Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 26983

 1                           Friday, 2 March 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning

 6     everyone in and around the courtroom.

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

 8     Stojan Zupljanin.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             May we have the appearances, please.

11             MS. KORNER:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Joanna Korner, together

12     with Sebastiaan van Hooydonk, Case Manager, and, today, an intern is with

13     us, Edin Cengic.  No relation, I gather.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic,

15     Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Denis Stoychev, appearing for

16     Stanisic Defence this morning.  Thank you.

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

18     Aleksandar Aleksic, Miroslav Cuskic, Joyce Boekestijn, and

19     Milena Dzudovic, appearing for Zupljanin Defence.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

21             When we took the adjournment yesterday, we had before us an

22     application from counsel for the Prosecution, in terms of the documents,

23     65 ter 30005 and 30019.  I hope I got the numbers correct.  14.

24             The -- the documents may be admitted and marked.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P2457 and P2458, Your Honours.

Page 26984

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

 2             And if there is nothing further, would the usher please escort

 3     the witness back to the stand.

 4             The -- as I recall, the Court Officer informed us yesterday that

 5     the -- Mr. Cvijetic had used exactly half of the two hours allotted -- of

 6     the global two hours allotted to the Defence.

 7             So, Mr. Krgovic, or Mr. Aleksic, as the case may be, you have an

 8     hour.

 9                           [The witness takes the stand]

10             JUDGE HALL:  General, good morning to you.  Before I invite

11     counsel for Mr. Zupljanin --

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

13             JUDGE HALL:  -- to begin, I remind you of your solemn

14     declaration.

15             Yes.

16             MR. KRGOVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

17                           WITNESS:  SLAVKO LISICA [Resumed]

18                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

19                           Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:

20        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, General.

21        A.   Good morning.

22        Q.   My name is Dragan Krgovic, and on behalf of the Defence of Stojan

23     Zupljanin, I'm going to ask you a number of questions relating to your

24     yesterday's evidence.

25             Let's start briefly with your CV.  If I understood correctly, you

Page 26985

 1     have finished the highest schools that existed in the former Yugoslavia,

 2     including the Command Staff School, which trains the highest-ranking

 3     officers; is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes.  There was also the National Defence School in the JNA, but

 5     I didn't finish that.  That was its name, and that's the highest level of

 6     education.  It's above the Command Staff Academy.  However, the war broke

 7     out, so I didn't have a chance.

 8        Q.   General, when the war broke out in Yugoslavia, you, who remained

 9     in Republika Srpska, both the officers and the soldiers, abided by the

10     rules and regulations of the SFRY armed forces because those were quite

11     good regulations, and you applied them in your work.

12        A.   When the war broke out, I was in Knin in Croatia as the chief of

13     the mechanized motorised unit of the Knin Corps.  After that, I was

14     transferred to the Banja Luka Corps which is currently in

15     Republika Srpska, or Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I became commander of TG 3.

16     And during the war, I became the commander of the military schools in

17     Banja Luka.

18        Q.   Among other things, you applied the regulations adopted from the

19     SFRY.

20        A.   We applied the regulations of the Yugoslav People's Army.

21        Q.   Now I'm going to show you a document which is L12, tab 26 of the

22     Zupljanin Defence.

23             I'm going to show you the rules on the implementation of the

24     rules of international laws of war in the armed forces.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please repeat the page

Page 26986

 1     number.

 2             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] If we can enlarge the Serbian

 3     version, please.

 4        Q.   When you responded to the Prosecutor's question, you explained in

 5     great detail the state of war.  Basically, when it comes to the armed

 6     forces, it is important that they are at a state of war either when an

 7     attack is carried out or when the state of war is declared; is that

 8     correct?

 9        A.   Yes, it is.

10        Q.   And, in order for certain powers of commanders to be implemented

11     in practice, the pre-condition is that the force -- armed forces are in a

12     state of war?

13        A.   Yes, that is an important factor.

14             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry, is counsel suggesting that a state of war

15     had been declared in 1992?

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No.  No, that's not what I'm

17     saying.  I am just saying that it is irrelevant whether there is a state

18     of war declared or not, but only if there is an attack or an armed

19     conflict that comes into place, and I'm going to demonstrate this on an

20     example.

21             Can we go to page 22 in the Serbian and also 22 in English, and

22     specifically, Article 42.

23        Q.   It reads here:

24             "The armed forces of the SFRY shall be in a state of war from the

25     moment a state of war is proclaimed or from the moment an armed attack

Page 26987

 1     against the SFRY begins."

 2             Which actually began in 1991, when the conflicts in Croatia

 3     commenced.

 4        A.   That's correct.  The armed forces of the JNA and the armed

 5     forces -- elements of the armed forces that were mobilised and that were

 6     part of the JNA were in a state of war.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  I -- although counsel for the Prosecution didn't say

 8     anything, Mr. Krgovic's editorial comment about 1991, I take it that this

 9     is -- that there's no issue about this.

10             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, yes.  I've already made my objection.

11     This is, we say, and, indeed, as the General himself said, in order for

12     the powers to be there, a state of war had to be declared; proclaimed as

13     the word is.  And his complaint throughout was that it wasn't.  Because

14     that limited his powers in law.

15             I don't want to go into a legal comment about this, but the

16     editorial comment is, in my submission, is incorrect, and shouldn't be

17     made.

18             JUDGE HALL:  That struck me as well, Ms. Korner.

19             MS. KORNER:  But having made my objection, Your Honour, I didn't

20     think there was much point in getting up and objecting again.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

23             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   General, look at paragraph 2, which elaborates the theory that I

25     just presented.  And it says that the proclamation of the war need not

Page 26988

 1     coincide with the commencement of the armed conflict but may precede it

 2     or follow it.

 3             Do you agree with what is stated in this paragraph?

 4        A.   I do.

 5        Q.   General, please, take a look at the next article, 48, page 24 in

 6     the Serbian and also 24 in the English.  Of this same document.

 7             MS. KORNER:  I think I'm going to object to this whole line of

 8     questions.  These regulations clearly all refer to a time when there was

 9     the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.  Whether or not they had an

10     application there may be a matter of law.  But what the General is being

11     asked to do is interpret a law, which, in our submission, he's not even

12     qualified to do.  This is a matter of legal argument and discussion and

13     one that has been carried out throughout.  He can say that what his

14     understanding was of his position as a general.  He cannot interpret

15     these laws.

16             JUDGE HALL:  I didn't understand that to be the thrust of

17     Mr. Krgovic's question, and he would correct me if I got it wrong.

18             What I thought he was doing, and, hence, my concern about the --

19     the -- the insertion about 1991, was using the law as a given.  The

20     general's competence to speak to it as a matter of law being neither here

21     nor there.

22             But that being the foundation, and then the questions that would

23     be put to the witness being -- well, on the basis of this legal reality,

24     what happened at such and such a point.  That is what I thought -- that

25     is where I thought he was going.

