bullets

19 rather than an actual attack.

20 MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. May I, hearing this exchange through

21 the Court, invite the accused and those who are assisting him -- and I

22 know he avoids an interest in procedural matters, but can I invite him to

23 attend to the fact that for his assistance, for the assistance of his

24 associates, at the end of the Prosecution case we provided a document in

25 electronic format that summarises paragraph by paragraph for each

Page 37410












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 37411

1 indictment, including background paragraphs for two of the indictments,

2 the evidence that the Prosecution has relied on. And this material is

3 searchable. It's searchable electronically. So if he wants to assert

4 that something about Viktor Bubanj barracks is relevant, he has an easy

5 way, or his associates have an easy way to get at what if anything has

6 been said about that. At the moment I'm engaged in the search myself

7 through LiveNote.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you saying that the Prosecution might not

9 have relied on this?

10 MR. NICE: I'm just seeing to what extent these barracks were ever

11 referred to. He must -- it's up to him what he does, but he and his

12 professional associates before taking time with the sort of things that

13 he's discussing this morning, have been provided by us and by the court

14 systems which are all electronically searchable with a range of tools to

15 enable him to focus his evidence.

16 Now, of course, because we don't get long, detailed witness

17 statements, we can't in advance say irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant

18 because we don't know what's coming until the witness opens his mouth

19 usually. But I would encourage the accused and his team -- I notice he's

20 studiously not interested in what I'm saying -- to focus their attention.

21 Sometimes it's a bit like knocking your head against a brick wall, but I'm

22 doing my best to help him.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, in future when you bring witnesses

25 who are going to testify to facts, I'm going to ask you before they

Page 37412

1 testify to point me to the count or paragraph in the indictment to which

2 the evidence relates. With a lot of help from everybody, we have

3 identified in paragraph 36 the reference to Sarajevo, Novi Grad, and in

4 light of the case that you are putting forward that what was attributable

5 to -- what was attributed in the indictment to the JNA is properly

6 attributable to the Muslims, we'll allow the examination to continue,

7 although I don't know how much more you have to extract from the witness

8 on this point.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone for the accused.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My microphone is switched on.

11 Mr. Robinson, the main purpose of bringing in this witness is

12 Kosovo. However, the witness did do duty in Sarajevo, so I can't call the

13 witness back twice. He was present there.

14 And I think what Mr. Nice is trying to say is a vulgarisation

15 which goes against the intelligence of each individual. It's not a

16 question of whether it says Viktor Bubanj barracks anywhere. General

17 Gojovic could have been at any other place. So Mr. Gojovic is not

18 testifying about the Viktor Bubanj barracks. He could have been in some

19 other place. What he's doing is that he's testifying to having been an

20 eyewitness to the shooting from Mojmilo hill at civilian targets on the

21 other side, and at the same time he was listening over the radio to

22 broadcasting which was saying that where his court was stationed, that is

23 to say the Viktor Bubanj barracks, that it was the Serbs or the JNA that

24 was doing the shooting. So this is not --

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: I've stopped you, Mr. Milosevic. I've already

Page 37413

1 explained the circumstances in which you will be allowed to continue this

2 examination-in-chief.

3 I'm looking at the 65 ter summary, which we have allowed. We have

4 allowed the 65 ter summary. It's very brief. There's no reference in it

5 to Sarajevo. And I will insist in the future that when you bring

6 witnesses as to fact, that you tell us what count or paragraph of the

7 indictment the witness's evidence relates to. So continue.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson --

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't want any more answer. We've been through

10 this enough. Continue. If you don't wish to continue, we can stop. We

11 can stop the examination-in-chief.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I do not want to give

13 you an answer, any more answers. I'm seeking an explanation. So please

14 be kind enough, in view of your profession and professionality, to provide

15 me with an explanation. And here is what my question is: It says here in

16 point 5, page 2, and you can find that in the other indictments --

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Point 5 of what?

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of the Bosnian indictment. Take a

19 look at what it says. If the word "perpetrator" -- when the word

20 "perpetrator" is used in the indictment, the Prosecutor does not wish to

21 suggest that the perpetrator committed any of the crimes personally. So

22 perpetrator in this indictment relates to taking part in a joint criminal

23 enterprise in the -- together with the perpetrators or co-perpetrators.

24 And then paragraph 6 says: "Slobodan Milosevic participated in

25 the joint criminal enterprise as set out below. The purpose of this joint

Page 37414

1 criminal enterprise was the forcible and permanent removal of the majority

2 of non-Serbs, principally Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from large

3 areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina," et cetera, et cetera.

4 And then it goes on to say that some sort of joint criminal enterprise had

5 been planned.

6 So please explain to me, as in general terms I am being accused

7 and Serbia is being accused and the JNA is being accused of everything

8 that took place on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, whether that in

9 itself, then, is grounds for you to say find the exact point where, let's

10 take as a metaphor, the Viktor Bubanj barracks is mentioned, or anything

11 else. You don't have a specific crime that I have been accused of except

12 taking part in this joint criminal enterprise which hasn't been supported

13 by any proof or evidence as yet and which cannot be supported by proof or

14 evidence because it is quite clear that nobody could have planned that

15 Croatia's secession and Slovenia's secession would ever have taken place.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: I am going to stop you now because this is going

17 on too long. We have already found in relation to the Viktor Bubanj

18 barracks a count in a paragraph in the indictment to which it might

19 relate. I have said that in those circumstances, in light of the case

20 that you are putting, I will allow you to proceed with the evidence. So

21 let us proceed.

22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. General Gojovic, do you know anything about sniper attacks in

24 Sarajevo? Or let me be even more precise: Were you personally targeted

25 by sniper shooters?

Page 37415

1 A. Yes, I was a target of sniper shooters when the attack against the

2 Viktor Bubanj barracks started. This was Sunday morning, 5.00 a.m.,

3 mid-May 1992. The barracks were attacked from all sides because this is a

4 built-up area. They chose that particular moment, the morning, because

5 usually people go to the toilet after they get up in the morning. So as

6 soon as I walked into the toilet from the other side, a sniper shooter

7 targeted me. Fortunately, the window had a metal frame about two fingers

8 wide, and the bullet hit the metal frame and that saved me. Otherwise, I

9 would have been hit in the forehead. Only a sniper could have targeted

10 that by using optical sights.

11 I worked there as a prosecutor, and my office was attacked by a

12 hand-held rocket launcher, the Armbrust, German manufactured. As far as I

13 can remember, the shell did not explode, so I was lucky. That was when I

14 started believing that there was something called good luck, because the

15 barracks were attacked three times.

16 The first attack was the fiercest one at three levels; sniper

17 fire, machine-gun fire, and hand-held rocket launchers. The second attack

18 was the office of the commander of that unit. This was a captain, and the

19 Armbrust hit that office. His colleague called me before that on the

20 telephone -- or, rather, called him, hoping that he would in his office

21 and wanted to speak to him on the telephone. However, he had moved out

22 of that office. He felt that something might be wrong. He sought shelter

23 in another office. And at that moment when he was talking on the

24 telephone from the other side, because they were asking him to surrender,

25 his entire office was destroyed. There was a terrible explosion and all

Page 37416

1 the walls crumbled, and I saw that this shell was indeed very powerful.

2 That's what I saw then.

3 Q. General, except for the attack on Viktor Bubanj, which was not a

4 combat area, do you remember the attack against the Yugoslav People's Army

5 centre? In order to be very clear, to make things perfectly clear to

6 everyone here, this is practically an officers' club. This is a cultural

7 club of the JNA.

8 A. Yes. That is what happened. I apologise to the Trial Chamber,

9 but I think one has to look at the entirety of what happened in Sarajevo.

10 Please don't hold this against me, I don't want to lecture you in any way.

11 Sarajevo was the centre and the source of the conflict and also that was

12 the final stage of the conflict. The entire state leadership was there

13 and everything happened right there. That is why this is so important.

14 And it is the month of May that is of critical importance; the 1st, 2nd,

15 and 3rd of May as far as JNA units are concerned.

16 First of all, on the 1st of May, a vehicle was attacked that -- a

17 catering vehicle transporting food. This is in Dobrovoljacka Street,

18 practically where the previous event had happened where the driver, a

19 soldier, was killed. And Boran Belic [phoen], a lawyer who was an officer

20 then too, he was my intern at the prosecutor's office and he was the

21 assistant duty officer, and he went to transport this food for lunch. The

22 soldier managed to drive for about 200 metres, and then he died.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm also thankful for the window which saved your

24 life so that you're able to give evidence here today, but concentrate your

25 answers and try to make them as brief as possible.

Page 37417

1 Mr. Milosevic.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry I did not give an answer

3 concerning the JNA club, the officers' club. I said that these were the

4 three critical days. So the following day, the 2nd of May, that's when

5 the JNA centre club was attacked. This is in the centre of town, this is

6 a cultural institution, and I don't know why they attacked it. Major

7 Bogojev, an ethnic Macedonian, was the commander there. He was head of

8 that club, and he had a few soldiers there, and also there were some

9 members of his staff who were civilians. The director of the club was

10 wounded very seriously. He survived but he was very seriously wounded. A

11 few soldiers were wounded too, and they needed medical assistance. And an

12 APC went there or, rather, armoured vehicle went there to pick them up.

13 They didn't send an ambulance but an ACV so that no one could attack them.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm struggling to find the

15 evidence of this particular piece of evidence. You must direct the

16 witness to evidence that is relevant. You will not be allowed to roam at

17 large.

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. General Gojovic --

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I'm thinking of all

21 the witnesses who testified here about some kind of Serbian misdeeds in

22 Sarajevo, which was all supposed to support what Mr. Nice has asserted.

23 So it's not only what is written here but also in what we have to look at

24 is what his witnesses said too.

25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Page 37418












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 37419

1 Q. General Gojovic, do you know something about sniper fire in

2 Sarajevo at the time when you were there?

3 A. I know about sniper fire. Sniper fire came from town, and they

4 were targeting civilians. I had information to that effect. And these

5 sniper shooters were primarily targeting civilians. When a group of

6 people in uniform would pass by, nobody would target them, only the

7 civilians. So if we are talking about true adversaries, then it would be

8 the enemy side that would be attacked. At first it was Serbs who were

9 killed the most, and we were wondering how come. Serbian women wear black

10 as a sign of morning. Muslim women do not wear black clothing when they

11 are in mourning. Then also they could distinguish between the head dress

12 the different people wore; Muslim, Serb, et cetera. So all of this was

13 done by way of provocation, to say it was the Serb snipers who were

14 shooting. This is information I received from people who were actually

15 eyewitnesses. So that is what I wish to say on account of that, and this

16 is general knowledge.

17 Q. Tell us, General, at the time you were the military prosecutor,

18 weren't you?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Did you start any proceedings at the time in relation to the

21 events that you just told us about?

22 A. Yes. Proceedings were initiated in terms of what happened in

23 Dobrovoljacka Street when the command of the 7th army was moving from one

24 building to another under the protection of the UN Protection Forces

25 commanded by General MacKenzie, a Canadian general at the time, and an

Page 37420

1 entire crew was killed by high voltage electricity. This was on the 2nd

2 of May. Eight soldiers altogether.

3 And on the 3rd of May what happened happened in Dobrovoljacka

4 Street: Five officers, four colonels, one lieutenant colonel who was in

5 the medical corps, and also a civilian who was a member of the military,

6 and also three other officers were wounded, a general and several

7 soldiers.

8 Proceedings were initiated at the time against Ejub Ganic, because

9 at that time he was standing in for Alija Izetbegovic. Alija Izetbegovic

10 was not in the country at the time. So he was the one who was in charge

11 of this entire operation.

