1 Tuesday, 18 May 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon. If I could remind you, once
7 again, General, of the affirmation you took at the beginning of your
8 evidence which still applies.
9 Mr. Rodic.
10 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Good
11 afternoon to all.
12 WITNESS: MILOVAN ZORC [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Cross-examined by Mr. Rodic: [Continued]
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, General Zorc. Tell me, please,
16 is it correct that in the territory of the Former Socialist Republic of
17 Yugoslavia in 1991 there was the 1st, 3rd, and the 5th military district
18 and the military naval district?
19 A. Yes, that is correct.
20 Q. Tell me, please, is it correct that these military districts and
21 the military naval district were not linked up together territory-wise
22 and they were not in the territory of one republic only?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Is it correct that given such an establishment and organisation
25 of the JNA, that military courts had their seats in Ljubljana, Zagreb,
1 Split, Sarajevo, Belgrade, Skopje, and Nis?
2 A. Yes. As far as I know, it was precisely in these cities that the
3 courts had their headquarters.
4 Q. Do you know whether from the summer of 1991 military courts in
5 Ljubljana, Zagreb, and Split were still functioning?
6 A. You asked about the year 1991. Yes, yes, the courts were in
7 these cities.
8 Q. And due to the situation that prevailed in the territory of
9 Republics of Slovenia and Croatia, could the courts function unhindered
10 in those areas? If you know, of course.
11 A. Well, personally, I had nothing to do with these courts at the
12 time. However, I knew that the courts were operating there as long as
13 their headquarters were in these towns.
14 MS. SOMERS: Excuse me for interrupting, Your Honour. There
15 appears to be a transcript problem that it is not advancing.
16 JUDGE PARKER: If the court officer would check on the position.
17 It appears you can proceed now, Mr. Rodic.
18 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. General Zorc, do you know that the command of the military naval
20 district in Split was relocated to the forward command post at Vis in
22 A. Yes, I know about it.
23 Q. Do you remember perhaps whether this relocation of the command of
24 the military naval district from Split followed after those incidents in
25 May 1991 in front of the command of the military in Split?
1 A. Yes. As far as I know, that was the consequence of the problems
2 which occurred in the first half of the year in the area of the military
3 naval district.
4 Q. Thank you. Tell me, please, when a state of war is declared in
5 the former SFRY, in that situation military war courts are established.
6 Is that right?
7 A. Yes. That is continued from peacetime, and they are additionally
9 Q. In that case, military war courts are established attached to
10 armies, corps, divisions, and military districts. Is that right?
11 A. I believe it is so. However, I must say that I didn't go into
12 this in detail, organisationally speaking.
13 Q. Is it correct that a state of war in the -- is it true that
14 during the course of 1991 a state of war was not declared in the SFRY?
15 A. As far as I know, it had not been declared.
16 Q. Tell me, please, what about the security organs and the military
17 police in the Yugoslav People's Army, that is to say, in the former SFRY?
18 Did they inter alia work on the curbing and control of crime?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. As regards that particular matter, that is to say, crime
21 prevention and control, do they work independently, these organs, and do
22 they submit criminal reports and file charges with the military courts?
23 When I say "independently," I mean, is it within their description, their
24 work description?
25 A. Yes, it is an assignment of theirs. And when saying
1 independently, I understand that as independently from the commanding
2 officers of the various units and garrisons.
3 Q. Tell me, functionally speaking, is the military police
4 subordinated to the security organs?
5 A. Yes. For a functionally control and command, it is subordinated
6 to the security organs of a given command.
7 Q. Tell me, please, when we are talking about the military police,
8 are there duty services within the military police and are there
9 appropriate officers at such centres dealing in crime prevention and
11 A. Yes. The military police units have to have duty services type,
12 and the number would depend also on the numbers of the -- in the ranks of
13 the military police.
14 Q. Is it correct that within the ranks of the military police, all
15 members of the military police were not trained for that particular line
16 of work; that is to say, crime prevention and control?
17 A. Yes, that is correct. The units of military police, their ranks
18 were filled up with recruits, with young conscripts. The crime
19 prevention work within the military police unit was carried out primarily
20 by junior officers and noncommissioned officers with the assistance of a
21 certain number of soldiers. This is -- what I wanted to point out was
22 that these were professionals.
23 Q. If the command of the 2nd Operational Group had within its ranks
24 only one platoon of the military police for providing security at the
25 command post itself, can you tell me, then, what the tasks are of that
1 military police platoon that was attached to the command of the
2 2nd Operational Group?
3 A. In general, I cannot answer this question. If to the command of
4 the 2nd Operational Group only a military police platoon was attached,
5 then its assignment would depend. But to cover with a single platoon all
6 the assignments of the military police would be almost impossible.
7 Already the question of protecting the command of the 2nd Operational
8 Group would need more than a single platoon for that assignment.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 Tell me, please, according to the doctrine of command of the JNA,
11 did the JNA prefer centralised command?
12 A. Yes, certainly.
13 Q. Tell me, please, in which way and how do system-based causes
14 reflect the system of command and control? When I say "system-based
15 causes," I'm referring to, for example, units that were established in
16 haste, belonging to different arms and services; and also the fact that
17 people within the units did not know each other very well; and then
18 problems with manning the units if a state of war was not declared and if
19 men were called up for military exercises for up to 40 days and they are
20 sent out to a theatre of war and combat operations; and also their VES is
21 not the appropriate one, then also there is an impossibility to apply
22 rules pertaining to a state of war in the actual situation that prevailed
23 in the front line?
24 JUDGE PARKER: Are you asking the witness, Mr. Rodic, to assume
25 all of those things and then to seek to give you an answer?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Can you cope with that, General?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe I can.
4 Namely, the fundamental question is how such exceptional, extraordinary
5 circumstances influence the system of command and control. Partly, this
6 issue was covered in my report where I drew the attention and I warned
7 that newly formed units or the operational group or a tactical group are
8 always in a stage of consolidation. If also the command of such a group
9 has been formed from officers coming from different units, from different
10 institutions and who haven't been trained as a team, that means that also
11 the command and the entire system of command and control has to be
12 established and develop an effective system. And as long as we don't
13 achieve this level of efficiency, this poses a limit of the command for
14 effective command and control.
15 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. What about the other system-based causes that I enumerated to
17 you? If they exist, do they affect command and control, too?
18 A. Yes, they did -- they do; namely, insufficiently consolidated
19 units which are in the state of being formed and forming the manpower
20 require something else, namely, more activity, more exercise of command
21 and control than if the units had been formed in advance, trained in
22 advance, and as such, then, subordinated to the new command.
23 Q. Tell me, please, General Zorc, in the period from the 1st of
24 October until the 31st of December 1991, would the system of command and
25 control encounter problems if new units were frequently brought in to the
1 2nd Operational Group and if existing units were withdrawn from the
2 2nd Operational Group? Also, because of requirements in the field,
3 neutral resubordination of units, can all of this all together be looked
4 upon as a problem?
5 A. Yes, I could say this and confirm that the resubordination of
6 units from one command to another, the reattachment of a unit to another
7 command, all this requires a re-establishment of linking and
8 communication lines among the units. And if this then goes on during
9 battles, this is not useful for command and control as a system, and it
10 certainly created difficulties.
11 And if I may add, in viewing certain documents yesterday, it is
12 my opinion that there was serious difficulties, not only on the level of
13 the sector command to the battalion, brigade, and other subordinates, but
14 also on the higher levels of the 9th VPS. One of the -- and this is also
15 a part of my response to the question you have just asked.
16 Q. I would now like to ask you to look at page 6 of your report. In
17 B/C/S, it is page 6. And it has to do with the general part, the
18 introduction, I (b) is the subparagraph, levels of command and control in
19 the Yugoslav People's Army. Can you see the part in which you divided
20 the system of command and control into three basic levels?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Please look at the strategic level of command and control,
23 number 1 is the SFRY Presidency as the supreme commander of the armed
24 force. Number 2 is the federal secretary for National Defence and the
25 General Staff of the armed forces. And 3 - at least that is what you say
1 in your findings - is the navy command and the air force and
2 anti-aircraft defence command. Did such staffs exist within the
3 strategic level of demand and control, that is?
4 A. Well, the staff -- in my report, it says that these were commands
5 of military districts. It is these districts which you questioned me
6 about at the beginning of this session. Three military districts, and
7 the military navy district, four. And the fifth, the command of the air
8 force and anti-aircraft defence. And these were all commands on a
9 strategic level.
10 Q. Thank you, General. In the B/C/S translation, it said something
11 different, so that's why I wanted to clarify it. So is it correct that
12 it is the commands of the military districts of the army. Where would
13 you place them, the strategic level, or somewhere else actually?
14 A. This is what I've just said. These were strategic commands.
15 Q. Do you recall, perhaps, how the status of these commands of the
16 military districts was regulated according to the unity plan that has to
17 do with strategic grouping in possible theatres in the second half of the
18 1980s? Were commands of military districts established as forms of
19 decentralised strategic command? Was that the situation then?
20 A. No. That was not a term of decentralisation of command and
21 control. It was only the third level of strategic level of command and
22 control as I have presented it in my report. The essence of the
23 strategic meaning of these entities, they were responsible for parts of
24 the territory of the former Yugoslavia. And on these territories, these
25 were battlegrounds. It was the superior to all units on that territory,
1 the JNA units and to the units of the Territorial Defence. This does not
2 apply to the command of the air force and anti-aircraft defence command,
3 which covered the entire territory and the airspace over the former
5 Q. Thank you.
6 Tell me, please, into which level of command would you put the
7 republican staffs of Territorial Defence?
8 A. The republican staffs of Territorial Defence were and remained in
9 this new organisation at the army operational strategic level as prior to
10 the reorganisation were the leaderships of armies, which were on equal
11 level as the republican staffs. In this new organisation, when the
12 commands of military districts was set up, the republican staffs were
13 subordinated and had an operational and strategic meaning. And they were
14 somewhere higher than the level of the corps.
15 Q. Thank you, sir. General Zorc, thank you very much for your
17 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this concludes my
18 cross-examination. And the Defence has a motion to make; namely, that
19 Admiral Jokic's interview as a reference dated September 2003, which was
20 one of the references used for the report of this witness, that the
21 interview namely be tendered into evidence. Thank you.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Do you have it available for tendering, Mr. Rodic?
23 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, may I be heard also on this?
24 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we would like to use the
25 following break to obtain that document. It's a very comprehensive
1 interview, and the only problem we have is actually Xeroxing it. But I'm
2 sure we can take care of that during the break and have copies delivered
3 to the Chamber afterwards.
4 JUDGE PARKER: And you have during your cross-examination taken
5 the general to a number of passages. From the interview of
6 Admiral Jokic, what is it that you would want more than that?
7 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, bearing in mind the need
8 to keep my cross-examination as brief as possible --
9 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous interpretation continues] ... We lost
10 the English...
11 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English booth now,
12 Your Honour?
13 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on, Mr. Rodic. I'm sorry, there was a break
14 for a while there.
15 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Bearing in
16 mind the need to keep my cross-examination as short as possible, the
17 testimony and the cross-examination of the witness in relation to his
18 very comprehensive report, and also bearing in mind the comprehensive
19 interview given by Admiral Jokic, the Defence tried to use only a portion
20 of the relevant material based on the interview so that we may be able to
21 cover all other areas during our cross-examination that were relevant to
22 our case. Therefore, we were not able to go through the whole interview
23 as we might have liked to during our cross-examination. The interview
24 does contain a lot more information in relation to this witness's expert
25 report than the Defence has gone into during our cross-examination. And
1 this information is certainly helpful for the understanding of this
2 witness's report.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Rodic.
4 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Ms. Somers.
6 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, after Admiral Jokic's testimony, the
7 same motion was raised, and this Chamber denied at the time the motion
8 very soundly. It is not evidence. The best evidence of what
9 Admiral Jokic says is what Admiral Jokic has said. It is clear from what
10 this witness has indicated that there were very limited references, and
11 the fact that the Defence chose to adopt in its questioning much more
12 than was even contemplated for use, or in fact used, by this witness does
13 not make it any more admissible. It is not evidence; it is not
14 admissible as evidence. It is hundreds and hundreds of pages. And we
15 think that the Chamber has had the benefit of its use in the
16 cross-examination of Admiral Jokic, and perhaps it's overuse in the
17 cross-examination of this particular witness. But it is -- Admiral Jokic
18 appeared before this Chamber exclusively as a witness, and as such there
19 was no basis for any admission into evidence of something that is not
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
22 The interview with Admiral Jokic will not be received in
23 evidence. There was some use of it made by the present witness,
24 General Zorc. He did identify the use that he made. As far as I can
25 judge, in most material respects, those matters were dealt with in
1 cross-examination of the General. The interview with Admiral Jokic was
2 explored further than that in the course of cross-examination; and in
3 those respects, there has been some evidence from the General which may
4 be of some use to the Defence or to the Trial Chamber. But beyond, that
5 as Ms. Somers has submitted, the interview itself is not of direct
6 relevance, does not constitute evidence, and ought not to be admitted.
7 Yes, Ms. Somers, do you re-examine?
8 MS. SOMERS: I do. Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Re-examined by Ms. Somers:
10 Q. General Zorc, in the course of cross-examination, a number of
11 questions were asked about the subordination of the 472nd Brigade during
12 the period 1 October through 31 December 1991. Now, during that period,
13 it is clear to you that the 9th VPS was directly subordinated to the
14 2nd Operational Group. Is that correct?
15 A. Yes, that is correct.
16 Q. And there were periods during that three-or-so month period where
17 the 427nd Brigade was directly subordinated to the 2nd Operational Group.