Page 26989

 1             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honours, that's the real problem, isn't

 2     it?  Is this the legal reality.  By this stage, 1992, which is the stage

 3     we're talking about, Yugoslavia has been dissolved.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  No, sorry.  When I mean the legal -- when I say the

 5     legal reality, the -- this as an item that's in the law library.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Yeah.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  That --

 8             MS. KORNER:  Oh, I see it.  Well, then -- well, Your Honours, in

 9     that event, yeah.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, please proceed, Mr. Krgovic.

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   General, in 1992 when you served in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was there

13     a factual state of an armed conflict?

14        A.   Yes, there was.  And in my area of responsibility, I considered

15     that to be a state of war.  I considered that as a commander and I acted

16     in accordance with international laws of war.  Regardless of whether it

17     had been declared or not by the Supreme Command and the Main Staff, I

18     thought that I should apply the relevant provision and I treated the

19     situation in my area as a state of war.

20        Q.   General, please look at Article 48, which defines who constitutes

21     the armed forces that are subject to these provisions.

22             Under item 1, we have a detailed description of the formation and

23     it says that in addition to these units, a police unit can also be

24     treated as such?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 26990

 1        Q.   And you would agree that these regulations that pertain to

 2     soldiers equally applied to members of the police force?

 3        A.   Yes.  Everything that is in an area of responsibility is

 4     subordinated to the highest command, and in that particular area was the

 5     tactical group, as well as I said yesterday Operations Group Doboj.

 6             A state of war prevailed in that area, and I acted in accordance

 7     with the regulations that pertained to a state of war, which means that

 8     the police was also under my command and control.  The police in my area

 9     of responsibility.  That equally applied to businesses and enterprises,

10     and I was fully entitled to mobilise any resources from various

11     companies, institutions, et cetera.

12        Q.   General, the reason for that was not because you wanted that but

13     because it was the obligation of any commander that might find himself in

14     the similar or identical position.

15        A.   Yes.  That was the case in the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and

16     particularly in the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as it was

17     called at the time.

18        Q.   In discharging your duties, when you issued commands and orders

19     to your subordinate units, you didn't do that as Slavko Lisica but as an

20     institution, a commander, commander of the tactical group?

21        A.   Yes.  And -- and I am a bit perplexed about why this issue of the

22     relationship between myself and Bjelosevic is being constantly raised.

23     This is the relationship between two institutions.  Mr. Bjelosevic had

24     his own associates, and with them, he discussed the state of war and the

25     requests of the command in that area.  And, of course, the commander and

Page 26991

 1     his command did have to consult with professionals in his line of duty.

 2     However, orders had to be obeyed because it was demanded by the command

 3     and I was at the head of that command.  Don't forget that we had other

 4     organs there.  I had my assistant for security issues, and he co-operated

 5     with both the civilian and military police forces.

 6        Q.   Thank you, General.  You talked about this extensively, but I'm

 7     going to ask you something different.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Krgovic, before you leave this issue, I would

 9     like to ascertain whether it is now your case that there was as of 1991,

10     legally speaking, a state of war?

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  But in specific

12     areas where there were armed conflicts.  Not in the entire territory, but

13     in war-torn zones.  And, in fact, where there were armed conflicts, when

14     you had two opposing parties, a state of war prevailed.  Although, if I

15     may add, when it comes to the authority of a commander, it was irrelevant

16     whether a state of war was proclaimed or not.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Maybe we should ask the witness to --

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]

19             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I'm sorry.  First -- sorry.

20             Your Honours, if the witness is going to be continued to ask

21     questions, then he ought to take his earphones of.  If there's to be --

22     oh, he speaks.  Of course, he does.  Thank you.  He would have to leave

23     court, Your Honour.  Of course, Mr. Krgovic is speaking in Serbian.

24             MR. KRGOVIC:  I not pose any further question in this topic,

25     so ...

Page 26992

 1             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I think it's -- this is going to lead

 2     to a discussion but it can wait until the witness is finished because

 3     this is has not been brought up in these terms before.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Please proceed.

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   General, concerning commander's power in terms of commanding the

 7     units that are subordinate to him -- let's leave aside the powers

 8     vis-a-vis the civilian authorities and companies, et cetera.  But when we

 9     speak about the duties and of a commander in terms of commanding, there

10     is no difference whether there is a state of war or a state of imminent

11     war being declared when we speak about an area of combat operations?

12        A.   Yes, you are right.  There is no difference.

13             In my view, as a commander, I thought that to be a state of war,

14     and I acted accordingly.  Whether it had been declared in the formal or

15     legal sense was irrelevant to me.

16        Q.   I'm going to show you now a document, and I would like you to

17     comment it.

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Please, can we have 1D368 in

19     e-court.  That's tab 25 of the Zupljanin binder.

20        Q.   General, this is a document issued by the Main Staff of the armed

21     forces of Republika Srpska, Military Prosecutor's Office.

22             Can you please take a look at page 31 in the Serbian, the last

23     paragraph; and, in the English, it's page 8.

24             Look at the penultimate paragraph, which says:

25             "In order for the command of the Main Staff to have a full

Page 26993

 1     understanding of types and number of these criminal offences, all unit

 2     commands shall..."

 3             And I quote:

 4             "... work on the detection of all the cases ... ," and I

 5     underline, "... all the cases of war crimes committed against humanity

 6     and international law in their area of responsibility ..."

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we move to the next page,

 8     please.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  [Microphone not activated]

10             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] One page forward, please, in the

11     Serbian.

12        Q.   "... in the area of their responsibility."

13             Now, General, by issuing these guide-lines, the Main Staff is

14     saying exactly what you told us today, i.e., that in an area of

15     responsibility of certain unit, commands are obliged to work on all the

16     cases that are an incident happening in the area of their responsibility?

17        A.   That is correct.  And that is how we acted.

18        Q.   So this is not your own interpretation of Colonel Lisica, but

19     these are the instructions of the Main Staff issued with regard to

20     specific areas of responsibility; is that correct?

21        A.   Yes, it is.

22        Q.   Now look at the next paragraph, which describes the procedure.

23     And it says that the command are duty-bound to ...

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please give us the exact

25     reference.

Page 26994

 1             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry, Mr. Krgovic hasn't got his earphones on.

 2     It would really help if he does, because the interpreters have not got

 3     what you just put to them.

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm going to repeat, and I'm going

 5     to speak more slowly.

 6             "Inform the closest military police, security, and military

 7     judicial organs about any crime they discover ..."

 8        Q.   And this is what you have just confirmed a minute ago.  And this

 9     is the first paragraph in English on this page --

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

11     should have objected earlier.  Mr. Krgovic is doing what I objected

12     yesterday in respect of Mr. Cvijetic.  He is reading out and commenting

13     himself - not even the witness - on what's in a document.  This witness I

14     doubt very much has ever seen or knows anything about.

15             This is all pure comment.  Fine for the speech, but this is not

16     questioning.