12 Then Avdo Hebib, who was assistant minister of the interior; Jusuf

13 Pusina, who was one of the top people in the ministry; Dragan Vikic, who

14 was commander of the special units of the MUP; and there was Jusuf

15 Prazina, who is a well-known criminal who had a big paramilitary unit of

16 his own; and there are one or two other people, I think, who were indicted

17 on the occasion.

18 The prosecutor then issued the indictment, and all these documents

19 have been provided to the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal

20 however no action was taken in this respect. So I wish to point that out.

21 Anyway, an agreement was reached that the command of the entire

22 army would be moved out under UN protection. In front was a white UN

23 vehicle with a white flag --

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: General, what were these people charged with?

25 You mentioned, I think four persons.

Page 37421

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Which people?

2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Ejub Ganic, Hebib --

4 A. Oh, yes, yes. The organisation and commission of an attack of --

5 against the column of -- that was moving from one building to the other.

6 Eight persons were killed. Three soldiers were -- three colonels were

7 wounded, three officers, I can even give their names, and several soldiers

8 as well.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: The attacks on civilians, were they charged with

10 attacks on civilians, or that was a different incident?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean Ejub Ganic.


13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This specifically had to do with the

14 attack against this column where these people were killed.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. General --

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, just a second. Just a minute.

18 What was the outcome of these prosecutions?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The investigation was completed, but

20 these people were not accessible to our authorities. The JNA withdrew

21 after that. The case was moved to Belgrade. There was an arrest warrant.

22 These people were not brought to justice, but all the documentation has

23 been provided to the OTP here, because this column was not a combat

24 column. They did not have combat security. They were not moving in

25 combat deployment. They were under protection of the United Nations.

Page 37422

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, I don't know whether you're in a

3 position to assist us. We have been discussing among ourselves the

4 question of the relevance of this particular evidence. On each occasion

5 that I have asked Mr. Milosevic about relevance, he has a stock answer

6 that he's charged with a joint criminal enterprise, as though that lets in

7 every conceivable piece of evidence that is at his disposal, and that

8 can't be the case.

9 I have allowed him to continue this examination on the relatively

10 narrow basis that he's saying that what has been attributed to him or

11 attributed to the JNA in the indictment in relation to Sarajevo is

12 properly attributable to Muslims, Muslim fire. The evidence is not going

13 in that direction.

14 MR. KAY: It's perhaps a matter of presentation. I was

15 considering the indictment as matters were developing and looking at count

16 3 and paragraph 33 and what is set out there, and paragraph 34.

17 The Court will notice that Sarajevo is cited in paragraph 33, and

18 the allegation in paragraph 34 is that by the use of force, attacking and

19 taking over control of towns and villages in the territories of Bosnia and

20 that this was done as a way of creating conditions for persecution.

21 Sarajevo itself is defined in Schedule A of the indictment as a

22 specific place for killings was in fact excluded under the Rule 98 ruling

23 of the Court, but the generality of the issues concerning Sarajevo have

24 remained within the indictment. And if the witness is describing

25 conditions of living within Sarajevo from his own experience that could be

Page 37423

1 held to have been the responsibility of the Muslim forces rather than the

2 forces said to be under the control of the Serbian authorities, then there

3 is an issue being put forward before the Court that is a valid defence to

4 that matter. How long and how extensive it should be is another matter.

5 But one can see from the indictment there, at paragraphs 33 and 34, that

6 there may be issues from this evidence that could be considered from that

7 perspective.

8 There are wide allegations within these indictments, and that can

9 be one of the problems in -- in having to deal with so many issues. You

10 get to the outer edges of evidence and matters arise and evidence comes

11 before the Trial Chamber as a result of what is contained within the

12 indictment.

13 If that is the intent and purpose of the use of the witness in

14 relation to this aspect of his testimony, there may be grounds for it. In

15 many respects, if one looks at his exhibits, he has much more specific

16 evidence relating to his role within the military prosecution system,

17 which perhaps are of greater importance than his personal experiences on

18 this issue.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kay. So we allow it on the basis

20 that it is a sort of a background evidence to what happened in Sarajevo.

21 It is evidence that establishes the environment in which the alleged

22 crimes took place.

23 But, Mr. Milosevic, you can't take this particular piece of the

24 evidence much further.

25 We are going to take the break now for 20 minutes, and when we

Page 37424

1 come back, I'd like you to move on to evidence that is more directly

2 relevant.

3 MR. NICE: And, Your Honour, if -- in case it's of any help or

4 interest, Ms. Dicklich has identified a passage in Lord Owen's evidence

5 where the barracks were referred to. It turns up in a report of

6 Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali that the accused read out where it was

7 said that the barracks were under attack, and that wasn't challenged.

8 JUDGE KWON: It was also dealt with by Malesevic.

9 MR. NICE: Malesevic, yes, in a different setting. Your Honour is

10 ahead of me. I can simply repeat, and I don't know how I can do more than

11 repeat, the accused should use the tools we provided him if he wishes to

12 make his evidence focused. Everything has been done to assist him.

13 MR. KAY: By that Mr. Nice means the fillbox document, which I

14 think --

15 MR. NICE: I certainly do.

16 MR. KAY: Yes, it's the fillbox document that's the important one.

17 MR. NICE: And it's a document that I've been providing from time

18 to time, and I hope I will continue to provide because I know it assists

19 the parties.

20 MR. KAY: It's very helpful.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, the fillbox document

22 prepared by the Prosecutor is available to you and you should use it.

23 We are going to take the break now for 20 minutes. We are

24 adjourned.

25 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

Page 37425

1 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

3 MR. NICE: A short point for your consideration relating to the

4 time consumed this morning in procedural matters. The Court knows that

5 the two-thirds allocation is to cover Prosecution cross-examination and

6 procedural matters. Where procedural time is taken in the course of the

7 accused's examination-in-chief, it has a double effect on the Prosecution

8 because, of course, if it comes -- if it comes away from the accused's

9 time, then the two-thirds allocation is itself reduced and part of that

10 two-thirds allocation is immediately consumed by the administrative time

11 taken.

12 The Chamber will note that in an effort not only to meet but

13 indeed to beat the two-thirds allocation, I am now cross-examining

14 wherever possible for 50 per cent or less of the actual time taken in

15 evidence in chief. The Chamber may think, and I don't ask for an

16 immediate reaction, of course, but the Chamber may think that this

17 morning's consumption of time by procedural matters caused entirely by the

18 accused's preparation or lack of preparation of his evidence with a focus

19 on the issues in the case is an example of time that should properly

20 simply be part of his examination-in-chief time and shouldn't count as

21 administrative time that reduces the time available to the Prosecution.

22 I'd invite the consideration of that.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, that's -- that requires a mathematical

24 calculation that may be beyond me at this stage.

25 JUDGE KWON: You know what matters is the time spent for

Page 37426












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 37427

1 examination-in-chief and re-examination, at the end of the day.

2 MR. NICE: Your Honour, my understanding is that the totality of

3 time for -- Your Honour is quite right about that but the total allocation

4 of two-thirds is for cross-examination and administrative matters and

5 therefore every piece of administrative time reduces for two reasons the

6 time available to us, and that's what I'm concerned about.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: And from whom is this time now to be taken

8 Mr. Nice?

9 MR. NICE: This time is undoubtedly time to be taken from the

10 Chamber's allocation.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: What was administrative after the witness started

12 his evidence?

13 MR. NICE: Well, I understand that the way the time is being

14 logged, and I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, is that once a significant

15 procedural discussion is initiated, as it was by the Chamber, that that

16 then starts to count as administrative time. I'll be corrected if I'm

17 wrong, but that's my understanding.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I believe that is so.

19 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's on now.

22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. General Gojovic, you gave us a series of examples from the time

24 when you lived in Sarajevo, which was the critical time. Can we note from

25 the entirety of your experience in Sarajevo from that time that the JNA

Page 37428

1 was under attack rather than attacking anybody?

2 A. Precisely. Precisely. In only those three days, 26 members of

3 the JNA were killed without the JNA firing a single bullet.

4 Q. Does that mean that the JNA did not exercise its fundamental right

5 to self-defence?

6 A. That's precisely what it means.

7 Q. Were you in Sarajevo when the Vaso Miskin Street incident

8 occurred?

9 A. I was.

10 Q. Can you tell us something about this incident and your knowledge

11 about it.

12 A. I can only tell you what I know from eyewitnesses. It happened on

13 the 27th of May. People were waiting in queue to buy bread in a small

14 street of Vaso Miskin, which is lined by shops on both sides. A man

15 called Lizdek Nedeljko, who was on his way to a friend's apartment to pick

16 up some documents in a residential area overlooking the Markale

17 marketplace, saw cameras being set --

18 MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... obviously or

19 potentially. The witness is clearly not speaking of personal knowledge

20 but of things he's heard from others. In light of his position as a

21 lawyer working in the office of the prosecution in Sarajevo, military

22 prosecution, no doubt he has had access to the original material, if any,

23 that reflects what these eyewitnesses have said, and I think it may be

24 helpful for us to know before he's allowed to go on further summarising

25 hearsay material in this way whether we are going to be provided with

Page 37429

1 statements or the best reports of this material, because it's going to be

2 difficult for us to deal with it later and it's far better for us to know

3 straight away whether we've got reports, witness statements, matters of

4 that sort or if this is just going to be a general hearsay account that I

5 will simply not be able to deal with.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: General, how did you get this information?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Regarding the events in Vaso Miskin

8 Street, I have no documents because it was outside the jurisdiction of the

9 military prosecutor's office. However, regarding the attacks against the

10 members of the JNA, I have documents. What I can tell you about the Vaso

11 Miskin Street incident, I have only accounts from an eyewitness, a man who

12 was passing along that street, who saw cameras being set up, people

13 seeking shelter. There is a book shop there, the Seli Maslesa [phoen],

14 with a -- its entire facade is glazed. It's a very small street.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: The man gave you this information in what

16 circumstances?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was on that same day, because he

18 was going to see a friend to pick up some documents nearby. I went out

19 into Lukavica on the 25th of May, and right after that event, on his way

20 back he saw the bodies of people killed, and there were no traces of

21 shells or grenades. There was only one mortar shell that fell.

22 I know the man, so I asked him. He has experience from police

23 work, a local from Sarajevo. He said no -- no question, it was a setup by

24 their own people.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did the man come to you to give this information?

Page 37430

1 Did he give the information to you in your official capacity? That's what

2 I was trying to find out.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not in his official capacity. I

4 asked him as a friend.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: In your official capacity.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I didn't ask him in my capacity

7 as military prosecutor because that was outside my jurisdiction. It was

8 an incident involving civilians in town, so it was outside my

9 jurisdiction. However, I asked the man what happened, because the

10 reports, the official reports said that a shell came from Serbian

11 positions, and he said no way, cameras had been set up before the event.

12 And later when he was on his way back, he passed through the same street,

13 and he saw that there was no sign of grenades or shells fallen. And I

14 asked him if it could be a shell that fell from a distance, and he said,

15 no, it was a mine.

16 They had a man, Usnir Hakic [phoen], who was an expert in

17 explosive devices, in anti-terrorist activities, and he was very

18 well-versed in the methods of setting up explosions. The next day, they

19 used hammers to crack the asphalt and create the impression of some

20 outside damage, but that was --

21 JUDGE BONOMY: General, when you say that a shell came from

22 Serbian positions, the official report said the shell came from -- you

23 mean from JNA positions, do you?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: From where?

Page 37431

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Already at that time Serbs had their

2 own Territorial Defence units which took up position on surrounding hills,

3 and the JNA was not involved in any way. In general, the JNA did not take

4 part in any combat activity. Our units were manned completely by

5 conscripts.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: So when you say that you had access to papers in

7 relation to your responsibilities for this matter, what were the

8 allegations that you investigated?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I investigated incidents of the 1st

10 of May, 2nd of May, and the 3rd of May. On the 1st of May there was the

11 killing of the soldier and the wounding of a corporal --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no. I'm asking about this particular incident.

