1                          Monday, 5 November 2007

 2                          [Open session]

 3                          [The accused entered court]

 4                          --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

 5            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Good morning, everybody.

 6            Will you please call the case, Mr. Registrar.

 7            THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you and good morning, Your Honours.  This is

 8    case number IT-04-83-T, the Prosecutor versus Rasim Delic.

 9            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

10            May we have the appearances for today, Mr. Mundis.

11            MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

12            Good morning, Your Honours, Counsel, and everyone in and around

13    the courtroom.  Daryl Mundis, for the Prosecution, assisted by our case

14    manager, Alma Imamovic.

15            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

16            For the Defence.

17            MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.  Good

18    morning to our learned friends from the Prosecution.  Vasvija Vidovic and

19    Nicholas Robson representing General Delic, with our legal assistant, Lana

20    Deljkic.

21            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.

22            Yes, Mr. Robson.

23            MR. ROBSON:  Your Honour, the witness is not in court because the

24    Defence has asked for some time to raise an important housekeeping issue.

25            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 1            MR. ROBSON:  It relates to Dzemal Vuckovic, who is scheduled to

 2    testify later today.

 3            Your Honours, the Defence would wish to object to the Prosecution

 4    proposal to lead the evidence of this witness pursuant to Rule 92 ter, and

 5    also we object to the manner in which the Prosecution is proposing to deal

 6    with the documents associated with that witness.

 7            If I can set out the background to this matter, and I apologise

 8    because I'll need to do so at some length.

 9            On the 19th of October of this year, the Prosecution sent a letter

10    to the Defence, setting out a list of all the witnesses that it was

11    proposing to call pursuant to Rule 92 ter, and the witness, Dzemal

12    Vuckovic, was contained within in that list.  At that stage, the

13    Prosecution had disclosed a witness statement to the Defence, dated the

14    22nd of September, 2006, in which it referred to 21 documents.  The

15    Defence, therefore, prepared its cross-examination on the basis of that

16    statement and also took on board the likelihood that the Prosecution would

17    seek to admit all of those 21 documents.

18            Now, on Friday, the 2nd of November, the Prosecution sent a

19    further letter to the Defence, and in that letter it stated that the

20    Prosecution had revisited its exhibit list and noticed that there were

21    many bulletins and special information reports contained within the list.

22    It then indicated a wish to raise or use those bulletins and special

23    information reports in connection with the evidence of Vuckovic.

24            In this letter, the Prosecution set out a procedure that it said

25    it would follow.  It said in calling Vuckovic, it would get him to adopt

 1    his statement.  The Prosecution would ask him to describe the procedure by

 2    which the bulletins and the special information reports had been produced,

 3    and then the Prosecution would tender all of the bulletins and special

 4    information reports in a summary fashion.

 5            Now, that was on Friday morning.  On Friday afternoon, the

 6    Prosecution sent a further e-mail to the Defence, setting out a

 7    provisional exhibit list for the witness Vuckovic.  In the provisional

 8    exhibit list, it mentioned 117 PT documents of which 94 were these

 9    bulletins or special information reports.  Now, not all of the PTs related

10    to just one document.  One of the PTs, 1910, contained a collection of

11    around some 70 bulletins within the one PT.

12            So, in total, all the exhibits the Prosecution were proposing to

13    use with this witness amounted to some 2.000 pages.  And as I say, the

14    Defence were just put on notice of this on Friday.

15            The e-mail also said that the witness wished to make changes to

16    his original witness statement, and, therefore, the Prosecution proposed

17    to prepare a new consolidated witness statement dealing with the changes

18    and also touching upon the new documents that the Prosecution wished to

19    have admitted into evidence.  That was the state of play on Friday.

20            Now, on Saturday evening, after 7.00, the Prosecution sent a new

21    consolidated statement for Mr. Vuckovic.  It's a 30-page document and, in

22    many respects, rewrites that witness's original statement.  A lot of the

23    content within that document -- within the original document has been

24    struck out or amended.  I should also say that this document was only sent

25    in the English language as well.

 1            Within this new document, it referred to some 92 new documents

 2    that were not mentioned in the original witness statement.

 3            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let me understand.

 4            An additional 92 to the about 187 that you got, 117 plus 70 within

 5    one PT that you got Friday afternoon?

 6            MR. ROBSON:  On Friday afternoon, Defence received notice the

 7    Prosecution wished to use 117.

 8            JUDGE MOLOTO:  And in one of the PTs, there were 70 pages, so it

 9    was about 187.

