Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 23733

 1                           Wednesday, 7 September 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 6             This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and

 7     Stojan Zupljanin.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 9             Good morning to everyone.  May we have the appearances, please.

10             MS. KORNER:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Joanna Korner assisted

11     by Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.

12             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

13     Slobodan Cvijetic and Ms. Deirdre Montgomery for the Stanisic Defence.

14             MR. KRGOVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Dragan Krgovic,

15     Aleksandar Aleksic, and Miroslav Cuskic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

17             On Monday, I had invited counsel to consult and report on the

18     status of the maps and the map book.  Is any progress to report on that?

19             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I don't know.  Mr. Zecevic asked

20     for -- to consider it until Tuesday.  Then I think I spoke to him in the

21     morning, because -- just to identify which book I was talking about,

22     which is the one of the ethnic maps, because there's a separate book

23     which has got a mixture of maps in it.  And that was the last I heard.

24     And I see that he is not here today.

25             The other matter that we were going to consider together, that is

Page 23734

 1     to say, Mr. Krgovic and myself, was this question of this translation.

 2     And I rather feel it has gone back to CLSS again.  I see Mr. Krgovic

 3     nodding.  They've sent it back one more time to see if anything further

 4     can be translated.  So once CLSS get back to us, then we'll know which

 5     document is going to be the exhibit.

 6             But I -- I don't know whether Mr. Cvijetic can help with the

 7     situation is on the maps.  As I see -- as I say, Mr. Zecevic is not here

 8     today.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The only assistance that I can

11     offer to say that we are going to have Mr. Zecevic back during the first

12     session.  He is fully informed about the issue, so we won't be waiting

13     for an answer too long.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Cvijetic.

15             Would the usher please escort the witness back to the stand.

16                           [The witness takes the stand]

17             JUDGE HALL:  General Kovacevic, good morning to you.  Before I

18     invite Mr. Krgovic to continue, I remind you, you're still on your oath.

19             Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

20             MR. KRGOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

21                           WITNESS:  VIDOSAV KOVACEVIC [Resumed]

22                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

23                           Examination by Mr. Krgovic: [Continued]

24        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, General.

25        A.   Good morning.

Page 23735

 1        Q.   Yesterday when we left off and finalized our discussion about

 2     your expert report, we were dealing with paragraph 232, and you more or

 3     less answered my questions in relation to that paragraph.

 4             Can you now look at paragraph 233 of your report.  In this

 5     paragraph, you speak about co-operation.  And then, further on, in

 6     paragraph 234, you speak about the fact that corps command establishes

 7     co-operation with the organs of socio-political communities.

 8             Could you please briefly explain to us the difference between

 9     co-operation and a co-ordinated action and all the other actions that you

10     dealt with in your report.

11        A.   Co-operation is one of the manners of regulating relationships in

12     the course of the execution of a combat task.  It evolves and runs within

13     an area between representatives of a command that is in charge of the

14     carrying out of a combat task, on the one hand, and representatives of

15     the civilian authorities in that particular area, on the other; the area

16     where the combat operations are being carried out.  This kind of

17     co-operation is envisaged in regulations and legal documents, and the

18     contents of this co-operation is also regulated by a decision taken by a

19     commander.  A plan of co-operation is drawn up which sets out the

20     contents, the issues, the timing, and the place, and the people

21     responsible for co-operation.

22             Unlike a co-ordinated action that we discussed yesterday, here,

23     we have a relationship of equality between the parties; representatives

24     of the command and representatives of the civilian authorities.  In other

25     words, there is no subordination or resubordination, unlike a

Page 23736

 1     co-ordinated action, in which case the commander is in command and

 2     everybody else are subordinated to him.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  General, when you explained to us in your answer

 4     to Counsel Krgovic that co-operation would be running between the

 5     representatives of a command in charge of the combat and, on the other

 6     hand, the representatives of the civilian authorities in that particular

 7     area, would that include representatives from the MUP?

 8             And I'm asking because it is unclear from your paragraph 234 and

 9     235 whether the MUP and the local police authorities would be included in

10     the co-operation carried out by the army commander.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this

12     paragraph pertains both to representatives of the Ministry of the

13     Interior deployed in the area.  When I said "authorities," I included

14     police in that notion because I think that police is part of the

15     authorities, and I also had in mind other civilian authorities operating

16     in the area.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I understand.  Thank you.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I would like just to add

19     one thing, if I may.

20             But that means only if the police is not subordinated to the

21     commander in charge of the task.  That is to say, if they are carry out

22     their regular police work, then we have this kind of co-operation.

23     However, yesterday when we spoke about the instances when it is

24     subordinated to a commander, then there is no co-operation involved.

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Can I ask you to clarify this?  Because if the

Page 23737

 1     army commander requires resubordination of a police unit to take part in

 2     a combat action, I would assume that this does not include the entire

 3     public security station so that there would still be police

 4     representation left in the area with whom the army should cooperate.

 5             Do you understand my question?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand your question,

 7     Your Honour.

 8             And you are right.  That is precisely the case.  Only those

 9     elements that are subordinated to a commander in the course of carrying

10     out combat actions, there is no co-operation whatsoever.  However, those

11     elements that remain within the public security station are the ones with

12     whom they cooperate.  And I had them in mind when I spoke about this.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, General.

14             My questions were just triggered by the fact that the police is

15     not mentioned directly here, nor did you refer to it directly in your

16     answer to counsel Krgovic.

17             But thank you.  The matter is clear.  Back to you, Mr. Krgovic.

18             MR. KRGOVIC:

19        Q.   [Interpretation] General, in your response to Judge Harhoff's

20     question, you said that this mode of co-operation exists in the sense

21     that everybody is within their respective scope of responsibility.  Can

22     you elaborate a bit on what you answered to Judge Harhoff.

23        A.   The easiest way to explain this is by citing specific examples.

24             A commander will designate a representative of the command to

25     cooperate on the ground on specific issues.  If these issues involve

Page 23738

 1     recruitment of army conscripts, then this representative of the command

 2     is someone who is dealing with personnel issues and he comes up with

 3     specific requests, proposals, and requirements, goes to the National

 4     Defence organ that keeps records of all young men and other able-bodied

 5     men, and the two then agree, based on the previously agreed plans, what

 6     to do, or they agree and solve the current issues based on the authority

 7     bestowed upon them from their respective seniors.

 8             Co-operation involves reaching an agreement on a specific issue

 9     in order to carry out the task in a most efficient way within a given

10     time-frame.

11        Q.   Thank you, General.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  General, just another small question for

13     clarification.

14             How did this co-operation take place in practice?  Were meetings

15     held with the representatives of the socio-political institutions and the

16     local SJB or CSB and the labour organisation that you referred to in

17     paragraph 235?

18             Were meetings called and held, and were they public?  How did

19     this unfold in practice?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if the conditions and the

21     situation on the ground were such as permitting that, then meetings were

22     organised between the brigade commander and the president of the

23     municipality, with his team.  Or between a unit commander and a manager

24     of a work organisation, if it has to do with this particular work

25     organisation.

Page 23739

 1             During those meetings, they agree on the issues that are of

 2     mutual interest, and they draw up a plan of co-operation that I spoke of

 3     before, and that is followed by assigning specific tasks to specific

 4     individuals.

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 6             MR. KRGOVIC:

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] General, in the previous paragraph, you were

 8     involved more in theoretical issues relating to a co-ordinated action and

 9     co-ordination.

10             Can we now look at 2D00046.  And it's tab 110 in your binder.

11             General, what you see here is an order for further operations,

12     issued by the command of the Military Post 2207, Kljuc, dated 9th of

13     July, 1992?

14             In paragraph 2, we have tasks given to units, and I'm going to

15     read subparagraph (a).  That's the one I'm interested in.

16             It reads:

17             [As read] "The 17th Light Infantry Brigade, reinforced with a

18     reconnaissance platoon, a military police squad and a police platoon is

19     to block, search and mop up the Donji Biljani, Domazeti, Botonjici,

20     Jabukovac, Osmanovici and Brkici sectors."

21             General, I'm particularly interested with regard to this order in

22     this sub-item.  Can you briefly comment on the relationship between this

23     police unit, or, rather, police units and their role in the process of

24     the carrying out of this order.

25        A.   Before answering your question, let me just correct a mistake.

Page 23740

 1     You started to read but it wasn't the 17th Brigade because we see it says

 2     2/17.  Of course, you're not a soldier.  But this means the 2nd Battalion

 3     of the 17th Brigade.  This is just for the sake of precision.  That was

 4     the only mistake.

 5             This subparagraph 2(a) clearly shows that a police platoon is

 6     subordinated to the commander of the brigade, I think.  I cannot tell for

 7     sure because in the letterhead we just see the military post number.

 8             Anyway, it means that the police platoon carries out its task as

 9     part of the complement of that brigade and that it is subordinated to the

10     command of that unit.  We have already said that this relationship

11     presupposes singleness of command and subordination.

12        Q.   In this particular case, if a member of this resubordinated

13     police platoon - it is resubordinated to military command - were to

14     commit a crime or a disciplinary infraction, whose responsibility would

15     it be to instigate proceedings?

16        A.   Throughout the time this police platoon is part of the complement

17     of this brigade, in case of any disciplinary infractions or misdemeanours

18     or criminal offence committed by individuals belonging to the police

19     platoon, it is exclusively the brigade command that is responsible for

20     instigating such proceedings.  The command of the brigade to which this

21     police platoon belongs at the time.