13 Did you investigate anything in relation to this incident?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no. I just had a

15 conversation with this eyewitness.


17 MR. NICE: I'm grateful for the additional information obtained.

18 In my submission, this evidence should not be admitted. We've heard its

19 course already and we see that its purpose is to suggest that this was a

20 set-up. This is evidence apparently from someone known to the witness

21 although his name has yet to be given. If such a person exists who can

22 give evidence of there being no camera -- cameras set up in advance and

23 he's in a position to give evidence that there were no signs of shells and

24 that the pavement was broken up with hammers, then that man has to be

25 here. We can't possibly, in our respectful submission, rely on this form

Page 37432

1 of material which contravenes Rule 95. It is simply obtained by a method

2 which would show doubt on its reliability, and there is no reason why the

3 original witness shouldn't be here.

4 As to the reference to an official report, again if there is any

5 intention to rely on the official report, the official report and arguably

6 its maker should all be available. But this is not an unimportant issue,

7 this it is an important issue where we've got the potential for detailed

8 evidence, and it's detailed evidence which should be provided, not that

9 form of scrappy hearsay.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Doesn't it just go to weight, Mr. Nice?

11 MR. NICE: Your Honour, of course one can say always that evidence

12 is admissible even right at the edges of conceivable admissibility on

13 grounds of weight, but a better course might be, with something as clear

14 as this where the evidence shouldn't be given in this form, the accused

15 should have, if he wishes to rely on this material, have got better form

16 of evidence, the better course might be to say that this cannot

17 conceivably constitute evidence of value in this court and then I shan't

18 have to deal with it at all. Otherwise, I'm going to have to try and deal

19 with it. What will I have to do? If we don't hear from the accused the

20 name of the person he speaks of, I shall then have to get the name of the

21 witness in cross-examination. I'll then succeed or fail in finding the

22 person, and so on and so forth.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we don't have the best evidence rule

24 here. It's evidence that is relevant and probative.

25 MR. NICE: Absolutely. But we also have a rule that says that

Page 37433

1 evidence should not be admissible if its obtained by methods which cast

2 doubts on its reliability or if its admission is antithetical to and would

3 damage the integrity of the proceedings.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I don't think that rule is applicable

5 here at all.

6 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I respectfully differ because, if I may

7 just explain this, to take hearsay evidence of this almost anecdotal kind

8 would contravene the first part of that rule.

9 Your Honour, those are my submissions. The alternatives are as

10 difficult as I've already indicated. And I'm reminded, of course - I

11 sometimes forget it - because it constituted such a part of our history

12 that it's ingrained in all our memories, that does this meet the Appeals

13 Chamber's ruling on summarising evidence? There it is. We were refused

14 that.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: General, who was the person who gave you this

16 information?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was given this information by

18 Lizdek Nedeljko, a military policeman who was born in Sarajevo. In fact,

19 a village near Sarajevo. Unfortunately, I have to say that he was killed

20 in an ambush set by Muslim forces on the road to Kalinovik in 1994.

21 MR. KAY: Your Honour, did you want some observations?


23 MR. KAY: Yes. Hearsay evidence is admissible at the Tribunal.

24 We've heard that so many times echoing during the Prosecution phase of the

25 case.

Page 37434












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 37435

1 Mr. Milosevic doesn't have to prove anything here, and sometimes I

2 think the objections that are being made by the Prosecutor are on the

3 basis that he has to prove his evidence to the same standard as they do.

4 That isn't the case. And the details given by this witness who has a

5 position of responsibility as reported to him by someone who would be

6 considered a person in a position below him is a chain of command and

7 reporting --

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: He just told us the person is dead.

9 MR. KAY: Yes.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. The evidence is admissible.

11 Proceed, Mr. Milosevic. Specific questions and short answers.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The answers to these questions will

13 be very brief.

14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. General, you heard here many allegations to the effect that JNA

16 supplied arms to Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina. You lived in Bosnia for

17 a long time. I will enumerate several military factories: Vitez, Novi

18 Travnik, Bugojno, Gorazde, Bihac, Mostar. All these military factories

19 manufacturing military equipment, did they remain in the hands of Bosnian

20 Muslims?

21 A. Yes, they did, but you omitted Konjic, the largest military plant

22 producing ammunition for military weapons.

23 Q. I didn't mention them all. But for instance, Vitez manufactured

24 the greatest part of explosives and everything that was destroyed was

25 destroyed from the explosives from Vitez; is that correct?

Page 37436

1 A. Yes. It was a special-purpose plant for military purposes, the

2 largest factory of explosives.

3 Q. Thank you, General. Tell me, did you have occasion to talk to

4 Alija Izetbegovic?

5 A. Yes, I did, on the phone.

6 Q. When was that and what was the occasion?

7 A. It was the first time that arms were transported across the

8 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A team of policemen from Zagreb

9 transported arms by trucks in the autumn of 1991. Trucks were brought up

10 to Capljina and Mostar and left there. After that, the policemen were

11 going back --

12 Q. Tell us, whose policemen?

13 A. Policemen of the MUP of Croatia, from Zagreb.

14 Q. And they escorted this transport, two trucks carrying weapons from

15 Croatia?

16 A. Actually, it was a place near Zagreb, Tuskanac, so where there is

17 a MUP base.

18 Q. And where did the trucks arrive?

19 A. One to Mostar, one to Capljina. Both places are in

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

21 Q. So they arrived from Zagreb. Those two policemen from Zagreb,

22 what happened to them?

23 A. The trucks continued along the Riviera highway [phoen], and the

24 policemen went back, going through Bosansko Grahovo. That is a purely

25 Serb area and they were stopped, their vehicle was checked, and automatic

Page 37437

1 rifles were found in their vehicle. That was against the law. They were

2 only allowed to carry pistols. They were arrested and taken somewhere

3 towards Bihac, then to Banja Luka and on to Sarajevo.

4 In Sarajevo, they considered what to do with them. They took

5 their statements, and one day --

6 Q. Just a minute. In their statements did they confirm that they had

7 brought previously two trucks with weapons from Zagreb to Capljina?

8 A. Yes, they did. The republican prosecutor was at a loss what to

9 do. He obviously didn't want to get involved in proceedings. He called

10 me on the phone to inform me of the matter. I came to have a meeting with

11 him, and that was discussed at a meeting in the military prosecutor's

12 office, and it was agreed that it was a case of preparation for supplying

13 arms for combat, and I suggested they be transferred to military prison

14 pending trial before a military court, and indeed they were supposed to be

15 taken to the military detention unit before 7.00 p.m. that day.

16 I came back home that day around 4.00 p.m. The telephone rang. I

17 answered the phone, and it turned out to be a call from Alija

18 Izetbegovic's office. I was very surprised. It was the first time that

19 the office of Alija Izetbegovic wanted to speak to me.

20 I asked what is it about, and they told me the -- President

21 Izetbegovic wanted to speak to me. I introduced myself, quoting my rank.

22 I said, "President, I'm at your service," and he said, "I didn't want to

23 speak to you. Why are you talking to me?" And I said, "Well, it was a

24 call from your office." Then he mentioned the incident involving those

25 policemen. I informed Izetbegovic of what had been agreed, that they were

Page 37438

1 supposed to be taken to the military prison. Izetbegovic said, "I wanted

2 to speak to my prosecutor." I was at a loss, and I answered perhaps

3 provocatively, "How come you have your own prosecutor? There is only one

4 military prosecutor." To that he answered, "Never mind. You go on doing

5 your job. We'll take care of ours."

6 Later on, on the evening news, I heard those men were released and

7 there was a great outcry about that. They were released to go home to

8 Zagreb.

9 Q. Explain to me, please, why it was necessary for this transport of

10 the truck with the arms for Mostar and Capljina to come under the

11 authority of the military prosecutor's office.

12 A. Because the arming was not legal. It bypassed the legal organs,

13 and this was preparatory work for an armed uprising. And the act was

14 committed, and it came under the military prosecutor and his competence

15 and authority.

16 Q. Was it military armament, military weapons?

17 A. Well, I don't know but it was weapons for the army and not for the

18 police. It wasn't police-type weaponry.

19 Q. Very well. Now, does that have anything to do with Mesic, a

20 statement in 1991, which was a public statement. First of all, tell me

21 whether you have heard about it, and secondly whether this was brought

22 into connection with the fact that the conflict should be moved to

23 Bosnia-Herzegovina to lift the burden of Croatia.

24 A. Yes. That was his statement. When he withdrew from Belgrade to

25 Zagreb, he made a public statement. He said, "I have done my duty.

Page 37439

1 Yugoslavia exists no longer." So that was the statement which for the

2 general public was astounding. And then he continued to speak in a calm

3 fashion. He said that now the conflict should be transferred to Bosnia

4 and Herzegovina, which would make Croatia's position easier.

5 And anyway, that statement passed by without being noted. I

6 myself as a prosecutor looked at some other statements that were made by

7 him, the fact that he said, "Yugoslavia existed no longer," was not

8 interesting to me, but what I noted was the other statement made about the

9 conflicts. And so I followed the behaviour on the ground, and the

10 statement was accompanied by accelerated activities in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

11 Q. When did you yourself leave Sarajevo?

12 A. I left Sarajevo on the 30th of May, 1992.

13 Q. Under which circumstances was that?

14 A. After the barracks were deblocked. When the siege was lifted, an

15 agreement was reached for us to be able to leave the barracks, and we left

16 on the 25th of May, in actual fact. We went to Lukavica and -- or,

17 rather, I went to Lukavica and then a helicopter took me to Belgrade, and

18 I used channels which were not controlled by the Muslim units.

19 Q. Did you know about the order for the JNA's withdrawal from

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

21 A. Yes, and it was under that order that all the units were

22 dislocated and moved, and I watched this from Serbia.

23 Q. So it was pursuant to that order that you yourself withdrew from

24 Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right?

25 A. Yes.

Page 37440

1 Q. Thank you, General Gojovic. We're now going to go on to another

2 area and discuss Kosovo and Metohija.

3 Tell us, please, what position in the Yugoslav army were you when

4 the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia was launched.

5 A. At that time, I was president of the military court in Belgrade

6 when the attack started, and with the proclamation of a state of war and

7 the mobilisation that followed for the military courts and prosecutors, I

8 had my wartime assignments as president of the military court attached to

9 the command of the 1st Army, and that's the position I held at that time.

10 Q. And how long did you remain performing that duty as president of

11 the military court attached to the command of the 1st Army?

12 A. Until the 16th of April, 1999.

13 Q. And where were you assigned then?

14 A. On the 16th of April, I was appointed to the position of head of

15 the legal department in the general staff of the army of Yugoslavia.

16 During the state of war it was the legal department pursuant to the war

17 organisation system.

18 Q. When you were discharged as president of the military court, did

19 they need your own agreement?

20 A. Yes, they did.

21 Q. Why?

22 A. Because this is provided for by the law. For the judges and

23 prosecutors to be relieved of duty and take up another appointment

24 agreement is required of those individuals. So we had to respect those

25 provisions of the law.

Page 37441

1 Q. And do you happen to know what the reasons were for you to be

2 appointed head of the legal department in the general staff of the

3 Yugoslav army?

4 A. Well, what I know is that General Ojdanic, who was the Chief of

5 Staff of the Supreme Command, called me up on the telephone and told me

6 that he would like to have a conversation with me in that connection. He

7 came the next day. He came to court. We talked, and he said that the

8 mobilised courts under their war obligation weren't functioning as well as

9 they could and that he had been assigned the task, and this is what he

10 said, "The president asked me --" the president of the republic, that is

11 Mr. Milosevic -- "asked me to find a proper solution for that work to be

12 improved," and General Ojdanic had previously talked to the president of

13 the supreme military court and supreme military prosecutor, he told me.