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not making

18     statements.  I am putting things to the witness to ask him whether he

19     acted that way.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think the lady is mistaken in her

21     assumption that I don't know anything about this.  You cannot be a

22     commander of a formation without being familiar with this law because all

23     your actions on the law are based on laws and regulations.  So any

24     commander from a commander of an independent battalion up to a division

25     commander was duty-bound to read and act in accordance with the rules and

Page 26995

 1     regulations on the state of war.  There wasn't anything arbitrary about

 2     this.  We were -- we had to work in accordance with the law and that's

 3     what we did.

 4             So the lady is wrong when she says that the commander doesn't

 5     know about this.  He does.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I'm sorry just to make it absolutely

 7     clear.  I'm not saying that the general doesn't know anything.  My

 8     objection is that unless he says he has seen this document and is aware

 9     of its contents and in doing what he did was following this document,

10     then what Mr. Krgovic is doing is purely commenting himself.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Except, Ms. Korner, I would have thought that the --

12     the alternate route that Mr. Krgovic is following is without the witness

13     specifically speaking -- admitting knowledge of this particular document,

14     he is nevertheless aware of the principles.  And I take your point about

15     Mr. Krgovic blending the principles distilled in this document with the

16     way he phrases his question, and certainly he should be careful that he

17     doesn't, as it were, end up putting to the witness not only the -- what

18     the document says but what he think it is means.

19             MS. KORNER:  [Microphone not activated] Exactly.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

21             MS. KORNER:  Sorry.

22             He wants to put to General Lisica that this is the principle, was

23     he aware of, and did he follow it, that's fine.  But not the way he is

24     doing it at present.

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is exactly my

Page 26996

 1     point.  I showed a document to the witness, a document containing certain

 2     principles, because the Prosecutor suggested that these weren't general

 3     principles but that the General's actions were based on his arbitrary

 4     decisions.  That's what I'm dealing with.  I'm showing the witness the

 5     principles of the Main Staff and the regulations he says that he applied.

 6     No more than that.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Except that you should -- you should not put your

 8     own gloss on it.  That's the difficulty that we have, Mr. Krgovic.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Sir, let's take a look at document 1D368,

11     tab 25 [as interpreted].  Oh, I apologise ... it's actually document

12     2D912.

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction: 192.

14             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Sorry, what was the tab?

15             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Tab 27.

16             Could we please zoom in.  Could this handwritten part be

17     enlarged?

18        Q.   General, the document I just showed you were the guide-lines of

19     Main Staff.  And this is the cover letter showing to who the document was

20     sent.  It is signed by Colonel Vukelic.  You told Ms. Korner that you

21     knew the late Colonel Vukelic, didn't you?

22        A.   Yes, I did.

23        Q.   And this is a handwritten indication of who this document was

24     sent to.  Below this line, we saw -- see that it says:

25             "To all units under the command of the 1st Krajina Corps."

Page 26997

 1             Was it -- did you receive it too?

 2        A.   Yes, I did.

 3        Q.   General, I'll move onto a different topic now.

 4             Answering the Prosecutor's question, you spoke about town

 5     commands and the like.  I'll show you a JNA regulation.

 6             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see 1D388.  And

 7     that's tab 16 of the Stanisic Defence binder.

 8        Q.   General, this is an instruction.

 9             Let's go to the third page in Serbian, please.

10             You can see the signature.  It says:

11             "Federal Secretary of National Defence, Army General,

12     Veljko Kadijevic."

13        A.   Yes, I can see it.

14        Q.   In 1991, and for a part of 1992, Mr. Kadijevic was in that

15     position, wasn't he?

16        A.   Yes, he was.

17        Q.   Let us now go back to page 2 of this document, and let's focus on

18     the bottom of the page.

19             Paragraph 6, the last subparagraph.  Please read it.  It says

20     that:

21             "In places where civilian authorities do not function ...

22     envisage and propose to the command measures which must be prepared and

23     success to be taken in order to protect citizens and legal persons ..."

24             I needn't go on reading.

25             And my question to you, General, is this:  In the area of

Page 26998

 1     responsibility, when the unit is in or near a populated place, it's up to

 2     the command to decide which measures to take for the civilian authorities

 3     to work properly and to establish law and order in a given area; right?

 4        A.   That's correct.  That's what we did too.  I appointed the town

 5     commander of Derventa.  Then the town commander of Brod.  Because, under

 6     the given circumstances, neither Derventa nor Brod could function.

 7     Because neither in Derventa nor Brod were -- was there any Serbian

 8     population left.  They were either driven out, arrested, or killed.  The

 9     investigative bodies were able to collect this information and then it

10     became clear to me what had happened in Posavina because that's what we

11     call the region.  All the authorities, civilian and other, were

12     subordinated to the military command, that is the command of TG 3.  We

13     issued orders for the protection of the citizens and orders as to whether

14     schools could open or not, depending on the situation and the combat

15     activity of the enemy.  I believe that's clear enough.

16        Q.   I'm going to show you another document, General.  1D403.  Tab 13

17     in the Zupljanin Defence binder.

18             General, this is a -- this is an order from the command of the

19     19th Partisan Brigade about the setting up of the defence command of the

20     town of Donji Vakuf.

21             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see the last page.

22        Q.   Take a look at item 5, where the brigade commander even appoints

23     the chiefs of the public security station.  He appoints Sefulo Sisic,

24     captain first class, and he appoints deputies and assistants.  What this

25     commander did is in keeping with his powers and in keeping with the need

Page 26999

 1     that existed in that area; right?

 2        A.   Yes, that is correct.  And I worked in much the same way.

 3        Q.   General, let me go back to the beginning of your evidence, when

 4     the Prosecutor was showing you lists of officers who remained in the VRS

 5     or joined it in 1992.

 6             Most of them, if not all, were active-duty JNA officers who had

 7     been trained in the JNA, but they were not trained for a war of the kind

 8     that broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?

 9        A.   No.  We were not being trained for a civil war or a religious and

10     civil war, to put it that way.  Because that's something that surprised

11     both me as a trained officer and I believe the police too.  They hadn't

12     been trained to keep or maintain law and order in civil war conditions.

13     I don't believe that they were.

14             Bearing in mind our military education and training, we acted as

15     the circumstances required, and we took decisions that we thought

16     appropriate for that time and place.  The principles were the same:

17     Single authority and subordination.  Everybody was subordinated to the

18     zone commander, area commander, without exceptions.  The police, the

19     civilian authorities, assembly deputies, anybody.  They were all

20     subordinate to the commander of that area of responsibility, and it

21     couldn't be otherwise.

22             That was new to us too, but that's how we worked.

23        Q.   Due to the shortage of officers, that is active-duty officers in

24     the VRS, and the fact that they were not trained for this kind of war,

25     there were many problems in the first year in the functioning of the VRS;

Page 27000

 1     right?

 2        A.   Yes, there were problems, because we had up to 5 per cent of

 3     active-duty personnel and 95 per cent were reserve officers or NCOs, so

 4     that reserve officers would command battalions or brigades who had not

 5     been trained for either commanding or for acting in the state of war the

 6     same way we, active-duty officers, had been trained.  Their training was

 7     inferior to ours.