19 A. Yes, there were times when the brigade was directly subordinated
20 to the command of the 2nd OG.
21 Q. And there were also periods when the 472nd Motorised Brigade was
22 directly subordinated to the 9th VPS but remained within the composition
23 of the 2nd Operational Group. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes. The Vis brigade was - again, at certain times -
25 resubordinated or returned under the command of the 9th VPS. However,
1 all the units of the 2nd OG, regardless of which one of the subordinated
2 commands commanded them, remained in the composition of the 2nd OG. And
3 this means that the brigade, too, was in the composition of the 2nd OG.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MS. SOMERS: If I may ask, please, that P100 be shown to the
7 Q. I'll ask you, General, if you have in front of you, and perhaps
8 it can be put on the ELMO if it's convenient. This is an organogram or
9 organisational structure as of 6th December 1991. Now, according to this
10 organisational structure, do you see the 3rd Battalion of the
11 472nd Motorised Brigade? Are you able to identify or locate the box that
12 has the 3rd Battalion of the 472nd Motorised Brigade?
13 A. Yes, that is visible.
14 Q. Now, this brigade [sic] which is under the direct command or
15 directly subordinated to the 9th VPS is still within - do you agree - the
16 structure -- sorry, the 3rd Battalion; the transcript reads "brigade"; it
17 should read "battalion." Still within the structure, it shows still
18 within the structure of the 2nd Operational Group. Is that correct? The
19 3rd Battalion of the 472nd directly subordinated shows still within the
20 structure of the 2nd Operational Group. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes, of course. All units listed here on this chart are in the
22 composition of the 2nd OG, only that the 3rd Battalion of the 472nd is
23 directly subordinated to the command of the 9th VPS whereas the command
24 of the 9th VPS is subordinated to the command of the 2nd OG. And all of
25 these units are within the composition of the 2nd OG, including others
1 not shown here.
2 Q. And does that indicate, then, that on the 6th of December, which
3 is what this particular organogram refers to, that the highest command,
4 the highest command of the 3rd Battalion of the 472nd Brigade is the
5 command of the 2nd Operational Group?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, can I ask you --
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness was about
9 to provide an explanation. Therefore, the may the witness be allowed to
10 explain what he was about to explain. He was interrupted in midstream,
11 which I didn't think was fair. So please, again, the answer to the
12 previous question.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I just wanted to add that the
14 3rd Battalion was at the second level of subordination to the 2nd OG. So
15 through the 9th VPS. And within the operational group, the command of
16 the 2nd Operational Group was, of course, the highest level of command
17 leading the operations.
18 MS. SOMERS:
19 Q. Can you take a look, now, please, at the box that has the
20 3rd Battalion of the 5th Motorised Brigade. Do you see it? The
21 3rd Battalion of the 5th Motorised Brigade.
22 A. Yes, I see it.
23 Q. You see it is also under -- on the 6th of December under the
24 direct command of the 9th VPS, and still within the structure of the
25 2nd Operational Group? Do you see that?
1 A. Yes, that is correct.
2 Q. Can you confirm, then, that on 6 December 1991 the command of the
3 2nd Operational Group was the highest command of the 3rd Battalion of the
4 5th Motorised Brigade?
5 A. Yes. According to this organisational chart, that is the case.
6 Q. If you look at the 2nd Corps, a box for the 2nd Corps. Do you
7 see it, General?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And do you see that it was -- I think that you were shown P101
10 earlier, a document which talks about the resubordination of the
11 472nd Brigade with the exception of the 3rd Battalion. Do you remember
12 that, that it was a document showing resubordination of the 472nd except
13 for the 3rd Battalion? That was on or about 20th of November. Do you
14 recall that?
15 A. Yes, I remember. That was yesterday.
16 Q. Do you see the 2nd Corps as still being directly subordinated to
17 the 2nd Operational Group as of 6 December 1991?
18 A. Yes, that is correct.
19 MS. SOMERS: You can put that exhibit away. Thank you very much.
20 Q. General, during the course of cross-examination, you were shown a
21 document, D43, which was an order issued by General Strugar dated
22 25 October 1991 which, among other things, ordered the resubordination of
23 the 472nd Motorised Brigade to the 9th VPS. Considering -- do you
24 remember that, first? Make sure you remember.
25 A. Yes, I remember.
1 Q. Thank you. Considering that during this period, the 9th VPS
2 itself was directly subordinated to the 2nd Operational Group, does the
3 fact that the 472nd Motorised Brigade -- does the fact that its being
4 resubordinated to its so-called former parent group, does that fact
5 diminish in any way the responsibility of the 2nd Operational Group
6 command over the 472nd Motorised Brigade while that brigade is still
7 within the composition of the 2nd Operational Group command?
8 A. No. That does not change in any way the responsibility of the
9 command of the 2nd Operational Group.
10 Q. Does the order D43, which you were shown and which we have just
11 discussed, the one of 25 October of General Strugar, does it have any
12 impact on the overall command of General Strugar over the 472nd Motorised
13 Brigade during the period that it is subordinated - it, meaning the
14 brigade - is subordinated to the 9th VPS which VPS was subordinated to
15 the 2nd Operational Group?
16 A. Yes. It does change the manner of command for this brigade
17 precisely from the very moment when the brigade was resubordinated to the
18 9th VPS. As of this moment, the commander of the 2nd OG no longer issues
19 direct commands to the commander of the brigade. Instead, these commands
20 are issued by the command of the 9th VPS, and that applies to the entire
21 new structure of the 9th VPS, including this brigade.
22 Q. And the overall, highest level of command, including over the
23 472nd Brigade, which has just been resubordinated, is still the
24 2nd Operational Group?
25 A. That is correct.
1 Q. And ultimate responsibility down to the last soldier for every
2 action in that brigade or any part thereof lies with the command of the
3 2nd Operational Group, the commander of the 2nd Operational Group?
4 A. Yes, that is correct.
5 Q. You were asked about two orders that were issued by
6 General Strugar. One is P121 and the other is P119.
7 MS. SOMERS: I would ask that the usher please provide these
9 Q. I'm going to ask you first, General Zorc, to take a look at P119,
10 which is dated 24 October 1991. You have been asked and you have --
11 sorry. Do you have it? Do you have the order in front of you?
12 A. [No Interpretation]
13 Q. Thank you very much.
14 You had been asked during the course of your cross-examination
15 about the essential parts of a combat order, and I wonder if you would be
16 good enough, please, to look at this order and identify the same portions
17 that you talked about in your cross. For example, a description of the
18 enemy. If you could just take us through this combat order and talk
19 about its parts, please. Without reading every single detail, just
20 identify the paragraphs that show the essential parts, please.
21 A. Yes, I can do that. This order is titled "Decision for Further
22 Action." And this is a completely normal title for such a combat order.
23 This order contains under item 1 information concerning the manner in
24 which the commander of the 2nd OG assesses the activities of the enemy
25 during this time.
1 Item 2 provides a brief assessment of the outcome achieved by his
2 own units in the time past.
3 Under item 3, the issuer of the order submits to his subordinates
4 information on further combat action; and furthermore, the issuer also
5 defines the tasks of the 37th Corps of the 2nd Corps and of the 9th VPS.
6 In addition to that, he also defines the mission of the 472nd
7 Motorised Brigade, meaning that it was subordinated to him at that time.
8 Then certain missions are also defined in terms of improving combat
9 morale, security, engineering support, supply, as well as aircraft and
10 artillery support.
11 Q. Thank you, General. I think you've identified most of the parts.
12 What I'd like to ask you to take a second look at is paragraph 3 where it
13 says "I decided to..." Do you see paragraph 3, General?
14 A. Yes, item 3.
15 Q. Is this where General Strugar is issuing his orders about the
16 mission to his subordinate units or the missions of his subordinate
17 units? Is this the central part of the description of what is to be
19 A. Yes. That is the central part which contains a general part of
20 the decision as well as the missions of the subordinated units.
21 Q. And is General Strugar the only person issuing this order, this
22 type of order, to his subordinates?
23 A. Yes, of course. He was the only one competent for the issuing of
24 such a document, although the document that I have in my hand is not
1 Q. Can I ask you, please, to take a look at page 1 of the order.
2 And in paragraph 3, within the definition or the taskings, the issuing
3 part of the order about mission, do you see where it says: "Further, to
4 stabilise the defence at the reach lines and improve the tactical
5 position," and then the next sentence says: "Further to, ensure the
6 complete control of the coast movement and especially of the sea
7 movement, focusing on the communication towards Dubrovnik from the sea,
8 the Neretva River valley, and the Peljesac peninsula." Do you see that,
10 A. Yes, that is an integral part of the general tasking.
11 Q. And this tasking indicates that there are also naval assets which
12 are subordinated to the 2nd Operational Group, does it not?
13 A. Here in this part, it only says that control has to be assured
14 over sea traffic, maritime traffic, with a focus on access points to
15 Dubrovnik. In addition to that, also along the River Neretva and also
16 the Peljesac peninsula.
17 Q. Can I turn your attention to the -- in English, it's the next
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And it goes on. We're under "9th VPS." Do you see the section,
21 General, where it addresses that -- it talks about engagement of the
22 units. And then if goes on: "Further on, continue the control of the
23 sea, moving an order to prevent with even more quality and" -- I believe
24 surety, or surely -- "the ships' arrival and departure from the Dubrovnik
25 Municipality port." Now, is this also an indication of command and
1 control over waters in the Dubrovnik operation?
2 A. Yes. After he decided in the general part that better control
3 has to be assured for maritime access to Dubrovnik, the mission given to
4 the command of the 9th VPS expressly states that incoming traffic to
5 Dubrovnik has to be protected in an even better fashion.
6 Q. So that is command and control by the commander of the
7 2nd Operational Group over naval forces of the 9th VPS, is it not?
8 A. Well, what you're asking means that he does have control, but
9 only at a second level. He gave this mission, this order, to the
10 commander of the 9th VPS, and the commander of the 9th VPS is the one
11 that has to carry this order out with the help of his maritime units, his
12 naval units.
13 Q. I understand. But the tasking is from the commander of the
14 2nd Operational Group to do this?
15 A. Of course. That is an order issued by the commander of the
16 2nd Operational Group.
17 Q. Reading further, just below what we have discussed, it states:
18 "I should think about the need of the strengthening of the battleships
19 and in due course submit the request for the said to the VPO command."
20 Now, what is being asked of the VPO command, what contribution?
21 In other words, does that clearly reflect that the VPO is not involved in
22 the operational activity but more in the materiel side of anything in
24 A. Well, the essence of the mission ordered by the command of the
25 2nd OG to the commander of the 9th VPS is the following: If the
1 commander of the 9th VPS will assess that he does not have sufficient
2 naval forces to provide for more efficient control of maritime traffic
3 incoming to Dubrovnik, then he should consider whether he would request
4 from the command of the VPO a reinforcement of naval forces.
5 At the same time, this is a sort of a suggestion on the part of
6 the commander of the 2nd OG that those forces are insufficient. This was
7 done because the commander of the 2nd OG did not have within his
8 structure naval forces which could reinforce the command of the 9th VPS.
9 Only the command of the VPO had at its disposal naval forces.
10 MS. SOMERS: Excuse me a second.
11 Q. In issuing instructions concerning further action, particularly
12 going into the next day, the command of the 2nd Operational Group --
13 commander -- clearly assigns tasks to the 472nd Motorised Brigade
14 concerning combat activity which appears to go into a time frame when it
15 was resubordinated to the 9th VPS, which was by an order you've already
16 seen the next day. Do you agree that despite that resubordination, there
17 is no change in the overall command authority of the 2nd Operational
18 Group commander as to this order and as to that unit?
19 A. Yes. This unit was throughout this time in the structure of the
20 2nd OG regardless to which lower level of command it was resubordinated
21 or regardless of whether it was kept under the direct command of the
22 operational group.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 If you could take a look now at P -- I believe it was 121. It's
25 an order dated 23rd of October 1991. And I think we've already made the
1 correction, Your Honours, where at the top it says "2nd command," it
2 should in English say "2nd Operational Group command" based on the
4 You see a paragraph dedicated to the 9th VPS and a paragraph
5 dedicated to the 472nd Motorised Brigade, do you not?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you confirm that the reporting of both at 0900 hours at the
8 command post for Trebinje, is that a standard -- is that something that
9 is expected, a normal part of an order?
10 A. Yes, that is a normal request. But it does not always have to be
11 part of an order.
12 Q. Thank you. We can move on, please.
13 I'm sorry, General. I apologise, there was one point I wanted to
14 ask you about on that.
15 MS. SOMERS: Is it possible just for a second to put 121 back up.
16 I just missed it in my own notes.
17 Q. If you look at the first paragraph, the introductory paragraph
18 under 9th VPS on 121, that's the 23rd October order. Do you see it,
19 General, the very first paragraph? Do you see it? Okay.
20 Does that paragraph indicate clearly that General Strugar
21 approves the proposal of the commander of the 9th VPS, and does that
22 approval -- is that approval consistent with General Strugar's exclusive
23 authority and command over the 9th VPS and all of its subordinate units?
24 A. Yes. And the first sentence means that the commander of the
25 operational group accepts the proposal of the decision referred to him by
1 the commander of the 9th VPS.
2 Q. And by approving it, General, then General Strugar becomes
3 responsible for the implementation of that order.
4 A. Yes. He would be responsible in any case. But through this
5 approval, he states that he agrees with the manner of implementing the
6 task given to the 9th VPS.
