1 Monday, 9 May 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon to everybody in the courtroom.
6 Again, I see you, Mr. Vanderpuye, present in the courtroom. Is
7 that an indication that Mr. McCloskey is still unwell?
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon to you
9 and Your Honours.
10 It is such an indication. Also because I was present throughout
11 the cross-examination of the witness, we thought it would be appropriate
12 for me to complete the redirect examination of him.
13 I have some other news for the Court. I'm not sure if you've
14 been apprised. I believe you have.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have heard about that, but we should do that
16 at a later stage.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: First I would like to render an oral decision.
19 The Chamber is seized of the Prosecution motion to convert seven
20 viva voce witnesses to Rule 92 ter witnesses, which was filed on the 22nd
21 of February, 2011, and provided to the accused in B/C/S on the 7th of
22 March. The accused responded orally with respect to Witness Number 189
23 during the hearing on the 8th of March, 2011, and a written response to
24 the remainder of the motion was filed in English on the 24th of March,
1 The Chamber observes that although the Prosecution indicates in
2 the motion that Witness Number 189 would not be called until the 18th of
3 May, 2011, the Prosecution's list of witnesses for the current week,
4 starting today, filed last Thursday, that means on the 5th of May, 2011,
5 surprisingly indicates that Witness Number 189 is now scheduled to begin
6 testifying tomorrow. In light of this development, the Chamber will now
7 render an oral decision on that part of the motion pertaining to
8 Witness Number 189.
9 The Prosecution asserts that the transcript of
10 Witness Number 189's testimony in the Blagojevic trial, as well as the
11 exhibits associated with it, are directly probative of the accused's
12 responsibility for the alleged "Srebrenica forcible transfer and murder
13 operations," pertaining in particular to the organisation and work of the
14 Main Staff security organ. The Prosecution further contends that
15 Witness Number 189's prior testimony establishes the accused's knowledge
16 of the prisoners assembled in Nova Kasaba. The Prosecution estimates
17 that admitting the prior testimony of this witness would reduce the
18 amount of time required for examination-in-chief from three to two hours.
19 According to the accused, this witness should testify viva voce
20 because the topics forming the basis of his testimony pertain to key
21 issues in this case. The accused also expresses his skepticism as to the
22 time that would be saved by admitting the transcript and exhibits
23 associated with the witness's prior testimony and submits that he should
24 testify viva voce.
25 The Chamber has reviewed the transcript of the witness's
1 testimony in the Blagojevic trial and notes that, although the topics
2 covered therein are relevant and probative to material issues in the
3 instant case, were the Chamber to grant the motion with respect to the
4 witness today, the accused would have less than 24 hours' notice to
5 prepare for the cross-examination of the witness. Moreover, the proposed
6 time to be saved by admitting the prior testimony would amount to only
7 one hour of court time. Accordingly, the Chamber is of the view that in
8 this specific circumstance, the portion of the Prosecution's motion which
9 pertains to Witness Number 189 should be denied. The witness shall be
10 heard viva voce.
11 This concludes this oral decision.
12 I see you want to address the Chamber with scheduling problems,
13 I think.
14 Mr. Vanderpuye, you have the floor. If there's a need to go into
15 private session, we can do that.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 I would ask to go into private session, please.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Private.
19 [Private session]
11 Pages 13821-13827 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours. Thank
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
6 The witness should be brought in, please.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 WITNESS: PETAR SALAPURA [Resumed]
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, sir. Welcome back to the
12 I have to remind you that the affirmation to tell the truth still
14 Mr. Vanderpuye is continuing his re-examination.
15 Mr. Vanderpuye.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you again, Mr. President.
17 Good afternoon, Your Honours, everyone.
18 Re-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]
19 Q. And good afternoon to you, Colonel Salapura. At page 13654 of
20 the record, lines 8 through 16, you were asked the following question by
21 General Tolimir as concerns the Zoljas that were fired back in June of
22 1995, and he asked you:
23 "Mr. Salapura," he said, "during the examination-in-chief, while
24 you were reviewing the order signed by you, you were asked the following:
25 Why did the soldiers fire on various features there?"
1 And General Tolimir asked this question:
2 "My question to you is: How many hand held rocket-launchers,
3 Zolja, did they have at their disposal?"
4 And your answer was:
5 "Well, I cannot answer that, and they weren't actually firing
6 against features or facilities. They were firing in the air, and I don't
7 think there were any casualties due to Zolja fire. The targets were
8 completely different."