14 He asked for their opinion, and after holding consultations, they decided

15 upon me, because I had been appointed all the duties that exist in the

16 judiciary. I had gained sufficient experience both as a military man and

17 as a legal man for me to be able to function under those conditions and

18 organise the work of military courts and the military prosecutor's office

19 better.

20 Q. Let's just be specific here, General Gojovic. So the chief of the

21 legal department of the staff of the Supreme Command, as -- appointed to

22 that position, you were the topmost official in the Supreme Command of the

23 army of Yugoslavia for those matters; is that right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you. Tell us now, please, what acts, legal acts spoke of

Page 37442












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 37443

1 respect to be shown for international humanitarian law by the members of

2 the JNA and the army of Yugoslavia, both in the SFRY and in the FRY.

3 A. There are a number of legal acts. We have the constitution, the

4 laws, the bylaws and the provisions emanating from that. The constitution

5 of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Article 16 of the constitution,

6 this is mirrored in the SFRY constitution as well, provides for the fact

7 that international covenants and agreements which have been confirmed and

8 published in conformity with the constitution and other rules and

9 regulations of international law are component parts of the internal legal

10 order. That is roughly what the formulation says, what Article 16 says,

11 and it is on the basis of that constitutional provision that the law on

12 defence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Article 19 of that line is

13 an imperative norm which expressly states that members of the Yugoslav

14 army who take part, who participate in combat operations are duty bound to

15 adhere to the rules of international war law and other rules and

16 regulations on humane conduct towards prisoners of war, wounded persons

17 and the protection of the civilian population. So that is the law on

18 defence, and the law on the Yugoslav army also has a similar provision in

19 Article 31, stipulating that military personnel during combat operations

20 have the right to use firearms and other weapons in keeping with combat

21 rules governing combat operations.

22 So it is these rules and regulations which govern combat

23 operations. Then we also have the law, criminal law of the Federal

24 Republic of Yugoslavia with 15 articles. 155, in particular, deals with

25 international humanitarian law, crimes, crimes of genocide, crimes against

Page 37444

1 the civilian population, crimes against wounded persons, prisoners of war,

2 et cetera, et cetera. So all this is provided for.

3 We also have the criminal procedure law for military courts and

4 military prosecutors to prosecute individuals who perpetrate crimes of

5 that kind. So those are the rules, regulations, and laws. There are also

6 other laws governing this and bills as well, draft laws which give

7 instructions on the application of international war law, and we -- this

8 refers to the addition which held true in 1988, and it is pursuant to

9 those instructions that all the previous rules and provisions are

10 incorporated with additional explanations given. It is a lengthy set of

11 instructions as to how these rules and regulations are to be applied in

12 practice and international humanitarian law respected.

13 Then we also have the rules of service of the JNA itself, the army

14 of Yugoslavia, which also stipulate matters of this kind at a lower level.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, since the constitution

16 -- General Gojovic was answering my question as to the legal acts which

17 provided for these obligations. He mentioned the constitution of

18 Yugoslavia, the SFRY, the FRY constitution, the law on the army of

19 Yugoslavia, the law on defence, the rules of service. These are all

20 documents that have already been tendered and introduced into evidence so

21 I do not include them into my exhibits. They are general documents having

22 the force of law. And I just add in tab 2 the instructions that the

23 general mentioned at the end, that is to say regulations on the

24 applications of international laws of war in the armed forces of the SFRY.

25 It's been translated into English.

Page 37445

1 So that, then -- those, then, are the instructions, and you will

2 find them in tab 2.

3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. General, were those the regulations and instructions that you

5 mentioned?

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Has General Gojovic got a set of

7 instructions?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't have them, but I think

9 there is only one set of instructions so that would be them then.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to tender that into

11 evidence, please.


13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to continue?

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: When it's been given a number. Oh, it's tab 2.

15 MR. NICE: Tab 2 is already exhibited, Ms. Dicklich informs me.

16 It is therefore -- 319, tab 69.


18 Yes, please continue.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. General Gojovic, do you know whether in the army of Yugoslavia

22 before the NATO aggression people were educated in the sphere of

23 international humanitarian law?

24 A. Yes, education was done on the basis of a protocol which was

25 signed by the defence minister and a representative of the International

Page 37446

1 Red Cross.

2 Q. Did the International Red Cross committee participate in that, in

3 educating the troops?

4 A. Yes. They had lecturers.

5 Q. General Gojovic, what did every soldier in the army of Yugoslavia

6 have to know? Let me be very specific: What did every soldier of the

7 army of Yugoslavia have with him within the frameworks of his regular kit

8 and equipment, which is linked to international humanitarian law?

9 A. Well, every soldier had within his kit, once he was issued a kit,

10 he had a Code of Conduct, rules of behaviour during conflict and wars,

11 which stipulate his rights, how he is to behave, how he is to behave to

12 the wounded, to POWs, with the civilian population, and other definitions.

13 So this is an extract in condensed form setting out the basic rules, and

14 this is a document published by the General Staff. And then we had the

15 international Red Cross Committee's instructions translated into Serbian

16 and the Cyrillic alphabet, a booklet containing all these facts, and also

17 in strip form showing soldiers how to behave with POWs, casualties,

18 wounded persons, civilians, and so on.

19 Q. Well, let's focus for the moment on this little booklet setting

20 out the code of conduct for fighters, for combatants.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, I have provided a

22 photocopy of this booklet in tab 3 but I have the original booklet or

23 brochure here to show you what it looked like. And this is it. It's a

24 plastic --

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we have it.

Page 37447

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- covered, laminated handbook.

2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. At the top it says the "Army of Yugoslavia, Supreme Command

4 Staff." Is that, therefore, the topmost authority, the supreme authority

5 order issuing orders to all members of the armed forces lower down the

6 ranks?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Therefore, the rules issued by the Supreme Command Staff for

9 fighters, does it take the form of an order? Is that an order to the

10 combatants and soldiers?

11 A. Yes, certainly.

12 Q. Now, in the photocopy -- actually, the document has four -- the

13 laminated handbook contains four pages -- or, rather, it only has two

14 pages, and the format is a little larger than a driver's licence so you

15 can carry it in your pocket.

16 Let's go through the document. This is something that was issued

17 to each and every soldier in a highly resistant form to wear and tear --

18 is resistant to wear and tear and soldiers can carry it with then at all

19 times. We see that there are on the first page 3, on the second 4 and 5

20 chapters or sections very briefly set out over those three pages if you

21 omit the title page which gives us the title of the document. But anyway,

22 the rules of combat. This is what it says: "Fight only against soldiers.

23 Attack only military targets. Respect civilians and civilian facilities.

24 Limit destruction solely to what is required by the assigned task.

25 Respect the sign of the Red Cross. It protects the wounded, sick, medical

Page 37448

1 staff, Red Cross personnel, ambulances, Red Cross aid transports,

2 hospitals, first-aid stations and facilities of the Red Cross."

3 Number 2, the second chapter or section: "Treatment of wounded

4 enemy soldiers." Wounded enemy soldiers. "Pick them up from the

5 battlefield. Give them assistance. Turn them over to the medical staff.

6 Respect medical staff and facilities. Remove them from the battlefield.

7 Help them, turn over to your superior or to the nearest medical team.

8 Respect medical staff and facilities. Protect wounded and sick enemy

9 members. Protect civilian vessels engaged in saving the wounded."

10 The third section is entitled "Enemy Prisoners." "Spare their

11 lives, disarm them, turn them over to your superior officer, treat them

12 humanely. Their families must be informed about their captivity."

13 Then we come to the fourth session, entitled "Civilians."

14 "Respect them. Treat civilians under your authority humanely. Protect

15 them against acts of violence. Retaliation and taking of hostages is

16 prohibited. Respect their property. Do not destroy or loot it."

17 Then we come to section 5, "International Humanitarian Law" is the

18 title, and it goes on to explain that, "In times of war certain rules must

19 be respected even against the enemy. These rules are contained in the

20 four Geneva Conventions," et cetera, et cetera. And, "As signatory of the

21 Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, Yugoslavia is obliged..."

22 And, "The Geneva Conventions protect the following categories of people:

23 The wounded and sick in armed forces and field and medical staff (First

24 Convention)." The wounded and sick members of the armed forces on sea and

25 shipwrecked; and the third convention, prisoners of war; the fourth is --

Page 37449

1 deals with occupied territories and civilians.

2 And then, "Article 3, which is the same for all four conventions

3 and ordains the humane treatment of persons not taking part or who no

4 longer take part in the hostilities. This Rule in particular prohibits

5 inhumane treatment, taking of hostages, torture and summary execution

6 without a trial, saying that trials must be held with all the prescribed

7 guarantees."

8 And then it goes on to say that the "State signatories of the

9 Geneva Conventions take it upon themselves to ensure equal treatment of

10 all wounded, regardless of whether they are friend or foe; respect for the

11 physical integrity, honour and dignity, family rights, moral and religious

12 convictions of every individual; prohibit torture or inhumane acts;

13 summary execution without a regular trial, extermination, taking of

14 hostages, looting and destroying civilian property; allow delegates of

15 ..." et cetera.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: We know you can read it. What is the -- what is

17 the point? What's the question that you're putting to the witness?

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. General Gojovic, in view of the fact that the Supreme Command

20 Staff gave these rules of conduct to every soldier, did this go down the

21 entire chain of command, and what measures were taken in order to observe

22 this Code of Conduct throughout?

23 So this goes from the command down the chain of command. Was this

24 handed over silently or was this explained to every soldier?

25 A. This was explained to every soldier. Everybody had this document,

Page 37450












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 37451

1 and officers also had strict orders to have this carried out in terms of

2 practical conduct during combat.

3 Q. You mentioned that in addition to these instructions that were

4 given to the Supreme Command Staff, rules of conduct were also given to

5 all soldiers, rules that contain sketches, drawings in relation to all

6 these rules of conduct that are already contained in the rules of conduct.

7 Also, there are some empty forms where names and surnames are

8 supposed to be filled in; the father's name, address, postcode.

9 A. In case any prisoners are taken. So this was by way of a reminder

10 so that all of those who have a visual type of memory could make their

11 way.

12 Q. Also, there is the first page here, the most elementary

13 instructions regarding first aid. So this was also given to all soldiers,

14 wasn't it?

15 A. Yes, that is correct.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: General, was it the responsibility of your office

17 to prosecute soldiers or anybody else who breached these many regulations?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Prosecution was taken over by the

19 military prosecutor during the war, military courts. It was my duty to

20 ensure that the work of courts and public prosecutors -- or military

21 prosecutors' offices was ensured in an unhindered manner and also to put

22 all their work together with regard to these particular matters.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll come back to that.

24 Mr. Milosevic, continue.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please admit tabs 3 and 4,

Page 37452

1 that is to say tab 3 that I quoted, and --


3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And the rules of conduct.

4 Everything I quoted, actually.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. There is also an aide-memoire here for all the members of the

7 Yugoslav military. I have it here in the original. It is also a

8 laminated booklet, so it is for all the members of the army of Yugoslavia

9 who are in an area that is subjected to diversionary and sabotage actions.

10 It dates back to June 1998. I'm not going to quote it.

11 I wish to draw your attention to page 6 of this handbook, General.

12 I assume that you have a copy.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. The one but last paragraph says: "Take energetic measures to

15 prevent non-combat behaviour on the part of individuals, units, and

16 commands. Page 7, then.

17 JUDGE KWON: Is it tab 4 or tab 5? I think it's tab 4.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It should be tab 4.

19 JUDGE KWON: Tab 4.

20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. On page 7, it says inter alia - I do not have time to illustrate

22 all of it - it says --

23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters please have a reference?

24 We are cannot find it in the document.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreters are asking, I

Page 37453

1 believe, that the document be placed on the ELMO so that they can follow

2 it.