 8             MS. KORNER:  I'm querying how this comes within the scope of the

 9     evidence that Your Honours had this witness called for.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic.

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Ms. Korner, in part,

12     dealt with the level of training, the numbers, and the capability of the

13     officers of the VRS to wage war, and now I'm directly dealing with these

14     matters, because Ms. Korner stopped off at a certain point, and I want to

15     clarify some of the replies this witness gave to the Prosecutor.  But I'm

16     done with this topic.  The witness gave a more extensive answer than I

17     had elicit -- I had wanted to elicit.

18        Q.   General, answering the Prosecutor's questions you dealt with a

19     topic; namely, the joint objective, and how you co-operated with

20     different bodies.  I understood your answer to mean that the objectives

21     of the strategy of the armed combat of --

22             MS. KORNER:  Which answer, what page, please.

23             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I am just mentioning the topic.

24     You aborted it on at least ten places, on ten instances.  A joint

25     objective, a common objective.  And I'm not going -- going to go into the

Page 27001

 1     particulars.  I just want to deal with the matter generally.

 2        Q.   General, your view of the participation in combat and the

 3     objectives of the war is basically that armed combat, especially in the

 4     area of responsibility of your unit to defend the Serbian people and to

 5     set up law and order in a given territory; right?

 6        A.   That was our task number one, i.e., the defence of the territory,

 7     the protection of the civilian population and materiel and technical

 8     assets; i.e., the economic potentials of the area, including the

 9     protection of soldiers and policemen, of course.

10             We wanted to have as high a degree of discipline as possible

11     because under an enforced discipline, losses are less significant.  That,

12     of course, also went for the population that had to be disciplined.

13        Q.   Now the goal of your struggle, of your actions, and the people

14     you co-operated with on that score, was not directed against the other

15     people but against the army, supposedly fighting on their behalf?

16        A.   Under no circumstances were we engaging members of any peoples in

17     my area.  And that goes for the Republika Srpska and Bosnia-Herzegovina,

18     as far as I know.

19             As far as I'm concerned, I can tell that you I set up a battalion

20     called Mesa Selimovic --

21        Q.   Can you just slow down a bit, please.

22        A.   I set up a battalion called Mesa Selimovic from among able-bodied

23     Muslims.  They had confidence in me, and we fought together against the

24     enemies of Yugoslavia and the enemies within Bosnia-Herzegovina.

25             An aggression was committed against Bosnia-Herzegovina on -- by

Page 27002

 1     Croat irregulars.  In the village of Sijekovac, the population was

 2     killed, and the entire village was destroyed.  No law enforcement organs

 3     investigated into that crime or into the instance where the local

 4     population was deported to what is today Croatia.  Many of those deported

 5     civilians, elderly and children, from Posavina to what is today Croatia

 6     were never investigated into.

 7        Q.   General, this is something that you spoke of earlier on, and

 8     there's no need for you to go into that again.  I thank you for your

 9     answers.  I have no further questions of you.

10        A.   Thank you.

11             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I do have an application to make at

12     this stage.  I think it may take a little time, and it is probably better

13     that the general leaves court, if that's ...

14             JUDGE HALL:  Does it have to be resolved before the general is

15     released?

16             MS. KORNER:  Yes, it does.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

18             MS. KORNER:  Absolutely.

19             JUDGE HALL:  General Lisica, you would have heard counsel's

20     application.  I'm going to ask the usher to escort you from court, and

21     you will be returned when we are ready for you.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23                           [The witness stands down]

24             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, my application -- Your Honours, my

25     application is that I may be allowed to further cross-examine to try and

Page 27003

 1     now clarify the two completely conflicting versions that the general has

 2     given about the status of resubordinated police.

 3             Your Honours, in, of course, his answers in interview and,

 4     indeed, what he himself said when answering questions that I was asking,

 5     he stated that the police, even when resubordinated, still remained

 6     police officers.  Your Honours, that is at page of yesterday's

 7     transcript, 26938.

 8             The question actually is:

 9             "That's right, isn't it, that policemen, when resubordinated to

10     the army, still remained policemen?

11             "A.  Yes.  He was a policeman but under a different hat.  Instead

12     of patrolling the streets he was in the trenches, but, nonetheless, a

13     policeman."

14             Your Honour, he then went on, when dealing with the -- the

15     disciplinary aspect and this at page 26940:

16             "What powers did you, as a military commander, have to discipline

17     a resubordinated police officer?  Could you demote him?

18             "He doesn't have a rank.  How I can demote him?"

19             And, Your Honours, that, of course, is -- we would say, is --

20     is -- not any logical but common sense on the actual position that they

21     didn't become members of the military.

22             However, by the time that Mr. Cvijetic had finished, the

23     resubordinated police -- oh, and he also said -- I'm sorry, Your Honour,

24     one further thing, that, of course, they could only be resubordinated as

25     a unit as opposed to individuals.

Page 27004

 1             But the time that Mr. Cvijetic had led him willingly, to water,

 2     as it were, the police officers were all members of the military, all

 3     subject to military discipline, orders, prosecution, and the like, and,

 4     indeed, that Mr. Bjelosevic - Your Honours, and that is at page 26978 -

 5     throughout the period.  The question was:

 6             "Mr. Andrija Bjelosevic, while you were in communication with

 7     him, was in resubordination by virtue of this order?"

 8             In other words, throughout the whole period of the dealings he

 9     was personally resubordinated.

10             Now, Your Honours, Your Honours had this witness called to try

11     and elucidate matters on -- on the correct approach to how one should

12     treat resubordination.  Within the space of an hour or so, the witness

13     has said two diametrically opposed things.  And, Your Honours, it is my

14     application that I may further cross-examination in order to see whether

15     we can get a final answer.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Could you -- I'm not sure that I appreciate your

17     understanding of the -- his answers being diametrically opposed.  Could

18     you expand on that, please.

19             MS. KORNER:  Yes, certainly.  Your Honours, he was saying,

20     effectively, in answers to questions from me and, indeed, in interview,

21     that only a unit of police could be resubordinated, not an individual,

22     which is our understanding of what the case is.  That even when

23     resubordinated and serving on the front line in a combat, the policeman

24     remained a policeman.  He didn't become a member of the army.  He was

25     still a policeman but serving under a different hat.

Page 27005

 1             But by the end of his cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic - and,

 2     Your Honour, I can read the various passages - he had said the complete

 3     opposite and said that a resubordinated - effectively individual - police

 4     officer was exactly the same as someone who either was a military

 5     reservist or someone who is -- was -- a position -- a work obligation was

 6     serving in the army.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  But isn't this in the context of his

 8     consistent position of the overarching authority of the zone commander?

 9             MS. KORNER:  Well --

10             JUDGE HALL:  In that context, wouldn't the -- what appears to you

11     to be a contradiction, isn't -- doesn't it make perfect sense?

12             MS. KORNER:  Well, no, Your Honour, it doesn't because it's a

13     very different posit -- he is saying, My belief, indeed the way I

14     operated, was that I had complete power over everybody.