9 And you may recall that during the course of your
10 cross-examination, I asked you -- or I asked General Tolimir to clarify
11 whether or not this was a sabotage operation or a combat operation, and
12 you gave an explanation about that. What I wanted to show you was
13 65 ter 7361.
14 Mr. President, this is a document that wasn't part of the
15 Prosecution's initial 65 ter exhibit list, but it relates specifically to
16 the instructions concerning diversionary operations, which encompassed
17 sabotage operations and other diversionary tactics and operations that
18 were the subject-matter of the cross-examination.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you help us and tell us if this is already
20 part of the 65 ter exhibit list?
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's not, Mr. President. It wasn't part of the
22 original 65 ter exhibit list, so I would be moving to add it for the
23 purposes of using it during redirect examination.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, what is your position in relation to
25 that motion?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
2 I would like to greet Mr. Salapura as well, who wasn't present
3 when I greeted everyone. I wish to him a happy stay.
4 All the documents that were tendered were tendered as if it was
5 tendered during the examination-in-chief, and that was all.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The question was if you have any objection to the
7 addition of this document to the 65 ter exhibit list of the Prosecution.
8 Do you have any objection?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 I don't have any objection. I would just like to ask the OTP not
11 to introduce new documents during the redirect, documents that they did
12 not use during the examination-in-chief, and I'm talking about future
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I note that there is no objection to add this
15 document to the 65 ter exhibit list. Leave is granted to add.
16 A different issue from that is the use during re-examination. We
17 have had several instances when new documents were used during
18 re-examination. The Chamber will always consider the situation, and if
19 there is a need for a decision, it will decide case by case.
20 Mr. Vanderpuye, please carry on.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. Colonel, can you see this document on the screen right now? It
23 refers to instructions for land-based diversionary operations?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Are you familiar with generally what this concerns?
1 A. This explains how the sabotage actions on land are to be carried
2 out. This document is meant for training of sabotage units and for the
3 officers in such units. This is something they need to abide by.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. I just want to show you -- it should
5 be page 7 in the English, and I think it will be page 4 in the B/C/S.
6 And I think we have the introduction there, where it says "Uvod." Okay,
7 and it should be page 8 in the English. I'm sorry.
8 Q. And what we can see here is that this document covers
9 instructions for land-based diversionary operations concerning the
10 training and equipping of diversionary units and so forth. And you'll
11 see, at the beginning of the third paragraph, that it provides that:
12 "The objective of the instructions is to provide a unified view
13 on the significance, role and method of execution of diversionary
14 operations on land."
15 Is that, more or less, how you understand these instructions?
16 A. Absolutely.
17 Q. Okay. If we go to the next page, we can see Chapter 1, I think,
18 in both documents. And under item 1, we see "Diversions," and it
19 explains what those are. And it explains that it is an offensive,
20 surprise, fast, original, secret and skillfully-executed operation, and
21 it says these are:
22 "... carried out in all combat conditions, regardless of the
23 general balance of forces in a certain territory or the entire theatre of
25 You agree with that, do you?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. If we go a little bit further down, we can see that under item 2,
3 just before -- it should be the last paragraph in the B/C/S here, and
4 it's bolded -- in bold text, rather, just before paragraph 3 or item 3,
5 it reads:
6 "Diversionary operations are carried out by specially organised,
7 trained and equipped units."
8 That would be an important part of the functioning of, for
9 example, the 10th Sabotage Unit, wouldn't it?
10 A. I don't understand your question.
11 Q. Well, the 10th Sabotage Unit of the Main Staff of the VRS was a
12 specially-trained unit?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. And it's trained essentially in accordance with the provisions of
15 these instructions; is that right?
16 A. Yes, yes, that's right.
17 Q. If we go down to item 4, and I think we'll have to go to the next
18 page in the B/C/S, we'll see that it provides that:
19 "The objective of diversionary operations is: to inflict the
20 largest possible losses on enemy personnel, materiel and technical
21 equipment ..."
22 And that's right, too, isn't it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Let me move on to item 6, and that should be on the next page.
25 It's page 10 in the English. Okay, and we've got it.
1 In the bolded text, you can see that it reads:
2 "Military diversionary action is the basic method of diversionary
4 And that:
5 "This action against enemy personnel, technical equipment and
6 military --"
7 "This is action against enemy personnel, technical equipment and
8 military features."
9 Again, it says:
10 "The object of this action is to reduce the combat capabilities
11 of the enemy for short or long periods of time ..."