3 JUDGE KWON: Under what title is the passage in?

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: It doesn't seem to correspond to the tab you have

5 mentioned, Mr. Milosevic.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Tab 4, this handbook for members of

7 the army of Yugoslavia.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the title of it?

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm now quoting briefly from number

10 1, that is to say the procedure for members of units of the VJ in case of

11 a threat to lives, materiel, or buildings in --

12 JUDGE KWON: English version, page 3, penultimate paragraph, "Take

13 energetic measures..." Tab 4.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. And then in the third

15 paragraph it says, "Take energetic measures to prevent unsoldierly

16 behaviour of individuals, units, and commands." And then further on under

17 the same heading, it says that the following principles have to be abided

18 by in combat action. There are bullets there, and the second one says:

19 "When enemy groups operate from established buildings or built-up areas,

20 after warning them, use weapons for directly targeting and selectively

21 destroy the enemy and buildings from which they operate."

22 And then there is chapter 3, "Procedure for arresting members of

23 diversionary terrorists groups." And it says: "For as long as a member

24 of a DTG uses weapons or resists, treat him according to the rules of

25 combat, but after he lays down weapons and stops resisting, treat him as

Page 37454

1 follows..." And then it says arrest him and identify him. Then an

2 investigation is carried out.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the question? You're now giving the

4 evidence. I don't believe the question is whether you had the appropriate

5 laws and regulations.

6 Do you want to have this one admitted?

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, by all means. It should be

8 exhibited.

9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Now I'm putting a question to you, General Gojovic. The rules

11 that we tendered a few minutes ago and then the ones with illustrations,

12 that is something that all soldiers had, didn't they? Then this handbook

13 for VJ members engaged in areas affected by sabotage and terrorist

14 activities, was it handed out to all soldiers or officers only?

15 A. As to the last document, all officers had it down to the lowest

16 level of command, starting from squad leader, platoon leader, company

17 commander, and further on up. So this was primarily for them, but also

18 crews had it, crews for weapons that required that kind of manning.

19 Q. All right. Tell me, General, in tab 5 you also have a very short

20 booklet. I have it here in the original. That is a summary of the Geneva

21 Conventions dated the 12th of August, 1949, and the Additional Protocols.

22 It was printed in the Cyrillic script, and it was provided by the ICRC.

23 Who was this given out to, the summary of the Geneva Conventions

24 and the Additional Protocols?

25 A. This was also handed out to all officers. That is to say every

Page 37455

1 officer had this summary of the Geneva Conventions.

2 Q. And finally, in tab 6 there is a booklet containing the basic

3 postulates of the law of war, summary for officers, summary of rules of

4 combat conduct, and a programme of training. It says that this is an

5 excerpt from a handbook of F. De Mulinen on The Law of War for the Armed

6 Forces. So this is something that is used throughout the world; isn't

7 that right, General Gojovic?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. All right.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have these tabs

11 admitted into evidence as well.

12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. So this was given to officers, wasn't it?

14 A. Yes. It was not only given to officers, everyone had a copy on

15 them.

16 Q. I understand. I was not accurate enough when I put my question.

17 So I understand what you're saying.

18 In addition to the measures mentioned so far in terms of observing

19 humanitarian law, all of these measures that were taken before the

20 aggression, what orders were issued during the aggression that have to do

21 with observing humanitarian law? Which ones are you aware of?

22 A. I am aware of two orders of the Supreme Command Staff. One was

23 adopted on the 2nd of April, 1999, and the second one was adopted on the

24 10th of May. I myself drafted the second one, and General Ojdanic signed

25 it as commander of the General Staff. And this order was given from

Page 37456

1 Supreme Command level to observe humanitarian law, and this was done by

2 way of an interpretation. So it accompanied all these instructions that

3 we've already referred to.

4 And then on the 10th of May, a second order was issued which was

5 put in the imperative. This provided explicit orders in terms of what

6 should be done. Every soldier was duty-bound to take all measures to have

7 this abided by by his own personnel. If this is not observed, then this

8 -- the said officer will be held responsible. Of course I'm providing a

9 free interpretation now. Measures will be taken to prevent all violations

10 of the Geneva Conventions, and if such violations occurred, then all

11 measures will be taken in order to prosecute such persons, to inform the

12 military prosecutor thereof, and to initiate proceedings in such cases.

13 So this was said quite specifically, that each and every officer was held

14 personally accountable for having these rules of conduct observed. This

15 went from top level, from Supreme Command level.

16 Q. All right. You are particularly referring to personal

17 responsibility that was highlighted in this order issued by the Supreme

18 Command. In point 2 of this order, it says: "I order," and it says he is

19 personally accountable --

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is tab number 7, gentlemen.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. So it is paragraph 2.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters please have a reference.

24 The reading is very fast.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreters cannot follow

Page 37457

1 you. Go a little slower.

2 MR. NICE: Tab?

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's tab 7.

4 MR. NICE: And that's already in evidence as 323, tab 5.

5 JUDGE KWON: It's noted.

6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Very well. So paragraph 2: "Any individual, whether military

8 personnel or civilian, who violates or orders --" I hope that the

9 interpreters have found this. So "military personnel or a civilian who

10 violates or orders, incites, assists or participates in the violation of

11 the principles, rules and regulations of international laws of war shall

12 be held personally responsible for that violation. Ignorance of the

13 provisions of the rules and regulations of international laws of war shall

14 not exclude the liability of those who violate these provisions."

15 And then further on it says what their duties are. Paragraph 4

16 specifically says: "Any military officer who knows that there have been

17 violations of the principles, rules and regulations of international laws

18 of war and does not initiate disciplinary or criminal proceedings shall be

19 held personally responsible."

20 And then it says: "The superior officer of any person who acts

21 contrary to the provisions of items 1 to 4 herein shall gather evidence

22 against that person," et cetera. And then it says in paragraph 6:

23 "Go through the annex to this order regarding criminal reliability for war

24 crimes and other serious violations of the international laws of war and

25 crimes against humanity and international law with members of Yugoslav

Page 37458












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 37459

1 army commands, staffs, units and institutions."

2 In the same tab there this is the annex that this order insists

3 upon, that is to say that this annex be studied with all members of the

4 VJ, "Annex regarding criminal liability for war crimes and other serious

5 violations of the international laws of war and crimes against humanity

6 and international law." This is a very detailed document, this annex. I

7 really don't want to read it out now.

8 Do you have anything special to say in relation to this, General,

9 in view of the fact that you prepared these documents?

10 A. I just wish to add very briefly that my intention was to state

11 things very explicitly so that there would not be a trace of doubt in

12 anyone's mind that there would be any kind of tolerance with regard to any

13 such behaviour. So the highest level of command states this

14 unequivocally, to all commands, to all units, to all commanders, all who

15 take part in this action, that they have to observe all these rules and

16 principles, that there may be no deviations, otherwise everyone will be

17 held personally accountable.

18 Q. All right, General.

19 JUDGE KWON: General. General Gojovic, if you could tell me the

20 reason why this order was issued at the date 10th of May, 1999.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was preceded by an order of the

22 2nd of April, 1999. In this order, in the last paragraph, this order is

23 made null and void. That is, in paragraph 7 of this order of the 2nd

24 April, 1999. The purpose was for the highest level, the Supreme Command

25 Staff, not only to distribute those general rules but to support it with

Page 37460

1 an explicit order from the Supreme Command Staff, the highest level,

2 because by that time - and we will get to that when we come to the area of

3 actual proceedings - we have had already some incidents involving deaths,

4 and this inspired the Supreme Command Staff to issue this order as an

5 additional measure of caution.

6 JUDGE KWON: General, do you have with you the order of 2nd of

7 April?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, no, I don't.

9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Proceed --

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But if you allow me. It was similar

11 to the one that we saw here, although it was put in more general terms.

12 But I suggested to General Ojdanic, and he accepted, that we draft this

13 order in more explicit terms in keeping with the military law. That is

14 the only difference.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. General, can you help us get this order of the 2nd April as well?

17 A. That should be no problem. It's in the archives. I just didn't

18 know that it would be required. But it can be obtained.

19 Q. Thank you. Now, we come to the "however."

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. General Gojovic, however, or should I say unfortunately, despite

24 all the measures that were taken that you described before and after the

25 NATO aggression, despite all the measures taken to ensure adherence to

Page 37461

1 international humanitarian law, violations of humanitarian law by members

2 of our armed forces still occurred.

3 A. Yes, they did.

4 Q. Would it be fair to say that your key, your principal activity in

5 this period was to monitor the work of military judicial bodies, including

6 violations of humanitarian law and issues related to trials, et cetera?

7 A. Yes. After the military judicial bodies were organised to work in

8 wartime, my job was to monitor their operation, including all the

9 proceedings, all the legal actions taken to prosecute violations and

10 offenders.

11 Q. Very well. I suppose that even in that time minor offences were

12 in the majority.

13 A. Yes, yes, yes.

14 Q. You mentioned military courts and military prosecutors' offices --

15 MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... no doubt there's a

16 subtle purpose behind it, but I'll winkle that out in due course in

17 cross-examination but for the time being might we apply the rules.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Not allowed, Mr. Milosevic. Leading.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I didn't even have time to ask the

20 question. I'm just getting ready to ask my question.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, no, no. What you put was -- was a leading

22 question.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. I tried, Mr. Robinson, to

24 understand what the witness said before. He said, "And many other acts,

25 and as in every other pyramid of criminal offences, there are many more

Page 37462

1 criminal offences where violations of international humanitarian law are

2 in the minority."

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let's not play around. You know

4 very well that the question was improper, leading, and you're perfectly

5 capable of formulating it in a proper manner. So I expect you to do that.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well, Mr. Robinson.

7 I shall not dwell on this before we get to the statistical data.

8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Witness, you mentioned that you monitored the work of all the

10 military judicial bodies and specifically the establishment of military

11 courts and military prosecutors' offices. My question is: When were

12 military courts and military prosecutors' offices established in wartime,

13 and when were military prosecutors appointed for wartime?

14 A. With the declaration of the state of war, and the mobilisation was

15 carried out be the 26th of March pursuant to the order on mobilisation,

16 all the military prosecutors and judiciary were activated.

17 Q. Tell me, when did those military prosecutors and judiciary

18 disband?

19 A. With the termination of the state of war that was stipulated by

20 the law or, rather, the order announcing the state of war. So with the

21 end of the war or the state of war, their functions were terminated.

22 Q. Tell me, General, what was the last time that military courts

23 existed in the territory of Yugoslavia before 1999?

24 A. It was during the World War II, and they continued to operate

25 until 1947. From that time until 1999, they had never been established

Page 37463

1 again because, fortunately, there were no wars.

2 Q. And according to the letter of the law, they were created again

3 with a term of office envisaged to exist until the end of the wartime.

4 A. Yes. That was the stipulation of the order on military courts and

5 military prosecutors' offices.

6 Q. Tell me now, what was the level at which it was decided that the

7 system of military courts and military prosecutors' offices was not

8 operating efficiently enough, and whose was the initiative to improve

9 their work?

10 But just before you answer that, you mentioned mobilisation. Tell

11 me, what was the particular problem in the functioning of those courts and

12 prosecutors' offices in the initial days?

13 A. There were certain difficulties. First of all, our establishment

14 that envisaged military courts was not calibrated well enough. It

15 envisaged a minimal number of posts and we concluded that it needed to be

16 increased. And another problem was that we didn't have enough officers in

17 peacetime to fill all the vacancies in the newly established military

18 courts and military prosecutors' offices. We needed to engage the reserve

19 staff. There were people who were qualified, who had degrees in law, who

20 had passed bar exams, but their -- those people, those reserve officers

21 had not worked in courts before. They worked in various other

22 institutions such as employment bureaus, et cetera, so they could not find

23 their way in their new jobs and that was a problem. It was a hindrance to

24 their good performance, so it was necessary to carry out this

25 reorganisation.