22        Q.   Tell us, General, following up on your previous answer, is there

23     an obligation in place, an obligation of the commander who has instigated

24     disciplinary proceedings or possibly criminal proceedings, to inform the

25     police organ from which this police platoon had come originally?

Page 23741

 1        A.   Yes, that is understood.  That would also be the duty of the

 2     brigade commander upon instigating the proceedings that I mentioned.

 3        Q.   Please take a look at document P00060.3.  It is under tab 95 in

 4     your set of documents.

 5             This is an order of the command of the 5th Corps dated 1

 6     April 1992.  We see that it was sent to the Command of the 10th Partisan

 7     Brigade.  Please take a look at the last page of the document;

 8     specifically, at the signature block.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] That's page 3 in e-court.

10        Q.   You will see the name of Major-General Momir Talic.

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Now let's return to page 1.

12        Q.   Item 1 of this order.  The last-but-one paragraph says:

13             "Establish full co-operation with the authorities in Sanski Most

14     municipality and co-ordinated action with TO and police units."

15             From the point of view of practice and doctrine -- or let me

16     start another way.

17             Could you please comment on this paragraph first and then I'll

18     ask you a question.

19        A.   Well, I'm focussing my attention on the date stated here as a

20     date when the order was issued.  And it says 1 April 1992.  That means

21     that the Yugoslav People's Army was still present in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

22             Here, the commander orders that during the execution of this

23     task, co-operation with the authorities in Sanski Most municipality shall

24     be established, as well as co-ordinated action with TO units - the

25     then-TO which was still present in the area - together with the JNA.

Page 23742

 1     And, finally, the police is also mentioned, that there should be

 2     co-ordinated action with them.

 3             Now, it is unclear whether this police was already subordinated

 4     to some military unit pursuant to some decision because I cannot tell

 5     from this.  This word "co-ordinated action," first of all, pertains to

 6     the TO and not so much to the police in this specific case.  But it's

 7     difficult for me to draw conclusions because I have no information as to

 8     the position of the police here.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Krgovic, just for clarification, I note that

10     the English -- in the English translation of this document, it doesn't

11     actually use the expression "co-ordinated action."  It says

12     "collaboration," which is yet another term and could well lie somewhere

13     between co-operation and co-ordinated action.

14             So I just want to check whether we're talking about the same

15     thing.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you have rightly

17     identified this problem.  This is a mistranslation because the Serbian

18     word "sadejstvo" is correctly translated as co-ordinated action.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you for this.  This means if we are to

20     understand the General's theory correctly, that when General Talic orders

21     here that co-ordinated action be taken with the TO and police units, that

22     would require or presuppose, would it not, that those police units and

23     the TO had been resubordinated to the army at some earlier point in time.

24     Because, otherwise, if they had not been, then they would only be

25     involved by means of ordinary co-operation.

Page 23743

 1             General, have I understood you correctly.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour.

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, for this

 4     clarification.

 5        Q.   General, when you spoke about the principles of resubordination

 6     and the singleness of command, I'll show you a document.

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please Exhibit 2D00118.

 8     That's tab 88 in the Zupljanin Defence binder.

 9        Q.   General, this is an order issued by General Talic.  The date

10     stated is 2 January 1992, but can I see the reception stamp saying

11     2 January 1993.  This has been discussed already.

12             Here, General Talic, in item 1 of the order, appoints

13     Colonel Dragoslav Djurkic commander of the police brigade of the

14     Banja Luka CSB; whereas, the previous commander,

15     Lieutenant-Colonel Bosko Peulic, is to return to his functional duties.

16             And in --

17             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, the document that is currently up is

18     confidential so it shouldn't be broadcast publicly.

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct, Your Honour.

20             [In English] Is it necessary to go to private session or we

21     just ...

22             JUDGE HALL:  Perhaps, if you are going into the details of this

23     document, we could move briefly into private session, yes.

24                           [Private session]

25   (redacted)

Page 23744











11 Pages 23744-23748 redacted. Private session.















Page 23749

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6                           [Open session]

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  The document should, of course, be removed from the

 9     screen.

10             MR. KRGOVIC:

11        Q.   [Interpretation] General, yesterday, in answer to a question of

12     His Honour Harhoff and my question concerning the withdrawal of units at

13     the end of the combat assignment, when there was no longer need for them

14     to be used, would you please look at this document, 1D00264, which is

15     your tab 92.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please zoom in.

17        Q.   See, this is a document of Tactical Group 3 from Banja Luka sent

18     to the Doboj CSB.  And the subject or reference is:  Withdrawing of

19     police forces.

20             So the commander of the tactical group says the following:

21             [As read] "I have understood your proposal regarding the

22     withdrawal of police forces from combat operations.  We are satisfied

23     with the work of the police ... so far, and we have thus decided to pull

24     them out for a short while to give them rest so that we could engage them

25     in upcoming operations.  The reasons you provided are valid, but it seems

Page 23750

 1     to us that you do not understand the situation that we are faced with.  I

 2     do not authorise the withdrawal of police forces.  Otherwise, the front

 3     would soon -- the front line would soon reach Doboj, and you no longer

 4     have the territory you can control."

 5             And so on.  The other part is of no relevance to us.

 6             General, could you please comment on this document in light of

 7     your earlier answers?

 8        A.   In this document where the commander of the tactical group

 9     replies, I suppose to the chief of the Doboj CSB, it is clear that this

10     police unit was resubordinated to this commander and that the conditions

11     were not yet ripe for that unit to go back, or to be returned, to the

12     CSB.  That is to say, that the commander here explicitly emphasises that

13     he did not authorise the withdrawal of that unit from the military

14     framework.

15        Q.   Now, we need a clarification because in the second sentence he

16     says that:  "We have decided to pull them out for a short while to rest

17     so that we may engage them in upcoming operations."

18             Can you tell us, once you have a unit removed from the front line

19     and sent to rest and after that is detached again to take part in the

20     operations, what is the relationship between this particular unit and the

21     command?  Does anything change in that regard?

22        A.   Taking a rest is something that is regulated by rules and should

23     be implemented periodically, either between combat actions or while there

24     is an break in the commission of tasks.

25             However, during these rest periods, every member of this unit

Page 23751

 1     still remains within the unit and is responsible exclusively to the

 2     commander of the unit to which he had been assigned.

 3        Q.   I am now going to show you --

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF: [Previous translation continues] ...

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ...

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Sorry.

 7             Before we leave this document, I would ask the General to give us

 8     his interpretation of the background of this dispatch.  Because it would

 9     seem to me that Colonel Lisica was responding to a request from the Doboj

10     CSB to have the police unit transferred back to civilian authority.  And

11     so this raises the question of -- of whether the police, or the MUP, had

12     any role in the -- in the transfer of police units from the police to the

13     army and back again.

14             Was this ordinary practice, that the police could ask the army to

15     have its police unit back?  Do you know how the practice was at the time,

16     General?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it is obvious, Your Honours,

18     from this document -- or, rather, it is probably evident that the

19     operation of the Doboj CSB has been disrupted and that, for that reason,

20     the chief of the centre is addressing the commander and requesting his

21     police unit to be returned to him, in order for him to operate

22     successfully.

23             However, one cannot glean from this document when this unit had

24     been sent to join the army structure and up until which time it was

25     supposed to remain carrying out its tasks.  And in that sense, I believe

Page 23752

 1     that this action taken by the chief of the CSB is justified.  Because he,

 2     himself, is facing problems due to the shortage of manpower.  But we can

 3     see from this document what kind of response he received from the

 4     tactical group command.

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  So there was nothing extraordinary in

 6     the CSB Doboj's request.  That's how I understand your answer.

 7             Is that correct?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that's correct.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thanks.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic, just one moment, please.

11             General, the last -- in the last sentence of this dispatch it

12     says:  "We welcome all forms of co-operation and assistance between the

13     military police and the police force [sic]."

14             Is it co-operation in the -- in the Serbian text; and what is

15     meant to be said here?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose that, having rejected the

17     request, he caused the CSB chief to become quite angry and he's offering

18     a kind of reconciliation, in quotation marks, by saying what he says

19     here.

20             However, in reality, elements of the CSB still remained on the

21     ground, but he is talking now about the co-operation between this

22     institution and the army.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So you would agree that there is some

24     contradiction between, on the one hand, the resubordination, and, on the

25     other hand, the offer of co-operation.  Unless we would -- this would

Page 23753

 1     pertain to different unities [sic] in the police.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, a police unit that is

 3     removed from the police force and resubordinated and given to this

 4     commander of a tactical group, there's no co-operation in that domain.

 5     They can only co-operate with those elements that remained on the ground.

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  That's exactly what I meant, yes.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, on the same sentence, ought I read anything

 8     into the I appreciate, General, that this isn't your document but ought I

 9     read anything into:

10             "We welcome all forms of co-operation and assistance between the

11     military police and the police forces."

12             As opposed to the military and police forces.  Why is the

13     military police specified?  Ought I to read anything into that?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, nothing special.  Most often,

15     that's how co-operation unfolded.

16             Yesterday I told you that a security organ was in most cases the

17     one who cooperated with the police on behalf of the command, and military

18     police is part of that security organ.  And, in my view, I think this was

19     simply an amicable statement to the effect that the co-operation would

20     remain in place and that he shouldn't resent the fact that, at that point

21     in time, he was not able to send back the unit that he had requested.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

23             MR. KRGOVIC:

24        Q.   [Interpretation] General, one more question in relation to

25     His Honour's question.

Page 23754

 1             Now, can you tell me in which domain there is co-operation

 2     between military police and civilian police?  Which particular area of

 3     co-operation can there exist?