10            MR. ROBSON:  There were 70 documents.

11            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Seventy documents, yes.  So there are about 187.

12    Now the 90 that you are mentioning now is in addition to the 187?

13            MR. ROBSON:  It was included within the --

14            JUDGE MOLOTO:  187?

15            MR. ROBSON:  -- 187, yeah.

16            Also within the new statement, there is a table in which the

17    Prosecution has set down a brief description of what some of these PTs

18    purport to be about, and some of those -- some of those descriptions are

19    erroneous.  So, Your Honour, that's the background to this matter.

20            So having set that out at length, it is the Defence's submission

21    that the Prosecution should not be permitted to call this witness pursuant

22    to Rule 92 ter, nor to simply tender these documents and have them

23    admitted in a summary fashion, and we rely upon a number of reasons for

24    that.  The first, as is probably no surprise to you, is that essentially

25    the Defence has not had time to prepare properly for this witness.

 1            As I mentioned earlier, the Defence initially prepared on the

 2    basis of the original statement.  It's now received, as I say, some 2.000

 3    new pages at a very, very late stage.  The document, the new statement,

 4    has only been disclosed in English.  I can inform you that last night, at

 5    9.39, a B/C/S version of the statement was disclosed to the Defence.  The

 6    consequence, of course, is that the Defence has not been able to take

 7    proper instructions from General Delic on the contents of this statement,

 8    nor the documents which it's been proposed -- the Prosecution is proposing

 9    to use.

10            Now, what I would like to remind the Trial Chamber of is a

11    decision that was issued in September, because it's my submission that

12    this is ground that the Trial Chamber has been over before, previously. If

13    you recall, in September, the Prosecution filed a motion in which it

14    sought to admit the evidence of three witnesses and in which it simply

15    wished to tender the exhibits of those witnesses which were referred to in

16    their witness statements, and the Trial Chamber issued a decision on the

17    27th of September in which it rejected that approach.

18            In that decision -- and I should say that in respect of that

19    Prosecution motion in September, it was also an 11th-hour motion in which

20    the Prosecution had not disclosed statements and documents in the B/C/S

21    language.  The Trial Chamber held that, with such a late application,

22    risks endangering the right of an accused to a fair trial arose.  It also

23    held that such an approach impacts upon any expeditiousness which may have

24    been gained from the use of Rule 92 ter, as the Defence was unable to

25    properly prepare for cross-examination.  And, thirdly, the Trial Chamber

 1    held that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the Prosecution

 2    to proceed using the Rule 92 ter procedure with such an approach.

 3            In my respectful submission, Your Honours, we have a very, very

 4    similar situation here again; 11th-hour application, documents not

 5    disclosed in the B/C/S language.  And, similarly, as with the earlier

 6    decision, it's my submission that it would not be in the interests of

 7    justice to enable or permit the Prosecution to take such an approach.

 8            The second argument I wish to raise is that the Prosecution is

 9    seeking to introduce a very substantial amount of evidence onto the trial

10    record without any proper scrutiny or any process to determine whether

11    there is a proper basis to admit that evidence.

12            In the Trial Chamber's decision of the 27th of September, the

13    Trial Chamber pointed out the importance of the guidelines on admission

14    and presentation of evidence and conduct of counsel in court in this

15    regard.  In that decision, the Trial Chamber pointed out that in paragraph

16    18 of those guidelines, a party calling a witness will be permitted to

17    show documents to a witness during the direct examination of a Rule 92 ter

18    witness, and such documents may be tendered into evidence; in other words,

19    it made it clear that if a Rule 92 ter witness came, any attempt to tender

20    documents through that witness should be done as a separate part during

21    the viva voce stage.

22            The decision also emphasised the importance of a party

23    demonstrating a relation between the witness and the document being

24    proposed to be admitted into evidence.

25            In my submission, Your Honours, if the Prosecution are permitted

 1    to introduce documents in such a summary fashion, the normal process by

 2    which the Trial Chamber can scrutinize each document before it's entered

 3    onto the record, to ensure that only relevant documents go onto the

 4    record, is lost.  Also, the Defence will lose the opportunity to confront

 5    each and every document as it is brought up in court.

 6            Thirdly, Your Honours, as I've mentioned, the new statement of

 7    Mr. Vuckovic refers to an enormous amount of documents, and I would remind

 8    the Trial Chamber and the Prosecution of the guidance given by the Trial

 9    Chamber on Friday, the 26th of October, and that was in relation to the

10    first Rule 92 ter witness that the Chamber heard.  And on that occasion,

11    His Honour Judge Harhoff emphasised to the Prosecution that if they wanted

12    to have documents admitted through a Rule 92 ter witness, then it should

13    only be a small number of documents.  Judge Harhoff mentioned that he had

14    in mind one or two documents.