Page 37464

1 Q. When you say they worked in other jobs before, you mean the jobs

2 they had in peacetime, before the beginning of the war, before they were

3 mobilised?

4 A. Yes, because they used to be civilians in reserve forces. They

5 had wartime assignments as any other civilian.

6 Q. Now, tell me, at what level was it decided that the system of

7 military courts and military prosecutors was not functioning well enough,

8 and whose was the initiative to improve and enhance the system and to

9 maximise its efficiency?

10 A. I said already it was concluded at the level of the Supreme

11 Command Staff. In my conversation with General Ojdanic, he told me that

12 it was necessary to enhance the work of this system, that there was

13 certain difficulties, and that President Milosevic demanded that some

14 solution be found to deal with this problem. That's how I came to be

15 appointed in my new position, because I had experience in all these

16 various jobs.

17 Q. Tell me, how was the reorganisation and the operation of military

18 judicial organs stipulated during wartime?

19 A. When we say "military judicial bodies," we imply both the military

20 courts and the military prosecutors' offices. This should be borne in

21 mind. This was regulated by the law on the military prosecutor, which

22 governed the work of the military prosecutor during wartime, and the law

23 on military courts governed the work of military courts. That's Article

24 7, paragraph -- that is Article 74 to 76; and in the other law, Article 36

25 to 38.

Page 37465

1 It stipulated that during wartime, peacetime courts ceased to

2 function, that is lower courts are disbanded, making way for military

3 courts. This was further detailed in the decree governing the work of the

4 military prosecutor or, rather, military courts, and a separate enactment

5 that governed the work of the military prosecutors in wartime. Both were

6 developed by the government.

7 Q. Thank you, General.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, I should only like to go

9 through the exhibits that the General has just mentioned. Let me draw

10 your attention to the fact that under tab 8, you will find a photocopy of

11 the Official Military Gazette of Yugoslavia, that is the official body

12 promulgating various enactments and laws. This one is dated 13 February

13 1998. This is the decree on the operation of the military prosecutor's

14 office during wartime. This was mentioned by the general.

15 Under tab 9, you will find the law on military courts. The

16 general invoked the law on military courts.

17 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. And you invoked, particularly, General, one provision. Is it the

19 one on page 2 of this law, that is chapter 11 --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Chapter 2, in fact, interpreter's note,

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. -- "Organisation and Jurisdiction." In case of wartime -- "In

23 case of a state of war, military courts of first instance referred to in

24 Article 8 of this law shall cease to exist while the supreme military

25 court shall continue to operate at the seat of the Supreme Command

Page 37466












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 37467

1 Headquarters. During the state of war, military courts -- lower military

2 courts shall be established at the commands of military districts,

3 divisions, corps, armies, the air force, and air defence command and the

4 naval command." That was Article 74.

5 Other articles deal with appointments, removals from office and

6 relief of duty of presidents, judges, and judge jurors of military courts

7 by the president of the republic on the recommendation of the Chief of

8 Staff.

9 The next article says the rules of procedure of military courts

10 and proceedings before these courts in case of state of war shall be

11 governed by the federal government.

12 Under tab 10 we have another Official Gazette.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have reached the time for the second break.

14 We will now break for 20 minutes.

15 MR. KAY: Could tabs 8 and 9 be made exhibits.


17 JUDGE KWON: But I have to note that tab 5, which was admitted,

18 has no translation.

19 MR. KAY: One's being -- there is an English language version of

20 it, but it's very difficult to obtain. There is none in Geneva at the

21 ICRC, as we're informed, but we're trying to get our hands on it. Tab 6

22 has already been introduced into evidence as, Your Honour Judge Kwon

23 probably knows.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just -- just one thing. My

25 associates have been told that this is a document that can be found on a

Page 37468

1 website, the website of the International Red Cross. That's why we did

2 not undertake to provide a translation.

3 Under this tab in this binder, we have the document as printed in

4 Cyrillic for our purposes. This is a document published normally by the

5 ICRC, and our version is identical to the version that can be found among

6 ICRC documents. Just as we didn't translate Geneva Conventions, not to

7 waste time and resources.

8 I believe it can be admitted, it is admissible, because it is the

9 same public ICRC document in the Serbian version in Cyrillic script.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll take the break now. We are adjourned.

11 --- Recess taken at 12.19 p.m.

12 --- On resuming at 12.42 p.m.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Continue, Mr. Milosevic.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. We left off, I believe, discussing tab 9, General Gojovic. In tab

17 9, I quoted a portion of the provision which says that the rules of

18 procedure are prescribed by the federal government, and I'd like to draw

19 your attention now to tab 10. It is also the Official Gazette of the

20 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, dated the 4th of April, 1999, where the

21 provision on the application of the Law on Criminal Procedure During the

22 State of War. It was enacted by the federal government.

23 What is the substance, the main points of this decree on the

24 application of the law on criminal proceedings during the state of war?

25 Does it differ in any way, materially speaking, in substance, from the

Page 37469

1 provisions which hold true during times of peace? And generally speaking,

2 where are the differences, if there are any?

3 A. Well, the substance of the decree on the application of the Law on

4 Criminal Procedure adopted here is to speed up the procedure itself and to

5 ensure efficaciousness on the part of the courts, the prosecution, and the

6 competent authorities.

7 And I'd like to highlight some of the articles. I don't want to

8 read them all out, but when it talks about prosecution during states of

9 war, the accused cannot rely on immunity, or where a five-year term of --

10 while a five-year prison sentence can be enforced. And agreement should

11 -- so that is an important provision.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness give the interpreters a

13 reference. Thank you.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And the other article is that

15 individuals can hold legal proceedings, but it has to do with speeding up

16 the process. When it comes to investigations this is an important novelty

17 where the Prosecution can conduct the investigation process. Otherwise,

18 in peacetime in our law systems, the prosecutor does not head the

19 investigations, it is the investigating judge. So here the prosecutor can

20 do so in states of war. And in urgent cases, the investigating judge can

21 take certain actions without request to do so coming from the prosecutor,

22 and so can the organs of the interior, that is the laws -- the organs of

23 apprehension can take certain steps without the prosecutor issuing

24 specific orders.

25 So that is that provision linked to the investigative process.

Page 37470

1 And the decree also provides for the fact that the prosecutor can raise an

2 indictment without acquiescence from the investigating judge and without

3 conducting an investigation prior to that if he has sufficient elements on

4 the basis of a report filed. And the prison term is up to ten years in

5 those cases. So that is an accelerated process and the time needed for an

6 indictment is reduced to 24 hours, otherwise it was eight days. And a

7 court trial from the time the indictment has been raised can take place

8 after the expiration of a deadline of 48 hours. Otherwise, eight days

9 would be necessary in peacetime. So that is another way in which the

10 proceedings is speeded up. And the deadline for appeals to the sentence

11 is three days. Regularly speaking, in peacetime it would be eight to 15

12 days.

13 And another novelty for work of the Supreme Courts in these cases

14 is that, when deciding on appeal, if the Trial Chamber considers that this

15 is not necessary, then the accused and their Defence counsel are not

16 required to attend the proceedings.

17 All of this was geared towards creating conditions for more

18 efficient procedure and speeding up the cases generally speaking.

19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Very well, General. Now, do you consider that you have gone

21 through all the essential issues related to the regulation of the

22 authorities of the military courts during states of war?

23 A. Yes. As far as the competence of the military judiciary, they

24 remain the same. Criminal procedure is initiated against perpetrators in

25 the army and certain other acts which are listed in the law on military

Page 37471

1 courts with the application of the provisions I mentioned a moment ago.

2 There is no other difference otherwise. So procedure during wartime and

3 peacetime is basically the same with the differences that I mentioned

4 earlier on.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to tender tab 10 into

6 evidence.

7 As for tab 11, that contains the law on the military prosecutor.

8 And I should like to draw your attention in particular to Article 11 in

9 chapter 5 which speaks about organisation, the work of the military

10 prosecutor, supreme military prosecutor in wartime situations. I think

11 we've spent enough time on explaining all this. I don't think we should

12 go back to these issues, but I'd like to tender tab 11 into evidence as

13 well with the law on the military prosecutor and those provisions. So I'd

14 like to have that introduced into evidence, admitted into evidence. Thank

15 you.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, 10 and 11 admitted.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Tell us briefly, General, now, what the problems that you

20 encountered were, the questions that had to be resolved through your

21 activities with a view to improving the work of military courts and the

22 military prosecutor. You mentioned briefly some questions related to

23 organisation, establishment, authorisations and competencies, that kind of

24 thing. So just briefly, what were the problems that had to be solved in

25 order to improve the work of all those organs?

Page 37472

1 A. The prosecutors and judges were replaced who had not worked in

2 these -- in areas of this kind. New Judges were brought in. I insisted

3 upon that. I managed to get the best judges and prosecutors working in

4 criminal law. They were mobilised. Those who did not have ranks of

5 reserve officers were promoted and given ranks. So this was a process

6 that went hand-in-hand, simultaneously, in order to comply with the laws

7 governing military courts. So 125 new judges were appointed, and

8 prosecutors as well, into the military judiciary. That is as far as the

9 work of the courts and prosecutors' offices goes. The number of judges

10 and prosecutors was raised to step up efficiency. And technically

11 speaking, the technical staff, we also replaced the typists there and so

12 on. We had some male typists who weren't good enough, and we mobilised

13 women typists so that we were able to round off the system of organisation

14 for the courts both in the technical aspect and professional aspect, and

15 we improved work generally. So that was the most important part of our

16 work. And then we saw better provisions prevailed, there was better

17 communications between the command and the units, and so on and so forth.

18 So organisational matters and legal matters. That was the substance of

19 it.

20 Q. Thank you, General. Now, tell us, at what command level did we

21 see the establishment of the first instance wartime military courts and

22 prosecutors?

23 A. The first instance military law courts and prosecutors' offices

24 were set up attached to the command of the armies, and the corps command,

25 the division commands and the military district commands. So the first

Page 37473

1 were directly within the composition of the army and its operative part

2 whereas for the military districts we had military territorial organs

3 which had other competencies and the courts attached to the military

4 districts took over cases from the peacetime law courts. So that is as

5 far as the first instance goes.

6 Q. Tell me now, please, now where was decision-making done on the

7 appeals level?

8 A. This was done at the supreme court level and the supreme

9 prosecution level. They continued to work at the supreme headquarters,

10 and with the army command departments were set up of the supreme military

11 court and the department of the supreme military prosecutor. So at that

12 level in the second instance this was done in that way.

13 Q. How many wartime military law courts were there and prosecutors

14 in -- at both instances.

15 A. I omitted to say that the navy and air force also had their own

16 military courts and military prosecutors' offices established. The total

17 was 21 first instance military courts and military prosecutors and four

18 appeals level military courts and prosecutors in three armies and at the

19 level of the staffs of the Supreme Command as well, which makes a total of

20 24.

21 Q. And how many judges and prosecutors were there? And I'd like to

22 draw your attention to tab 12 in this regard, which contains an overview

23 of the numbers of judges and prosecutors, the names of the commands, and

24 so on. And RF is wartime establishment; is that right? List of

25 establishment posts in military judicial organs. That is what is

Page 37474












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 37475

1 contained in tab 12. My question was how many judges were there?

2 A. There were 155 judges and 92 prosecutors. Lay-judges -- we also

3 had a number of lay-judges in the Trial Chambers. They were lay-judges,

4 persons who were not actually lawyers, legal men.

5 Q. All right. On page 1 here we have an overview of establishment

6 posts. So then there is the supreme military court and then the first,

7 second, third command, the air force and the command of the navy, 155.