 4        A.   Mr. Krgovic, I'm not an expert either in the matters relating to

 5     military police or civilian police.  However, what I do know, and what I

 6     heard from some briefing sessions that I attended in our command

 7     headquarters, I think that, in most cases, that involved the exchange of

 8     certain security information, whether about individuals, the situation on

 9     the ground, and issues of a similar sort.

10        Q.   General, whilst you were in Bosnia and later, did you have an

11     opportunity to pass through a check-point?

12        A.   Well, I had an opportunity to come across check-points manned by

13     people who were checking traffic and individuals.  At these check-points,

14     it was possible to carry out the work in the form of joint patrols and

15     that was common practice, particularly at the beginning of the war, where

16     we had both members of military police and civilian police because those

17     passing through were servicemen, civilians, and others, and I think that

18     was the reason why, at times, they cooperated together and participated

19     in this together.

20        Q.   In your last sentence you said that they co-operated.

21             So can you please clarify what was the relationship between

22     military police and the civilian police, if they are manning one and the

23     same check-point?

24             I was speaking about this subordination or co-ordination or

25     co-operation.

Page 23755

 1        A.   Well, we discussed various forms of co-operation, and I cited

 2     this as one of the forms of our co-operation.  However, one should not

 3     exclude the possibility that, if there was a document governing this

 4     particular check-point, that this relationship could have been different.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  The -- so we'll take the break now and return in 20

 6     minutes.

 7                           [The witness stands down]

 8                           --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.

 9                           --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

10             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, Mr. Zecevic, having arrived, I asked

11     him whether he objected, and the answer is he does to the admission of

12     the book of maps.  So perhaps, Mr. Cvijetic, who is likely to be

13     cross-examining, could leave ten minutes at the end to deal with that

14     matter.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

16                           [The witness takes the stand]

17             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Krgovic.  I take it that you're at the

18     tail-end of your very elastic 30 minutes that you mentioned yesterday, at

19     the adjournment.

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  I apologise for

21     being so long, but some questions also were follow-up questions on the

22     Bench's questions, and then you're also reminded of other things, and you

23     know how it goes.

24        Q.   General, I would like you to look at a document and it has to do

25     with what you have already dealt with.  It's P00160, and it's tab 16.

Page 23756

 1             This is a summary of a meeting of MUP senior officials held on

 2     11 July 1992.

 3             Let's take a look at the page where Mr. Zupljanin speaks about

 4     the topic that you also discussed.  That is on the page marked as 5 in

 5     your set.

 6             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And the ERN is 0324-1855.  In

 7     Serbian, that's page 8 in e-court.

 8        Q.   It's the fourth paragraph from the top where Mr. Zupljanin

 9     says --

10             MS. KORNER:  [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry, you

11     said tab 16.  Could I have the tab number, please.

12             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 116.

13             MS. KORNER:  116.  Thank you.  [Microphone not activated]

14             MR. KRGOVIC:

15        Q.   [Interpretation] It's the fourth paragraph from the top, and

16     Mr. Zupljanin says the following:

17             [As read] "Because of the losses, 20 active-duty and reserve

18     policemen were killed in one single action in Mrkonjic Grad.  The role of

19     the police and their direct engagement in combat operations should be

20     defined, and in view of this, the manning of the force.  The army has

21     requested the engagement of the entire force.  And they are being

22     resubordinated and pushed onto the most difficult lines of combat which

23     should be prevented."

24             Could you please comment, General, in view of your report and

25     your testimony given so far.

Page 23757

 1        A.   Mr. Krgovic, I have already spoken about this topic these days,

 2     and I said that police units would only very rarely, actually

 3     exceptionally, be used for the execution of combat tasks because police

 4     officers are not trained to do that.

 5             However, as we have seen in many documents, things looked

 6     different in practice.  That is why I personally think that the chief of

 7     the CSB rightly pointed out this type of engagement of police officers

 8     because it prevented him from doing the work for which the centre, headed

 9     by him, is responsible.

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

11             MR. KRGOVIC:

12        Q.   [Interpretation] The second sentence reads:  "The army has

13     requested the engagement of the entire force ..."

14             What does this phrase "entire force" mean to you?

15        A.   As far as I've been able to tell from the documents, there are

16     examples where local-level commanders - mostly military commanders -

17     resubordinated the entire police force, and I think that this is what the

18     centre chief had in mind when he said this.

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

20             MR. KRGOVIC:

21        Q.   [Interpretation] General, the next document is P01094.  Number

22     117; the tab number, that is.

23             This, sir, is a dispatch sent out by the Banja Luka CSB in

24     September 1992, and it was sent to:  Public security stations; the

25     RS MUP, for their information; and the commands of the 1st and

Page 23758

 1     2nd Krajina Corps.

 2             I'll read out the first paragraph.  Mr. Zupljanin says:

 3             [As read] "In recent times there has been an increasing number of

 4     requests from lower commands of the Army of Republika Srpska on the

 5     territory of the Banja Luka Security Services Centre for the engagement

 6     of active and reserve forces of the police in army formations on lines of

 7     contact with enemy forces, and requests for the departure of police

 8     members in army formations to protect corridors or to go to other fronts

 9     all over Republika Srpska."

10             And let us move onto the following page.  I'm now reading the

11     last paragraph on page 2.

12             "At the same time" --

13             Please go back one page in English.

14             [As read] "At the same time, we draw to the attention of SJB

15     chiefs the fact that members of the active and reserve police forces may

16     be engaged in combat activities according to the principle of

17     resubordination to a superior army command only in the event that combat

18     activities are taking place on the territory covered by the designated

19     SJBs and with the approval of the chief of the CSB."

20             This document is dated a few months after that speech by

21     Mr. Zupljanin.  I would like to hear your comment about this document.

22        A.   Mr. Krgovic, this document has a similar content as the speech of

23     the centre chief.  He also tries to have police units be used to execute

24     combat tasks only exceptionally.

25             We can see from these warnings given to the chiefs of the public

Page 23759

 1     security stations that the CSB chief, who was their superior officer,

 2     often wasn't even informed of the use of police units at the local level.

 3             It is clear that, under such conditions, it is extremely

 4     difficult, if not impossible, for the CSB to execute its basic tasks,

 5     especially if you are making plans within your own remit, and for

 6     those -- for the execution of those plans, you need forces but you don't

 7     know that those forces are being used to do something else.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  General, could I ask you, if you know, about the

 9     use of reserve police forces in situations where the active police force

10     was resubordinated to the army.

11             Was it possible for the SJB chief or the CSB chief to call in

12     reserve police forces to replace those active policemen who had been

13     taken away and resubordinated to the army?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was possible under

15     one condition:  That you have live men in the field.  But as I have

16     already said, military commanders probably used police forces often

17     because the available reserve forces were not sufficient, be it army

18     reserves or police reserves.

19             We have seen in a number of documents that commanders used the

20     entire force, both active-duty police and reserve police.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

22             MR. KRGOVIC:

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Now let's move to the last topic that you

24     discuss in your report, chapter 6, paragraph 237 and the following.

25             The heading of chapter 6 is:  Defence of a Town or City.  In this

Page 23760

 1     chapter, you deal with the details of town defence.

 2             Let us try to clarify something.  While setting up the command

 3     of -- the defence of a town, who is it, actually, who sets up such a

 4     command?

 5        A.   The setting up of town commands or settlement commands was

 6     envisaged and regulated by military rules and regulations, but it also

 7     provided only for exceptional cases.  When it becomes impossible for the

 8     civilian authorities to function, that is when town defence commands are

 9     being formed, and this command engages all the resources and all the

10     structures within the area of responsibility of this commander and places

11     it at his disposal and command.

12             The decision to establish a town defence command is made by a

13     senior officer directly, senior to the commander who is stationed in a

14     particular area or town.  Exceptionally, this can be done by a brigade

15     commander, for example, in a specific area.

16        Q.   Can you please look at document 1D403; your footnote 121.

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Tab 81.

18        Q.   General, we see here a document issued by the command of the

19     19th Partisan Brigade dated 13 June 1992.

20             MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm so sorry,

21     but you said --

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 81.

23             MS. KORNER:  -- 81.  8-1.  Yes.

24             MR. KRGOVIC:

25        Q.   [Interpretation] General, this comes from the command of the

Page 23761

 1     19th Partisan Brigade, and it's dated the 13th of June, 1992.

 2             Can you please tell me briefly your interpretation of this

 3     document.

 4        A.   Mr. Krgovic, we again have here a strictly confidential --

 5        Q.   Is it something similar to the previous document?

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   It is my duty to care of this, so feel free to comment on it is.

 8        A.   This document confirms what I said previously, because here, in

 9     the heading, before item 1, there is one crucial thing and I read:

10     "Pursuant to document of the command of the 30th Partisan Division ...,"

11     which is one step higher command than the one receiving this, and based

12     on that, the brigade commander is setting up a town defence command and

13     appointing all these people and organs and structures with a view to

14     making it possible for the authorities to function and to facilitate the

15     defence of the population and property in the area of responsibility of

16     the brigade commander.