12 You see that in the text, and you agree with it, I take it.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Let me take you to item 9, which is on page 12 in the English and
15 page 8 in the B/C/S. Thanks. And here we can see a provision on
16 sabotage, and it says, item 9 --
17 A. "Da."
18 Q. "Sabotage is action which is carried out against the enemy in the
19 form of the broadest possible resistance of the population against work
20 organised by the enemy for his needs in temporarily-occupied territory. "
22 "Its objective is to undermine the state of morale and political
23 determination of the enemy and weaken his economic and military potential
25 And then it lists the manners in which sabotage is usually
1 carried out.
2 On the next page in the B/C/S, and on the same page in the
3 English, it talks about sabotage. It says:
4 "Sabotage should encompass all areas of activity which are useful
5 for the enemy - from traffic features and activities to industrial
6 installations in which the enemy is producing weapons, materiel and
7 technical equipment or using raw materials."
8 What I want to ask you is: These are all very specific to enemy
9 formations, enemy equipment, enemy personnel, enemy installations. Would
10 you agree with that definition of "sabotage" as it's contained in these
12 A. I would agree. But if I may, I would like to add something, with
13 your permission. I'm asking you and the President of the Trial Chamber
14 as well.
15 The rule book was not intended for civil war, such as the one
16 that was led in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had its specificities, both
17 multi-ethnic type and multi-religious type, with the presence of
18 UNPROFOR, and protected areas, and so on. This rule book was drafted for
19 activities and wars carried out when an aggressor has entered your
20 territory and then you have activities behind the enemy lines, where the
21 civilian population is. The war that was waged was a different type of
22 war. I don't think we had any rule books for a civil war. I've taken
23 courses abroad, and I don't remember having any training for civil war.
24 But, of course, we had to adapt.
25 Still, as you're reading this, I would like just to add that
1 there were specific situations that existed only in the war that was
2 waged. It wasn't a simple situation where, let's say, Croatia would
3 attack Bosnia, and then their armed forces, for instance, would cross the
4 border, because at the time of drafting of this document, and I think it
5 was published in 1971 or so, all the training then, not only in our
6 country, but in Europe, as such, was based on the conditions that existed
7 at the time. We had the NATO, the Warsaw Pact, the non-aligned
8 countries, and this was drafted for aggression either by the NATO or the
9 countries from the Warsaw Pact entering the former Yugoslavia. And I
10 apologise for taking up your time, but the rules were drafted for that
11 kind of conditions.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much for that clarification.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I add a question at this point in time.
14 Indeed, we saw, on the first page of this document, it was
15 drafted in Belgrade in 1996, and I take it for the purposes of the JNA,
16 the Yugoslav Army. Is that correct?
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, it's actually 1976.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sorry, I misspoke. I wanted to refer to 1976.
19 Is that correct?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was drafted for the needs of the
21 JNA, yes. We did not have our own rule books in the Republika Srpska
22 Army. We didn't have time to draft and publish them. It was a time of
23 war, and I must say that neither the Bosnian Muslims nor the Croats had
24 their own rules. They were using the same rule books, and they were
25 adjusting the rules to the conditions of war at the time. All of us went
1 to the same schools. We learned the same strategies, the same
2 operations, we underwent the same training. And it's the same situation
3 all over the world. Things like this are drafted on the basis of
4 experience from other armies as well.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that.
6 I take it that most of the rules which pertained to the
7 Yugoslav Army were in force for the VRS. Is that correct?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
10 Mr. Vanderpuye.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. Let me take you to paragraph or item 15 in this document. That
13 should be on page 14 in the English, and it should be just one page more
14 in the B/C/S, page 10.
15 All right. And under item 15, we read here that:
16 "Diversionary units are generally formed into groups, squads,
17 platoons and detachments (of squad, platoon or company strength)."
18 It says:
19 "Their number, organisational structure, weapons and equipment
20 depend on the needs and the specific nature of the task in a certain
21 territory and can change if necessary."
22 And it says:
23 "They carry out their tasks independently or in co-ordinated
24 action with units of the land army and the territorial defence."
1 "They maintain close and continuous communication with
2 intelligence and security organs and socio-political organisations which
3 are present and operating in a certain territory."
4 Now, I take it you're familiar with this particular provision.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And as far as it applied to the sabotage operations in the VRS,
7 it would be accurate, wouldn't it?