15            Your Honour, Judge Moloto, you emphasised to the Prosecution that

16    the purpose of the Rule 92 ter exercise is it should save time, and you

17    pointed out that you might save time on the leading side, but the result

18    could be that you're expanding it on the cross-examining side.  So

19    essentially, in my submission, that's what we're looking at here today.

20            Finally, Your Honours, just to close on this point, and this is

21    really more an observation:  This witness is an important witness, and

22    what the Defence would point out is that it would seem that the

23    Prosecution are seeking to use this approach of calling witnesses through

24    the Rule 92 ter procedure, tendering a lot of documents, new documents,

25    through that witness, and they are reserving this approach for the most

 1    important witnesses or certainly some of the most important witnesses.

 2    This is an approach that we, in principle, object to.

 3            Now, it's obviously a matter to the Prosecution as to how they

 4    conduct their case, but it's the Defence's belief that the Prosecution

 5    should really be calling these important witnesses viva voce; and if there

 6    are important documents to be put through these witnesses, then that

 7    should be done during live testimony rather than adducing or seeking to

 8    tender these documents in this summary fashion that will not allow for

 9    proper scrutiny of the documents before they're admitted into the trial

10    record.

11            Your Honour, the remedy that I'm seeking today, in conclusion, is

12    that the witness should be called viva voce rather than being called

13    pursuant to Rule 92 ter.

14            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Robson.

15            Mr. Mundis.

16            MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

17            I'll be extremely brief, as my colleague Mr. Neuner has been

18    dealing with this witness and is obviously not in the courtroom at the

19    moment.

20            As a starting point, let me perhaps just briefly offer the Trial

21    Chamber a proffer of what Mr. Vuckovic will testify about, because I

22    believe that that sets forth relevant information that Your Honours need

23    with respect to this issue.

24            This witness worked in the Security Administration and was the

25    person who was in charge of compiling the security bulletins.  We've seen

 1    a small number of those documents here in court.  This witness received

 2    information reports from subordinate units, including the corps, the

 3    various corps, took those information reports, analysed and compiled them,

 4    and created the security bulletins.  He is, in effect, the author of a

 5    large number of these security bulletins which are on the Prosecution

 6    exhibit list.

 7            However, this witness is not in a position to testify about the

 8    underlying events described in those documents.  He is, in effect, the

 9    compiler of the information that he receives.  He compiled the

10    information, he did some analytical work, he reduced the scope of some of

11    those incoming reports, perhaps, and created the bulletins.  He's not

12    going to be in a position, my understanding is, at least from speak to go

13    Mr. Neuner.

14            My understanding is that the witness will not be in a position to

15    comment about the accuracy of the information he received, about the

16    sources of the information that he received, et cetera.  He is, in effect,

17    similar to a witness who would be an archivist, for example.  Someone who

18    would say, "I created these bulletins," or, "Information came in to me, I

19    compiled the information, I forwarded it along."  He's not going to be in

20    a position where he's going to have independent knowledge about each and

21    every thing that was written in those security bulletins.

22            So, in effect, the purpose of what he's going to be testifying

23    about is simply how the bulletins were created and what he did with them.

24    That is the limit of his testimony with respect to the bulletins.

25            The more over-arching point, however, which goes to the issue of

 1    the Defence challenge to the use of Rule 92 ter, let me briefly state, I'm

 2    not sure that the Defence has standing to even raise that issue.  The

 3    Defence should not be in a position to tell the Prosecution how to lead

 4    its case.  We have chosen to use the 92 ter procedure for a number of

 5    witnesses.  Those witnesses have been identified to the Defence, and it is

 6    certainly well within the Prosecution duties and responsibilities to put

 7    the evidence before the Trial Chamber that the Trial Chamber needs in

 8    order to reach the ultimate decisions on this case.  The means and methods

 9    by which we do that, as long as they conform to the Rules and the Statute,

10    is a matter for the Prosecution.

11            Let me indicate that in this type of situation, the obvious remedy

12    would be if the Defence requires additional time for cross-examination, so

13    be it.  It's very clear, given the timing, that it's extremely unlikely

14    that Mr. Vuckovic would commence cross-examination today under any

15    circumstance; and if the Defence certainly needed more time to prepare

16    him, obviously we're not sitting tomorrow, and they'll have adequate time

17    between today and Wednesday afternoon, when we sit, to prepare for

18    cross-examination.