15             However, and those were in interview, and to me he accepted that

16     there were two parallel chains of command, that he couldn't just, in

17     fact, without -- whether he phrased it as a request or an order, pull in

18     the police as a unit.  There had to be some kind of a request and some

19     kind of agreement.

20             What he is now -- and, indeed, even when the police were serving,

21     they still remained policemen.  I mean, that's what he said.  That is not

22     what he was saying by the end.  And, indeed, if I'm wrong, I'm sure

23     Mr. Cvijetic will correct me, but my understanding is that was the whole

24     purpose of his cross-examination.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 27006

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Ms. Korner, we ourselves had questions to the

 2     witness relating to the distinction between the various functions in

 3     which resubordinated policemen would find themselves because, as with

 4     this witness, and with the previous witness, there was an issue about

 5     whether it would be the army commander who would be in control of

 6     everybody involved, including resubordinated policemen, for the purposes

 7     of combat.  Whereas, on the other side, there's a separate issue about

 8     the, should I say, the prosecutorial cleaning up afterwards in relation

 9     to crimes that were committed during the combat or in relation to the

10     combat activity.

11             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But so since the witness is our witness, we had

13     intended to put that question and I think that's the right course of

14     action.

15             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, though -- yes.  Can I say -- I accept

16     that.

17             Can I just say to Your Honours that if you look at page 26970,

18     and this is where the real - we would submit - contradiction within his

19     own evidence comes.  It's put to him:

20             "Once they join," this is a resubordinated police, "... they join

21     your unit to take part in combat operations, their civilian authority

22     stops and they participate in combat operations of all rights and duties

23     as everybody else; correct?

24             "Yes.  That is precisely right."

25             And then he is taken to the Law on All People's Defence, and

Page 27007

 1     sayings:

 2             "In other words," says the question, "during the time they're

 3     resubordinated to you, they are military conscripts belonging to the

 4     category of reserve military conscripts.  They are duty-bound to follow

 5     your orders and comply with military laws and regulations."

 6             Now, this is -- and the general willingly agrees and says, yes,

 7     that is correct.  That's exactly what the law says.

 8             Well, Your Honours, of course that's the argument.  It's not what

 9     the law says, we submit, but for these purposes it's purely a question of

10     clarifying with the general how at one stage he can say these are police

11     officers even while they're resubordinated, and at the next stage say no,

12     they are no longer police officers, they are military conscripts.

13             And that's, Your Honours, where we say there should be some

14     clarification as to what his final word is.

15             We should add that, in our view, what's being conflated here are

16     two different things:  One is resubordination which is an official act of

17     a unit, with its own commanding officer; and the, as it were, change in

18     the status of someone who has been a reserve policeman who is then sent

19     his work obligation, changes, and he is sent to the military.  And it's

20     our submission that this is where the confusion is arising, and -- I'm

21     not saying deliberately but not helped in the way in which questions were

22     put to the general.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I must say that I -- I believe this

24     is highly inappropriate.  Ms. Korner is making the submissions which --

25     and this is not the time for the final submissions.

Page 27008

 1             We understand the law and the -- and the general's questions as

 2     we understand it, and we will present that in the -- at the end of the --

 3     at the end of the -- our -- in our -- in our final brief and in our final

 4     submissions.  We -- we certainly believe that everything the general said

 5     is in accordance with the law and that is what my colleague,

 6     Mr. Cvijetic, put to him, and we will explain why when we make the

 7     submissions.

 8             Now, I don't think this is appropriate at all that Ms. Korner --

 9     I understand that probably Ms. Korner and the Office of the Prosecution

10     has a confusion now, but that is just because they have the wrong

11     understanding of the law and of the evidence.  That is all.

12             Thank you very much.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Well, as we said, we take the practical position

14     that, inasmuch as the general is here, and he is a witness whom the

15     Chamber called to seek to shed some light on this very vexing and not

16     altogether clear issue, and we would ask -- take advantage of his

17     presence here and ask the questions.

18             So if there's nothing further, we would have the witness escorted

19     back to the stand.

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, just one

22     suggestion.

23             I didn't want to address this issue in my cross-examination

24     because I believe that that was quite clear, that there was no

25     contradiction in the witness's evidence.

Page 27009

 1             The question raised by the Trial Chamber, in that respect, I

 2     wanted to show the witness a document issued by General Talic, in which

 3     he says and describes the status of these policemen.  I'll try to find

 4     it.  I didn't show it to the witness -- or the previous witness, rather,

 5     and it relates to the abandonment of units.  That's 1D411.  And if the

 6     Trial Chamber is going to use this document, that's tab 25.  This

 7     document clearly shows how General Talic treats the reserve police

 8     officers who are resubordinated.  It's 23.  And if the Trial Chamber is

 9     willing to deal with this issue, then I think it would be beneficial if

10     they are shown these documents.

11             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry, Your Honours.  If Mr. Krgovic wants to

12     carry on with his cross-examination and show this is the vexed document

13     over what is meant by the -- the telegram from the Main Staff to --

14     passed on by Talic to Stojan Zupljanin.  It's that document.

15             So if Mr. Krgovic wants to deal with that, that's fine.  But I

16     don't know why he is inviting the Trial Chamber to deal with it.

17                           [The witness takes the stand]

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, general.  We have resolved the procedural

20     issue in your absence, and the Chamber would have one or two further

21     questions of you before you are released.

22             Judge Harhoff.

23                           Re-examination by the Court:

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

25             General, you may recall that the reason why we chose to have you

Page 27010

 1     brought in as a witness was to help us understand the authority to have

 2     crimes committed by resubordinated policemen, and others, investigated

 3     and prosecuted either by the military prosecutor or by the civilian

 4     prosecutor because this is an important legal aspect of this trial.

 5             Now, during your testimony, you seem to have given us answers

 6     that may cause some uncertainty, and this is why we revert, once again,

 7     to the issue of the powers to investigate and prosecute resubordinated

 8     policemen, and others, such as volunteers, for crimes -- for war crimes

 9     committed during the time of resubordination.

10             Now, we also appreciate that you, as an army commander, saw and

11     had to see your functions as purely operational, and since you did not

12     perform a function of a military prosecutor, you may not have a clear and

13     full knowledge of what the legal situation was.

14             So my question to you is, general:  Do you know if the civilian

15     prosecutors and the civilian police were entitled or obliged to prosecute

16     resubordinated policemen for war crimes committed during the time in

17     which they were in combat?

18             And -- and the practical problem, as far as I understand it, was

19     that the resubordinated police units would often not remain long enough

20     for the military prosecutor to take the necessary action.  Because it

21     takes time to investigate a crime and to have it prosecuted.  And by the

22     time a possibly indictment would be ready, the police unit would have

23     long gone -- gone back to its ordinary police ranks.

24             So I want to ask you, again, if you know what the legal situation

25     was in respect of who had the authority to prosecute resubordinated

Page 27011

 1     policemen who committed war crimes, allegedly committed war crimes,

 2     during the time that they were resubordinated to the army.