8 A. Again, there are some specific -- specificities that refer to
9 this. This was again drafted - I must repeat this - for a different type
10 of war. We had this concept of All People's Defence, which did not exist
11 during the last war that was waged in former Yugoslavia. And, yes, this
12 rule book was a foundation for the activities of diversionary and
13 sabotage and reconnaissance units. Some of those units carried out both
14 functions. The detachment that was under the Main Staff carried out both
15 reconnaissance and sabotage activities. And, yes, this was the basis,
16 the foundation, but conditions -- specific conditions in place dictated,
17 of course, the course of events. You cannot regulate in advance future
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't see an objection by the Defence. It will
22 be admitted into evidence.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7361 shall be
24 assigned Exhibit P2213. Thank you.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE:
2 Q. Now, Colonel, you've indicated that, yes, that the way things
3 worked out in reality were based on these instructions, but let me ask
4 you this: When you have a unit like the 10th Sabotage Detachment carry
5 out an operation, as we've -- and you've testified about, which entailed
6 firing rockets into Srebrenica without any particularly defined military
7 objective, or object, materiel, personnel, installations, how do you
8 classify an operation like that? Is that a sabotage operation, is it a
9 diversionary operation? How do you classify that particular operation,
10 in light of the instructions that you've seen?
11 A. First of all, the action or operation we're talking about did
12 have an objective. But we didn't expect the fog, we didn't expect that
13 there would be no visibility, and that was why we just demonstrated our
14 power. And I would like to stress again that the rockets that we are
15 talking about are not proper rockets. It's a 60 millimetres hand-held
16 rocket-launcher which, as its normal target, has APCs and small tanks.
17 If an armoured vehicle has thicker armour, it cannot harm it. You can
18 fire it against buildings, maybe, but the effect of such a rocket, when
19 fired the way it was, is less than what would be caused by a bullet from
20 a rifle.
21 I see you believe it's something that causes great destruction,
22 but it does not break up into fragments. It just makes a hole. It
23 doesn't have the cumulative action. So in a tank, where you have four
24 persons in a very small area, there it can have the effect of killing
25 them. The small-area explosion, people start bleeding from their ears,
1 the temperature gets very high, but in open space, it would not cause
2 much damage. In a room this big, it would cause just a hole. Only if it
3 would hit you directly, you could be killed, or maybe the sound -- the
4 blast of the explosion would cause you to hear a buzzing in your ears.
5 It can also cause fire if you manage to hit something that can catch fire
6 in a house.
7 Q. All right. Well, thank you for that. And I understand that you
8 didn't anticipate the weather conditions, but I would imagine that any
9 operation that you undertake, or plan, would have a definable
10 objective --
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. -- a definable object. So what was the object even prior to the
13 anticipation of the fog? What was the goal of firing those rockets into
14 the town? You said that it was to demonstrate strength, and then you've
15 gone on to tell us how harmless the weapons were.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not harmless. It is dangerous
18 for a tank, for an APC, or for a bunker, or some buildings, if there is
19 many rockets launched into one single room. And as for the objective,
20 the objective was clear. We wanted to deter constant sabotage actions by
21 the opponent because we were all the time suffering casualties, and to
22 put pressure on UNPROFOR to make sure that Srebrenica actually gets
23 demilitarised, because we cannot allow -- nobody could allow to have
24 somebody attack you from a protected area, and you cannot do anything
25 about it because they are allegedly a protected area. They can attack
1 from in there to rustle cattle, to kill people, foresters and so on, and
2 to do it continually. That was the objective, to show them that they
3 should stop with provocations, to demonstrate that we can enter the area,
4 that we could have done it even earlier, but we have done it. You have
5 seen what my order was saying, without casualties of UNPROFOR or
6 civilians. The objective was, of course, the command of the brigade. At
7 4.00 a.m., we did not expect many casualties there either; maybe a duty
8 officer who was there on duty. The idea was to fire several rockets into
9 that building. But because of the fog, and in order to avoid civilian
10 casualties, we decided not to do what was planned, and in a very short
11 period we just fired rockets into the air and rifle bullets into the air,
12 not against the town, itself. And the soldiers, after firing the rocket,
13 they just left the remainder of the device, and these could easily be
14 found. We just could not tolerate their terrorist actions.
15 Q. What you said --
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, I tried to give the floor to
17 Mr. Tolimir before this last answer. It was a lengthy answer, but I
18 understand that you wanted to explain that action again.