17        Q.   General, can you please go to the last page of this document.

18     And can you please comment on item 5.

19        A.   Mr. Krgovic, item 5 is similar to one of the previous documents

20     where we saw that the corps commander is the one designating a military

21     commanding officer to take up command over a police brigade.  Similarly,

22     the brigade commander, in this particular instance, who is responsible

23     pursuant to a document issued by the division commander to set up a town

24     defence command and engage and place all forces under single command,

25     hereby appoints a military officer to the post of the chief of the public

Page 23762

 1     security station.

 2        Q.   General, can you please tell us whether the existence of a town

 3     defence command was subject to any restrictions and limitations or was

 4     that a permanent state?  And I'm talking about the -- how it worked in

 5     practice.

 6        A.   The setting up town defence commands, in my opinion, is

 7     stipulated by military rules and regulations as an option that should be

 8     resorted to only exceptionally.  Because, in my view, it is in the

 9     interests of both the army and army commanders to have the civilian

10     authorities become operational as soon as possible and that they function

11     properly because soldiers are the one who should be engaged in combat

12     operations, rather than to run the civilian affairs.  And that is why I

13     think that these town commands should be formed only exceptionally and

14     that the duration of that state should be as short as possible and that

15     they should be cancelled as soon as the reasons for their existence cease

16     to exist.

17        Q.   General, can you please look at another document.

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown

19     Exhibit 2D00132.  Tab 86 in the Zupljanin Defence material.

20        Q.   General, this is an extract from the minutes of the meeting of

21     the Crisis Staff of Kotor Varos.  And you can see here that among those

22     attending this meeting, in addition to members of the Crisis Staff, was

23     Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic.  I'm going to read to you item 1:

24             [As read] "the Crisis Staff was familiarized with the military

25     activities of the day by Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic.  He also informed the

Page 23763

 1     Crisis Staff of a telegram from the Corps Command relating to security

 2     for the arrival of the Banja Luka Bishop Komarica for a religious service

 3     in Kotor Varos, to be held on Saturday.  Measures must be taken to make

 4     this possible."

 5             And then Mr. Peulic goes onto say:  "With regard to the

 6     development of events in our area," he ordered that anyone that can carry

 7     a rifle must be mobilized.  A command -- a defence command must be

 8     formed for the defence of town, and he appointed Captain Tepic as the

 9     commander.

10             General, could you please comment on this last sentence and this

11     announcement made by Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic?

12        A.   Mr. Krgovic, this document does not indicate to what position

13     Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic was holding at the time.  I suppose that he was

14     a brigade commander.  In compliance with his authorities, he is setting

15     up a command and appointing Captain Tepic, the commander.

16        Q.   General, and the last document that I'm going to show is

17     Exhibit 1D00404.  It's your tab 104.

18             This is a document you -- signed by Colonel Slavko Lisica, as you

19     can see.  In its preamble he makes reference to:

20             [As read] "... the instruction on the work of organs of civilian

21     affairs in times of combat operations and due to demonstrated need, I

22     hereby issue the following order: The Derventa Town Command from today on

23     shall only deal with military issues, whereas, all civilian matters shall

24     be transferred to the civilian authorities?"

25             We heard in your previous answer that there was a restriction or

Page 23764

 1     the time limitation for the operational of a town command, and in light

 2     of that, can you please comment this document.

 3        A.   Mr. Krgovic, this order, issued by Colonel Lisica, speaks

 4     precisely about the state of affairs in which the conditions for further

 5     existence of a town command have ceased to exist, or, rather, that

 6     conditions have been created for the civilian authorities to become

 7     operational.  This is something that we discussed when we commented

 8     previous documents.

 9        Q.   A general question.  While a town defence command is functioning,

10     in view of the documents that I show you, to whom are the civilian

11     organs, including the police, are responsible and answerable to?

12        A.   First and foremost, they are subordinated to the commander of

13     that command, and they are answerable to them, in terms of their

14     obligation to submit a report on the work that each of them carry out

15     within their respective domains.  The town defence commander then

16     forwards these reports to the next level of the command above him.

17        Q.   General, thank you.

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

19     questions for this witness.  Thank you for your patience.

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Before we go to the cross-examination, could we

22     have P00060.3 on the screen, please.

23             On page 9, line 13 and 14, the interpreters interpreted

24     Mr. Krgovic's question when he cited a document, "establish full

25     co-operation with the authorities in Sanski Most municipality and

Page 23765

 1     co-ordinated action with TO and police units."

 2             And then, as Judge Harhoff pointed out, the document does not

 3     say, translation does not say "co-ordinated action" but says

 4     "collaboration."  So there is a difference between obviously between

 5     interpretation and translation.  And on page 20 -- on page 10, line 16,

 6     17, and 18, Mr. Krgovic tried to be helpful by testifying that it is a

 7     translation mistake.  Because the Serbian word "sadejstvo" is correctly

 8     translated, he said, as "co-ordinated action."  Now it still is as

 9     "collaboration" in the document.

10             So I wonder if we should not get it straight officially one way

11     or the other, probably by resubmitting the translation of the document

12     again to --

13             MR. KRGOVIC:  I agree, Your Honours, I will do that.  I send it

14     to translation.

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you very much.

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I, Your Honours?

17                           Cross examination by Mr. Cvijetic:

18        Q.   [Interpretation] General, good morning.

19        A.   Good morning.

20        Q.   I will start my cross-examination by quoting portions of your

21     evidence yesterday.

22             Yesterday you commented on a document which is in tab 15 of the

23     Zupljanin Defence binder, and this is 1D00406.  In your report, that's

24     footnote 22.  That's where you will find it.

25             You will remember the document.

Page 23766

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we see page 2.

 2        Q.   Because that's precisely the page that you covered in your

 3     comments.  And towards the bottom of that page, it says that this

 4     military commander places all police forces under the command of the

 5     commander of the area who will, in turn, decide on how to use them.

 6             Do you remember discussing this with Mr. Krgovic yesterday?

 7        A.   Yes.  In carrying out combat activities.

 8        Q.   So you remember it?  When asked by His Honour Delvoie as to what

 9     that meant, practically, for police, you said that that meant that CSB

10     was basically left without any police members in that area.

11             You also agreed with the comment by His Honour Harhoff stating

12     that that --

13             MS. KORNER:  [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry, I'm

14     going to object.

15        A.   -- unit thus became a legitimate military target.  Do you

16     remember that.

17             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] I think the exact words

18     read by the General as opposed to -- said by the General, as opposed to

19     Mr. Cvijetic's summary, need to be read back to him.

20                           [Defence counsel confer]

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The General can confirm whether I

22     quoted him correctly but that can be found on pages 16 and 17 of

23     yesterday's transcript.

24        Q.   Do you remember discussing this, both with Their Honours and with

25     Mr. Krgovic, these matters?

Page 23767

 1        A.   Mr. Cvijetic, as far as I remember, I think that only the first

 2     of my answers that you referred to is correct; namely, that in this

 3     particular case, all police forces were resubordinated to the area

 4     commander, thus leaving the CSB without its forces.  Or, in other words,

 5     without forces needed to carry out police duties.

 6             As to the other matter that you mentioned, a comment by the

 7     Judge, which I confirmed, that pertained to another document and to

 8     another situation; namely, when the brigade commander established a

 9     command post in the SJB premises.  I made a comment saying that that was

10     not customary and that it thus made the work of that CSB impossible.  His

11     Honour Judge Harhoff added that, in that situation that CSB became a

12     legitimate target, which is what I confirmed.

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  Not SJB premises but

14     CSB premises.

15             MR. CVIJETIC:

16        Q.   [Interpretation] You're correct.  You're fully right.  I put

17     together those two answers that you gave.  You're completely right.

18             Could you please comment on this, because Mr. Zecevic and I

19     concluded that transcript did not accurately reflect what you said.

20             You said that when this commander used the police force in his

21     area for combat activities, you explained what could have possibly led

22     him or induced him to do that.  Do you remember giving that answer.

23             MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... Can I have,

24     please -- I appreciate the problems, Mr. Cvijetic, that he doesn't read

25     English.  But Mr. Zecevic does.  Could I please have the page and line

Page 23768

 1     number of the answer that's being referred to.

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I have already said that those

 3     were pages 16 and 17 of yesterday's transcript.

 4             MS. KORNER:  I'd like the proper page numbers of the corrected --

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Just a minute.  Just a minute.

 6     Just be patient.  We have found it.  Just be patient, please.  23684,

 7     lines 5 and 6 is the transcript reference.

 8             MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... Thank you very

 9     much.

10             MR. CVIJETIC:

11        Q.   [Interpretation] So I'm asking you directly:  What, in your view,

12     could have made that area commander to take this decision?

13        A.   Mr. Cvijetic, first and foremost, the specific conditions, the

14     situation, and the course of combat operations; and, primarily, I think

15     that I mentioned the insufficient number of men.  Those factors made the

16     commander use police units for combat activities.

17        Q.   Very well.  General, once an imminent threat of war is declared,

18     once that state was declared in Republika Srpska, priorities were defined

19     in conduct of all state organs, authorities, individuals, army, police,

20     and so on.  The main priority was the defence of the country.  Wasn't

21     that right?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   All activities of all persons had to be -- had to serve that

24     priority; isn't that right?

25        A.   Precisely.

Page 23769

 1        Q.   And that priority could have been the basis for making this

 2     decision, in the case of this commander that we just analysed.