8 And then the supreme military prosecutor, the same structure, 92, a total

9 of 92. You have a handwritten total here, don't you?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So you actually added all of this up?

12 A. Yes, yes. One hundred fifty-five altogether, if you look at first

13 instance and second instance and prosecutors. So there's 155 judges, 92

14 prosecutors. So 247 persons were required with appropriate

15 qualifications. And in peacetime, there is a total of 55 judges and

16 prosecutors. So all the rest had to come from the reserve force.

17 Q. So the number went up about five times.

18 A. Yes. So there was a total of 520 -- 525 lay-judges, and 125 judges

19 and prosecutors were promoted in rank so that they could be appointed,

20 promoted into the rank of reserve second lieutenant, that is.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please admit into evidence

22 tab 12?


24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. General Gojovic, a few moments ago you said, if I understood you

Page 37476

1 correctly, that is; if I did not understand you correctly, please do

2 correct me, but it was my understanding that proceedings before the

3 military judiciary is rather special in wartime and that this was

4 primarily reflected in shorter deadlines, if I understood you correctly.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Now, tell me, these accelerated proceedings, fast-track

7 proceedings before the military judiciary during the war, did it imply any

8 other differences in terms of regular implementation of the criminal law?

9 A. No. No. There could not have been any other changes, because

10 that would lead to appeal and judgements would have to be abrogated in

11 this -- reversed that way.

12 Q. In wartime courts, were all rights of accused persons and other

13 parties in the proceedings observed, both those -- both those based on

14 national law and international law?

15 A. Yes, all rights. For example, as far as Defence counsel is

16 concerned, I would like to give an additional explanation, if you allow me

17 to do so. Defence counsel was not provided for within the judiciary but

18 then they came to be included as well in the organisation. That is to say

19 bar associations were asked to provide attorneys, and we were given the

20 best known attorneys for that purpose. So there were lawyers who acted as

21 Defence counsel and who were mobilised in order to be on this waiting

22 list. So whenever necessary, they served as Defence counsel, but their

23 services were not paid for. That is to say that lawyers were mobilised

24 like all other soldiers except that they did not wear uniform, of course.

25 They were in civilian clothing and they did their proper jobs.

Page 37477

1 Q. Thank you. General, at the time when you worked in the Supreme

2 Command Staff, did you visit military prosecutors' offices and courts, and

3 did you see for yourself how they operated?

4 A. Yes. I toured all courts and all prosecutors' offices that were

5 established.

6 Q. All of them?

7 A. All of them. And I saw for myself how they worked, and I had

8 insight into the difficulties they have in the field, so to speak, because

9 there is always a difference involved between the letter of these

10 instructions and regulations and what actually happens on the ground.

11 Q. Tell me, General, the Supreme Command Staff, did they insist that

12 their work be as efficient as possible of all these judicial organs?

13 A. Every day. Every day. It was the Supreme Command Staff that

14 constantly exerted pressure on me to speed up these courts, and

15 prosecutors' offices in particular. They managed to do so. It's easier

16 for prosecutors, though, than it is for courts of law, but there were some

17 impediments even in the courts of law. Deadlines had to be met and there

18 were some other problems. It was difficult to subpoena persons and to

19 issue indictments to accused persons. It was a state of war, after all.

20 However, even these difficulties were overcome.

21 So in my view and in my deep conviction, this was at a very high

22 level, the overall efficiency.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you going to ask him how many prosecutions

24 actually took place in the period between 1st January and 20th June, 1999,

25 or even thereafter, if prosecutions started and continued after the 20th

Page 37478

1 of June, 1999? Are you coming to that in the evidence?

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] By all means. By all means,

3 Mr. Robinson.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, then --

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is an unavoidable question.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. We'll let you proceed.

7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. You've explained just now when I asked you whether the Supreme

9 Command Staff insisted on efficiency in the work of wartime courts, you

10 said that the answer was yes. And before that you explained that you

11 visited all courts.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And that you made a personal effort in order to bring efficiency

14 up to a maximum level. In tab 13 there is a document, and it was my

15 understanding that you drafted this document. Was this after this tour

16 you made when you established what the situation was and after you gained

17 personal insight? Was this something that had to be done additionally or,

18 rather, to give additional help to act as help to the work of the organs

19 that you saw?

20 A. Yes. I really wanted to adopt a practical approach, so that's why

21 I made these guidelines. And even while I was president of the wartime

22 court of the 1st Army, I realised that it was necessary to have something

23 like this for two reasons.

24 First of all, this was needed by way of assistance and as a

25 reminder, especially to commanding officers, even at the lowest level, how

Page 37479

1 they should act if a crime is committed. So then there is what the

2 military officer responsible should do in terms of the perpetrator, in

3 terms of the crime, et cetera.

4 I would like to point out as far as the military police is

5 concerned that there were many -- I'm sorry for speaking so fast. There

6 were many people who were not engaged in such activities in peacetime. So

7 they could not really cover all units. So it was necessary to assist the

8 military police organs by giving them this summary, namely what they

9 should do at the moment when a crime is committed, what kind of legal

10 action they should take. It is not necessary only to act, but it is

11 necessary to act in accordance with the law.

12 Then also the security organs were given instructions, both in

13 terms of the authority they have and also how to carry out arrests and so

14 on, what their obligations were.

15 And then the prosecutor, what the prosecutor should be doing. I

16 don't want you to misunderstand this, that prosecutors didn't know what

17 they were doing. They know what -- they knew what they were doing and

18 they know what they're supposed to do, but there was a procedure involved,

19 and it was necessary to spell it out clearly.

20 And also the presidents of Chambers and also the Appeals Chambers

21 were involved in this lengthy procedure, and everybody had to have an

22 overview of all the organs within the military.

23 So this is the kind of transparency that we were striving for.

24 This was a practical side of this document, and everybody appreciated it.

25 And of course all legal provisions had to be implemented, but this was

Page 37480

1 there just by way of assistance to make their work easier, which is only

2 natural. After all, there was a war going on. The situation is

3 different, not like --

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

5 JUDGE KWON: General Gojovic, why should this material be

6 confidential and military secret?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It wasn't a military secret. Well,

8 you see, this was standard practice with the typists, the people who were

9 involved in this kind of operational work. They would put such things in

10 just in case. But this was not a military secret. So this is General

11 Matovic's document that was submitted to all units. It could not have

12 been a military secret. It was simply typed with that letterhead, but,

13 no, no it is not a military secret. So this was just clumsiness.

14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. All right. On the document itself, there is nothing stating that

16 it's a military secret.

17 A. Of course not.

18 Q. It was submitted to all employees?

19 A. And all commands and all the organs involved in crime

20 investigation.

21 Q. Could you read the last sentence of the letter, the accompanying

22 letter, where it says that it is a military secret and that it's

23 confidential? What does the last sentence say?

24 A. It says: "Inform all members of the Yugoslav army of the contents

25 of these guidelines."

Page 37481

1 Q. Oh, all members of the army of Yugoslavia.

2 Thank you, General. You spoke about the establishment and all the

3 difficulties entailed from the point of view of your organisation, et

4 cetera. But tell me, when you toured all these military courts and when

5 you familiarised yourself with their work in practice, what were all the

6 problems they had while operating in a state of war, and what was the

7 nature of these problems and difficulties?

8 A. There were quite a few problems involved. They mostly underlined

9 the problem of the security of work of these military courts because they

10 were within the area of the command posts of the units that they were in.

11 So they were exposed to NATO attacks, and therefore they had to change

12 their locations frequently. Then they would move and then again they

13 would have to organise their entire work at a new location. So their

14 safety and security was one problem.

15 Then there were practical problems related to procedure,

16 communicating with units, that is. Communications were down, telephone

17 lines, that is. There were other types of communication by way of

18 messenger, but then it was also difficult to send all documents to

19 suspects, to other persons involved, because movement in general was

20 difficult. So these were all the problems they encountered, and they

21 sought explanations, advice.

22 Also, there were a lot of investigations, and when they went to

23 carry out on-site investigations, it was very hard. It was virtually

24 impossible to find some units. As they were moving from one place to

25 another, units in the field were moving from one place to another in order

Page 37482












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 37483

1 to protect themselves from NATO attacks. So sometimes they would change

2 their positions three times during the course of a day. So they would

3 learn that the unit they were looking for was in one position, they'd come

4 there, and then the unit moved in the meantime. So it was very difficult

5 to communicate.

6 Q. At any rate, all these transfers physically affected their work,

7 their investigations, bringing people into custody, et cetera. But as you

8 said a few moments ago, the level of efficiency was very high.

9 A. It was very high, and this will become obvious when we speak of

10 the number of cases dealt with, the number of prosecutions, the number of

11 judgements, et cetera. And it was a relatively short period of time, two

12 and a half months, but you will see how they functioned in a situation of

13 war.

14 Q. Tell me now, in addition to the wartime judiciary, what about the

15 regular judiciary, civilian -- the civilian judiciary, if I can call it

16 so. Were there proceedings initiated before the civilian judiciary that

17 had to do with respect for humanitarian law?

18 A. Yes, of course. In all situations when the military courts were

19 not in charge, because as I said they prosecuted only members of the

20 Yugoslav army in terms of violations of humanitarian laws and laws of war.

21 All other persons who committed such violations fell under the

22 jurisdiction of regular courts and the regular courts did act. So members

23 of the police and the MUP were -- did not fall under the military

24 judiciary but under the regular judiciary.

25 So regardless of what happened, whether it happened in a combat

Page 37484

1 situation or not, it was the civilian judiciary that prosecuted the

2 members of the MUP.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: I wonder if you can clarify something for me, then,

4 General, because I've obviously misunderstood some of your earlier

5 evidence. You gave evidence that there had been no military courts since

6 the end of the Second World War and prior to 1999, and from that answer I

7 assumed that military law had taken over in the whole area from March of

8 1999. Clearly that was not the case from the answers you've just given.

9 Now, what I'm not understanding is the concept that there were no

10 military courts at all between the end of the Second World War and 1999.

11 I must have misunderstand you somewhere along the line.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you have misunderstood me.

13 Military courts have existed continuously for 160 years in the territory

14 of Serbia and Montenegro, but these are peacetime military courts. They

15 existed continuously. I was talking about wartime courts in response to

16 President Milosevic's questions, when was the last time that we had

17 wartime courts. They operated until 1947. This is a term I'm using,

18 "wartime courts." I'm referring to courts that existed in times of war,

19 but it's a new organisation, a new -- but peacetime -- I beg your pardon.

20 The jurisdiction is the same except that their number went up and that

21 they had to work more intensively. I don't know if this makes it any more

22 clear.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that. Does it follow from that that

24 between 1990 and 1995 that no special arrangements were made to

25 reconstitute the military courts because of wartime or to expand the

Page 37485

1 availability of judges and prosecutors because of war?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that period, a state of war had

3 not been declared. Therefore, there were no new courts that were

4 established. There were peacetime military courts that could deal with

5 all the cases that were there successfully. The requirement for

6 establishing wartime courts is to have a state of war declared, and that

7 happened on the 24th of March, 1999. Before that, in the territory of the

8 SFRY, no state of war had been declared.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Let's just add another explanation. According to the law on

12 military courts, we went through all those tabs, these regular military

13 courts become wartime courts once a state of war is declared, and they

14 cease to be wartime courts when the state of war is abolished. Is that

15 right, General?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So while a state of war is on, courts become wartime courts.

18 A. Let me just clarify another matter. Is it only Belgrade, Nis, and

19 Podgorica that have military courts and military prosecutors' offices in

20 peacetime. But we saw that during the war there were 24 military courts

21 established with 20 of them being first instance courts. And in war there

22 were 20 courts of first instance and four of second instance, precisely in

23 order to be able to prosecute crimes in a timely fashion in each and every

24 unit. I think that I explained this properly now, didn't I.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

Page 37486

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. You have explained, although you are not testifying to that, of

4 course, that proceedings took place before regular courts as well so I'm

5 not going to ask you about regular courts. We'll deal with that through

6 other witnesses. Would you just be kind enough to tell me about this

7 connection. Were there any transfers, referrals of cases between civilian

8 and military courts? And if so, in what cases, in what situations?