19 Mr. Tolimir, you have the floor.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
21 The Prosecutor said what the purpose was firing the rockets into
22 the town, and the witness said, again, the rockets were fired into the
23 air. He said it also in the examination-in-chief and in
24 cross-examination, they were fired into the air. Please bear that in
25 mind. And then again, in line 8, he said they were fired into the air.
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The witness explained in detail this action and
3 the purpose of this action.
4 Mr. Vanderpuye, please carry on.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Let me show you 65 ter 7362. Again, Mr. President, this is a
7 document that was not on the Prosecution's original 65 ter exhibit list.
8 It relates to the witness's testimony concerning the contacts of the
9 Main Staff with the Yugoslav Army, and also it relates to the role of the
10 Main Staff with respect to the 10th Sabotage Detachment that the witness
11 has testified about as well.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, do you have any objections to add
13 this document to the 65 ter exhibit list?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not objecting. I agreed to its
15 admission. But I would really, really appreciate it if the Prosecutor
16 would not offer 10 new documents during one session.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President --
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I understand the position of Mr. Tolimir.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: I understand it, too. But, Mr. President, I
20 have to point out that it is almost impossible to anticipate with any
21 certainty where a witness is going to go during cross [sic] or
22 cross-examination. And in this case, he's gone into areas on
23 cross-examination which I think these documents appropriately address.
24 They weren't necessarily brought up on direct examination because they
25 didn't need to be for the purposes for which the witness was brought here
1 to testify or the Prosecution has put him on the stand to testify about.
2 But during the course of cross-examination, many of these things arise.
3 And to the extent that these documents directly address those issues,
4 I think they are appropriate. They all have been disclosed to the
5 accused. It's not as though he doesn't have them. But it's a question
6 of whether or not he's on notice that we will use them. And to the
7 extent that he broaches areas on cross-examination to which these
8 documents attend, I think it's appropriate for us to introduce them.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The specific action of the VRS we are discussing
10 now was already addressed during examination-in-chief by Mr. McCloskey.
11 That's clear. We should be hesitant to introduce too many new documents
12 during re-examination. This is our concern, which we expressed already
14 The document may be added to the 65 ter exhibit list.
15 Please carry on, Mr. Vanderpuye.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. Okay. What we have here, Colonel, is a document from the
18 Main Staff. It's dated 1st February 1995, and it's directed to the
19 Yugoslav Army Main Staff. It says: "Personally to General Mrksic."
20 First, can you tell us, do you know who General Mrksic is?
21 A. Yes. I think that's Mile Mrksic, who is now serving his sentence
22 somewhere. I believe that's a reference to him. If my memory serves me
23 well, I believe after the war, he probably continued to serve there and
24 was in charge of training.
25 Q. And what was his position, if you can remember, back in 1995?
1 A. In the General Staff of the VJ?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. I don't know. I mean, probably he was either in the
4 Training Administration, but I really couldn't tell you exactly now. I
5 forgot it. But looking at this document, perhaps he was an assistant for
6 special units, one of the two.
7 Q. All right. Well, let's take a look at the substance of this
8 document. And you can see that this document is type-signed by
9 General Tolimir, and it says that:
10 "Pursuant to an agreement between you and Colonel Salapura,
11 please allow the Special Forces Corps commander to send three
12 instructions to the Bijeljina Garrison on 5th February 1995 for the
13 purpose of continuing the training of the members of the
14 10th Sabotage Detachment of the Main Staff of the VRS, who had completed
15 the 20-day training course at the Pancevo Collection Centre."
16 Since you're mentioned directly in this document as having agreed
17 with General Mrksic --
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 Q. -- do you have a recollection of what this was about or do you
20 have a recollection of this document?
21 A. Well, this document is based on that agreement. The agreement
22 relates, as you can see clearly from the text, that the
23 Special Forces Corps should allocate three instructors to continue the
24 training of the 10th Sabotage Detachment. We did not have that staff.
25 We had some retirees. And then we addressed special requests and sent
1 three or four commanding officers to the Training Centre in Pancevo. It
2 was not a very long course, perhaps a month, and the candidates were
3 supposed to continue their training in Bijeljina with us. And these
4 instructors provided by us needed more help because the trainees had not
5 achieved the required level in certain aspects. And I don't know if you
6 are satisfied with this explanation.