 3        A.   Correct.

 4        Q.   The development of war events, insufficient amount of time and

 5     men, could have been the factors which, sometimes, made the officers to

 6     resubordinate units outside of the regular procedures, because the dire

 7     conditions dictated that; right?

 8        A.   Yes.  That's precisely what I spoke of.

 9        Q.   Very well.  In order to illustrate priorities, I will put back

10     the document that you looked at today, which is 1D00264, which is tab 92.

11     Zupljanin binder, the one that you have.

12             It will be easy for you to remember this.  We recently saw this.

13     This is the reply of Colonel Lisica to the request made by chief of the

14     Doboj CSB.

15             Do you remember this?

16        A.   I do.

17        Q.   I will try to have you and me interpret this document from

18     another angle, the angle that wasn't covered earlier.

19             Do you see two things here:  One, Colonel Lisica opts for the

20     priority here.  He opts for defence; right?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And that is the motive and the reason that guided him in writing

23     this answer; right?

24        A.   Right.

25        Q.   The second matter that one can see here is that he has the last

Page 23770

 1     word.  He has the last say in this.  He is the one who decides on

 2     resubordination and so on; right?

 3        A.   Correct.

 4        Q.   Before we turn to the next document, perhaps it would be good if

 5     we completed the explanation you gave, the explanation of the last

 6     sentence concerning co-operation.

 7             Colonel [sic], you have already spoken about joint check-points

 8     as a form of co-operation.  Do you remember that?

 9        A.   General, since you are addressing me by my rank.  It's General.

10        Q.   Could that co-operation take place in prosecuting perpetrators of

11     crimes, with everybody doing what they could within their area of

12     competence?

13        A.   I think that that co-operation, that type of co-operation, was

14     possible, but I'm really not very well grounded in that matter.

15        Q.   Very well.  Or perhaps in an area of seizing or -- seizing

16     unlawful fire-arms.

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Let's clarify here.  If a large number of residents arm

19     themselves with long barrels or with heavy weapons, then there is a

20     danger of an armed rebellion, and in order to disarm them, it would be

21     the military organs that would be competent for that; right?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   However, citizens are entitled to carry weapons, short -- small

24     arms and hunting rifles, providing they have a permit, weapons permit?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 23771

 1        Q.   If they procure and hold such weapons without a permit, then it

 2     will be in the jurisdiction of civilian police to seize those weapons

 3     from them and to prosecute them.

 4        A.   Correct.

 5        Q.   So in an operation of that nature, while co-operating, both of

 6     them can do their job, can do their duties; right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   I will show you a Defence exhibit.  I don't know whether you have

 9     been given our Defence binder.

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I will ask the usher to assist us.

11        Q.   Keep the other binder because I may be using the Zupljanin binder

12     as well.

13             Would you now please turn to tab 12, which is 1D99.

14             As you can see, this is an order of the Supreme Commander,

15     Radovan Karadzic, handwritten order, where he, in his capacity of

16     Supreme Commander, decides to or requests that a certain number of police

17     forces - I think 60 of them; it is not legibly written, so I can't tell -

18     be resubordinated to the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps; right?

19        A.   Yes.  He is not asking.  He is not requesting.  He is ordering,

20     Mr. Cvijetic.

21        Q.   Very well.  You anticipated my question.  That is precisely the

22     area that I will be focussing on.

23             President Karadzic is both the president and Supreme Commander of

24     armed forces; right?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 23772

 1        Q.   In a general manner, according to the laws and regulations,

 2     decides about the use of the police; correct?

 3        A.   Yes.  I believe that the Law on Defence says that the president

 4     of the republic orders the use of the police in combat.

 5        Q.   General, this is a document in which Mr. Karadzic directly

 6     decides about that.  He personally issues the order with regard to the

 7     use and resubordination of the police; right?

 8        A.   Yes, but --

 9        Q.   Please wait for my question.

10        A.   Yes, that's correct.

11             MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry, the

12     General was about to give the answer and was stopped.

13                           [Defence counsel confer]

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] There is no problem at all.  He

15     will answer once I put my question to him.

16        Q.   General, the president is basically a civilian; right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   As a civilian, he is not trained to exercise direct command,

19     especially not everywhere and at every time and that would be a physical

20     impossibility; correct?

21        A.   Yes, that's correct.

22        Q.   But, exceptionally, he can issue an order such as this one;

23     right?

24        A.   Right.

25        Q.   He can give such an order because of the priority that we have

Page 23773

 1     already discussed, and that is the Defence of Republika Srpska; do you

 2     agree with me?

 3        A.   Yes, I do.

 4        Q.   As a rule, he delegates his authority to command to the commander

 5     of the Main Staff who, in turn, delegates it to his subordinate officers;

 6     is that right?

 7        A.   That's what the laws and regulations state.

 8        Q.   Tell me now:  Until which lower level was it possible to order

 9     resubordination?  When I say "level," I mean the rank of the officers or

10     units where resubordination about which you've been talking for a couple

11     of days was possible.

12        A.   Down to the level of the brigade command.

13        Q.   Very well.  Let me immediately show you the following document.

14     It is under tab 13, and it is Exhibit 1D100.

15             Please read it and then we'll comment before the break.

16             General, the minister of the interior, Mico Stanisic, is pointing

17     out the same problems that Andrija Bjelosevic, chief of the Doboj CSB,

18     had also pointed out.  The police being used for combat activity is

19     something that jeopardizes the work of the organs of the interior.

20             Do you agree?

21        A.   Yes, I do.

22        Q.   However, the order of the Supreme Commander is -- has the

23     uppermost, the highest priority and had to be executed; correct?

24        A.   Yes.  An order of a commander must be executed unconditionally

25     and especially an order issued by the president of the republic.

Page 23774

 1        Q.   In case of non-obedience to this order, the minister would have

 2     been subjected to sanctions; correct?

 3        A.   Yes, that is correct.

 4        Q.   And let us finish this topic before the break because I have

 5     something else for after the -- for the time after the break.

 6             You spoke about the principles governing the functioning of the

 7     military and the rules and regulations in that regard, but you will

 8     certainly agree with me that the conduct, conduct of military officers in

 9     the field and the local authorities, especially at the beginning of the

10     war, may also have been influenced by other factors, due to which fact

11     not everything could be in line with the rules and regulations,

12     international conventions, et cetera.

13             Do you agree?

14        A.   I do.

15        Q.   In the introductory part of your report, you mentioned the fact

16     that -- that many military officers were insufficiently trained to lead

17     the army; is that correct?

18        A.   Yes, it is.

19        Q.   I'll add some other reasons.  The state couldn't start

20     functioning in all segments and in the entire territory at the beginning;

21     right?

22        A.   I agree with you.

23        Q.   Military organisation and the organisation of the police couldn't

24     be set up overnight in such a manner as to enable them to function

25     flawlessly; is that correct?

Page 23775

 1        A.   I agree with you.

 2        Q.   I suppose that when you are preparing to write your report, and

 3     even later, you were able to see decisions of the Crisis Staffs, who were

 4     the main authorities in that transitional period who even interfered with

 5     defence matters and public security matters.

 6             Were you able to see such decisions?

 7        A.   Yes, I was able to see such documents.

 8        Q.   Some decisions on the ground were also due to incompetence and

 9     disorientation of local -- local officers and commanders; correct?

10        A.   That is correct.  There were such incidents in the war.

11        Q.   And to finish with, in practice and in the documents, were you

12     able to see instances of misuse of police units for combat when there was

13     no justified reason for that?

14        A.   Well, I don't remember.

15        Q.   But do you allow for that possibility?

16        A.   Well, yes, I do allow for the possibility.

17        Q.   Very well.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I note the time.  I

19     believe it's time for the break, and I would have moved onto another

20     topic anyway.

21             JUDGE HALL:  So resume in 20 minutes.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23                           --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 23776

 1             JUDGE HALL:  While the witness is on his way in, Ms. Korner had

 2     asked for ten minutes to deal with this what is now a controversy about

 3     the maps.  Is there any reason why instead of squeezing it in today, we

 4     don't wait until Mr. Cvijetic's cross-examination is finished and we deal

 5     with it then, before you pick up your cross-examination.

 6             MS. KORNER:  None at all, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Thanks.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

10        Q.   General, I would like to deal with the introductory part of your

11     report now, and, more specifically, paragraph 2.

12             I will paraphrase because we can all read it anyway.  You are

13     saying there that after the breakup of the former SFRY the newly created

14     republics were facing a problem.  Possibly lacuna because they didn't

15     have any laws and regulations governing defence so that they had to adopt

16     such laws and regulations urgently.  That wasn't an easy thing to

17     accomplish, though, so that in the meantime they had to rely on the old

18     federal laws and regulations.

19             Is that what you say in your paragraph 2?

20        A.   Yes, I agree with you.

21        Q.   The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a federation

22     that constituted of six republics.

23        A.   And two autonomous provinces; I agree.

24        Q.   In the delimitations of powers between the Federation and the

25     federal units, it was the Federation that had remit in defence that,

Page 23777

 1     among others, the elaboration of the strategy of All People's Defence,

 2     and the only legal armed force, which was the Yugoslav People's Army?

 3        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 4        Q.   For that reason, the SFRY adopted the foundation, the legislative

 5     foundation which was implemented in all federal units; is that correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   I'll list some of these laws and regulations, such as:  The Law

 8     on All People's Defence; the strategy of All People's Defence and social

 9     self-protection; and Yugoslavia, as a federation, was also signatory to

10     all international conventions, governing, among other, international

11     humanitarian law; is that correct?