 3             If you don't know, General, then please just tell us that you

 4     don't know, and that's the end of it.  And, if you know, let's hear your

 5     version.

 6        A.   In principle, I know that military courts should prosecute all

 7     members of the military and the police if they committed criminal

 8     offences in the course of performing their combat duties, or war-time

 9     duties, and if they committed war crimes.

10             So that should have been within the jurisdiction of military

11     courts, to investigate and to prosecute.  If, outside combat operations,

12     the police commit a crime, that should be under the jurisdiction of

13     regular civilian courts.

14             That's how I understand it.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Do you mean to say that if - and we just take an

16     example - if a police unit is resubordinated to the police for one week,

17     from Monday to next Monday --

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Sorry.  If a police unit is resubordinated to the

20     military for one week, from Monday to Monday, on the first three days of

21     that week, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, there is combat activities -

22     there's fighting going on - and during those three days our policemen

23     commit a war crime.  Then by Thursday the fighting stops, but the police

24     unit is still with the army for the next three or four days until the

25     following Monday, and then they go back to their police station.  During

Page 27012

 1     those remaining three or four days of the week, they, again, commit a war

 2     crime.

 3             So, General, are you saying that for the first crime, it is the

 4     military prosecutor who is authorised and who has the power to prosecute

 5     the policemen; while for the second crime that they committed outside the

 6     action, but while they were still resubordinated, it is for the civilian

 7     police and the civilian prosecutor to take charge?  Is that your

 8     testimony?

 9             Is that your testimony?

10        A.   If a civilian police officer would commit a crime during combat

11     operations - in other words, while he is subordinated to a unit command -

12     this case is to be dealt with by a military court, regardless of the fact

13     that the policeman is no longer involved in combat operations.

14     Proceedings are instituted and before a military court he is going to be

15     held accountable for the crimes he committed.  Irrespective of whether he

16     was still involved in combat or he had gone back to his police station.

17             So his whereabouts is completely irrelevant.  He might be back at

18     the police station, but the proceedings initiated by the military court

19     have to be brought to an end, whether it takes a year or longer, but

20     that's how it should have been done.

21             I don't know whether it was exactly carried out in practice in

22     that manner.  At the academy, we had a course in which we studied various

23     aspects of the law, including the laws of war and how the military

24     judiciary and other organs operated during and after combat ends.  These

25     crimes are not subject to the statute of limitation and they are under

Page 27013

 1     the jurisdiction of military courts.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So, just to be clear, it is your testimony that

 3     the military court is the only court who has jurisdiction over a

 4     resubordinated policeman who commits a war crime during the time that he

 5     was resubordinated; and that the military court remains in charge of the

 6     prosecution of these crimes, even for the time after the policeman was

 7     sent back to his ordinary unit, his ordinary police unit.

 8             So you are saying that the military court remains authorised to

 9     try the policeman even long after he has left the army and has gone back

10     to the police.

11             Is that what you're saying?

12        A.   Yes, that's what I'm saying.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE HALL:  General Lisica --

15             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honours, can I -- Your Honours don't feel

16     it necessary to ask the questions that I was dealing with at all?

17     Because Judge Hall [sic] has just dealt with the -- the Prosecution side.

18             JUDGE HALL:  You mean Judge Harhoff.

19             MS. KORNER:  Yes.  Did I not say Judge Harhoff?

20             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

21             MS. KORNER:  I thought I did.  No, somebody misheard me.  I said

22     "Judge Harhoff."

23             Your Honours, it is a -- can I just make that submission.  I'm

24     not going to repeat again.  There is a real, in our submission,

25     difference in what he has said at one point and what he has said at the

Page 27014

 1     end.  And it may be important.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

 4             JUDGE HALL:  We are at the point where we would ordinarily rise

 5     for the first break of the morning.  We aren't going to release the

 6     witness at this point.  But during the break, the -- counsel from both

 7     sides could reflect on whether they would benefit from having each a

 8     maximum of 15 minutes more with this witness.  And by "15 minutes," I

 9     mean 15 times 60 seconds.

10             So we return in 20 minutes.

11                           [The witness stands down]

12                           --- Recess taken at 10.24 a.m.

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

14             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours won't be surprised to hear that I've

15     reflected and I'd like my 15 times 60 seconds, please.

16             JUDGE HALL:  What about the Defence?

17             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.

18             Your Honours, if you are willing to give the Prosecution 15

19     minutes, then I will use 15 minutes as well.  Although, I think that

20     there is nothing in dispute or nothing contradictory in the witness's

21     evidence.

22             MR. KRGOVIC:  [No interpretation]

23             JUDGE HALL:  Of course, I don't know if the interpreters heard

24     you correctly, but when you said that you would use 15 minutes, I assume

25     you meant to say that you would share 15 minutes.  If necessary.

Page 27015

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] You introduced this rule, and we

 2     have to abide by it, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  So would the usher please escort the witness back to

 4     the stand.

 5                           [The witness takes the stand]

 6             JUDGE HALL:  General Lisica, at the request of counsel, we would

 7     delay your departure for a few minutes longer while they seek to clarify

 8     some of the issues that still -- where we can perhaps benefit from any

 9     clarification you are able to given.

10             Yes, Ms. Korner.

11             MS. KORNER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

12                           Further Cross-examination by Ms. Korner:

13        Q.   General, you said yesterday - and can we just confirm this - that

14     when resubordination occurs, police officers are resubordinated as a unit

15     headed by a police commander?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Police officers cannot be individually resubordinated, can they?

18     It has to be as a unit.

19        A.   In principle, individuals can also be resubordinated, but it

20     wasn't done.  It would be either a police station or their formation as a

21     whole.

22        Q.   You also said yesterday in answer to questions to by me that a

23     resubordinated police officer remained a police officer and did not hold

24     a rank in the army.  And that's right, isn't it?

25        A.   They don't have a rank in the military sense of the word.  They

Page 27016

 1     probably have their own ranks.  I don't know what their ranks are, but to

 2     me they are police officers.

 3        Q.   Quite.  Can we just please very swiftly run through how people go

 4     into the military.

 5             Article 3, which you can see on the screen of the Law on The

 6     Military defines who is a member of the military, doesn't it?

 7        A.   Yeah -- yes, it does.

 8        Q.   Articles 8 to 24 define the methods of how individuals are

 9     inducted into the army.  That's right, isn't it?

10             Can we just look, for example, at Article 8.  Or let's go

11     straight to Article 12.  Please.  Sorry.  Article 12.  And that starts:

12             "Admission to military service..."

13             And then in the following articles, and I don't want to go

14     through them, but presumably you're familiar with this, show how people

15     become members of the army; is that right?

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  I'm sorry.  I'm sorry, Ms. Korner, but this article

17     refers to the active members of the army.

18             MS. KORNER:  This something that can be seen by everybody.

19        Q.   Do you know, general, whether that is how Articles 8 through to

20     24 define how people get into the army?