7 Q. So what I want to know, then, is: Was it part of your function
8 to make arrangements with the Yugoslav Army to provide training to the
9 10th Sabotage Detachment of the Main Staff? And, in particular, were
10 those -- were those arrangements -- or did those arrangements involve
11 General Tolimir, as seems to be indicated in this document?
12 A. Well, I would not qualify those arrangements in precisely that
13 way. They were not training the 10th Sabotage Detachment. They were
14 training some of the commanding officers who were there, and it was asked
15 that some members of the staff be allocated for that training. This
16 training is rather long and it's very complex, and it has never been
17 completed in all its stages, not until the end of the war. The training
18 was not completed because we did not have the objective or material
19 capacities to finalise it. And I did participate in it, yes, and it's
20 quite natural that we addressed the Army of Yugoslavia for help. We used
21 to be one army. We had no one else to address with this request. The
22 Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina sent its trainees to Turkey or Iran,
23 Croatia sent its men to Germany and some of them to Hungary, but we had
24 no one else.
25 Q. I take it, then, the answer is, Yes.
1 A. Yes --
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
3 Mr. President, I'd like to --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- as far as I'm concerned.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to tender this document, Mr. President,
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't see a specific objection. It will be
8 admitted into evidence.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7362 shall be
10 assigned Exhibit P2214. Thank you.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
12 Q. At page 13723 of the transcript, General Tolimir showed you D203,
13 which I'd like to show you as well. These are the Rules of Service for
14 the security organs.
15 I think we'll have to go to -- I think it's page 2 of the English
16 and of the B/C/S. Yes, indeed.
17 You see the title there, "Rules of Service of the Security Organs
18 of the Armed Forces of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia."
19 And these, like the other rules, were effectively adopted/taken over by
20 the VRS; is that fair to say, Colonel?
21 A. Yes. We did not have rules of our own. But, again, I'm telling
22 you that we took over these rules selectively, because there was a war
23 going on and we had to adjust to the circumstances.
24 Q. Let me show you Chapter 1, and that should be on page 6 in the
25 English and page 5 in the B/C/S. General Tolimir quoted the first
1 paragraph of this document to you, of this provision, so I won't repeat
2 it, except for part of it. And it says that:
3 "Security organs carry out duties of state security placed within
4 their competence by the law for the purposes of detecting and preventing
5 activities aimed at subverting or disrupting the social order established
6 by the Constitution of the Socialist Federative Republic of
7 Yugoslavia ...," and it refers to it as the Constitution of the SFRY.
8 Is that your understanding of how these ruled applied in the
9 context of the RS Constitution, that is, the Constitution of
10 Republika Srpska, after 1992?
11 A. The Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
12 did not exist, because the state had broken down. It was applied
13 probably in keeping with the Constitution of Republika Srpska. I did not
14 see this rule, and I did not apply it. I was concerned with the rules of
15 intelligence support for operations.
16 Q. Well, I don't have the exact transcript reference, but I
17 specifically recall General Tolimir asking you a question -- or he
18 referred to you as a member of the services that were responsible for
19 preserving the constitutional order. Do you remember that? Is the
20 security and intelligence administration or sector of the VRS, was that
21 responsible for preventing activities aimed at subverting the
22 constitutional order under the Constitution of the Republika Srpska?
23 A. Well, everybody played a part in it, everybody had a role. The
24 army, as a whole, had a role, but it's primarily a task of security
25 organs. But also the intelligence organs, dealing with their own line of
1 work, if they received any information of that nature, they are
2 duty-bound to accept them, to collate them, perhaps, or to take adequate
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Well, just for the record,
5 Ms. Stewart helped me finding the reference in the transcript, and it was
6 in a question that General Tolimir put to you, where he said, at
7 page 13681, line 20:
8 "Thank you. Since you are part of the institutions that were
9 charged with protecting the constitutional order ..."
10 And then he asked you a question about whether the republics of
11 the former Yugoslavia were recognised by the European Union before Serbia
12 got its international recognition.
13 What I'm focusing on, in particular, is your participation in an
14 institution charged with protecting the constitutional order in the
15 context of this provision. So in the context of this provision, that
16 would apply to the Constitution of the Republika Srpska; right?
17 A. Well, I'm telling you again, the service that I headed, of which
18 I was chief, handled a small segment of it, an informational one. It had
19 to -- the duty to collate information if it was relevant. Otherwise, it
20 could not play a bigger part, because it did not have enough staff, or
21 means, or resources.
22 Q. Is that a, Yes, to my question?
23 A. Yes, partially, but that's not our primary task. That's like "by
24 the way" for us. It's an auxiliary task for us. Primarily, it's the
25 task of security services, the police, and the army as a whole. My
1 administration is geared to the external factor, both in peacetime and in
2 war. We are geared towards the enemy and the external factor.