12        A.   I agree with you.

13        Q.   The federal units, republics, had the right to further elaborate

14     the system of All People's Defence and social self-protection and take it

15     to even lower levels.  That is, municipalities, enterprises, and so on.

16     And to achieve that, they had the right to adopt republican legislation;

17     correct?

18        A.   That's how it was regulated.

19        Q.   However, General, all these republican laws and regulations had

20     to be in accordance with the federal laws and regulations, and they were

21     implemented parallelly, weren't they?

22        A.   That is correct.

23        Q.   And, now, the problem arose which you dealt with in paragraph 2.

24     Yugoslavia was breaking apart and so was its legal system, and the newly

25     established countries don't have their own, so they want to bridge that

Page 23778

 1     lacuna by implementing the old legislation and, also, adopting their own

 2     new legislation; is that correct?

 3        A.   That is correct.

 4        Q.   General, there was a two-fold problem in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 5     First, the Federation broke up, and Bosnia-Herzegovina was

 6     internationally recognised as a new country.  But inside

 7     Bosnia-Herzegovina, it also disintegrated and was split into entities; is

 8     that correct?

 9        A.   That's how it was.

10        Q.   So that both Bosnia-Herzegovina and the entities are faced with

11     the same problem:  They must bridge the lacuna.

12        A.   I agree with you.

13        Q.   I'm going to show you two documents now.  Tab 2 in the

14     Stanisic Defence binder, and the exhibit number is 1D103.

15             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 1D103, yes, that's correct now.

16        Q.   General, this is the decision on proclaiming the constitutional

17     law for the implementation of the constitution of the Serb Republic of

18     Bosnia and Herzegovina.

19             Let us go to the following page immediately and find Article 12.

20             You are familiar with this provision, General, because I noted

21     that you cited it in one of your footnotes, which means that you must

22     have read it.

23             Is it correct that you read it?

24        A.   Yes, it is.

25        Q.   Under Article 12, the Serbian Republic of BH takes over all laws

Page 23779

 1     and regulations that were implemented in the Socialist Republic of BH in

 2     the manner stated here.  If they conform to the constitution and until

 3     the regulations of the RS are adopted; is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes, it is.

 5        Q.   You will agree with me, won't you, that this is one of the ways,

 6     a general one, of filling the lacuna, the one that you spoke of?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   I will show you another regulation now, which is tab 3 in your

 9     binder, and that's 65 ter 08018.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  It is L33, Your Honours.

11             MR. CVIJETIC:  Okay.  Thank you.  [Interpretation] Thank you.

12        Q.   General, this is the Law on National Defence, and in the

13     introductory part you can see that it was adopted on the 28th of

14     February, 1992.  Do you see that?

15        A.   I am familiar with that.

16        Q.   So together with the constitution and the constitutional law,

17     this Law on National Defence was adopted too.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see the very end of

19     this law.

20        Q.   I will give you the pages so that you can find it.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We need page 15 in the Serbian

22     version and page 18 in the English.

23        Q.   We need precisely this Article that is on the screen now; Article

24     104.

25             General, have you had a chance to read it?

Page 23780

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Here, when dealing with the matters of national defence the

 3     Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina took over the provisions of

 4     federal laws from the same area, declaring that in cases of threat to the

 5     interests of the republic and so on.  You see what it says in the

 6     article?

 7        A.   Yes, I see, and I agree with you.

 8        Q.   Then you will agree with me, that by combining the two

 9     regulations, the ones that I have just shown you, in the Republika Srpska

10     in the matters of national defence, all republican and all federal

11     regulations and laws that were in force until then became operational.

12     They were incorporated.

13        A.   Yes, that's right.

14        Q.   And you will agree with me that that meant that the legal system

15     of Republika Srpska from then on encompassed all regulations from that

16     area.  In your report, you have a chapter dealing with the relevant legal

17     principles, and now these principles became part of this new legal

18     system.  This is in item -- or paragraph 100 of your report and onwards.

19     Is that correct?  Am I right?

20        A.   You are right, Mr. Cvijetic.

21        Q.   The reason why I started discussing this topic with you are

22     precisely the principles.

23             Yesterday, or perhaps even today, you were shown a document from

24     the Zupljanin Defence binder.  I wrote it down as being tab 20.  So let's

25     open it together.

Page 23781

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] This is 65 ter 45D2?

 2        Q.   Have you found it, General?  We need the portion dealing with

 3     command.

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Do we have it on the screens?  We

 5     need Article 173, which has a commentary underneath.  We have it.

 6        Q.   Do you see the text of Article 173 and the commentary, General?

 7             Have you had a chance to read it?

 8        A.   Yes, I have, Mr. Cvijetic.

 9        Q.   So the Army of Republika Srpska is based on the principles,

10     fundamental principles, that you, yourself, deal with in paragraph 100 of

11     your report.  That is to say, the principles of unity of command,

12     subordination, singleness of command, and so on; right?

13        A.   Yes, right.  But to be even more specific, let me emphasise that

14     it is the command of the army that is based on these principles.

15        Q.   I fully agree, and that's what the text says.

16        A.   You said it is the army that is based.

17        Q.   General, the Yugoslav People's Army functioned on the same

18     principles, didn't it?

19        A.   That's right.  And we discussed that as well.

20        Q.   Would you agree with me that the army of what we called old

21     Yugoslavia, before World War II, functioned on the same principles?

22        A.   I agree with you.

23        Q.   Given your training and education, you studied military doctrines

24     of other countries.  I'm sure that you must have been in touch -- in

25     touch with your colleagues, officers from other armies.  Therefore, could

Page 23782

 1     you confirm to me that these same principles are applied in other armies,

 2     in other countries, and have been throughout history?

 3        A.   According to what I know, yes, that's right.

 4        Q.   So would you agree with me that these basic principles in command

 5     precede any of the laws that we have here.  And would you confirm that

 6     all armies in the world, including ours, used these principles, based on

 7     their own military doctrine and their own practice?

 8        A.   I agree with you.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             I will now turn to paragraph 54 of your report so that we can

11     perhaps make a correction or supplement what is stated in your report.

12             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] So could we please now read

13     paragraph 54.  We need to see it on the screens for Their Honours.

14        Q.   You discuss regulations here, those adopted by the

15     National Assembly, and you say that the Assembly adopted the Law on

16     Defence and the Law on the Army.  And then, in the footnote, you specify

17     the dates.

18             You will agree with me, won't you, that you omitted to mention

19     here the Law on National Defence dated 28th of February, 1992.  Because

20     that was the first enactment adopted in that field, and we have just

21     quoted it.

22        A.   I agree with you, Mr. Cvijetic.  Your observation is fully

23     accurate.  And, yes, I know about that law, the Law on Defence, from

24     February of 1992.

25        Q.   Very well.  Thank you.

Page 23783

 1             I will now turn to another topic.  But before I put my question

 2     to you, I will call a document to the screen.  That's a document in tab 4

 3     of our binder.  This document is already in our law library, under L1.

 4             We can see now that this is the well-known federal Law on All

 5     People's Defence; right?

 6        A.   Yes.  And I have used this law in my report.

 7             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we now turn to English

 8     page 67, and page 18 in the Serbian version.

 9        Q.   You have mentioned Article 104 in your report and also discussed

10     it at length with Mr. Krgovic.  Therefore, I will not deal with it.  I

11     will turn to something else, something that we haven't delved into

12     before, so I will ask you to read Article 105.

13             Have you managed to read it?

14        A.   Yes, I have read Article 105.

15        Q.   General, let's make sure that we remember who decides on the use

16     of these forces.  It says here that it is the Presidency, as a collective

17     organ, that decides on the use of forces; right?

18        A.   The use --

19        Q.   Yes, it says in paragraph 2 of this article that it is the

20     Presidency that decides on it.

21        A.   No.  It says that "pursuant to a decision of the Presidency," it

22     is the authorised organ that decides.

23        Q.   I just wanted to make sure that we remember that it is the

24     Presidency because we will turn to the republican regulation.

25             Let me ask you directly:  Could you please explain to us the

Page 23784

 1     logic of this resubordination when it comes to the use of the TO units in

 2     maintaining law and order?  In order for you to be able to give me an

 3     answer, we need to check the regulation that I have just mentioned; that

 4     is, Regulation L26 in our law library.

 5             You have it in your tab 5.

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We are still waiting for the

 7     English version.  If it's not been translated in full, can we just have

 8     page 16 in the Serbian version.

 9             Can we zoom in on Article 107.

10        Q.   General, would you be so kind to read slowly, as you normally

11     talk, this article, so that the interpreters can interpret it and so that

12     all the parties in the courtroom can hear what is written here.

13             So please read it slowly.

14        A.   [As read] "The Presidency of the Socialist Republic of

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina, pursuant to a decision of the Presidency of the

16     Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia referred to in Article 105 of

17     the federal law" - and I would like to add the one that we have already

18     seen - "shall order the use of the Territorial Defence units to carry out

19     tasks of public peace and order and to carry out other tasks of social

20     self-protection."

21             Second paragraph of the same article reads as follows:

22             [As read] "The Territorial Defence units shall be subordinated to

23     the interior affairs organ in charge while performing duties and tasks

24     from Article 105, paragraph 1, of the federal law."

25             This is the end of this paragraph.

Page 23785

 1        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now my question is the following:  Now, where is

 2     the logic of this subordination?