7 Q. Thank you very much.
8 D44 was an exhibit. Defence Exhibit 44 --
9 MS. SOMERS: I'm finished with that, Mr. Usher, thank you.
10 Q. -- that was shown to you or discussed with you during
11 cross-examination. Would you want to see it? Would it help you to have
12 a look at D44, please, on the ELMO.
13 A. Yes, please.
14 Q. Do you have the order in front of you, General? Not yet. Sorry.
15 Do you see the order in front of you, General Zorc?
16 A. Yes, I have it before me.
17 Q. From the terms of this order, General, is it clear that by 29
18 September 1991 the 2nd Operational Group was tasked with the blockade of
20 A. Well, here I have to be precise. What I have before me is the
21 text of a decision on the part of the commander of the operational group
22 dated 29 September which constitutes only a part of his order issued to
23 his subordinates. This is a proposal for the decision submitted to the
24 commander of this group to the chief of General Staff for approval.
25 There is no item 2 here which would state what sort of task the
1 operational group was given. Instead, we can conclude what its task
2 would be from the general part of the decision stated under item 1,
3 paragraph 1. And this paragraph 1 also states that the blockade of
4 Dubrovnik from the sea and from land is one of the decisions made by the
5 commander of the operational group. And this, then, certainly means that
6 he received such an order from his superior commander.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 You commented that the coming together of different groups of
9 soldiers at various levels of preparation from various branches, various
10 levels of training can particularly, and perhaps under circumstances such
11 as the one that have been discussed, can be difficult. Nonetheless, does
12 this proposal which you have seen through subsequent orders was
13 implemented? Does it bear the expectation that these missions will be
14 accomplished by the units in the 2nd Operational Group or under the
15 command and control of the 2nd Operational Group?
16 A. Yes, certainly. These missions are to be carried out by the
17 units of the 2nd Operational Group regardless of what level of training
18 they have received in general.
19 Q. Thank you. In the context of General Strugar's authority and
20 command over the Dubrovnik operations, including the blockade, I would
21 like to ask you first of all if you are familiar with a publication
22 called Narodna Armija. Are you familiar with it?
23 A. Yes, of course. It is the newspaper or the magazine of the
24 Yugoslav People's Army.
25 Q. And what are some of the items that are normally found in it?
1 A. Well, this general publication which was public, just like any
2 other newspaper, magazine, contained mainly information on events within
3 the JNA and on events which were of particular significance for members
4 of the JNA.
5 MS. SOMERS: I would ask to have distributed, please, a document.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, objection. First of
7 all, we object to the distribution of any kind of document, and we would
8 seek clarification as to what this document has to do with the content of
9 the cross-examination. What is the reason that compels my colleague to
10 bring any kind of document into the redirect examination? We don't know
11 what kind of document this is, and I think that it is quite inappropriate
12 to bring in any kind of document, let alone a newspaper article that has
13 nothing to do with the subject of our cross-examination.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Well, you can hardly say that until you know what
15 the document is. But perhaps we'll learn from Ms. Somers, Mr. Petrovic.
16 MS. SOMERS: Shall I first seek the distribution of it, and
17 then --
18 JUDGE PARKER: No, you can tell us what it is. There's an
19 objection to it being distributed.
20 MS. SOMERS: Yes. The article, Your Honours, is from Narodna
21 Armija dated 22nd December 1991 and in fact discusses -- it takes a
22 highlight of General Strugar and his various -- the various aspects of
23 his command and authority in the 2nd Operational Group. And it is a view
24 by the JNA on that command authority. It is very relevant.
25 JUDGE PARKER: What aspect of the cross-examination has given
1 rise to this issue?
2 MS. SOMERS: It goes to overall authority for functions, for all
3 command functions, in the 2nd Operational Group. There has been a
4 suggestion that there may have been another person who had said function,
5 and that is not what is supported by the view in the particular document.
6 JUDGE PARKER: And the view in a newspaper article is going to
7 assist in that respect, is it?
8 MS. SOMERS: It is the official journal of the JNA, Your Honours.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we object for several
12 reasons. The first reason is what my learned friend mentioned as a
13 reason is precisely what the content of the report of this witness is.
14 And I don't see how a newspaper article is going to assist her in this.
15 Secondly, what is contained in this newspaper article are the
16 conclusions of someone who is the author of this article. Your Honour,
17 we do not have here before us the author of this article. We do not know
18 on the basis of what he wrote this, on the basis of what kind of
19 information, when we published this, why he published it. We don't know
20 anything about this. It is highly inappropriate not knowing anything
21 about this Z. Dervisevic who allegedly wrote this article to deal with
22 this document any further.
23 By the way, this is no official journal. This is simply a
24 newspaper, a publication, which carried different articles from different
25 spheres of life with free interpretations. And by the way, it was a
1 public newspaper, and it was accessible to all who wanted to read it.
2 The essence of my objection is what I said at the outset. Thank you,
3 Your Honours.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Could I raise with you further, Ms. Somers, what
5 it is that makes it now relevant that was not present during evidence in
6 chief? In other words, why now and not when the evidence was being led
7 in the first place?
8 MS. SOMERS: The challenge to the exclusive authority of
9 General Strugar was raised in cross-examination. And the discussion in
10 this article includes comment attributed to General Strugar about various
11 of his subordinates.
12 JUDGE PARKER: But isn't that one of the aspects to which the
13 evidence of this witness is directed? Isn't that one of your reasons for
14 calling this witness, to establish the exclusive authority of the
16 MS. SOMERS: It is, Your Honour. And we believe that it was
17 sufficiently established, but it has been again challenged. And if this
18 piece of evidence will further corroborate the views of the very military
19 in which the accused served, it may assist the Chamber in some
20 additional -- having some additional evidentiary value.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 MS. SOMERS: There were issues of parallel command -- I'm sorry.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 MS. SOMERS: I apologise. I didn't realise you were in
1 The issues of parallel command were raised during
2 cross-examination. Again, this covers some -- to the degree of
3 reliability is always a factor that the Chamber would consider. But in
4 terms of admissibility, it counters suggestion of any parallel chain of
6 JUDGE PARKER: The objection of Mr. Petrovic is upheld. There
7 appears no reason why this document could not have been advanced during
8 evidence in chief. So first, there is no demonstrated justification for
9 its tendering at this stage.
10 Secondly, it is a document or a publication of no demonstrated
11 credibility for our purposes.
12 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll move on.
13 Is this the time at which the Chamber might wish to break? I'm
15 Q. General Zorc, despite not having seen the initial order by which
16 the 2nd Operational Group was formed, you have seen orders, including
17 combat orders, issued by General Strugar, as well as other orders issued
18 in the course of the Dubrovnik operation. Do these documents which you
19 have reviewed allow you to conclude or draw the inference that there were
20 no limitations on General Strugar's command and control authority over
21 the units subordinated to him in the 2nd Operational Group which included
22 the 9th VPS and the 472nd Motorised Brigade with its various -- with all
23 its battalions?
24 A. Yes. The documents which I saw are completely sufficient for me
25 to make a conclusion that the commander of the 2nd Operational Group had
1 exclusive authority for implementing the tasks conferred upon him. He
2 had all the necessary competence to command all units subordinated to his
3 operational group.
4 Q. You have been asked about Article 6 of the rules of authority of
5 the corps command of land forces in peacetime. And without going back to
6 the specific provisions, if you remember that it has been discussed, if a
7 unit is temporarily subordinated to another formation outside of its
8 permanent composition for operational purposes, is it not the case that
9 the command of the formation to which that unit was subordinated to for
10 combat and operational purposes would have command responsibility for
11 misconduct committed in the course of combat or for combat indiscipline
12 committed by such subordinate unit?
13 A. Yes, that is correct.
14 Q. Thank you. From material that you have reviewed so far, can you
15 conclude that all of the units of the 9th VPS deployed in the area of
16 operation of the 2nd Operational Group were within the composition of the
17 2nd Operational Group?
18 A. Well, here, too, I have to specify my answer. Since I did not
19 see a document that would precisely determine the limits or the outlines
20 of the zone of responsibility of the 2nd Operational Group, particularly
21 to the south of the entry into Boka Kotorska, because of this, I cannot
22 make the conclusion whether the units of the 9th VPS which were located
23 at the southernmost point of this coast were also integrated in the
24 structure of the 2nd Operational Group. The fact is that in none of the
25 documents that I saw did I see those units being resubordinated from the
1 command of the 9th VPS regardless of the fact that these units - and I am
2 here referring to the naval marine brigade - that they would come under
3 the command of the 2nd Operational Group. I did not see any tasks
4 conferred on such units.
5 Also, the orders of the 9th VPS did not specify any particular
6 missions for this brigade. And for any other units which were within the
7 structure of the 9th VPS.
8 Q. Excuse me. Can I ask you, General, perhaps I can make my
9 question a bit more precise. Can you conclude that the units of the 9th
10 VPS which were involved in the area of operation of the Dubrovnik
11 campaign of the 2nd Operational Group were within the composition of the
12 2nd Operational Group?
13 A. Yes, of course. All those units that in any way received orders
14 were within the composition of the 2nd Operational Group, as is evidenced
15 by the fact that they received those orders from the command of the
16 2nd OG.
17 Q. You were asked about the content of three orders of the 9th VPS
18 in D57, D58, and D67, just for general reference. Generally, General,
19 what is the source from which information on enemy activity and positions
20 are gathered? Is that source through intelligence information?
21 A. Yes. Information on the enemy is called "intelligence data," and
22 intelligence data is gathered through intelligence bodies, intelligence
24 Q. Is it possible that sometimes intelligence information may be
25 flawed or not provide accurate information, or could sometimes be based
1 on mere suspicion?
2 A. Yes. To the regret of all military commanders, information on
3 the enemy is almost never comprehensive and almost never completely
4 reliable. And that is why we usually speak of assessments of the
5 deployment of forces, the activities, and the intent of the enemy. That
6 is why we do not speak of actual fact.
7 Q. You were asked about the improbability of a brigade commander
8 reporting to his corps commander in relation to a special situation in
9 the presence of a subordinate officer such as a battalion commander. Do
10 you recall there was an example or hypothetical given to you by the
11 Defence in cross-examination about a brigade commander reporting to his
12 corps commander in relation to a special situation and having that
13 situation discussed in the presence of a subordinate officer such as a
14 battalion commander?
15 I will turn your attention, if it will help -- if you don't, I
16 will try to focus, and it may refresh the hypothetical given by my
17 learned friend opposite. The evidence that has been heard in this court
18 was that subsequent or consequent, as a consequence of the shelling of
19 6 December 1991 of Dubrovnik, General Strugar and Admiral Jokic were
20 summoned by General Kadijevic to Belgrade to be present before him
21 together about the incident. Was there anything unusual, given those
22 circumstances, that General Strugar should be summoned on the incident in
23 the presence of his subordinate officer, Admiral Jokic?
24 A. No. I wouldn't say that there was anything particularly
25 problematic with this. Granted, these are two officers that are in a
1 relationship of subordinate and superior. However, in such a case, the
2 manner of ascertaining responsibility has to be done by the person who
3 decides whether this is appropriate or not. What I think would happen in
4 such a case is the following: The federal secretary would, in fact, call
5 on the commander of the 9th VPS in the presence of his superior. And
6 that, then, is completely acceptable.
7 MS. SOMERS: Excuse me, I want to find a related point. I just
8 have it on a separate question.
9 Q. The fact that the federal secretary -- let's say you are the
10 commander of the 2nd Operational Group. We'll use General Strugar in his
11 role, then. The fact that the federal secretary calls General Strugar,
12 actually calls General Strugar and not Admiral Jokic or the brigade
13 commander of this undisciplined battalion commander who allegedly
14 initiated an action. Does that reinforce the position that the federal
15 secretary considers General Strugar to be in command on the 6th of
16 December 1991?
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could this question
18 please be clarified. If it's a hypothesis, could its elements please be
19 spelled out. This, what we've heard, is not clear enough. So could my
20 learned colleague say whether it is based on evidence. And if it is not
21 based on evidence, could she please say that it's a hypothesis. And then
22 when presenting her hypothesis, can she then ask the general for his
23 opinion of it.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers.
25 MS. SOMERS: Based on evidence before this Chamber,
1 General Kadijevic contacted General Strugar. And as a result of that
2 contact, General Strugar and Admiral Jokic went to Belgrade on the 6th of
3 December 1991 in connection with the incident of the shelling of
4 Dubrovnik stemming from the order -- in connection with that incident.
5 Q. Does that, the fact that General Kadijevic contacted
6 General Strugar and that along with General Strugar came Admiral Jokic,
7 but he contacted General Strugar --
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is not in
9 evidence. Your Honour, that is not in evidence. If she wishes to quote
10 it, then she should say where it is from. But I think, Your Honour, that
11 this is sheer interpretation of what the evidence actually is.
12 MS. SOMERS: I am very happy to go back to the hypothetical mode,
13 but I submit it is my belief that it is evidence. However --
14 JUDGE PARKER: It may be your belief. But you will well
15 appreciate you can hardly expect the Chamber to have that detail at its
16 fingertips. So if you rely on it as evidence, you need to refer us to
17 the passage.
18 Would you prefer to do that after the break?
19 MS. SOMERS: I can do that. Or I can phrase the question in such
20 a way that it will not necessarily require that, if it would be in the
21 interests of time.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Is it the end of your examination?
23 MS. SOMERS: No, I have a few more points, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Then we'll give you the break to sort that out.
25 --- Recess taken at 3.51 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Ms. Somers.
3 MS. SOMERS: Thank you for the opportunity to check the
4 transcript, Your Honours.
5 I refer to the transcript page 4063, and I will read from it,
6 with your permission, line 8.