3 And if I may make a digression, I'll take a little bit of your
4 time, but this is something highly professional. It's the same thing
5 like when General Tolimir questioned me about Kupres, about the fighting
6 there. There were many questions there that I couldn't answer.
7 It's true that there was a war going on in Kupres. At the time,
8 I was in Sarajevo, but at the time my service had no competence to deal
9 with or gather any information about those forces of the
10 Croatian Defence Council that were in Kupres. Bosnia and Herzegovina was
11 not yet officially engulfed by war. And the enemy at Kupres was,
12 strictly speaking, an internal enemy, so we did not have competence over
13 that. I was dealing with the armed forces on the territory of Croatia,
14 not the Patriotic League, not the HOS, not the Croatian Defence Council
15 on the territory of Bosnia. The distinctions are very clear. My service
16 had no right to do anything on the territory of its own state. It deals
17 only with the external enemy.
18 Q. All right. Well, you can see very clearly in this caption, it
20 "Competence and tasks of security organs."
21 And I understand that you were in the intelligence organ, so
22 I think we're quite clear on what this relates to. But let me just
23 follow up on a couple of things.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. It says in item 1, as I said, that the security organs carry out
1 duties for the purposes of detecting and preventing activities aimed at
2 subverting or disrupting the social order established by the
3 Constitution, and it says.
4 "... and threatening the country's security, if such an activity
5 is carried out in the armed forces or against the armed forces from
6 within the country or from abroad ..."
7 It says:
8 "... and also for the purposes of detecting and preventing
9 activities aimed at breaching the secrecy of the plans and preparations
10 of the armed forces for the country's defence."
11 Let me go down to paragraph 4, and I think we'll have to go over
12 the page in the B/C/S.
13 Under paragraph number 4, it says:
14 "Security organs apply the methods and means of work and take
15 measures and undertake operations for the purposes of detecting and
16 preventing activities under item 1 of these rules, when there is
17 knowledge that such an activity is being prepared or carried out by
18 individuals, groups, or organisations in the armed forces or against the
19 armed forces ..."
20 And you can see the rest of it there.
21 So it would be within the competence of the security organs to
22 carry out methods and means of work to prevent or disrupt actions aimed
23 at disrupting the constitutional order, as indicated in item 1? That
24 comports with your understanding; right?
25 A. Yes, and against the constitutional order, but that relates to
1 things happening within units on our territory, in the areas of operation
2 of units, and it doesn't relate only to violations of the constitutional
3 order. There are also detection of spying, subversion of combat
4 readiness, sabotage within our own ranks. Somebody may be working for
5 the enemy, inside our units, for instance. That would be their
7 Q. So when it says -- if we go back to number 1, where it says:
8 "... threatening the country's security, if such an action is
9 carried out in the armed forces or against the armed forces from within
10 the country or from abroad ...," that would cover the competencies of the
11 security organs, as is indicated right here; right?
12 A. Yes, right, that's geared to violations of national security and
13 the armed forces and the constitutional order, from inside or outside.
14 And even if you take threats from outside, I've told you already, in
15 addition to the security services, the intelligence service is also
16 concerned, and our diplomatic corps and all our representative offices
17 abroad. That's one of the reasons why they exist, and that's common
18 practice throughout the world. I believe there's nothing special about
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
21 I have one other document I'd like to show the witness,
22 Mr. President, and that will be the end of my -- let me just
23 double-check. And that will be the end of my re-direct examination. I
24 see it's close to the break, or maybe we can do it now.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just go ahead. That would be very -- I would
1 appreciate it if you could finish before the break.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 It is 65 ter 7326. This is the Gazette publication of the
4 Constitution of the Republika Srpska. As you can see, given these rules,
5 that is the reason why I'm proposing to use them with this witness and to
6 add it to the 65 ter list.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is there any objection by the Defence?
8 I don't see any. It will be added to the 65 ter list.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 If we go to the -- well, first, let's just go to the second page,
11 and we can see the actual text of the Constitution.
12 Q. And what we have here is the basic provisions, and I want to draw
13 your attention, in particular, to item 5, which you can see in the middle
14 of the screen in Cyrillic on the right. And what that talks about,
15 specifically, is the constitutional order of the Republika Srpska, and it
16 says, as the first item:
17 "The constitutional order of the republic is based on the
19 And it says:
20 "Guarantee and protection of human freedom and rights with
21 respect to international standards."
22 You're aware of that; right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And that was part of the constitutional order back in 1995, too,
25 wasn't it?