19            All of the bulletins and special information reports that have

20    been referred to by my learned colleague, Mr. Robson, were on the

21    Prosecution exhibit list. It's not like these documents simply appeared

22    Saturday at 7.00 in the evening.  They were all on the exhibit list.

23    They've all been disclosed.  What we have simply done is updated the

24    exhibit list with adequate notice to the Defence.

25            I will tell the Trial Chamber, with respect to some of the time

 1    issues Mr. Robson raised, Mr. Neuner met with this witness for several

 2    hours on Friday afternoon.  He met with the witness for more than ten

 3    hours on Saturday.  All of these bulletins were gone through by the

 4    witness.  The new 30-page statement, that Mr. Robson refers to, we

 5    produced and disclosed to the Defence and the Chamber's legal officers, a

 6    redline version, so the Defence could see exactly what was deleted, what

 7    was added, and what was changed.  More than ten of those 30 pages are

 8    simply a table that describes all of the bulletins that the witness was

 9    shown.

10            My understanding, from speaking to Mr. Neuner, is that in a

11    conversation with Mrs. Vidovic, it was decided that the descriptions,

12    which Mr. Robson has indicated contain some erroneous information, those

13    descriptions are being removed from the final version of the statement.

14    The witness, this morning or today, is meeting -- actually, as I speak, is

15    meeting with Mr. Neuner, going through the Bosnian language version of the

16    statement which was translated and disclosed late last evening, in order

17    to sign the Bosnian language version of the statement without the

18    erroneous descriptions in the accompanying table.

19            We are doing everything we possibly can to comply with the Rules

20    and to comply with the time limits that the Trial Chamber has imposed upon

21    the Prosecution, and this procedure that we have proposed with respect to

22    this witness and perhaps other witnesses certainly complies with the Rules

23    and, in our respectful view, is a matter for the Prosecution in terms of

24    how we present our case.

25                          [Trial Chamber confers]

 1            MR. ROBSON:  Your Honours, perhaps if I could just respond to two

 2    points raised by my learned friend.

 3            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.

 4            MR. ROBSON:  Mr. Mundis has suggested that the proper remedy for

 5    this situation is to allow more time for Defence to cross-examine the

 6    witness.  With respect, Your Honours, that would not solve the situation.

 7    The problem is that it's the late disclosure of this material, and the

 8    real issue is the Defence has not had proper time to prepare and take

 9    instructions, and that is something that will not be remedied by giving

10    Defence additional time to cross-examine this witness.

11            The second point I would say, Your Honour, is that it's been

12    suggested that the Defence may not have standing to make this objection.

13    I'd refer the Trial Chamber back to a discussion that took place several

14    weeks ago when the idea of using Rule 92 ter witnesses was first brought

15    up, and the Defence on that occasion said that we would, in each instance,

16    reserve the right to object if we thought it appropriate.  If the Defence

17    sees a situation where the Prosecution are not conforming with the spirit

18    of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the rights of the accused and

19    the Statutes are jeopardised, we will object each and every time.

20            Finally, Your Honours, just to say that there are more witnesses

21    to come.  There are more witnesses the Prosecution are proposing to call

22    under Rule 92 ter, important witnesses.  We don't have the exhibit lists

23    for those witnesses, and we are certainly bringing this problem to the

24    Trial Chamber's attention because we don't want this issue to arise each

25    and every time there's an important Rule 92 ter witness.

 1            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Robson.

 2                          [Trial Chamber confers]

 3            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Mundis, two questions I would like to raise

 4    with you.

 5            In your address, you said you gave adequate notice to the Defence,

 6    and what do you mean by "adequate notice"?

 7            MR. MUNDIS:  In terms of the exhibits to be shown to the witness,

 8    that was done on Friday, and I believe that that complies with the Trial

 9    Chamber guidelines with respect to two days of notice with respect to the

10    exhibits.  That's what I was referring to, Your Honour.

11            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.  Tell me, the exhibits that you show two days

12    before you come to court, are they not the exhibits that are listed in the

13    65 ter list of which you gave long-time notice?

14            MR. MUNDIS:  Absolutely, Your Honour.  I mentioned that earlier,

15    that certainly all of the documents we're talking about are on the exhibit

16    list, which was filed more than a year ago.  All of these documents were

17    disclosed to the Defence a year ago, more than a year ago.  What we're

18    simply talking about are the documents to be shown to this witness, and

19    the Defence was put on notice about those documents on Friday.