7 "No, this is what I know. General Strugar called me" - this is
8 Admiral Jokic speaking in examination-in-chief - "this is what I know.
9 General Strugar called me and told me that General Kadijevic had called
10 him. And he said that he was very angry, furious, because Dubrovnik was
11 being attacked. This came as a major surprise to me. I was practically
12 in shock. How was this possible? How did he know? Who informed him,
13 et cetera? What did he mean Dubrovnik? I just know that at 6.00..."
14 And then it goes on.
15 And then moving on to page 4073, Your Honours. The response is:
16 "General Strugar gave me the message. He told me what
17 General Kadijevic had ordered him. Whenever I did all it took to stop
18 the attack, I was prepared to go to Podgorica and then to join him on his
19 way to Belgrade to the General Staff where the two of them were to report
20 on this incident."
21 If I may return, having hopefully --
22 JUDGE PARKER: I should indicate that on the basis of that
23 evidence, Mr. Petrovic, I cannot intervene in the form of the question
24 that was being put.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the way it reads
1 here, that's fine. But the substance of what my learned colleague said
2 before the break was as follows: General Strugar had been called by
3 Kadijevic, and then Jokic accompanied him to Belgrade. There's a
4 significant difference there in relation to what she has just read out to
5 us. Thank you, Your Honour.
6 MS. SOMERS: I hope I've clarified that for the Chamber. Thank
8 Q. Just backing up a little bit, General Zorc. In cross-examination
9 you were asked questions about the failure or the alleged failure of
10 Admiral Jokic and officers of the 9th VPS to stop the shelling of the Old
11 Town on 6 December 1991. Now, the fact that the federal secretary based
12 on what I have just indicated contacted General Strugar as the -- who was
13 the commander of the 2nd Operational Group and did not directly contact
14 either the corps commander, Admiral Jokic, or the brigade commander over
15 the undisciplined battalion commander, that is, of the 3rd Battalion of
16 the 472nd, does this in your opinion reinforce the position that the
17 federal secretary considered General Strugar to be in command on the
18 6th of December 1991 with respect to the incidents of shelling of
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. We're not
21 talking about hypothesis here. We are supposed to be talking about
22 something that is allegedly in evidence. It would be good to show the
23 witness what Admiral Jokic said at least on three different occasions;
24 namely, that he had been called by Kadijevic, called by Adzic, and called
25 by the commander of the military naval district. Strugar had called him,
1 too, but no one was able to get through to him. That is in evidence.
2 That is Admiral Jokic's entire evidence. Therefore, no one was able to
3 get through to him and this is what happened. He was called through
4 General Strugar. I hope we all remember that this was what Admiral Jokic
5 said in his testimony.
6 He justified that by saying that he had kept the relay
7 communications open all the time, to the forward command post at Kupari.
8 And that was allegedly why no one at the time was able to get through to
9 him. That's what we remember, and I believe it would only be fair to
10 show the general testifying here today that as part of Admiral Jokic's
11 testimony and as part of the question. Thank you.
12 MS. SOMERS: Your Honours, I can certainly add the question that
13 did the fact that Admiral Jokic's presence as commanded was assured
14 through a communication by General Strugar help -- or reinforce the fact
15 that General Strugar was in command over the forces shelling -- engaged
16 in the shelling of Dubrovnik on the 6th of December.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Let me make it clear, Ms. Somers: You can put
18 your question on any one of the bases supported by the evidence. But as
19 you would appreciate, if the fact-finding is of some other basis than
20 your question, well then the answer won't be of assistance.
21 MS. SOMERS: I think the latter formulation may best be the most
22 helpful so it allows accounting for any other evidence. In the
23 alternative, I can certainly put it in a hypothetical so it may be of
24 assistance when the evidence is evaluated by the Chamber. And perhaps
25 that might be the best thing.
1 No, I'm sorry. I withdraw that.
2 Q. If in fact Admiral Jokic's presence along with General Strugar
3 was as a result of a communication to General Strugar by
4 General Kadijevic, does that reinforce the fact that General Strugar was
5 the commander -- was in command of the forces that day attributable -- or
6 attributed -- whose actions were attributed to the shelling of Dubrovnik?
7 Is the question clear enough, General?
8 A. Without any doubt, the General Kadijevic considered
9 General Strugar as the responsible subordinate [as interpreted] of the
10 2nd Operational Group as well as of the unit which violated the rules of
11 engagement. And also irrespective of that, whether the commander of the
12 operational sector and operational group were invited to Belgrade
13 together or first one and then the second or in whatever way it was done,
14 but the fact that he called them both to Belgrade meant that he
15 considered them both directly responsible. In a regular situation, the
16 best situation would be if the federal secretary only called the
17 commander of the operational group. However, due to the importance of
18 the event, he called both. And how he treated them during that meeting,
19 that's a matter of his personal style.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MS. SOMERS: May I ask for a transcript, I believe, correction,
22 page 37, line 2. What has been quoted, General, is "without any doubt,
23 General Kadijevic considered General Strugar as a responsible," it says
24 "subordinate" of the 2nd Operational Group. I think the term
25 "subordinate" is in error.
1 Q. What was your actual answer?
2 A. My answer was that General Kadijevic considered General Strugar
3 as the responsible commander.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MS. SOMERS: Excuse me just one moment.
6 [Prosecution counsel confer]
7 MS. SOMERS:
8 Q. I ask you now in a more hypothetical sense. If the federal
9 secretary had called you as commander of a 2nd Operational Group to
10 complain about the allegedly unauthorised activities of one of your
11 battalions and has told you to inquire and stop it, what would be your
12 reaction? Would you limit yourself to transmitting this order to your
13 subordinate commanders, or would you engage yourself and undertake all
14 possible efforts to carry out this order of your superior commander as
15 soon as possible?
16 A. Of course, if I were the commander, this commander general, as
17 you assumed, in the first place, I would issue the necessary orders to
18 the subordinate commander whom the unit is -- which was violating the
19 rules. As I mentioned in my report and as I emphasised in my testimony,
20 I said that also in this situation my responsibility would be complete in
21 order to stop the shelling. If my order would not suffice, I would have
22 to get involved also in other ways.
23 Q. Can you indicate some of the ways in which you would get involved
24 if your order were not being complied with or implemented. Some
1 A. This would depend on one's personal style of commanding of a
2 superior officer. And for the operational implementation of my order, in
3 the extreme situation, I would have to involve the officers of my command
4 and send them to the unit which is violating the rules. And if we didn't
5 succeed in that in a short period of time, then personally I would go.
6 And in the position of that unit, I would take over the command and order
7 a stop of shelling. All this in the function of implementing the order
8 of the superior and of my order to stop the shelling as soon as possible.
9 All following measures in order to determine the responsibility and
10 assessment of responsibility of the perpetrators, that would be in a
11 later stage.
12 Q. You were asked about the commander of the 9th Naval Sector
13 tasking a commission as a result of the 6th of December shelling to look
14 into the allegations of damage to the Old Town of Dubrovnik. As the
15 immediate superior commander of the 3rd Battalion in the chain of
16 command, that is, the 3rd Battalion of the 472nd Brigade, is there
17 anything unusual about the commander of the 9th Naval Sector taking this
19 A. On the contrary. That would not be unusual because this
20 battalion was directly subordinated to the commander of the 9th VPS. He
21 would have to do all that which I have listed in my previous answer. And
22 that would be what would be expected action of him.
23 Q. Thank you. You were asked to comment on Prosecution Exhibit
25 MS. SOMERS: If I might the usher for just a moment to show it to
2 Q. General, before you -- if you have the correct document, it is a
3 document dated 5th of February 1992 from the 2nd Operational Group. It
4 is signed -- it is an order issued by General Strugar. My sole question
5 to you is: Is this an organisational structure of the 2nd Operational
6 Group as it was on the 5th of February 1992?
7 A. Yes. The document contains the organisational structure of the
8 2nd Operational Group. It is not an order. In fact, it is his report to
9 the First Administration of the General Staff.
10 Q. And do all the units that are shown or depicted in this
11 structure, are they all subordinated to General Strugar as commander of
12 the 2nd Operational Group as of that date?
13 A. In view of the first sentence, this is -- shows the composition
14 is a detailed one, a detailed composition of the 2nd Operational Group as
15 of 5th of February 1992.
16 Q. The 2nd Operational Group under the command of General Strugar as
17 of that date; is that correct?
18 A. Exactly.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 In cross-examination, you indicated that if Admiral Jokic were
21 unhappy with any subordinate commanders belonging to the overall
22 composition of the 2nd Operational Group such as the commander of the
23 3rd Battalion of the 472nd Brigade, he could submit a proposal for his
24 removal. If such proposal for removal of a subordinate commander was not
25 approved by General Strugar as commander of the 2nd Operational Group,
1 could Admiral Jokic have removed that subordinate commander without
2 General Strugar's approval?
3 A. I believe that that would be an exceptional situation and that he
4 would not do it without the approval of his superior commander.
5 And if you allow me to add, even the proposal for a replacement
6 of the commander should be coordinated with his superior commander.
7 Q. Following along that same line, if a commander of a unit
8 belonging to the overall composition of the 2nd Operational Group such as
9 the commander of the 3rd Battalion of the 472nd Brigade, were to be
10 promoted for his role within combat and for his role in combat activity
11 within the 2nd Operational Group, would such proposal for promotion
12 require General Strugar's approval? Could he be promoted for his role in
13 combat activity within the 2nd Operational Group without
14 General Strugar's approval?
15 A. A promotion that you were indicating, if it were an award for the
16 successful performance of tasks, it would mean that this was an
17 extraordinary promotion. In such a situation, it wouldn't be possible
18 without the proposal being submitted in the regular way up to the federal
19 secretary, along the line of chain of command, which would mean that the
20 commander of the 2nd Operational Group would have to approve it, and also
21 he himself would have to propose it to the federal secretary, such a
23 But if a promotion were to take place in the regular way and he
24 had a certain rank for a certain period of time, then this could be done
25 by the federal secretariat itself. Of course, if the commander fulfilled
1 all the legal conditions. In the preparations of the proposal for the
2 promotion of the 2nd Operational Group or of the 9th VPS, they could also
3 oppose such promotion if they assessed that such an officer did not
4 deserve such a promotion.
5 Q. Would a proposal by Admiral Jokic as a subordinate officer to
6 General Strugar, would a proposal to withdraw and/or -- sorry, to
7 withdraw a problematic brigade and/or replace its commander and chief of
8 staff be an effective way of focusing on that problematic unit?
9 You were asked yesterday about attention to be paid, and one of
10 your comments indicated that a commander must also focus on problematic
12 Was my question clear to you, or shall I repeat it?
13 A. I would kind ask you to define it more precisely.
14 Q. If there is a problematic unit, let's say, a brigade under the
15 command of Admiral Jokic and of course ultimately under the command of
16 General Strugar, is a way, an effective way to focus on that problematic
17 brigade in order to deal with the problems a proposal to withdraw the
18 brigade altogether from the area, or perhaps replace its commander and
19 chief of staff if they were part of the problem? Is it clear to you now,
21 A. Yes. The measures you've mentioned as possible ones are indeed
22 possible. They can be necessary. And they always represent the extreme
24 Q. If the commander of the 9th VPS focussed his attention on a
25 problematic unit in that way, is it also effective or sometimes necessary
1 for the commander of the 2nd Operational Group himself to focus his
2 attention on the problematic unit?
3 A. Certainly. This applies to all the superior officers in the
4 chain of command. If the lower levels do not succeed in implementing
5 certain tasks on the basis of orders and law, then the higher level
6 commander must get involved in resolving such problems.
7 Q. Would you expect the higher level commander - in this case, the
8 commander of the 2nd Operational Group - to focus his attention on units
9 which allegedly shelled the Old Town of Dubrovnik?
10 A. In view of the significance of the incident concerning the
11 shelling of the Old Town, this involvement would be indeed necessary.
12 And I would also expect of the commander of the 2nd Operational Group to
13 get involved personally concerning this problem, particularly in view of
14 the fact that the lower levels did not succeed in preventing or stopping
16 Q. If there were multiple incidents of alleged shelling of the Old
17 Town of Dubrovnik - I'm not looking right now on the 6th of December, but
18 I'm talking about the months of October and November of 1991 - would you
19 expect the commander of the 2nd Operational Group to focus his attention
20 on the problematic units that allegedly were involved with these alleged
22 A. Certainly; he should get involved already with the first
23 violation of the orders that he had issued.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MS. SOMERS: Excuse me. I just wanted to see if I might be able
1 cut back on one question, which may have been answered.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Did you say one question? I thought you were
3 debating whether there might be any further questions.
4 MS. SOMERS: There were three short ones that just came up in the
5 last round of cross-examination, if I may ask to address those, and then
7 JUDGE PARKER: Let's have the three quick ones, and then that's
9 MS. SOMERS: Okay. Sorry, the remaining of this original bunch
10 is, and then if I may, Your Honour, the three quick ones.
11 Q. The Defence showed you an artillery map which was Exhibit P160,
12 and you commented on the location of air defence weapon. Assuming that
13 the symbol reflects the approximate location of the weapon, what would be
14 in your view the reaction of a commander of an operational group
15 according to JNA doctrine knowing there was an UNESCO-protected site of
16 high cultural heritage value located in the vicinity of this weapon?
17 Would you foresee limitations on engaging this as a potential military
19 A. If I understood correctly this question, this refers to the map
20 of the other side, the Defence, and I wonder whether the other officers
21 had this map of the other side. But this isn't really fundamental.