1 A. I think this Constitution was enacted in 1992, towards the end of
2 that year.
3 Could we see the first page?
4 I believe that it was on the 31st of December, 1992, yes. Thank
6 Q. All right. And that's what was in effect in 1995 too; right?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, in the English translation we
9 see, under the headline "Constitution of the Republika Srpska," "Final
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I have no idea whether that is reflected in the
13 original B/C/S version.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: I believe it is. We should see it on the left
15 of the screen.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps the witness may read it into the record.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Witness, could you please read the headline of --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Constitution of the
20 Republika Srpska," Expurgated text, Basic Provisions, Article 1, 2, and
21 so on. "Final Draft."
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
23 Mr. Tolimir, I thought you wanted to get the floor. It's not the
24 case. Thank you.
25 Mr. Vanderpuye, please carry on.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 I just want to refer the witness, if I could, to --
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
4 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe that the
5 Prosecution and Defence will not have any issue with that. This is a
6 part of the Constitution, its final draft. As every other law, a
7 constitution is subject to amendments over a period of time, so this is
8 the final version of the Constitution that was already in effect on the
9 31st December 1992. This means that the Constitution had been revised,
10 and at that moment, that was its final version.
11 [In English] A misinterpretation. This is a valid version of the
12 Constitution of Republika Srpska, not draft.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that clarification.
14 Mr. Vanderpuye.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. Gajic, I appreciate that as well.
16 If we go to Article 10, and that should be in the following page
17 in the English and I think also in the B/C/S, we can see specifically
18 what these human rights and freedoms are that are referred to as part of
19 the constitutional order under Article 5.
20 Q. Now, I don't imagine that you've committed these provisions to
21 memory, Colonel, but you are aware of them, are you not? Article 10
22 refers to being free from -- or, rather, equality before the law, free
23 from discrimination. Article 11 deals with the inviolability of human
24 life; Article 12 deals with freedom and safety; 13 with human dignity,
25 physical and spiritual integrity; 14 deals with a prohibition against
1 torture or cruel or inhuman or humiliating treatment or punishment; 15
2 deals with unlawful detention; and so on and so forth.
3 You're aware of all of that, and those provisions would have
4 applied under the Constitution in 1995; is that fair to say?
5 A. I believe so. I don't know whether there were any subsequent
6 amendments. I believe so. I'm not an expert in constitutional law or in
7 constitutions, but I know that there were amendments. In any case, these
8 are provisions that were the result of a contemporary and democratic
9 society, similar to any other European states. I don't think that
10 anything in it was invented by us. It was adopted from somewhere else,
11 and I believe that those things didn't change, as a matter of fact.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Thank you for that.
13 And that concludes my redirect examination.
14 Mr. President, I would like to tender this document.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7326 shall be
17 assigned Exhibit P2215. Thank you.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
19 Mr. Gajic.
20 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, with regard to this
21 document, which is the 1992 Constitution of the Republika Srpska, I
22 believe that somewhere on the electronic disclosure system, I saw a
23 correct version or a correct translation into English. Perhaps the
24 Prosecution could check in their database and locate the correct
25 translation of the text from the Official Gazette, because as we saw it,
1 this is not a draft. This was a final version of the Constitution. We
2 would like to be clear on things, and things need to be clear both in
3 e-court and they are of some importance for the further course of these
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 I believe Mr. Gajic is right, and I think that the -- I think
8 what follows -- what's written under "Constitution of Republika Srpska"
9 is "Final Text," actually, rather than "Draft." I don't know if that's
10 an accurate translation. I believe that that is the case. And I'll look
11 into the matter to make sure that we have the correct translation
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Chamber would be grateful if you can check
14 that, and let us know the result of this check.
15 Sir, you will be pleased to hear that this concludes your
16 testimony and interrogation in this trial. Thank you very much for your
17 attendance here and that you helped us to establish the facts. That was
18 really helpful for us. Now you are free to return to your normal
19 activities and are released. Thank you very much, again.
20 Mr. Vanderpuye, do you have any further information about the
22 The witness should be released first, and then we should try to
23 find out what is the situation with the scheduling of witnesses.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Should we go into private session, perhaps?
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Private.
4 [Private session]
11 Page 13857 redacted. Private session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours. Thank
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow,
12 in the afternoon, 2.15, in Courtroom I, because there is no other witness
13 available for today.
14 We adjourn.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.00 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 10th day of May,
17 2011, at 2.15 p.m.