20            And as I've indicated, it's unlikely that the cross-examination

21    will begin today, anyway, so the Defence will certainly have until

22    Wednesday at 2.15 to review that material with respect to the specifics of

23    this witness.

24            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  My second question to you is:  What are

25    these information reports intended to show, so many of them?  If this

 1    witness has got no personal knowledge of the contents and he's just giving

 2    us an explanation of how he compiled these documents, why can't that be

 3    shown, demonstrated with one copy?

 4            MR. MUNDIS:  Well, it could be, Your Honour, and that's precisely

 5    why Mr. Neuner and the Prosecution team have proposed doing this in a

 6    summary fashion; in other words, we're not proposing to sit down with this

 7    witness and have him flip through a large binder, which is what we're

 8    talking about, and indicate that each and every one of those documents was

 9    created by him.  He's done that in the statement.  The written statement

10    refers to each and every one of these bulletins.

11            He will then, perhaps, be asked to explain how they were created,

12    how he compiled them, and verify that, in fact, all of those documents

13    were created in the manner in which he has said that they were.  The

14    contents, certainly, is a question of weight that the Chamber may give to

15    those documents in the future.

16            JUDGE MOLOTO:  I think we are at cross-purposes.  My question

17    was:  If he is to tell us how he compiled these documents, why can't the

18    Prosecution tender one copy of those documents, of those reports, instead

19    of tendering a whole either 94, 117, 187 of them in summary form, because

20    he is not speaking to the contents of these documents anyway.

21            MR. MUNDIS:  That is correct.  He is, however, the author of the

22    documents.

23            JUDGE MOLOTO:  I understand that.

24            MR. MUNDIS:  The documents contain information about the El

25    Mujahedin Detachment.  They contain information about incidents involving

 1    that unit.  They contain a wide range of references to the El Mujahedin

 2    Detachment, and that's why each and every one of the documents that have

 3    been selected are important and relevant to this case.  It's not a

 4    question of one of the documents; it's a question of a series of documents

 5    over a period of time where the El Mujahedin Detachment is discussed or

 6    incidents involving that unit are discussed.

 7            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

 8            JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Mundis, can I just put a couple of questions

 9    in extension of what the Presiding Judge has already asked you.

10            First of all, I point to our guidelines, which you referred to

11    yourself, and I think the idea with the guidelines was that the other

12    party should be given two working days' notice before the start of the

13    testimony for that other party to read and study the documents.  Now, it

14    doesn't seem to me that this requirement is fulfilled if you notify the

15    other party Friday evening for the witness to testify Monday morning.

16    That's my first question.

17            My second question relates to your interpretation of Rule 92 ter,

18    and this, mind you, has been the subject of discussions and exchange of

19    views several times during this trial.  I cannot claim that I have any

20    authoritative interpretation of this Rule, but my own understanding of the

21    Rule is that there is and there should be limits as to the number of

22    documents that can be tendered through a 92 ter witness, simply because

23    the purpose of the Rule lies in the possibility of not having to examine

24    in chief the witness but let his statement come in as a replacement of the

25    examination-in-chief, and then some documents may be admitted through that

 1    way.

 2            But to imagine or to claim that the Rule 92 ter procedure would

 3    enable any party to tender as many as 2.000 pieces of paper, I think, is

 4    clearly beyond what was contemplated by Rule 92 ter.  I'm not sure, even

 5    if you look at it from a broader perspective, that it is meaningful to

 6    just load all the evidence you have on the Judges' table, simply because

 7    there are limits even as to what the Judges can digest; and so, therefore,

 8    we would expect each party to carefully select the evidence that includes

 9    material of probative value which is relevant to the indictment.

10            And, so, unless you tell us that all of these extra bulletin

11    reports, each of them, does include material about the activities of the

12    El Mujahid Detachment and the other Mujahedin groups, which is the basis

13    of the indictment, then I would be reluctant to accept all of these extra

14    bulletin reports.

15            MR. MUNDIS:  First of all, Your Honour, let me respond to the

16    guidelines with respect to the working-day issue.  I do accept that, and

17    as I've indicated, this witness is not likely to start cross-examination

18    until Wednesday at any rate, given the amount of time that we've spent on

19    this issue and the fact that Mr. Sehic still has to finish his direct

20    examination and be cross-examined, and then Mr. Neuner would conduct a

21    limited direct examination of Mr. Vuckovic.  I think that's about as far

22    as we're going to go today, at any rate.