 3        A.   Mr. Cvijetic, what we have here is units of Territorial Defence

 4     taking part in the performance of the duty of maintaining public law and

 5     order and carrying out tasks which are, in fact, part of the jurisdiction

 6     of the Ministry of Interior.  That is, in fact, one of their basic

 7     responsibilities.

 8             Resubordination is being effected in this particular case on the

 9     basis of the same logic that we discussed these days because police units

10     are better trained to carry out these tasks than Territorial Defence

11     units, and it is only reasonable that in command and in charge here is

12     the party that is trained and qualified to do so.  And as for this task

13     and this particular case, that would be police units or organs of the

14     interior.

15        Q.   Sir, we both remember the time when this law was adopted, and

16     this was used if we had major riots or disturbances following football

17     matches and situations of that sort, when the police was -- were unable

18     to cope with the number of rioters; is that correct?

19        A.   Yes, that's correct.  But there were also situations of that sort

20     in Kosovo as well.

21        Q.   So if we follow the same logic now, in wartime, the police force

22     must be resubordinated to the army and Territorial Defence because waging

23     war and defence fall under the jurisdiction of the army and the

24     Territorial Defence who are trained for that.

25             Is that the prevailing logic?

Page 23786

 1        A.   I agree with you, and I would like to add this.  That this

 2     applies to wartime; whereas everything else that you said still stands.

 3        Q.   General, in your report -- now my colleague is telling me that

 4     what you said about combat operations hasn't been interpreted.

 5             Can you please repeat your answer.

 6        A.   I agree with you, with your observation, and I would be more

 7     precise by adding that in wartime and during combat operation.  As for

 8     everything else, it remains and is consistent with what you said.

 9        Q.   So, you said this a number of times, and that is, that the police

10     is not trained and qualified to participate in war as an armed force.

11        A.   Yes.  To take part in combat operations.

12        Q.   Their participation in combat operations, based on the principle

13     of resubordination of which you discussed extensively, should be an

14     example rather than a rule; is that correct -- should be an exception

15     rather than a rule.

16        A.   Yes, I agree with you.

17        Q.   That would be in compliance with the federal regulations and the

18     republican regulations.  In other words, in 1992, the police was not part

19     of the armed forces of the Republika Srpska, nor was it part of the armed

20     forces of ex-Yugoslavia; is that correct?  The police force was not part

21     of the armed force.

22        A.   That's correct.

23        Q.   However, sir, in your report, in paragraph 57, you state that in

24     1994 a change occurred.  The police units became part of the armed forces

25     of Republika Srpska and appropriate regulations were adopted to that end.

Page 23787

 1             Is that what your paragraph 57 say?

 2        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 3        Q.   General, you expressed your own reservation vis-a-vis the

 4     decision of competent authorities of Republika Srpska in terms of being

 5     authorised to adopt these kind of regulations by abiding -- by abiding by

 6     the principle that the police was not trained to carry out this kind of

 7     tasks.

 8        A.   I said that it was not a usual occurrence for police forces to be

 9     part of armed forces.

10        Q.   When you discussed this, we haven't seen this particular

11     regulation from 1994, and I think it would be helpful if we look at it so

12     that we can see in what way the police was incorporated into the armed

13     forces, and this has to do with the principles that we discussed.  And,

14     for that purpose, we need a document which is in our law library, and

15     that's L317.

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at page 2 in the

17     Serbian and page 3 in English.

18             Can we zoom in on Article 2.

19        Q.   And, General, it's your tab 7 in your binder so you may find it

20     easier to read from the hard copy.

21             Have you found it?

22        A.   Yes, I have.

23        Q.   This is the Law on the Implementation of the Law on In case of an

24     imminent threat of war or a state of war.  And, indeed, in Article 2, it

25     is said exactly as you commented, i.e., that units of the Ministry of the

Page 23788

 1     Interior shall become part of the armed forces.

 2             Is that what is directly stemming from this article?

 3        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have page 4 in the

 5     Serbian version of this same document, and page 9 of the English version.

 6             We need Article 4.  Can we zoom in, please.

 7        Q.   General, have you managed to read the article?  If not, can you

 8     please read it out loud.

 9             Have you read it?

10        A.   Yes, I have.

11        Q.   So the amendment to the Law on National Defence is accompanied by

12     appropriate amendment to -- to the Law on the Interior, and it is now

13     provided in detail how units of the interior shall become a part of the

14     armed forces.

15             General, in principle or, rather, let's say that the basic

16     principle remains unchanged.  The Supreme Commander remained in command

17     of the army; is that correct?

18        A.   Yes.  The principle of singleness of authority remains in place

19     because the president of the republic is the Commander-in-Chief of the

20     armed forces.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let's move now to page 5 in the

22     Serbian version and page 12 in the English version.

23             We need Article 14.

24        Q.   Can you please read it carefully and in its entirety.

25        A.   Shall I quote Article 4 [as interpreted]?

Page 23789

 1        Q.   No, no, read it to yourself?

 2        A.   I've read it.

 3        Q.   Now, General, if you read it carefully none of the principles

 4     that we discussed was changed:  The singleness, the resubordination,

 5     and --

 6        A.   And I would add to this, singleness of authority.

 7        Q.   So even when officially and legally the police force became a

 8     part of the armed forces, they are participating on the basis of the

 9     principle of resubordination to the army and are integrated into the

10     system of military units, based on the principle of subordination and the

11     execution of commands issued by military commanders; is that correct?

12        A.   Yes, it is.

13        Q.   General, if we read Article 14 carefully, it seems that the

14     legislature's intention was only to regulate the participation of police

15     in combat operations only when it is resubordinated.  They wanted to

16     introduce a certain order in that system, rather than to turn it into

17     a -- an armed force, because we see that basically nothing has been

18     changed.

19        A.   I agree with you.

20        Q.   Do we also agree that all these principles are obviously older

21     than the law itself?

22        A.   Yes, indeed.

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to move

24     onto another topic so if that is not a problem, we can finish a bit

25     earlier.  I planned my examination with regard to Ms. Korner's need for

Page 23790

 1     some time toward the end.  But if you so prefer, I can also continue for

 2     a while.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE HALL:  How much longer do you expect you would be,

 5     Mr. Cvijetic?

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I'm certain that I will finish

 7     tomorrow by the end of the first session.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  And are you telling us that you can't usefully make

 9     use of the next 19 minutes?

10             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you insist, I can

11     begin.  I -- my proposal was only to stop now because I am about to deal

12     with a completely different topic.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Well, perhaps notwithstanding what I indicated at

14     the beginning of this session, if it's the better use of time we could go

15     back to what we originally planned and deal with this map situation.  If

16     that's convenient, Ms. Korner, Mr. Zecevic.

17             MS. KORNER:  Well, it's what we originally suggested,

18     Your Honour.  But I fail to see how Mr. Cvijetic could have planned his

19     cross-examination on the basis that he was going to stop ten minutes, as

20     we never suggested it until we way into morning.  However, Your Honours,

21     as I said I'm happy to deal with it whenever.

22             JUDGE HALL:  So we -- we would do that.

23             General, you would have gathered from what has just passed

24     between the Bench and counsel that we have certain procedural matters

25     with which to deal and therefore we would excuse you a little early

Page 23791

 1     today, and -- so the usher would escort you from the courtroom now but we

 2     ourselves would not be rising immediately.

 3             So we would continue your cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic

 4     tomorrow, and I believe we're back in Courtroom II tomorrow.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7                           [The witness stands down]

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, the witness is asking whether he can

 9     take the ...

10             JUDGE HALL:  I'm sorry.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry, but the witness is asking whether he can

12     take this document with him.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, do you have a problem?

14             MS. KORNER:  No, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  Yes.

16             MS. KORNER:  I have no doubt he looked at them with Mr. Cvijetic

17     when Mr. Cvijetic spoke to him in any event.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Before -- before we get to the maps, it's perhaps

21     a good moment to remind the parties of the Andan document that they will

22     have received by now.  And ask for the parties' submissions on that.

23             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, Mr. Hannis who dealt with this witness,

24     as far as -- as far as the Office of the Prosecutor is concerned, is

25     proposing to ask that it be admitted.  It's apparently an identical copy

Page 23792

 1     of another document that is already an exhibit but without the signatures

 2     or something like that.  So that there's no translation needed but I

 3     thought we would leave that to Mr. Hannis to deal with it.

 4             I don't know what the Defence want to do with it.

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, that is precisely the case.  The

 7     witness testified that is he in possession of the identical document but

 8     without the signature and then he was requested -- there was a request

 9     and the order by the Trial Chamber that he provides that document.

10             As far as I can see, it's the identical as the document that we

11     have exhibited.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And you agree with Ms. Korner speaking for

13     Mr. Hannis that it -- the document should be admitted?

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, if -- if it pleases the Court.  I don't see

15     any particular reason why it should be admitted.  Because it's the

16     original document -- it's the -- it's the identical copy of the document

17     which is already an exhibit.  Only without the signature.  But if it

18     pleases the Court, we do not object this document be exhibited also.

19             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Krgovic.

20             MR. KRGOVIC:  I have no problem, Your Honours.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, if we have two identical documents,

23     one with and one without signatures and stamps why should we admit also

24     the one that is without anything?