22 It would suffice if the intelligence organs of the
23 2nd Operational Group on the basis of the basic units, squads, platoons,
24 companies, which were in the direct possibility of seeing the Old Town,
25 if they determined that in the Old Town weapons were positioned of the
1 opposite side, they would have to then inform about that their superiors.
2 And all superiors from the squad, platoon, company and further-up
3 commanders, up to the 2nd Operational Group, they could intervene through
4 communications with the other side to remove the weapons and the units
5 from the protected Old Town.
6 And irrespective of data whether in the Old Town weapons had been
7 located, weapons of the other side, the very orders issued to the units
8 of the 2nd Operational Group confirm that the commands of the
9 2nd Operational Group and of the 9th VPS, they issued those orders that
10 no shelling was to take place of the Old Town of Dubrovnik and --
11 irrespective whether or not units of the other side were located there.
12 During the shelling, they were to see that the specific parts and
13 important parts of the Old Town were not destroyed by the shelling and
14 they were not hit by shelling and by mortars.
15 Q. Thank you. On cross-examination today, you were asked about lack
16 of military or shortage of military police, potential of shortage of
17 military police within the 2nd Operational Group. Can the commander of
18 the operational group order additional military police or security organs
19 to -- can they be supplemented? Can they ask for more, if need be? Is
20 it within their competence?
21 A. Well, in a situation of insufficient discipline in his unit, and
22 even in a situation where we have certain incidents concerning the
23 shelling of targets which have been prohibited, and if he needed a
24 greater number of military police units as he didn't have them, he would
25 have to request it from the superior command. And that is the General
1 Staff. He would have to propose that due to the exceptional needs that
2 he have at his disposal a bigger military police unit for the needs that
3 he had during the operation that was underway.
4 Q. You referred to the independence of the military police during
5 cross-examination. Now, can a commander of the operational group order
6 military police and/or security organs to initiate an investigation? We
7 understand that once initiated, there is the independent. But can they
8 order the initiation of investigative activity by the MPs or by the
9 security organs?
10 A. The organs of military police carry out their crime
11 investigations on the basis of laws of provisions irrespective of the
12 orders of the commanding officers to which they're subordinate. Of
13 course, the military commander can warn the military police unit to carry
14 out its tasks according to law and submit to the military prosecution
15 that it pursue further the case on the basis of law. And that is
16 something the commander can do if he observes a certain level of -- that
17 the military police is passive in its activity; namely, he can warn them
18 that they should be more active in their area of activity.
19 Q. You spoke of difficulties, objective circumstances and
20 difficulties during cross-examination which made command and control more
21 difficult under the circumstances that may have dominated in the
22 Dubrovnik operation. Now, do these difficulties in any way diminish
23 command responsibility?
24 A. [No Interpretation]
25 MS. SOMERS: I'm sorry, there is no translation.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the answer, please.
2 MS. SOMERS:
3 Q. Would you please repeat your answer.
4 A. I have said that to the regret of military commanders, all the
5 objective difficulties which prevent them from being successful in their
6 command do not prevent them from being fully responsible for the actions
7 of their subordinate units.
8 Q. And the issue of resubordination which you discussed in
9 cross-examination, making command and control more difficult, were
10 decisions within the 2nd Operational Group concerning resubordination,
11 did those decisions lie with the commander of the operational group,
12 General Strugar?
13 A. If any resubordination of subordinate units of the
14 2nd Operational Group are in question, then this was in the exclusive
15 responsibility of the commander of the 2nd Operational Group. If,
16 however, the question concerns a resubordination among the units of the
17 9th VPS, then that would be under the authority of the commander of the
18 9th VPS.
19 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much. That concludes my redirect.
20 Thank you, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
22 General, I'm very pleased to be able to say that your evidence
23 has come to an end. You are free to leave the Tribunal and return to
24 Slovenia, if that is your wish. May we thank you for your assistance and
25 your patience over these many days. Thank you. If you could leave now
1 with the --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I very much thank the Court.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers.
5 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. Well, that is the -- we
6 propose that that is the last witness to be called by the Prosecution,
7 General Zorc.
8 There are other matters which I believe need to be raised
9 concerning, perhaps, last-minute submissions and some outstanding issues.
10 I was informed that this would be the time that we would have an
11 opportunity to raise such issues and if perhaps there were other issues
12 about -- perhaps I misunderstood -- but scheduling matters, that it would
13 also be raised during the remainder of today's session.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
15 MS. SOMERS: On the issue -- on other issues -- sorry, on issues
16 concerning matters that the Prosecution would seek to have tendered or
17 documents seek to have tendered at this stage, I have asked my colleagues
18 who have been able to work with it while I was in court to present the
19 submissions, if I may, please.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
21 MR. WEINER: Good afternoon. I'd like to clear up a few matters
22 which are here for identification at this time. There are four exhibits,
23 P5, 6, 7, 8 for identification --
24 JUDGE PARKER: Sorry, say again.
25 MR. WEINER: They should be MFI 5678 or P5, 6, 7, 8 for
2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
3 MR. WEINER: Those exhibits were introduced into evidence through
4 Mr. Hvalkof on page 2125. Actually on pages 2124 and 2125, there was
5 some discussion that those -- I think Defence counsel first thought those
6 were exhibits, but it was stated that those were documents for
7 identification, and then the Court admitted them. So they are
9 JUDGE PARKER: So they are exhibits, but separately they have
10 been marked for identification. Is that what you're saying?
11 MR. WEINER: That's correct. They are now tabs 4, 5, 6, and 7 of
12 P61, which is the Hvalkof binder.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Well, are you saying you want them now exhibited
14 twice, or that you no longer --
15 MR. WEINER: No, no, there's no need to have both. Since they're
16 already in through Mr. Hvalkof, we could just delete those.
17 JUDGE PARKER: They will remain marked for identification as 5,
18 6, 7, and 8 and will not be exhibits, then, in that capacity.
19 MR. WEINER: That's correct.
20 JUDGE PARKER: But as part of P61 they are.
21 MR. WEINER: Yes, thank you.
22 The next is exhibits for identification P84, P86.1, P86.2, and
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
25 MR. WEINER: As a matter of background, P84 was marked for
1 identification. It is a hospital document that was prepared in 2004, in
2 February of 2004. It concerns a witness's 1991 hospital treatment. And
3 if you recall, that's the one that describes a wound in the left leg,
4 even though the witness testified that the wound was in his right leg.
5 P86.1 is a Croatian government disability decision, and within
6 that document it indicates right leg.
7 P86.2 is a Croatian government record. It's a findings and
8 opinion which also indicate right upper leg.
9 P86.3 is a handwritten version of P86.2. It was illegible.
10 Since it was a set, it was left with the other two.
11 During the testimony, the witness Mr. Vlasica testified about
12 being struck with shrapnel in the right upper leg. And he testified
13 about that on pages 3.323 and during cross-examination on 3.432. He even
14 on that page 3.432 offered to show his leg, take his pants down and show
15 his leg and show the injury, which he wasn't taken up on that.
16 During cross-examination, counsel accused the witness of being
17 involved in a forgery, of being involved in perjury, and uttering a
18 forged document. And that's on pages 3.438 to 3.449. It was objected to
19 as having -- and questioned what the basis was. Counsel then offered his
20 basis and views and opinions on why he felt the document was falsified.
21 That's on pages 3.439 and 3.441. The witness then stated that he
22 obtained the hospital records from the hospital, and that the original
23 records are at the hospital if anyone wants them. They're available at
24 the hospital. That's at pages 3.444. To complete this witness, we went
25 past the normal time allotted to our case, we went about 10 or 15 minutes
1 past, and there was not enough time to argue the admissibility of those
2 four documents. It was indicated that the argument would continue the
3 following Wednesday. That was the week where the accused was going to be
4 examined on Monday and Tuesday, and the proceedings would resume on
5 Wednesday. This incident -- testimony occurred on a Friday.
6 We contacted the doctor by telephone to determine the validity of
7 that document that night or a few nights later, and the document read the
8 document to us over the telephone, that he in fact had signed it.
9 Attorney Somers and an investigator then visited the doctor and they saw
10 copies of the original medical reports --
11 JUDGE PARKER: Are you giving evidence from the bar table at the
12 moment, Mr. Weiner, by any chance?
13 MR. WEINER: Explanation. I'm going to turn in a document, a
14 statement from a witness as well as medical records, and I'm going to
15 request that they also be admitted. And I've got a basis to -- or I'm
16 going to attempt to provide a basis for admission of those documents,
17 Your Honour.
18 JUDGE PARKER: At the moment, you're out on the edge, as some
19 would say.
20 MR. WEINER: Well, Mr. Re then visited the doctor with an
21 investigator. And he received a statement from the doctor. The doctor
22 reviewed P84 for identification; said it was, in fact, his signature;
23 said that he did in fact draft the document. He had the medical records
24 there from the hospital. They all reviewed the records, and the records
25 he had previously supplied to the OTP were in fact the records from the
2 I would like to show you these documents at this time. It is a
3 document from the doctor as well as five medical records from 1991 marked
4 A through E indicating the injury to the witness. And those that discuss
5 exactly the injury all indicate that it's on the right upper leg.
6 JUDGE PARKER: What basis do you say these can be received into
8 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, these documents are admissible pursuant
9 to Rule 89(C). Rule 89(C), as the Court knows, says "a Chamber may admit
10 any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value." In
11 Prosecutor versus Galic, the interlocutory appeal on 7 June 2002 at
12 paragraph 31 indicates "a document may be admissible" - and that was a
13 hearsay -- a document following a hearsay exception - "if it was not
14 prepared for the purposes of legal proceedings." And that case was then
15 followed in Prosecutor versus Milosevic, the interlocutory appeal, on 30
16 September 2003. In paragraphs 11 through 14, the Court followed the
17 Appeals Chamber again followed its previous decision from Galic.
18 As these 1991 medical records were not prepared in anticipation
19 of litigation, they should be admitted, especially as it follows and
20 corroborates the testimony of the witness.
21 The doctor's statement is different. It was drafted in the
22 presence of a Prosecutor and an investigator. It's an explanatory or
23 clarifying document. It's there to show that there was no falsity or
24 forgery involved, that Dr. Segedin did in fact draft and sign the
25 document, which is P84 for ID. That is his own letter.
1 In this case, there was serious allegations made by Defence
2 counsel. Dr. Segedin 's statement clarifies the issue and shows that the
3 allegations were without merit. Dr. Segedin 's statement should be
4 admitted because otherwise, if it isn't, the Chamber is left with a false
5 picture of the circumstances, and a witness is being placed in a false
6 light without any valid basis. Due to the special situation, it is our
7 view that Dr. Segedin 's statement should be admitted; based on Rule
8 89(C), those five records from 1991, those five medical records should be
9 admitted, and also the four documents which are now P for identification,
10 the one, P84, and the P86.1, .2, and .3 should also be admitted. Thank
12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there have been
14 several inaccurate interpretations by my colleague right now. And there
15 have been several inaccuracies that are unfortunately of a material
16 nature. So I'll start with what was said at the outset. First of all,
17 the Defence objects to the admission of any written statement or any sort
18 of document such as have been distributed to the Trial Chamber a while
20 First of all, it is fundamentally inaccurate and surprising from
21 my learned friend - I'm talking about the Croatian statement and its
22 translation as well as five other documents. It is quite inaccurate that
23 these documents speak about the right leg. If my colleague had had a
24 more careful look, he would have seen easily what the documents say. But
25 I'll come to a little later. I'll start with a statement, Your Honours.
1 There is no legal basis for this statement by witness, Dr. Jaksa
2 Segedin, to be admitted into evidence. The reasons are as follows: The
3 first time the Defence teams saw this statement by witness Jaksa Segedin
4 was yesterday at quarter past 2.00. We only received this document
5 yesterday and not earlier.
6 Secondly, Your Honour, as for the substance of this statement and
7 the attached documents as well as all the documents that my learned
8 colleague refers to, this has a direct bearing to the very substance of
9 the indictment against our client. One of the three allegedly wounded
10 persons is also the person under discussion here, Ivo Vlasica. The
11 position taken on that and the decision taken on that has a most direct
12 bearing on the nature of the indictment against General Strugar.
13 Documents are being tendered into evidence of an unknown nature. These
14 are mere extracts from documents, and nothing is said about the general
15 nature of these documents or who authored them.
16 In addition to that, Your Honours -- these are merely portions of
17 various documents. In addition, and this is very important, in a
18 situation where we are looking at documents and testimonies that have a
19 key significance as to whether Ivo Vlasica had been wounded or not, the
20 Defence is unable to verify in any way whatsoever what we have in front
21 of us now. We have no possibility of cross-examining this witness or
22 ascertaining what these documents are, who they were authored by, and
23 what exactly they describe.
24 Your Honours, the rules as well as the established practice of
25 the International Criminal Tribunal do not allow for this sort of
1 statement to be admitted into evidence, at least not based on the
2 arguments put forward by my learned friend and colleague. To my great
3 satisfaction, he quoted the decision of the Appeals Chamber in the Galic
4 case dated the 7th of June 2002 quoting paragraph 31 of that decision.
5 Unfortunately, Your Honours, he failed to read the paragraph to the very
6 end. If he had done that, he probably would have included the following:
7 [In English] [Previous translation continues] "...a written
8 statement given by a prospective witness to an investigator of the OTP
9 under Rule 89(C) in order to avoid stringency of Rule 92 bis."