9 A. Certainly there were mutual referrals because one or the other

10 courts did not have jurisdiction, either on the grounds of the place where

11 the crime was committed or for another reason. An investigative judge

12 would go on the crime scene and realise that it's not within his

13 jurisdiction, so he would refer the case to the military district

14 prosecutor's office, and vice versa; if civilian authorities, civilian

15 investigators have already completed an on-site investigation and realised

16 it was not within their competence they would refer the case.

17 Later when the procedure was already under way, an indictment has

18 been brought, after the cessation of the state of war, all cases were

19 transferred or referred to peacetime courts because wartime military

20 courts cannot exist except in the state of war. That jurisdiction ceased.

21 Q. Tell me briefly, General, what crimes other than violations of war

22 laws were in the jurisdiction of military courts?

23 A. All the crimes that involved members of military personnel,

24 including conscripts.

25 Q. What kind of attention was given to that?

Page 37487

1 A. Well, trials were held in those cases, too, but procedures that

2 did not involve violations of humanitarian law or laws of war were easier

3 and speedier.

4 Q. Now, tell me, speaking of criminal offences which do constitute a

5 violation of international -- sorry, humanitarian law, speaking only of

6 those violations, did the -- did the prosecutors' offices normally decide

7 to qualify these crimes in more severe or less severe terms? In other

8 words, seeking a more severe or a milder sentence?

9 A. Normally a prosecutor usually goes for the most severe

10 qualification. Whenever a death was involved and the prosecutor found

11 that the act qualified as a crime, he sought to qualify it as a murder,

12 because the law of Serbia and Montenegro makes it impossible to seek a

13 higher sentence than envisaged by the federal law which envisages a death

14 sentence for a war crime. Under republican law, it is usually a prison

15 term from five to 20 years, because the republican law no longer applies

16 the death sentence, whereas the death sentence was actually repealed only

17 a year ago. And even the highest allowed minimum prison sentence was

18 higher during wartime, and the prosecutor was guided by that and sought

19 higher sentences even for crimes that did not involve deaths, such as

20 robberies, assaults, et cetera.

21 Q. In your position, how were you informed? How did you receive

22 reports? You told me that you inspected personally and toured all

23 military judiciary bodies, but how were you informed of their work?

24 A. Primarily by the presence of the military -- supreme military

25 court and supreme military prosecutor's office, because they received

Page 37488

1 daily reports from lower levels. They received daily reports on the

2 number of prosecutions, the number of judgements, the number of trials.

3 This was followed by written reports written by assistant commanders of

4 armies in charge of legal affairs.

5 They made combined reports and submitted them to the Supreme

6 Command Staff. Summaries were then created covering all this data so that

7 the Supreme Command Staff would be informed about this area, the number of

8 investigations, the number of convictions subdivided into categories of

9 perpetrators and crimes, types of crimes.

10 Q. I suppose that you received this information regularly.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Under tab 14 we have a number of overviews and charts. Is this an

13 example of this kind of regular reporting? I hope you have found tab 14.

14 A. Yes. This is an overview.

15 Q. In tab 14, we actually have several of them. On the first sheet

16 -- it would be better, though, if you read this. The original bears a

17 stamp that says verified by so-and-so.

18 On the first sheet we have a list of convictions per category of

19 person, type of crime, and length of the sentence of the 15th of May,

20 1999. First we have an overview of indictees, convictions, crimes, et

21 cetera. So we have four different reports. I would be grateful if you

22 would comment upon each and every one of them.

23 A. If I may digress a little. I would first deal with the overview,

24 the list of accused by categories. First of all we have indictees and

25 then convictions. They are divided into different categories as of 15th

Page 37489

1 of May, 1999.

2 In the first column on the left we see category of person;

3 officers, non-commissioned officers, privates, conscripts, civilians in

4 the army, civilians outside of the army, other, and the total within the

5 jurisdiction of military courts.

6 We have then in another column crimes against the army, failure to

7 respond to a call-up and evasion of military service. This concerns only

8 conscripts, and the number of crimes -- violations of this sort is 2.882.

9 The next category falls under Article 217. Here we have an

10 increased number of offenders; nine officers, four non-commissioned

11 officers, and 649 privates.

12 The next crime concerns failure or refusal to carry out an article

13 201. The total of offenders is 24; two officers, one non-commissioned

14 officer, and 21 privates.

15 The next crime is crimes against property. There are several

16 times of crimes or offences against property. The total number of

17 offenders is 199, some privates, some conscripts.

18 And then we have crimes against life and limb, subdivided, of

19 course, into different categories by gravity. We have 20 offenders in the

20 category of privates and 34 in the category of civilians in the army; the

21 total of 55.

22 The next column deals with other crimes. The total is 75.

23 So the combined total for all categories is 3.897.

24 Q. Let me just ask you, murders fall within the category of crimes

25 against life and limb; is that correct?

Page 37490

1 A. Yes. The next overview is the list of on-site investigations,

2 completed investigations, and judgements delivered by courts for various

3 categories. We see that the number of adjudications or, rather,

4 judgements is lower because the total --

5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter seems to be reading the wrong

6 list.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a list of accused by category

8 of person and type of crime.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: If it is the list on page

10 65.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I saw it on the ELMO a moment ago.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let it be placed -- is it on the ELMO? 66.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 66. That -- on page 66 is the list

14 of on-site investigations, completed investigations and judgements

15 delivered by military courts in the army of Yugoslavia as of the 15th of

16 May, 1999. It says "Military courts in the 1st Army's zone of

17 responsibility," followed by military courts in the 1st Army command, et

18 cetera. Air force and navy by strategic group.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you allow me to intercede with a

20 clarification.

21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Please go ahead, General.

23 A. The first list is a summary for all courts, and the one that is on

24 the ELMO now gives the same overview but by courts, detailing information

25 for all courts. The first one I mentioned was a summary for all courts.

Page 37491

1 This one on the ELMO now is a breakdown. So we have the same totals, but

2 they are broken down by courts.

3 Q. Yes. But on page 66, we only have statistics for investigations,

4 completed investigations, convictions, and acquittals. We don't see what

5 it is really about.

6 In the previous one that you commented upon, we see exactly what

7 you are talking about.

8 In view of the date, the date is the 15th of May, the courts have

9 -- had been operating, as you described, since the 24th of March. That is

10 for a little over 45 days. By some standards that you accepted in the

11 operation of courts, was it the case that the number of convictions and

12 judgements indicated a certain degree of efficiency; low degree, medium,

13 high efficiency? What would be your assessment as a military prosecutor?

14 A. Just to say something about the scope of the work: 395

15 investigations were completed. 997 judgements divided into acquittals and

16 convictions.

17 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is reading out this too fast.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Regardless of the number of these

19 courts, it is -- it can be qualified as a very high degree of efficiency.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: I just wanted to ask: General, how was an

21 investigation initiated?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The investigations would be

23 initiated first of all by unit commanders. It was their duty. It was at

24 the level of company commander. It was his duty to report accordingly if

25 he found out that a crime -- that a violation was committed. Then there

Page 37492

1 were investigation authorities, military police and others at the level of

2 brigade and independent battalions. The main purpose of those units was

3 to detect perpetrators of criminal offences and to collect evidence. They

4 would be the ones who submitted reports to the military prosecutors.

5 And the next level was the investigations judge of the military

6 court. If he found grounds for an indictment, the military prosecutor

7 would initiate proceedings.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... would

9 initiate an investigation?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. If civilian organs find

11 during an on-site investigation that it does not fall under their

12 jurisdiction, they would refer it to the military prosecutor's office.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: What I'm trying to find out, could a civilian

14 make a complaint directly to the military authorities, to your

15 authorities, or must the civilian make the complaint to the civilian

16 organs?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Anybody could file a report. Any

18 civilian, any man in the street who became aware of a violation or a

19 criminal offence could report it to the competent authorities, and the

20 prosecutor would be duty-bound to intervene. Any citizen had the right to

21 submit either an oral or a written report.

22 JUDGE KWON: Just a question out of curiosity: Mr. Nice, you have

23 the B/C/S version of this document?

24 MR. NICE: Yes.

25 JUDGE KWON: There is an address at the foot of the document which

Page 37493

1 seems to be indicating the location of the document. Does this mean this

2 document was taken from the electronic disclosure suite of the

3 Prosecution? Could you tell me about it.

4 MR. NICE: I'll tell you later. While I'm on my feet, if we're

5 looking at these documents for detail and if the Court looks at the

6 English version of tables 2 and 3, it will probably at some stage need to

7 draw to its attention that row 5 of table 3 is completely in error. It's

8 a repeat of row 5 of table 2, and so you should simply strike out the

9 figures in row 5 otherwise the maths don't work.

10 And if you turn to the B/C/S version of table 3 in substitution

11 for the figures 0, 22, 75, 35, 29, and 11, you should add figures 12, 175,

12 50, 47, 2, and 1. It's clear what's happened. The interpreter cast --

13 translator cast his or her eye briefly onto the wrong table when recording

14 the details for table 3.

15 As to the source of the document, I will do my best.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice.

17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume that you were indicating

19 the address at the bottom of page 66. Is that right? It says here:

20 "Documents of the legal department of the General Staff of the army of

21 Yugoslavia." That's at the bottom of that page, if you were talking about

22 page 66. You said there was an address at the bottom of the page. Then

23 on page 67, it says: "47 documents of the legal department GSVJ," the

24 General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia, that is.

25 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I think it's a location of common drive. We'll

Page 37494

1 find out later.

2 MR. NICE: Ms. Dicklich's view is that although the D reference is

3 suggestive of it coming from a disk of some kind, she doesn't think it has

4 any connection with the electronic suite. It's a Defence document.

5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.


7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. They were documents of the

8 legal department or administration of the General Staff of the army of

9 Yugoslavia. This is a review as of the 15th of May, 1999.

10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. But I was asking you something with respect to efficiency, work

12 efficiency. You said that efficiency was very high. I have in mind, of

13 course, the short period of time, that is to say from the end of March to

14 mid-May. That's just a little over a month and a half. And I'm looking

15 at tables 1 and 2 in tab 14. So, General, I'd like you to comment that.

16 For example, on the second table we see that crimes against life

17 and limb, the accused there, incorporates killings. That column

18 incorporates killings. And you have a total of 55 accused and 8

19 convicted. So would that then, for that period of time, be an indicator

20 of high efficiency, medium, or low efficiency? High, average, or low?

21 A. Well, the accusations and convictions, it is a high level, because

22 an indictment has already been raised. Now, when it comes to convictions,

23 that was slower. Eight cases or individuals were convicted, which means

24 that not everything -- not all the data was collected. For example, on

25 one day, the judges had 30 trials to deal with in Pristina, for example,

Page 37495

1 the Pristina Corps, I mean. And on that particular day, only three trials

2 went ahead, which means only three accused were brought in.

3 So you can compare why the courts were not able to follow the

4 tempo, the rate.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: This will be the last question: Of what kind of

6 killing would a soldier be tried and convicted?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For any deprivation of life contrary

8 to the law, whether through premeditated, unpremeditated, or whatever.

9 Manslaughter, et cetera. If it can be proved, that would be it.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: That has to be followed up but we don't have the

11 time.

12 We are now going to break for the day, General, and you will

13 return tomorrow at 9.00 a.m. to continue with your evidence.

14 We are adjourned.

15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.43 p.m.,

16 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 16th day of

17 March, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.