25             MS. KORNER:  I haven't the faintest idea, Your Honours, because I

Page 23793

 1     don't remember the first thing about the evidence of Mr. Andan.  But I

 2     know that Mr. Hannis thinks there is a point.  I believe it's to support

 3     his credibility.  I discussed it -- I'm being given information.

 4             I think, Your Honours -- I've been given information, but I think

 5     it would be better if Mr. Hannis makes the submissions himself.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Madam Registrar, could the document be given a --

 8     an exhibit number, the same exhibit number as the -- the signed one but

 9     with a decimal number, .1.

10                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Then this would be P2349.1, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you very much.

13             MS. KORNER:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.  I know

14     Mr. Hannis will be delighted.

15             Your Honours, can I just very briefly tell Your Honours what --

16     do Your Honours have the binder here with the ethnic maps?  There are 19

17     in total.  Admitted so far out of the 19 are 9.  I want the other 10,

18     please, admitted.  I don't know how we failed to notice that we haven't

19     had them all admitted but there is no rhyme or reason to it.  And that's

20     our application.

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Ms. Korner, can I just make sure that the one

22     that we're speaking of is dated 2010 down at the right-hand side of the

23     cover page, at the bottom?

24             We have two --

25             MS. KORNER:  Yes, Your Honours, that's right.  It starts with 1,

Page 23794

 1     Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and ends, 19, Zvornik.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Correct.

 3             MS. KORNER:  That's the one.  And, Your Honours, if necessary, I

 4     can give you the ones which are already admitted, and the ones that

 5     aren't.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  So, Mr. Zecevic, could we hear the basis on which

 7     you have a difficulty with this application.

 8             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, Your Honours.  We do object to this admittance

 9     of these ethnic maps, and the -- and the time of admission, if I may say

10     so, proposed by Ms. Korner.  Namely, Your Honours, on page 15216, the

11     matter was raised for the first time with Your Honours on the 1st of

12     October 2010.  And Your Honour, Judge Hall, said, on -- when Ms. Pidwell

13     was approaching the Trial Chamber concerning this map and Your Honour

14     stated:

15             [As read] "My recollection is that the pieces of it have migrated

16     into the trial as separate exhibits.  So consistent with that, I suppose

17     we would exhibit this page."

18             On the 21st of October, 2010, page -- transcript page 16333,

19     Ms. Korner was, again, raising the matter.  And Your Honours said:

20             [As read] "It was pointed out to me" - Your Honour, Judge Hall -

21     "but it was pointed out to me that from the time we would have started,

22     separate pages have been individually exhibited and I --"

23             And Ms. Korner then says yes.

24             And Your Honour says:  "And I having started out down that path,

25     we must continue."

Page 23795

 1             Therefore, the -- the -- the -- the decision of the Trial Chamber

 2     was that each and every ethnical map will be separately introduced in the

 3     exhibit.  At that point Ms. Korner says:

 4             [As read] "Well, I think probably the answer is, Your Honour,

 5     when we file the bar table motion, if we can just throw in the maps that

 6     have already -- that have not already been exhibited as part of that and

 7     rather than starting to work out which ones are in and which ones aren't

 8     yet."

 9             Therefore, Your Honours, at the very least on two occasions which

10     I could find in the transcript the matter was raised.  The Office of the

11     Prosecutor said that they would offer them -- these maps as a part of

12     their bar table motion and they haven't.  In the meantime, they closed

13     their case and now they want to introduce these maps during the -- the --

14     the Zupljanin case, after Stanisic case was closed.

15             Your Honours, if -- if Ms. Korner would have done what she

16     proposed to do, namely, to offer these documents as -- as part of the --

17     the bar table motion, I would have explained, to the very detail, why I

18     object and why I say these ethnic maps are completely unreliable.  I

19     made -- I made a reference to that on -- on the 1st of September, 2010,

20     transcript page 14029 to 14032, when I tried to explain why precisely

21     after one of the witnesses was actually questioning the -- the -- the

22     accuracy of these maps or didn't accept what was proposed and what was

23     stated in this map as accurate.

24             And then we had the argument, and I -- and I explained why I

25     think these maps are unreliable.  And I am prepared to give, if

Page 23796

 1     Your Honours, I'm prepared to give my reasons why I -- why I say so, that

 2     the maps unreliable if Your Honours will permit to do that at that point.

 3             MS. KORNER:  Perhaps you would like to read Judge Hall's response

 4     to your objection as well.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Ms. Korner, thank you very much but I think you

 6     will have the opportunity to address the Court at the proper time.  And

 7     then.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Since we're at this point, can you remind me as to

 9     what my response was.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  I don't know which objection Ms. Korner is

11     [Overlapping speakers] ...

12             MS. KORNER:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  There was only -- Your

13     Honour, there was one objection, which was never raised again, at that

14     stage about the accuracy of these maps and when it was raised by

15     Mr. Zecevic, Your Honour Judge Hall said:

16             [As read] "Mr. Zecevic, save for maps which are confined to

17     showing geographical features, all maps could probably be criticised as

18     being politically biased in some way or other and it seems to me that,

19     save for counsel giving evidence, which at one point I thought you were

20     in danger of doing, the problem, which the OTP probably accepts, is

21     cured.  If cured, it could be by the oral testimony they just elicited

22     from the witness.  So in other words the Chambers would have the map and

23     to the extent there are any flaws the Chamber would then have to look at

24     it alongside the explanation given by this witness or any other witness."

25             Your Honours, if you look at the maps, you will see that they

Page 23797

 1     repeat the statistics, which are not disputed, of the ethnic breakdown of

 2     the municipalities.  They also show in -- in -- in colour form, the

 3     rough, and it is accepted you can't be entirely accurate, breakdown of

 4     each of the villages shown on the map.  It is not, in our submission, a

 5     question of admissibility.  Your Honours have admitted them in each case.

 6     It's a question of weight.  And, as I say, the statistics which are given

 7     at the top are undisputed in this case.  They come from the census held

 8     in 1991.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you for that, Ms. Korner.

10             Mr. Zecevic, what I was -- my inclination is this.  First of all,

11     do I appreciate that your objection is two-fold.  One, is the time; and,

12     secondly, is the reliability -- whatever is -- it seems to me that in

13     terms of the matter of reliability, as Ms. Korner has reminded us the

14     view of the chamber was that this is a matter for argumentation.  It is

15     it inevitable there is controversy in that regard.  So it would be a

16     question of weight.

17             But in terms of the other question it seems to me that this rides

18     alongside a motion which the -- I don't know if it's a motion but there

19     is a matter which the Chamber now has under consideration and that is

20     about death certificates.  And the Chamber is -- has that under active

21     consideration so could we, inasmuch as the reasoning would be identical,

22     should we wait until we have decided the -- what, in our view, is the

23     correct answer to that issue, and the -- your objection about timing

24     would then be solved or not solved by that decision?

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  You're precisely correct, Your Honours.  I do

Page 23798

 1     believe that this -- the way how -- how the Office of the Prosecutor

 2     tried to -- to -- or requested that these documents be admitted is

 3     actually a motion to reopen their case and therefore it is quite similar

 4     to the issue of the death charts, which -- and I agree that the most

 5     sensible way would be to -- to -- to decide on both matters

 6     simultaneously when the Trial Chamber is deciding on -- on the proper

 7     motion which was made by -- by the Office of the Prosecutor concerning

 8     the death charts.

 9             But concerning the reliability of this -- these documents, what I

10     was trying to say, Your Honours, is that there is one slight point which

11     I would like to raise.  In -- I do agree with Your Honours that it goes

12     to the weight, but in this precise case, where we had the witness who

13     says, This map is not accurate, this map is wrong, then -- then it is

14     possible for Your Honours and everybody else to assess the weight of --

15     of that particular map.  And that is precisely why these maps should --

16     should be tendered through the witnesses.

17             In this occasion, we will not have any witness to confirm or to

18     challenge the accuracy of that map.  And I stay with what I said, despite

19     what Ms. Korner is saying, that these maps are -- are not reliable and

20     that -- that they were produced by one of the parties to the conflict in

21     the former Yugoslavia for a specific purpose.

22             Thank you.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

24             MS. KORNER:  [Microphone not activated] add something else.  It's

25     not quite --

Page 23799

 1             JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] May I have a moment,

 2     please?

 3             MS. KORNER:  Oh, sorry.

 4                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

 5             MS. KORNER:  Can I just say one thing --

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, it appears to us that this matter is not

 7     as easily resolved as we first thought it would be, and we think that

 8     procedurally, the Prosecution should file a motion, whether it's a

 9     supplement to the --

10             MS. KORNER:  [Overlapping speakers] ... But, Your Honour, it's

11     not the same.  That's what I was about to say.  I'm sorry to interrupt,

12     Your Honour, but just very quickly, because I know you've got to rise.

13     It's not the same category as the death certificates.  It is not new

14     evidence.  They have all been there, they have all been used in one form

15     or another.  We forgot - there's no other word for it - when we were

16     plowing through the MFI documents and the ones we hadn't gotten in, to

17     add the maps as we said we would in the bar table motion.

18             JUDGE HALL:  I hear everything you have said, and may I

19     respectfully suggest that you advise yourself as to what to call the

20     motion that you would file.

21             MS. KORNER:  I think I will express my feelings to your legal

22     officer after court.

23             Your Honours, for that reason, if Your Honours prefer, we'll put

24     it in writing.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

Page 23800

 1             So we take the adjournment to resume tomorrow.

 2                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,

 3                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 8th day of

 4                           September, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.