10 [Interpretation] There is no method, no way of admitting a
11 statement into evidence like this. This is the statement of a witness
12 who has not appeared before the Court, and the statement is given by
13 someone whom we will not have a chance to examine on the substance of his
15 Speaking about the very substance of these documents, Your
16 Honours, there is something that appears to be an extract from a
17 protocol. The document marked as A and the document marked as B is a
18 case history of a disease. Both documents in the legal practice of the
19 former Yugoslavia represent formal documents to prove illness or injury
20 as well as the exact time it occurred. They have a formal value, both
21 these documents, Your Honours, the document marked as A as well as the
22 document marked as B in the attachment. What we can read there, if we
23 look at the English interpretation of the document is "Segedin Jaksa",
24 which is means an explosive wound to the left leg, Your Honours -- the
25 left leg. That being the first document, the protocol marked as A.
1 The second document is a case history of the illness. The first
2 page of the Croatian version also states "sinistri," the Latin for left.
3 This is in handwriting. I believe the English translation reflected
4 this. In the left upper corner of the English translation, "vulnus
5 sclopetarium femoris sinistri," and sin, obviously, is short for left.
6 Further down, Your Honours, on page 2 of the case history -- I've
7 already said was we can read on page 1 -- if we look on page 2, towards
8 the bottom of the page, there is something added in handwriting or rather
9 typewritten, it's a description of an injury stating in B/C/S:
10 "Vlasica," -- based on clinical findings -- "this is a tangential
11 entry-and-exit wound to the side and in the upper third of the left leg."
12 Your Honours, this whole story is about a left leg.
13 Unfortunately, the translation that you were given which refers to that
14 specific page what we find stated there is -- if you look at the
15 translation --
16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
17 MR. WEINER: We have an official translation. It does not say
19 JUDGE PARKER: Where is that?
20 MR. WEINER: Page 3 of the English. Case history is page 2.
21 It's B3. It says "Patient History and Findings, Vlasica."
22 JUDGE PARKER: That is the translation that appears,
23 Mr. Petrovic.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, had I had an
25 opportunity, I would have completed what I was saying. Unfortunately, a
1 translation that was done for the OTP - for some frivolous reason
2 probably - and we are talking about the difference between the left leg
3 and the right leg. The translation that you have in front of you,
4 indeed, it does not say the left upper leg. But in the original of that
5 translation, and that must be it, it is clearly stated: The left upper
6 leg. So please, if there is any doubt as to what I'm reading from and
7 what I'm showing to the Chamber, perhaps we can give it to the
8 interpreters in this courtroom and have the matter resolved.
9 Therefore, the translation is erroneous. Even in the other
10 document, it says the left upper document. Even in that other document,
11 although my learned friend on page 51, line 1, states all five documents.
12 Only the right leg. Unfortunately, Your Honours, that is not the case.
13 This is entirely erroneous, and if there is even the slightest doubt
14 about my own translation of the case history, can we please enlist the
15 assistance of the interpreters. To our great fortune, there is quite a
16 sufficient number of those in this courtroom.
17 Therefore, Your Honours, further down -- Your Honours, if you can
18 look at the document marked as C, the statement that was given. And
19 according to that statement, this is a statement by a man named Stjepan
20 Bogdanovic, Dr. Stjepan Bogdanovic. If you look at the translation
21 marked as C, in your translation it says signature of a doctor, without
22 specifying which doctor or who. Unfortunately, the stamp on this
23 statement marked as C, the document marked as C, is indeed a stamp that
24 belongs to a man named Stjepan Bogdanovic. However, the signature on
25 this document is one that belongs to a person named Dr. Jurkovic. So it
1 seems that one person stamped the document and a different person signed
3 Now, what is actually in that statement, in that document, and
4 what the truth is about the entirety of that document, it is impossible
5 to tell on the basis of this. So it is up to you, Your Honours, to be
6 the judge of that.
7 And then the last document marked as D, Your Honour, there is
8 nothing at all, nothing as to whether it was the right leg or the left
9 leg. Nothing at all. I assume my learned friend and colleague left
10 this --
11 MR. WEINER: The English translation which is page 3 on D, it
12 says under x-ray report and opinion: "The image of the D/right/thigh
13 does not show any fractures or foreign bodies." So the English
14 translation indicates that it indicates the right--
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] What I'm talking about, what I'm
16 talking about is the document marked as E, although my colleague said
17 when I said E, it was said D. I didn't mean D. I meant E; the document
18 marked as E. There is nothing whatsoever about that in the document
19 marked as E.
20 Your Honours, admitting something like this into evidence is in a
21 grave collision with the established practice of the International
22 Criminal Tribunal firstly, and secondly with the established facts. What
23 these documents indicate is unacceptable in every way. Your Honours, may
24 that please be taken into account.
25 Besides, when you make a ruling, I believe it would be
1 interesting or helpful to look at Document D71 which is a verdict of the
2 Dubrovnik municipal courts related to the things that happened on the
3 6th of December 1991. In that judgement, the same man who was allegedly
4 wounded is referred to as Ivo Vlasica, a child born in 1978. Who is this
5 person? What's at stake here, Your Honours? I believe it is not
6 acceptable to proceed in this way and have any of these admitted into
7 evidence. Thank you very much for your attention, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
9 MR. WEINER: Could I respond --
10 JUDGE PARKER: Is there something you wanted in response?
11 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour. If I may.
12 I would like to read a portion of paragraph 31 of the Galic
14 JUDGE PARKER: I think you can just leave it to the Chamber to
15 read it.
16 MR. WEINER: And it's clear that what it says here. Although in
17 this case, in the Galic case, the documents did not satisfy the standard,
18 it does indicate what does, in fact, satisfy 89(C).
19 JUDGE PARKER: Did it deal with the collision between it and
20 92 bis?
21 MR. WEINER: Yes. And it says --
22 JUDGE PARKER: If it did --
23 MR. WEINER: Yes.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Anything else in response?
25 MR. WEINER: That if you look at Dr. Segedin's statement, he
1 indicates the first document is the log, and that the first document is
2 incorrect, which was the A document. But he indicates that the remaining
3 documents do, in fact, indicate that it is the right leg.
4 I also have if the Court wants a statement of the investigator,
5 Raji Murugan who was with --
6 JUDGE PARKER: Don't offer more documents, Mr. Weiner.
7 Now, the translations, are they official translations?
8 MR. WEINER: Yes.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Will you have them verified and resubmitted,
10 please. And the Chamber will propose to reserve its decision on these to
11 be given at a later time.
12 MR. WEINER: I'll have our case manager resubmit them to CLSS.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. Thank you. But that needs to be done
15 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
16 JUDGE PARKER: The question of the admissibility of not only the
17 documents from the trial that are marked for identification as 84 and
18 86.1 to 3, as well as the documents now tendered for the first time, will
19 be reserved and will be the subject of decision when the matter can be
21 Now, is there anything further about documents, Mr. Weiner?
22 MR. WEINER: Mr. Re has some comments on some of the other
23 documents. Thank you.
24 JUDGE PARKER: This is taking a time which the Chamber did not
1 Yes, Mr. Re. You'll need to be prompt.
2 MR. RE: I apologise, Your Honours. We did discuss this with the
3 legal officer that we wish to tender the outstanding documents, and we
4 asked for a suitable time and we were told it was at the conclusion of
5 Mr. Zorc's evidence.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, as I said, the Chamber did not anticipate the
7 time that is being taken on these matters or the range of documents. But
8 carry on.
9 MR. RE: The next one should be very, very quick and simple.
10 Those are the colour photographs attached to Exhibit P63.6 which were
11 referred to in Dr. Kaiser's evidence. He promised to produce
12 better-quality colour photographs of the photographs attached to his
13 report. We have produced -- or he has produced 31, I think, of the
14 74-odd photographs in colour. And I've prepared an index for the Trial
15 Chamber's convenience. And I submit those now.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Any objection, Mr. Petrovic?
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, not in principle. In
18 principle, we do not have an objection. However, we have not been given
19 an opportunity to have a look at what is being tendered. If that is the
20 same thing as the photographs that have been admitted into evidence, the
21 black and white photographs, of course we have no objection to that. But
22 as I said, we have not had an opportunity to look at these. Thank you.
23 JUDGE PARKER: The originals were annexed to Exhibit 63. Mr. Re,
24 you're proposing that they should be part of that annexure or a separate
1 MR. RE: If Your Honour looks at the index, it may guide Your
2 Honour in how to deal with it.
3 JUDGE PARKER: I think a separate exhibit is going to be more
5 MR. RE: If it please, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE PARKER: They will be received. I would indicate that
7 should it be the case that the Defence finds that any of these
8 photographs are not what they purport to be, that can be the subject of a
9 specific application. If could be given an exhibit number.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the Exhibit Number is P210.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
12 MR. RE: The next category of documents relates to the Croatian
13 Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments and the outstanding
14 report, P51 ID.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
16 MR. RE: And the two earlier reports upon which my learned
17 colleague Mr. Petrovic extensively cross-examined Mr. Vukovic in
18 evidence. That was the October report and the October and November
19 report. The argument concerning the admission into evidence of P51 ID
20 certainly has been delayed for some considerable time, at least since
21 Dr. Kaiser gave his evidence.
22 JUDGE PARKER: We were going to hear further from Dr. Kaiser.
23 That is not to happen, is it?
24 MR. RE: No. The situation was Dr. Kaiser was -- there was a
25 discussion as to whether he would prepare an additional report in which
1 he would distinguish the damage in his document from the damage in the
2 larger document, P51 ID. Dr. Kaiser has provided the Prosecution with a
3 document which is not really in an admissible sort of form, but would
4 certainly form the basis of a submission or a table which we will produce
5 basically in our 98 bis response to the -- what we anticipate will be the
6 Defence's 98 bis response.
7 In our submission, that particular document that Dr. Kaiser
8 produces wouldn't -- shouldn't affect the issue of the admissibility of
9 P51 ID because it is merely a filtering exercise and there has been a
10 great deal of cross-examination in relation to those two particular areas
11 of damage. And at the end of the day, the Prosecution submits it's
12 really a matter of submission by comparing the two. And of course, we'll
13 do that.
14 JUDGE PARKER: What are you now proposing, that you tender MFI 51
15 as an exhibit? Is that what you're doing?
16 MR. RE: Yes, in addition, the two earlier reports which preceded
17 it, the front covers of which my learned friend Mr. Petkovic tendered
18 into evidence during cross-examination of Mr. Vukovic I think two weeks
19 ago; D57.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Can you remind me why only the front covers were
22 MR. RE: I don't know. I mean, Mr. Petrovic at the time told the
23 Trial Chamber or seemed to intimate that it was the first time he had
24 seen these documents, and then cross-examined Mr. Vukovic for about 20
25 minutes or so on the table inside those documents, the 45 buildings
1 referred to. However, both these documents are on the Prosecution
2 exhibit list. The October report was 56 on the 65 ter and the
3 October/November report was number 350 on the list. And they are both
4 disclosed to the Defence on the 27th of August last year.
5 JUDGE PARKER: On what basis do you say the fact that they were
6 the subject of cross-examination makes them admissible? Or is there some
7 other basis upon which you seek to tender them?
8 MR. RE: The basis is that the basis of the admissibility of the
9 whole of P51/ID which is the relevant probative and which I can certainly
10 address on -- We say the three of them, because of the nature and the
11 extent of cross-examination of the three people who gave evidence about
12 P51/ID - that's Mr. Vukovic, Dr. Kaiser, and Mrs. Peko - has put into
13 issue when the damage occurred in a way that wasn't anticipated at the
14 beginning of the trial. And --
15 JUDGE PARKER: How can you say that? There was shelling over
16 three months. You've got a report which is dealing with the effects of
17 that shelling. And you seem surprised there should be dispute as to the
18 contents of the report as relevant to what occurred on the 6th of
20 MR. RE: My understanding of -- the reason why the Prosecution
21 took the approach was because the Defence counsel had informed
22 Mr. Kaufman they were not opposing the admission into evidence of the
23 Institute's report. And we've took that approach. There was no
24 agreement as to damage.
25 JUDGE PARKER: There was objection to the 51 report.
1 MR. RE: That was afterwards. We at the time considered there
2 was not going to be an objection, which is why we didn't push the earlier
3 two reports because the third one, P51/ID, was the wrap-up report of all
5 The objection in the cross-examination in relation to P51/ID, in
6 our submission, makes the earlier two relevant for the filtering process.
7 Because the October one lists I think 17 or 10 specific buildings - that
8 was the one that the front cover was put into evidence; the next one
9 lists the 45 buildings upon which Mr. Petrovic cross-examined Mr. Vukovic
10 as to they were damaged in October or November or December. And if you
11 look at the two together, you can see the damage in October as listed in
12 the report which was published at the end of October, the damage which
13 was recorded as having occurred in October-November as published in the
14 second report which was prepared in the last week of November. Then
15 you've got the third report from the beginning of January which is all
16 three. And by comparing the three, you can quite easily, the Prosecution
17 can quite easily submit -- if you look at the November report, you can
18 see this damage is recorded. If you look at the December report, you can
19 see there is further damage recorded on all of the 45 buildings which are
20 the subject of the October-November report.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Is there evidence that there was a complete
22 examination of all damage at about the end of November, and all of that
23 is included in the report which is the second of those that you just
25 MR. RE: No. But the evidence in that report would be of
1 examining 45 buildings which have been -- of which -- evidence has been
2 basically given of almost every one of those buildings. Those were, for
3 example, the buildings in --
4 JUDGE PARKER: That deals with 45 buildings. And the one in
5 October deals with how many buildings?
6 MR. RE: It deals with seven specific buildings, the Rupa museum,
7 the synagogue --
8 JUDGE PARKER: Seven, all right.
9 MR. RE: The Franciscan monastery bell tower --
10 JUDGE PARKER: All right. The point I'm making is there's an
11 enormous gap between that and the number of buildings that are in the MFI
12 51 report.