21             If you don't know, say so straight away because I haven't got

22     much time.

23        A.   I know that's the way it is.

24        Q.   All right.  Now persons who are under military obligation become

25     military personnel only during the time that they're actually serving;

Page 27017

 1     that's right, isn't it?

 2        A.   This is a peacetime law and this is done in peacetime.  What you

 3     are saying applies when there are no combat activities.

 4             But when there are combat activities, these things are regulated

 5     quite differently.

 6        Q.   Forgive me, sorry.  It doesn't matter -- it makes no distinction,

 7     does it, even if combat activities are going on, a person does not become

 8     military personnel even though is he under a military obligation until

 9     such time as he starts in a unit.  That's right, isn't it?

10        A.   Yes, that's understood.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12        A.   In other words, he's a military conscript but becomes a member of

13     a unit when he joins the unit and is mobilised.

14        Q.   Correct.  And as you say, mobilisation is a call-up, if you like,

15     for conscripts.  That's right, isn't it?  It calls up those who are

16     military conscripts.

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   There's a definition of conscripts in Article 319 of the law; is

19     that right?

20        A.   It is.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Now, once a person has completed his military

22     service - that is, ordinary military service, leave aside times of war -

23     he gets a reserve assignment, doesn't he?

24        A.   Yes, he does.

25        Q.   And that assignment is determined by the Municipal Secretariat

Page 27018

 1     for National Defence?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Now, once he is mobilised, an individual can be sent either to

 4     the military or to the MUP, or, indeed, another institution.  That's

 5     right, isn't it?

 6        A.   It is.

 7        Q.   And where he is assigned to will be shown in his military

 8     booklet, will it not?

 9        A.   Correct.

10        Q.   So if someone is assigned to the MUP, that will be shown in his

11     military booklet.  If he is assigned -- or taken out of the MUP because

12     there's a need for more military, that, too, will be shown into his

13     military booklet, if he is taken from the MUP and assigned to the army?

14        A.   In practice, it wasn't done that way.  If in his military booklet

15     his war-time assignment is with the MUP, then it stays that way.  But he

16     can be subordinated to a military unit, a military command as a police

17     officer.  There's no need to change his VES; his military speciality.  He

18     remains a police officer, and we needn't change his status to that of a

19     military conscript.  It wasn't done like that in practice.  He remains a

20     reserve police officer at the disposal of the MUP.

21        Q.   Right.  No, that is the point.  I absolutely accept what you are

22     saying.

23             If an individual police officer as part of a unit is

24     resubordinated to the -- the army, then his booklet simply shows, that

25     he's still, as you say, a police officer, doesn't it?

Page 27019

 1        A.   Yes, it says in his military booklet that is he a member of the

 2     police.

 3        Q.   Exactly.  But if an individual's obligation was changed - in

 4     other words, he started off by being made a policeman but there was a

 5     need for more members of the military and, therefore, his work obligation

 6     was changed from that of the MUP to the military - that would show in his

 7     military booklet?

 8        A.   Not necessarily.  In practice, it isn't done that way.  He

 9     remains a reserve police officer as long as he has that booklet.  If --

10     theoretically speaking what you have just described were to happen, in

11     other words, if the police didn't need him, then the Secretariat of

12     National Defence would change it to -- to him and issue him a new

13     booklet, a booklet of a military conscript.  But this is theoretically

14     speaking.  In practice, this was never done.

15             I hope I was clear.

16        Q.   Well, you say -- you say that.  This was, I suggest to you, done

17     because it had to be done; otherwise, there was no record of where this

18     individual had been serving.

19        A.   I don't understand the question.

20        Q.   If someone who had been originally assigned to do his obligation

21     to the police but, in fact, the local unit required more members of the

22     military - full time not resubordinated - then the minister -- the

23     municipal secretariat would change the entry in the military booklet to

24     show that this individual had gone from the MUP to the military; that's

25     right, isn't it?

Page 27020

 1        A.   That is right.

 2        Q.   Right.  And there's also a form called a Vob 8, isn't there.  Do

 3     you know about that?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   You're not familiar with that form?

 6        A.   No, I don't -- I don't know it.

 7        Q.   You're not familiar with the form that, in fact, goes to the unit

 8     and shows where an individual has served.  Never seen that?

 9        A.   That's no business of the commander.  There is a -- a personnel

10     affairs organ in a command, and they deal with such documents.

11             What you have just described theoretically, they do that in

12     practice.  This organ is part of the command, the personnel affairs

13     organ.

14        Q.   All right.  And, finally, can I ask you to look, please, at the

15     disciplinary measures that are set out for members of the army in

16     Article 68 of this law.

17              "Disciplinary offences shall entail the following disciplinary

18     measures:

19             "Suspension of promotion for a period of six months to three

20     years."

21             You couldn't, could you, in any way suspend the promotion of a

22     police officer, even when resubordinated?

23        A.   No.  There was no need.  I don't understand.  I don't see the

24     point of this question.

25        Q.   You could not -- a police officer who you've told us now twice

Page 27021

 1     remained a police officer during the course of his resubordination -- the

 2     unit's resubordination, you could not, in any way, effect his promotion

 3     in the police, could you?

 4        A.   No.  That's -- that's up to the personnel organ.  And as for

 5     breaches and the like, that is in the remit of the military court or --

 6     and the commander.  While a police officer is member of a military unit,

 7     he is under the jurisdiction of the military court.

 8        Q.   You say -- you keep asserting now, now that Mr. Cvijetic has

 9     asked you questions.  But let's look at the reality.  It's just right, is

10     it?  You could not, nor could the personnel unit in the army, have any

11     effect on the promotion of a police officer, could you?

12        A.   You're right.  But there was no need for me to do anything about

13     that either.

14        Q.   Yes, all right.  Let's look at the next one.  During the process

15     of resubordination, a police unit was still paid by the police, wasn't

16     it?  Not by the army.

17        A.   That is correct.

18        Q.   So you couldn't impose upon a police officer, even while

19     resubordinated, forfeiture of pay.  And by you, I mean you, the army, the

20     personnel, or you personally?

21        A.   That is correct.  We couldn't.  We didn't have to, and we didn't

22     even consider it.

23             JUDGE HALL:  And that's your final question, Ms. Korner.

24             MS. KORNER:  I dealt with reduction in the ranks, so ...

25             JUDGE HALL:  Thanks.

Page 27022

 1             MS. KORNER:

 2        Q.   Yes.  Thank you, general.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic.

 4             Mr. Krgovic.

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] If you allow with your leave,

 6     Your Honours, I will follow up on the questions asked by Ms. Korner.

 7                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] General, talking about members of the reserve

 9     force, including the police, members of the reserve force are paid --

10     whether they belong to the police or whether they are reserve soldiers

11     are paid by the organisations where they worked before; right?

12        A.   In principle, yes.

13        Q.   Only active-duty military personnel, including the rank and file,

14     who are not reservists, were the only ones who got paid by the army;

15     right?