23            With respect to the Rule 92 ter procedure and documents, let me,

24    as a general rule, indicate that I believe, with all due respect, Your

25    Honour, that there is going to continue to be a matter of disagreement

 1    about the number of documents we can tender through a 92 ter witness.  The

 2    Prosecution position is that a 92 ter witness is no different than any

 3    other witness with respect to exhibits; and, simply, we -- our position is

 4    that if we need to show a witness five exhibits or ten exhibits or twenty

 5    exhibits, we can do that whether the witness is viva voce or 92 ter.

 6    That's certainly the Prosecution's position.

 7            With respect to what's been indicated as 2.000 documents, that's

 8    not exactly right.  It's perhaps 2.000 pages.

 9            JUDGE HARHOFF:  That's what I said.

10            MR. MUNDIS:  But the fact of the matter is that my team has gone

11    through each and every one of the bulletins and there is, in fact,

12    relevant material in each and every one of the documents that has been

13    selected and which were shown to this witness.  That's not to say that

14    each and every one of the 2.000 pages has relevant material.  I don't

15    believe that's the case.  Some of these are 10- or 15-page bulletins of

16    which perhaps one paragraph or even one sentence might be of relevance and

17    probative value, because the bulletins contain information on all of the

18    corps.

19            So, in terms of Defence time for preparation, they really need to

20    focus their attention on those sections concerning information relating to

21    the 3rd Corps.  Material about the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th Corps are not

22    really of relevance to this case.  So it's -- from within those numerous

23    bulletins, there is certainly relevant material which has probative value

24    contained in each and every one of the documents.  That's precisely why

25    they were selected, and that's exactly why they were put on the exhibit

 1    list in the first place.

 2            JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 3            Now, just in response to your interpretation of the guidelines, I

 4    think that the guidelines do require each of the parties to submit the

 5    lists of documents two working days before the start of the testimony, and

 6    this goes regardless of how many days it may then last until the other

 7    party gets a bite, comes to the point of cross-examining.  So I think your

 8    interpretation of the guidelines is not completely in line with the spirit

 9    in the guidelines.

10            As to your second question -- or second answer about the correct

11    understanding of what Rule 92 ter allows a party to do in terms of

12    admission of documents, I guess we'll have to hand down a ruling on that,

13    so as to specify the way in which this Chamber understands the Rule.

14    Maybe the time has come where the Chamber should hand down such a ruling,

15    but I shall have to confer with my fellow Judges about this issue.

16            In any case, if you have been able to identify, out of those many

17    bulletins reports, a few places in each where you have relevant evidence

18    about the El Mujahid Detachment and the Mujahedin groups, I think it would

19    fall upon your shoulders, then, to direct the Chamber's and the Defence

20    Counsels' attention directly to these, which will perhaps enable us to

21    have a better look, rather than having to read all the 2.000 pages and

22    find for ourselves the few places that you have identified.

23            I would like you, as a courtesy to the Bench, to continue to do so

24    also in the future, not only to notify the Defence of which paragraphs or

25    sentences that you are referring to, but also to do so to the Bench,

 1    because we are, in the end, the recipients of your evidence.

 2            MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 3            With respect to -- let me start, then, in order to correct the

 4    two-day rule, the Prosecution will not call Mr. Vuckovic today.  We will

 5    commence his direct examination on Wednesday, which should cure the "two

 6    working day" problem that has arisen with respect to the announcement of

 7    his exhibits.

 8            My colleague, Mr. Neuner, indicates he will be in a position to

 9    indicate precisely which paragraph or sentence or page of each of the

10    bulletins is directly relevant.  I believe that will take him until

11    tomorrow morning in order to do, but we will certainly disclose that in

12    the form of most likely a table, indicating precisely which page,

13    paragraph, or sentence is particularly relevant and probative to these

14    issues, and that will be disclosed as soon as it is available both to the

15    Defence and to the Chamber's legal staff.

16            I believe, as I've indicated, Mr. Neuner tells me that will take

17    him the most of the rest of today and into tonight in order to have that

18    accomplished, and we'll have that disclosed tomorrow morning to the

19    Defence and to the Trial Chamber.

20            I should also just use this opportunity, however, to again

21    telegraph an issue that we have raised on several prior occasions,

22    particularly when this issue comes up, and that goes to the issue of a

23    motion to tender documents from the Bar table.  We are in the position or

24    in the process of compiling such a motion.  I would hope it would be

25    available within the next seven to ten working days.