13 MR. RE: That's right. Well of course, because the --
14 JUDGE PARKER: But the problem is that you haven't yet - speaking
15 for myself only - been able to demonstrate that the buildings, other than
16 those for a moment that are in these two further reports you refer to,
17 that the buildings the subject of the MFI51 were not damaged before
18 6 December 1991. That's your problem.
19 MR. RE: The only way we could do that, some 12 and a half years
20 later would be to call each and every building owner to say whether or
21 not his or her building was damaged on that day or before.
22 JUDGE PARKER: I have to say I understood during his evidence
23 that Dr. Kaiser said he had done it, and he would come and inform the
24 Chamber about it.
25 MR. RE: I don't think it was Dr. Kaiser who said that. I think
1 the representation may have been from someone else. The expectation was
2 that Dr. Kaiser would so to speak authenticate the report, based upon the
3 way we thought the case was going with agreements with the Defence. Had
4 we known otherwise, we would have started calling other authors. As it
5 was, we had a representative sample: Mr. Vukovic, one of the authors;
6 the collaborating member, Mrs. Peko; and a consultant, Dr. Kaiser. So we
7 got three out of the people who actually worked on it.
8 JUDGE PARKER: As a quick indication of my personal thinking, all
9 three of those witnesses say "we looked in December." They did not look
10 in November or October.
11 MR. RE: No, that's quite correct. But you have reports done by
12 the institute of the damage that occurred earlier. And if you look at
13 the reports --
14 JUDGE PARKER: You made a statement there that doesn't seem to
15 have any foundation in the evidence. Where is there evidence that either
16 or both of those reports were exhaustive of damage at the time they were
18 MR. RE: There isn't that, but there is evidence the fact that
19 reports were made of damage to buildings in October and November. Of
20 course, it's not exhaustive.
21 JUDGE PARKER: If it's not exhaustive, how does it help anybody
22 reach a conclusion about what occurred on the 6th of December except,
23 perhaps, in respect of those particular buildings that are the subject of
24 those two reports?
25 MR. RE: That's as far as we can put it. We can't put it any
1 higher than there were 45 buildings in the October-November report, and
2 seven buildings in the earlier report, subtract the damage listed in
3 those two, and you can see it's cumulative in the third report which
4 lists far more extensive damage, for example on the Franciscan monastery.
5 JUDGE PARKER: If you're limiting your case to those buildings,
6 your position might change dramatically. But you're not, as I understand
7 it. I haven't heard a hint of it, anyway.
8 MR. RE: No, because the schedule to the indictment is based upon
9 the institute report. That was a prosecutorial decision.
10 JUDGE PARKER: What has been crystal clear in the evidence is the
11 Institute report is not a report of damage which occurred on the 6th of
12 December, it is a report of damage in the months of October, November,
13 and December.
14 MR. RE: If you go to -- Mr. Vukovic, for example, he gave
15 evidence of the methodology and how he was able to say that the damage
16 occurred on the 6th of December in the buildings in which he examined.
17 In every case - Dubrovnik is a small place - he said there was someone
18 there or someone next door who would point out the damage which occurred
19 on that day and was able to distinguish it from damage which occurred
20 earlier. Now, in a place which has been subject to several specific
21 bombardments, there is really, in my submission, the indicia of
22 reliability is someone is saying This was damaged on the 6th, and this
23 particular thing was damaged on a different occasion.
24 JUDGE PARKER: That's one level --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Can Mr. Re please kindly slow down.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Is the subject of that evidence.
2 MR. RE: Mr. Vukovic's?
3 JUDGE PARKER: Any of that evidence. But it is at a different
4 and significantly less level conviction, in respect of the buildings
5 which are the subject of no direct evidence whatever.
6 MR. RE: The Prosecution says that the institute report is
7 corroborative of the entirety of the Prosecution evidence from a number
8 of witnesses as to the extensiveness of damage to the Old Town on the
9 6th of December and indicates if you look through the report damage that
10 clearly was not there before. The videos - that's the P145, P66 and
11 P78 - clearly show contemporaneous damage. It's a smouldering town.
12 It's consistent broadly with what is in the institute report, the
13 December report. You've had specific evidence from a number of witnesses
14 who were there, including, of course, Dr. Kaiser, Mr. Vukovic, Mrs. Peko,
15 Mr. Jusic, Mr. Gobisic, Witness A.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Re, no need to go on. We appreciate all of
17 that. And I have tried succinctly to put to you at least my fundamental
18 reservation about your position. While the Prosecution maintains its
19 allegations in respect of all the buildings listed in the report that is
20 marked for identification as 51.
21 MR. RE: Would Your Honour just excuse me for one moment while I
22 consult with Ms. Somers on this issue.
23 [Prosecution counsel confer]
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Re.
25 MR. RE: The Prosecution -- while the schedule is, of course, the
1 foundation for our case on property damage, the Prosecution of course
2 acknowledges that the end of the case, which is basically today, we're
3 not in a position to say that each and every one of those 450 buildings
4 listed in the report and the schedule we can prove beyond a reasonable
5 doubt were damaged on the 6th as opposed to an earlier day.
6 What we can say if you look at the report it is corroborative of
7 the general thrust of evidence of extensive damage to the Old Town on
8 that particular day. We will certainly be submitting in the chart which
9 we've given a copy to my learned friend, anticipated chart of the
10 evidence of all the buildings of which we have direct damage. I haven't
11 totalled it up since Mr. Vukovic gave his evidence, but the anticipation
12 before was about 140 to 150 buildings. We have to go back for our
13 submissions to carefully itemise each one of them and plot it on the
14 computer-generated chart.
15 What we wish to do is to go through each of the buildings which
16 we say we have proved through direct testimony of all the witnesses I
17 have listed before; through looking at the videos; through all the
18 evidence and say look at the institute report. That points to this
19 building, this building, this building, and this building, thus
20 corroborating the nature, the type of damage, the holes in the roof being
21 consistent with shelling, the cracks in the walls, the missiles or
22 whatever, to say the report is corroborative and consistent with the
23 buildings we can prove.
24 We don't say we can prove 450. We say we can prove -- I can't
25 give you a figure, but it's over a hundred. And we want to use the
1 institute report to corroborate.
2 JUDGE PARKER: That is the Prosecution's position, why is it not
3 amending the indictment to limit its case, instead of leaving all these
4 other buildings in issue?
5 MR. RE: What we -- we can certainly at the moment stipulate or
6 enter into talks for stipulation following the close of the Prosecution's
7 case --
8 JUDGE PARKER: We have had talks on damage since before this
9 trial commenced, but certainly during it, some involving the Chamber; and
10 they have been fruitless because the Prosecution has persisted at one end
11 at the total number of buildings in the indictment, and the Defence has
12 persisted in a quite distinct position at the other end of the spectrum.
13 MR. RE: We certainly hear what Your Honours are saying. We will
14 give very due consideration -- very prompt consideration to what Your
15 Honour is suggesting.
16 JUDGE PARKER: I'm conscious of the time. The tapes are about
17 to run out. We must adjourn now for the minimum time to enable the tapes
18 to be changed, and then continue. We must work speedily. I've heard
19 your submissions in respect of these documents. Perhaps Mr. Petrovic
20 might give consideration to those submissions over the break. And we
21 will then hear him. But I would encourage him to have regard to what I
22 have been putting to Mr. Re. And he has no need to go over territory
23 that I've already covered. Some might think I was on your side of the
24 bar table on a couple of occasions there. It was merely to test the
25 propositions that were being put. But at least you can see from that
1 that the Chamber is aware of some of the issues you might be advancing,
2 and there's no need for you to go through all of those again as though we
3 were not aware of them.
4 We will adjourn now and resume in 20 minutes.
5 --- Recess taken at 5.44 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 6.07 p.m.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in line with your
9 instructions, I will try to address you very briefly.
10 The Defence is opposed to having any of these three documents
11 that are being discussed admitted into evidence. In view of your
12 instructions, I shall just outline what I wished to say otherwise, in
13 order to try to finish today.
14 If the grounds for admission is Rule 89(C), I'm talking about
15 three conditions: Relevance; probative value, that is, what is contained
16 in Rule 89(C); and there is a third condition and that is part of the
17 jurisprudence of this Tribunal, and that is reliability. We can see that
18 in the Tadic decision, the 5th of August 1996, paragraph 7 and 8; the
19 decision from the Delalic case [In English] "Motion of the Prosecution
20 for the Admissibility of Evidence" [Interpretation] dated the 19th of
21 January 1998; also, we can see this in the same decision from the Tadic
22 case. The essence of what is said there is that reliability is an
23 inherent component of the admissibility of evidence. If a document is
24 unreliable, it can neither be relevant nor can it have probative value.
25 In addition to that, Tadic, the 5th of August 1996, in order to
1 assess reliability, the Trial Chamber has to look into the circumstances
2 under which the evidence appeared and then to decide on the matter.
3 I would like to recall the high standards of common-law systems
4 and also I would like to say that in civil-law systems, the standards are
5 not that high, but there are two requirements. One is that the evidence
6 is lawfully obtained, and the second is that the accused is in a position
7 to question it and oppose it. That is Criminal procedure in the European
8 Community, paragraph 4.3.1, page 20.
9 Your Honour, in relation to what is being sought here, we wish to
10 point out that first and foremost, we do not have the ability to actively
11 bring into question any of what is being sought here today. P51 is a
12 compilation of individual notes, 450 of them. This was prepared by
13 certain individuals who did not appear before this Court. They said
14 nothing about the content of these documents, and the Defence simply was
15 not in a position to question in any way what is contained in these
16 documents. More than 80 per cent of it was not something that could be
17 checked before this Court. All of the people who came here barely knew
18 how to react to things that they had participated in themselves, let
19 alone 450 other entries in that document.
20 I'll try to be as brief as possible. First and foremost, there
21 are no legal grounds for admitting into evidence all of this. As for the
22 October and November reports, we do not know who wrote them, how this
23 person wrote them, for what purpose; nothing is known about the
24 photographs, maps, the graphs.
25 Quite simply, as regards everything that is contained in these
1 documents in P51 and then the 80 per cent of the transcripts that were
2 compiled by other persons, we did not have any way of putting questions
3 as to what was contained there. We had no way of challenging it in any
4 way. Quite simply, people who came here would first say that they knew
5 perhaps something about the place where they were, but they didn't know
6 anything else about this. So we simply had no one to put these questions
7 to you; not to mention the other requirements, probative value and
8 reliability that I already referred to. For about 20 days, according to
9 my mathematics, we listened to this courtroom. And it is the position of
10 the Defence that neither one of these two requirements has been met.
11 Your Honour, I can go on at length about this. I have a
12 multitude of arguments in this respect. However, if this is not
13 sufficient for your ultimate decision, we are prepared to make further
14 submissions in writing, if my present submissions are not sufficient to
15 convince you of the fact that what the Prosecution is seeking is wrong
16 from the point of view of the jurisprudence of the Tribunal, and also the
17 practice of relevant national jurisdictions. I thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Petrovic.
19 Anything in response Mr. Re?
20 MR. RE: Yes. If I wasn't clear in my submissions before, the
21 Prosecution was not intending to proffer P51 as primary evidence of proof
22 of damage to each of those buildings which are listed in the schedule.
23 At this stage of the case, the basis for --
24 JUDGE PARKER: I'm glad you added those words. Because until
25 this stage of the case, that's exactly what they have been offered for or
1 what it has been offered for.
2 MR. RE: I apologise, the way I prepared my submissions, I was
3 slightly taken by surprise. That is the basis on which we offer it into
4 evidence at the moment. It's corroboration of evidence we say which
5 independently proves the property damage through Mr. Jusic or Mr.
6 Grubisic or Mr. Vukovic or whoever. We say if you take the two together,
7 it provides evidence of the extensive nature of damage and take that into
8 account of considering the overall damage and the specific buildings --
9 which we will, of course, list in the 98 bis response we do. We will
10 list the buildings we say we can prove. And we will then refer them, if
11 the documents goes into 51/ID, as corroboration of the damage which can
12 be independently proved.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic did some sums to give a total. But
14 the time that has been spent in the course of this trial over this
15 property issue is a matter of no satisfaction, to put it very mildly, to
16 the Chamber. And it is a great pity that some of these matters were
17 faced more realistically at an earlier stage. But not to be spending all
18 this time on this issue right now, among other things. Is that what you
19 had in mind putting?
20 MR. RE: Yes. And in relation to Your Honour's other point about
21 -- we will look at amendment. But our primary purpose at the moment
22 during this submission is to submit those which we can prove and those
23 which we will no longer say -- we will no longer rely upon --
24 JUDGE PARKER: If you at least come to that point, it would be of
25 material assistance to everybody, especially the Defence and the Chamber.
1 MR. RE: That was the purpose of preparing the chart.
2 JUDGE PARKER: I can see movement out of my right eye. So I
3 better see what Mr. Petrovic has in mind.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, although I wanted to
5 save everybody's time here, obviously I cannot do it. What my learned
6 friend said is absolutely unacceptable. The indictment against our
7 client contains all 450 buildings. How can he say that this was only
8 given by way of illustration or to support other evidence, if this is
9 contained in the indictment, and if the indictment was written on the
10 basis of this document? Thank you. Your Honours.