16        A.   That is correct.

17        Q.   So talking about a pay, in a situation where police members and

18     reservists were temporarily in your unit, there was no need for you to

19     deal with matters such as forfeiture of pay?

20        A.   There was no need at all to do anything like it.

21        Q.   Talking about pay, all members of the reserve force, including

22     the police and the regular - let's call them that - regular reserve

23     force, were, in principle, equal; right?

24        A.   In principle, yes.

25        Q.   Thank you, general.

Page 27023

 1             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] This is all I had.

 2                           Further Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] General, I will follow up on Ms. Korner's line

 4     of question, and her last question had to do with promotion.

 5             You could not effect their promotion in the framework of their

 6     police structures, their hierarchy, once they returned to their positions

 7     and become police officers again; right?

 8        A.   I was not involved in that.

 9        Q.   However, while they are resubordinated, and yesterday you agreed

10     with me that during that time, they have the status of military

11     conscripts, or military personnel, for all those reasons that we need not

12     repeat.  So while they have such a status, the one among them who is a

13     reserve military officer because he finished reserve officer's school,

14     can be promoted by the military command in charge to a higher rank if he

15     merits it?

16        A.   Yes, he could.  And -- and that did happen.

17        Q.   Let's continue.  You were asked about how people were

18     resubordinated, and the Prosecutor said that it was mostly done as a

19     whole unit headed by its -- its commander.

20        A.   Correct.

21        Q.   However, that whole unit, including the commander, are all

22     resubordinated and become military conscripts - in other words, military

23     personnel - while they are resubordinated?

24        A.   Exactly right.  And they're subordinated to the commander of the

25     unit to which they are resubordinated.

Page 27024

 1        Q.   However, you said -- and that's very true.  You said yesterday

 2     that you personally could resubordinate a single police officer if there

 3     was a need for that.

 4        A.   I had the right to do so.

 5        Q.   And let's finally clear up one matter.

 6             I didn't show you the Law on the Army and the Law on Military

 7     Courts for no reason yesterday, because it clearly define who is military

 8     personnel.  You cannot command somebody who is not military personnel;

 9     right?

10        A.   Well, no, I can't.

11        Q.   I'll give an example.

12             You cannot command somebody who is at the same time a soldier and

13     a civilian, who can but is not duty-bound to follow your order, whom you

14     can and cannot punish.  So there is no half status.  Someone is either a

15     soldier or not a soldier.

16        A.   That's true:  Either a soldier or not a soldier.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             JUDGE HALL:  General Lisica, we thank you for your coming to

19     give -- to assist us at the Tribunal.  You are now released as a witness,

20     and we wish you a safe journey back to your home.

21             The usher will escort you from the courtroom while we deal with

22     any housekeeping matters before we take the adjournment.

23             Thank you, sir.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too.  It was my

25     pleasure.

Page 27025

 1                           [The witness withdrew]

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Do either the parties wish to raise any matters

 3     before we take the adjournment?

 4             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I do.  And it really relates to

 5     Judge Harhoff's question to Mr. Krgovic this morning, which I am just

 6     trying to find, about the Defence case on this aspect of state of war and

 7     the like.

 8             Your Honours, it -- nowhere in either of the Defences' pre-trial

 9     briefs was there -- first of all, any suggestion of the issue that's now

10     emerged; namely, the status of resubordinated police and the like.  And

11     certainly nothing about Mr. Krgovic's assertion -- and, as I say, I'm

12     trying to just find the part.  It's page 9 - thank you very much - line

13     5 -- yeah, line 8.  5.

14             Judge Harhoff asks:

15             "Mr. Krgovic, before you leave this issue, I'd like to ascertain

16     whether it is now your case," I'm glad that Judge Harhoff added the word

17     "now," "that there was as of 1991, legally speaking, a state of war?"

18             "Yes, Your Honour.  But in specific areas where there were armed

19     conflicts.  Not in the entire territory, but in war-torn zones.  And, in

20     fact, where there were armed conflicts, when you had two opposing parties

21     a state of war prevailed."

22             And then he went on to say when it came to the authority of

23     commander it was irrelevant whether a state of war was proclaimed or not.

24             Now, Your Honours, this has never been stated in those stark

25     terms; as a result of which, no evidence, one way or another, has been

Page 27026

 1     called about that.  Your Honours, we asked for leave to call an expert in

 2     rebuttal and Your Honours declined, saying that there was -- the issue,

 3     the main issue on which we wished to call him, namely, the effect of

 4     resubordination on the status of police and -- and the follow-up, had

 5     been something we'd been aware about before the case started -- before we

 6     closed our case.  But, Your Honour, this issue, we had no idea was going

 7     to arise, at all.  And we would respectfully ask that Your Honours have a

 8     further look at the statement of the expert witness and reassess, if you

 9     like, rather than reconsider, whether some evidence should be called

10     about this from someone who is a genuine expert.

11             JUDGE HALL:  If this, on reflection, Ms. Korner, is a concern of

12     some substance, wouldn't you be best advised to flesh this out in a

13     proper motion for the Chamber's consideration?

14             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, certainly, we can do that.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

16             Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'll be very brief.

18             The issue of the existence of armed conflict and consequently

19     whether there was an obligation to apply the international law of war,

20     which is applied during the state of war, is one of the fundamental

21     issues this Tribunal has dealt with since its establishment.  And the

22     jurisdiction of the Tribunal is based on the position that there was a

23     state of war in former Yugoslavia since 1991.  It's is a notorious fact

24     that there was armed conflict in 1991 and based on that this Tribunal

25     declared itself as having authority over any events there.  So this is

Page 27027

 1     hardly surprising.  I merely narrowed it down to certain territories

 2     where there was fighting.

 3             The position of the Tribunal is that in the whole territory of

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina or even former Yugoslavia there was armed conflict.

 5     You really need an expert to tell you that?  Any by such motion by

 6     Ms. Korner to have a military expert to tell us more about it is really

 7     pointless.  And this is --

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, again, as with the case of Ms. Korner,

 9     may I respectfully invite you to reflect on the position, of course.  And

10     when you would have seen her motion, you would know how to respond.  But

11     the distinction is between the position of the Tribunal and what is

12     relevant terms of this indictment and the briefs of the file.  That is

13     where Ms. Korner is.

14             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, Mr. Krgovic knows perfectly well that

15     I'm not suggesting that there wasn't an armed conflict into which the

16     international laws of war applied.  What I'm objecting to is his

17     assertion that a state of war, as defined, undeclared or existed in

18     certain municipalities but not others, and ergo the powers of the police,

19     therefore, did not apply, because they all came under the military.

20             That's the assertion that I'm objecting to.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  So there being nothing further, we will

23     take the adjournment, to reconvene in this courtroom at 9.00 on

24     Wednesday, the 7th.  I trust everyone has a safe weekend.

25             Mr. Aleksic, you seem surprised by -- yes.  Thank you.

Page 27028

 1             I trust everybody has a safe weekend.

 2                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.30 a.m.,

 3                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 7th day of

 4                           March, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.