 1            I will indicate, as a starting point, with respect to this witness

 2    and these bulletins, that in the event the Prosecution is unable to get

 3    these documents into evidence through this witness, who again is the

 4    author of these documents, I am certainly putting the Defence on notice

 5    right now that these bulletins will be among those which we will be

 6    tendering from the Bar table in the future, in the event we're not able to

 7    use this procedure with respect to this witness.

 8            So our position is it's much better for the Defence to have the

 9    author of the documents and be in a position to cross-examine him as to

10    how the material, how the bulletins were created, rather than to have

11    those documents be the form -- be submitted in the form of a motion from

12    the Bar table based upon the witness's testimony as to how they were

13    created.

14            JUDGE HARHOFF:  I'm just waiting for the French translation.

15            Mr. Mundis, I find myself in a conundrum here.  If this witness is

16    unable to testify to the contents of the reports, which I understand he

17    will be, I mean, he will be unable to testify about the correctness of the

18    information included in these reports, then what is the purpose for the

19    Defence to cross-examine him on the contents?

20            As far as I understand, but I may be wrong - and please tell me so

21    if I am - as far as I understood, the only thing this witness can testify

22    to is whether or not that information was passed on to General Delic.  Is

23    that correct?

24            MR. MUNDIS:  Your Honour, at this point, I'm going to defer to

25    Mr. Neuner, who, as I've indicated, has spent more than 12 hours

 1    discussing these documents with the witness and is in a much better

 2    position than I am to inform the Trial Chamber about what the witness can

 3    say with respect to each and every one of the bulletins.

 4            MR. NEUNER:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 5            I tried to explain what the witness may do without intending to

 6    testify about the witness's position, but I just try to give an indication

 7    about the witness's position in the system. In essence, what I have

 8    learned the last days spending with the witness is that he is, as part of

 9    the Security Administration of the General Staff, subordinated to

10    Mr. Jasarevic, the head of that Security Administration.

11            Incoming documents, for example, relevant to this trial coming

12    from the 3rd Corps were then, as the witness told me, divided by

13    Mr. Jasarevic to the different sections within the Security

14    Administration, including to his section, the Analysis Department.  He, as

15    head of the Analysis Department, had, so to speak, the first grip on

16    documents from the 3rd Corps, for example, and was within his Analysis

17    Department then assigning the analysis of these documents to certain

18    people working for him.

19            So these people then wrote an analysis about the incoming reports

20    from the 3rd Corps, for example, and later on proposed to him that these

21    portions out of the document are relevant to be included into a bulletin

22    which went to Mr. Delic and other members, such as the president of the

23    Presidency, such as the prime Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence, and

24    so on.  So it was not possible to include information into the bulletin

25    without this witness having it assigned before an analyst, without the

 1    witness getting the proposal from the analyst back, and proving that, so

 2    to speak, the information proposed would go into the bulletin.

 3            So, while the witness may not have had the -- may not have done,

 4    himself, the analysis, he was certainly in-depth involved in the selection

 5    process, in the process of approving that a certain amount of information

 6    went into a bulletin.

 7            I hope this helps to understand the importance of the witness.  He

 8    can, out of this position, probably also make a comment about a certain

 9    portion, if Your Honours or if the Defence wishes to cross-examine him on

10    this.

11                          [Trial Chamber confers]

12            JUDGE MOLOTO:  We're going to take a break and come back.  We will

13    reconvene in a short while.

14            Court adjourned.

15                          --- Recess taken at 9.53 a.m.

16                          --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.

17            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Paragraph 20 of the Guidelines on Admission and

18    Presentation of Evidence and Conduct of Counsel in Court states:  "Barring

19    exceptional circumstances, with the leave of the Trial Chamber, the

20    parties may not tender into evidence lengthy documents such as books where

21    only portions thereof are relevant to the evidence of the witness through

22    whom the document is tendered; rather, when seeking the admission into

23    evidence of such documents, be it during examination-in-chief,

24    cross-examination, or re-examination, each party is requested to specify

25    which portions of the document it seeks to have admitted.  Each tendering

 1    party is also requested to submit electronic versions of the portions of

 2    the documents sought to be admitted."

 3            The Chamber is of the view that this is an exceptional

 4    circumstance, and the exceptional circumstance is there in the fact that

 5    these documents are intended to be tendered not for the truthfulness of

 6    their content but for proofing a particular pattern.  This witness,

 7    therefore, in the Chamber's understanding of the purpose for which he is

 8    being called, cannot be cross-examined on the content, but can be

 9    cross-examined on what he did with the documents.