11 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber will reserve its decision in respect
12 of the admissibility of the document marked for identification as P51 and
13 in respect of the motion that the Chamber should receive into evidence
14 Rule 65 ter Document Number 350 and Rule 65 ter Document Number 56.
15 Is there --
16 MR. RE: I apologise, it's actually 55, not 56. I have been just
17 been corrected by my case manager.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Now, is there any other matter which the
19 Prosecution would seek to tender?
20 MR. RE: There was one document which we had intended to tender
21 through Mr. Janikot who we didn't call in the end. It was referred to in
22 the evidence of Dr. Kaiser who was cross-examined at page 2468 to 2472.
23 These are the minutes of meetings between UNESCO representatives of whom
24 Dr. Kaiser was one, Mr. Karneze, Mr. Janikot, Mr. Vogeric, with the
25 various Yugoslav and Serbian and republican authorities between the 28th
1 of October and the 2nd of November 1991; Document 03449330 to 9339 in the
2 English translations.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm sorry to be
5 taking up this much time. What is this all about? You must have seen it
6 yourselves. For some reason Mr. Janikot did not come before this
7 Chamber. What does the Prosecutor want now with Documents 420, 421, and
8 519? Everything that they wanted to tender through that witness and what
9 pertains to the very essence of what this witness's testimony would be is
10 what they're trying to have admitted into evidence now in this way, which
11 is quite inappropriate, Your Honour.
12 Let us start with Document 421. That is a record of a meeting
13 that was made by someone; we assume that it's Mr. Janikot. And some
14 people took part in this meeting. We don't know anything about this
15 document. Authenticity. Source. Time. Nothing.
16 Your Honours, this is unacceptable. We oppose having any of this
17 admitted into evidence in this way.
18 Had it been necessary, they could have brought in a witness who
19 would have said what this was. This record in its own right does not
20 meet any one of the requirements that I referred to a few minutes ago.
21 Thank you, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE PARKER: The decision on the admissibility of Documents
23 65 ter numbers 420, 421, and 519 will be reserved.
24 MR. RE: Your Honour, could I just indicate, the original letter
25 we sent to the Defence indicated those three particular ranges. This is
1 actually part of Document 421. It is not actually 420 or 519.
2 JUDGE PARKER: I do not understand what you have just said. I
3 understood that you were seeking to tender three documents.
4 MR. RE: No, no, only one. I thought I said one document with
5 the ERN ranges of 03449330 to 9339. It's one document which was in
6 within 65 ter exhibit 421, which comprised I think several documents. We
7 are not attempting to tender 420 or 419 as originally indicated to my
9 JUDGE PARKER: So it's pages 03779330 -- sorry, 03449330 to 9339
10 of the 65 ter Document Number 421. And that decision will be reserved.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would kindly ask
12 for a clarification now. So the Prosecution does not want 420 and 5-1-9
13 [as interpreted] to be admitted, if I'm not mistaken?
14 JUDGE PARKER: That seems to be the position, Mr. Petrovic.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Anything else, Mr. Re?
17 MR. RE: Not from me. There are some outstanding translations
18 which the case manager has. All from admitted exhibits. Does Your
19 Honour wish me to submit them in Court or through the Registry?
20 JUDGE PARKER: Through the Registry, please, yes.
21 Well, then, subject to the issues of the admissibility of those
22 documents and the decisions in respect of them, is that the case for the
23 Prosecution, Ms. Somers?
24 MS. SOMERS: Excuse me one second, Your Honour.
25 [Prosecution counsel confer]
1 MS. SOMERS: If I may just clarify one point. If in terms of the
2 reduction of the number of structures from the overall 400-something to
3 what the Prosecution submits what in fact has been proven, if it is
4 acceptable for us to handle it within the 98 bis submission with
5 indications of what we will not be proceeded upon, perhaps this would
6 simplify the procedure. And then there would be no need for any further
7 additional submission on that issue other than whatever is argued in
8 98 bis response.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers, we can't be in the position of
10 directing you or guiding you what you should do. One course is to amend
11 the indictment. That has procedural implications. Another is to face up
12 to reality if there's a 98 bis.
13 MS. SOMERS: Yes, of course. And it's just a question of how we
14 handle it, whether we simply indicate in the motion of not proceeding on
15 this or not proceeding on this which I think has been the preferred, or
16 has been a consistent approach we were permitted to use. I think it's a
17 better approach, and I think it would make it easier for all parties.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
19 MS. SOMERS: There is nothing further the Prosecution will
20 attempt to put in this case. Thank you, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE PARKER: That is the case. Thank you.
22 Now, at this point, clearly there are some outstanding decisions,
23 a number on matters of evidence today and the question of the fitness of
24 the accused to plead which the Chamber has under consideration at the
25 present time.
1 It is convenient at this stage, I think, to try and look at
2 possible stages for the future. This can only be done at this stage on
3 the hypothesis that there should be a finding that the accused is fit for
4 trial. If that isn't the finding of the Chamber, well, then, of course,
5 none of this future contingent planning have any relevance. Should the
6 accused be found fit for trial, it would seem to be a convenient time to
7 quickly look at what might lie ahead.
8 Would the Chamber anticipate a 98 bis submission, Mr. Rodic? The
9 answer, as you've often put to many witnesses, can be yes or no.
10 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Yes or no. One way or the other,
11 Your Honours, the Defence is going to be working on Rule 98 bis and
12 submissions to that effect, if that is the answer you sought. Thank you.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. We somewhat anticipated that might be
14 the case. That being so, we have to look to the time, should the trial
15 continue, when that 98 bis submission would be filed. You would normally
16 have seven days under the Rules. Is there any particular submission
17 about that time? Mr. Petrovic.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I don't
19 know whether this is the right time, but I would like to take advantage
20 of your question related to 98 bis timing to ask you to make submissions
21 in terms of our further planning for these proceedings, if you believe
22 that this is an opportune moment to deal with such matters.
23 JUDGE PARKER: That's what I'm attempting to do at the moment,
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. The
1 Defence would ask for the following, Your Honours: In view of the fact
2 that the lead Defence counsel in this case will not be in a position to
3 come to Podgorica, or rather his home, by Thursday the 20th of May, what
4 we would kindly ask, Your Honours, is that the Defence be granted time
5 until Monday, the 31st of May for filing its motion in respect of Rule 98
7 Your Honour, as for the length of our case - and I assume that
8 that is something that you are certainly interested in, providing, of
9 course, that you rule that General Strugar is fit to continue the trial -
10 the Defence wishes to say that the Defence case, as matters stand now,
11 will last up to four weeks including time for cross-examination, to the
12 extent to which and proportionate to what the Trial Chamber allowed the
13 Defence to do during the Prosecution case. So bearing in mind the ratio
14 between the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination, that is the
15 time we envisage if we take as a basis the Prosecution case and what was
16 done then.
17 Of course, that would be our upper limit, so to speak. But of
18 course, Your Honour will shorten the time available if you deem it
20 As for timing, Your Honour, between the present day and the day
21 when the Defence case is supposed to start, we would like to present a
22 few matters that are relevant to your decision. Your Honour,
23 unfortunately Defence teams have far less members and much less resources
24 than our learned friends of the Prosecution do. During these five months
25 or so while we have been here, Your Honour, the Defence worked on
1 investigation, contacts, finding potential witnesses, speaking to them.
2 All of that basically stopped to a significant extent. So what is
3 important for us now, Your Honours, is that between today and the day
4 when the Defence case starts, we have a time period which will make it
5 possible for us to make up for this that was not done due to objective
6 circumstances over these five months, starting from December last year.
7 Your Honour, bearing in mind that our case will go on for up to
8 four weeks, bearing in mind all the constraints that we all have together
9 within the institution of the International Criminal Tribunal, with
10 longer preparations the Defence can shorten its case. But we kindly ask
11 that the minimum time given to the Defence to prepare its case should be
12 six weeks. That would be the bottom line. We really could not prepare
13 our Defence properly in less time than that. Please bear in mind our
14 arguments. Please take them into account, and please meet our request as
15 we've put it forth now. Thank you.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, six weeks from when?
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] From today, Your Honour. From
18 tomorrow, rather.
19 JUDGE PARKER: I thought you may have had a future starting date.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Thank you.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers.
22 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, Ms. McCreath has informed me that the
23 31st of May is a holiday.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Are there any submissions the Prosecution would
25 like to advance? We are looking ahead against the prospect that the
1 accused may not be found fit to plead guilty. In respect of the 98 bis
2 decision, Mr. Petrovic has just put submissions against the contingency
3 that there is found to be a case to answer, and he has looked into the
4 Defence case. On those contingencies, if you can indicate the
5 Prosecution's position.
6 MS. SOMERS: In terms of the time for which their submission is
7 due, if the Chamber is in agreement, the Prosecution does not object. We
8 would ask for ten days in which to file a response.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE PARKER: On the contingent basis on which we've received
11 these submissions, and that is subject to the decision on the question of
12 the fitness to plead and on the 98 bis motion, the Chamber would allow to
13 the Defence until Friday, the 28th of May time to file the 98 bis motion.
14 And then to the Prosecution, until Monday, the 7th of June. I think in
15 each case, that's a day or two short of what was sought, but still a
16 reasonable appreciation of what is involved. And should the eventuality
17 prove to be the case, we would look to commence the Defence case on
18 Monday, the 28th of June, which should accord roughly with what has been
19 sought by way of time. Is that a sufficient indication at the moment for
20 planning purposes? Should, of course, that eventuality occur, there will
21 be need for the Defence to give attention to Rule 65(G) in a fairly tight
22 time span once a decision on Rule 98 bis is delivered. So that needs to
23 be kept in mind.
24 Are there any other outstanding issues?
25 MS. SOMERS: No, sir, not from us. But on that last point that
1 Your Honour just addressed, would there be an indication of how much time
2 between the submission of the 65 ters from the Defence and the
3 commencement of trial? Because that obviously will be the first time the
4 Prosecution has a glimpse at the witness list or anything. I just
5 wondered if you had an idea.
6 JUDGE PARKER: We would hope it may prove possible for
7 information to be shared on an informal basis before there is the formal
8 filing, a course that seems to have been followed by the Prosecution from
9 time to time. And by that means, the prospect of the Prosecution being
10 taken by surprise and, therefore, the presentation of the Defence case
11 interrupted, can be minimised or hopefully avoided all together. And
12 that's why I drew attention to Rule 65(G). And the Chamber would
13 certainly add its anxiety that the time constraints that we will be
14 under, because we are allowing fuller than usual time for preparation of
15 98 bis by both parties, that they will in turn be responsive to the need
16 to share information about the Defence case, at least informally, at a
17 time which will allow the other side opportunity to be ready to commence
18 and to proceed on Monday, the 28th of June with the hearing of Defence
20 Could I indicate, because I did not, in response to something put
21 by Mr. Petrovic, that if either side wishes to supplement what has been
22 said in oral submissions about the admissibility of any one of the issues
23 of evidence that were considered today, written submissions will be
24 received from either side on any or all of those matters until Friday of
25 this week.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all, on
2 behalf of the Defence, I would like to thank you for your understanding
3 and flexibility in terms of the possible time for preparing our Defence.
4 In addition to that, I must regrettably bring up another subject,
5 and that is Rule 54 bis. Several times we had informal discussions with
6 Ms. Somers asking her to deal with the epilogue of our discussion of
7 54 bis; that is to say, to give a survey of the documents of the Republic
8 of Croatia provided to the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal.
9 Regrettably, this has not been done yet, so I just wish to inform you,
10 Your Honours, of the matter, and could we please have some indication of
11 whether this will be done at all; and if so, when. Thank you, Your
13 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Ms. Somers.
14 MS. SOMERS: Yes, the Chamber are directed the Prosecution to
15 make inquiries. The Prosecution has been make inquiries, but it involved
16 not just this institution but going to the field. And I've indicated to
17 counsel - and it is true, we have been speaking about this - that when I
18 have gotten the feedback, which I think we had a three-week time frame
19 which we are rapidly approaching, any document that approaches or that
20 may, if it appears to even approach, we will certainly be happy to turn
22 The question that the Chamber said is if there were an issue
23 about 68 or not, and that really is the thrust of it, that we can come to
24 the Chamber. At this point, I cannot say that there is something that I
25 need to approach the Chamber about. What I will say is I was informed by
1 our head of mission in Zagreb and the Croatian government has informed
2 him that in direct contact with the Defence on this, and my understanding
3 is that there is an arrangement, if I have been given correct
4 information, for the Defence to have produced if they haven't been able
5 to track the documents whatever they have. Again, they have been working
6 directly with the Defence, according to Mr. Mulhajic. We have been
7 working on this. It's a very high priority for the OTP. It involves a
8 lot of searching and record perusals. I want the Chamber to be assured
9 that is certainly and has been underway since the hearing.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Clearly, Ms. Somers, it's a matter for concern as
11 the Defence preparation will depend in part on this. So your full
12 attention to the matter would be appreciated by the Chamber.
13 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, sir. I just wanted to let the Chamber
14 know also the Defence has been given, apparently, the necessary
15 permission to get from the provider whatever is really being sought. But
16 we will certainly assist in any way that we can do as per the directive
17 of the Chamber.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. I don't think I can take the matter
19 further at this point, Mr. Petrovic.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just two or three
21 words briefly: We have not yet been in touch with anyone in the Croatian
22 government, not since that day actually because we are here in the
23 courtroom every day, and that's one reason why we couldn't do it. As for
24 information that seems to be in the possession of Ms. Somers, I know
25 nothing about that. I believe that document or the list that was
1 referred to at the time at least should be submitted. If not, we'll ask
2 for whatever they have. Thank you, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. We will leave it in the hands of
4 counsel for the moment.
5 That having been said, we will adjourn now for some time.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.46 p.m.