10            It does not seem to be extremely necessary, therefore, to know

11    exactly what is in the documents themselves; and even if we do know,

12    that's not what this witness can talk about.  For that reason, the Chamber

13    feels that the documents may and can and should be admitted through the 92

14    ter procedure.

15            Judge Harhoff wants to say something.

16            JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, Mr. President.

17            I was having difficulties with the Prosecution's interpretation of

18    Rule 92 ter, and so I used the break to study the history of that

19    particular provision in our Rules.  I want to, for the record, say that my

20    understanding was perhaps not quite correct, because I have been able to

21    ascertain that when Rule 92 ter was introduced about a year ago, there was

22    no understanding of any formal limit as to the number of documents that

23    could be admitted through this procedure.

24            Still, I do have difficulties with the way in which crucial

25    evidence is admitted through the application of Rule 92 ter.  This goes to

 1    the number of the documents; although, I realise that there is no formal

 2    limit to the number of documents in the history of Rule 92 ter.  It also

 3    goes to the nature of the witness, and it goes to the directness of the

 4    evidence that is being introduced, because I would have preferred,

 5    somehow, if the evidence that is contained in these reports could be

 6    introduced in a more direct manner.

 7            The reason I go along with the decision, and I do, is that, as the

 8    Presiding Judge outlined very clearly in his handing down of the decision,

 9    is that these is, indeed, exceptional circumstances.  The exceptional

10    circumstance, as far as I see it, is that there is no other way in which

11    this evidence could be introduced, because even if we were to use Rule 65

12    ter and have this witness examined as a viva voce witness, we would be

13    facing the same problem; namely, that he could not testify to the

14    truthfulness and the accuracy of the information included in these

15    reports.

16            So we would not be helped by using any other procedure.  For that

17    reason, I will go along with the decision that we will admit these

18    documents by way of Rule 92 ter; but, as the Presiding Judge also said, of

19    course, in the end, we will only look at the paragraphs that will be

20    identified by the Prosecution.  So it's an admission with a caveat.

21            Thank you.

22            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Judge.

23            Just to make a formal rendering, then, the objection is overruled.

24    The Prosecution is allowed to tender the documents through 92 ter,

25    provided, of course, that they follow paragraph 20 of the guidelines; that

 1    is, identifying the specific parts that they want shown.

 2            Thank you very much.

 3            Can we call the witness now.

 4            Yes, Mr. Mundis.

 5            MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6            Just to take advantage of the time while the witness is being

 7    brought in, I mentioned this to my learned colleagues from the Defence,

 8    the Prosecution has now replaced the Krcmar statements with redacted

 9    versions of the statements.  Those original statements were marked for

10    identification as 642, 643, and 644.  The redacted versions have now been

11    substituted for the unredacted versions.  The redacted versions are now in

12    e-court; and, consequently, the Prosecution would move for the admission

13    of 642, 643, and 644, which were previously marked for identification.

14            Thank you.

15                          [The witness entered court]

16            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Any comment from the Defence on that point?

17            MR. ROBSON:  No, Your Honour, that's fine.

18            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Then the specific MFI documents are admitted

19    into evidence, and they are marked as exhibits according to their

20    respective numbers.

21            Thank you very much.

22            Good morning, sir.  Sorry, we didn't --

23            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.

24            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just to explain why we didn't call you at 9.00, we

25    had some housekeeping problems to sort out before we could call you.  I

 1    hope you didn't feel very lonely while you waited.

 2            Let me just remind you that you are still bound by the declaration

 3    that you made at the beginning of your testimony yesterday - I beg your

 4    pardon, it was on Friday - to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing

 5    but the truth.  Okay.

 6            Mr. Mundis.

 7            MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8                          WITNESS:  AHMET SEHIC (Resumed)

 9                          [Witness answered through interpreter]

10                          Examination by Mr. Mundis:  [Continued]

11       Q.   Good morning, Mr. Sehic.

12       A.   Good morning.

13       Q.   When we left off last week, sir, we were talking about what you

14    had observed in Kesten on 11 September 1995 at or about 1330 hours, when

15    you arrived there.  Can you tell the Trial Chamber, sir, the approximate

16    number of prisoners or detained persons that were present in Kesten on

17    that day at that time?

18       A.   Around 50.  I'm not sure, but I would say around 50.

19       Q.   And how many soldiers from your battalion or from your -- yeah,

20    from the 5th Battalion of the 328th Mountain Brigade were present at that

21    time?

22       A.   I said that in the general sector of Kesten village, there were

23    about a hundred soldiers altogether.

24       Q.   And how many soldiers of the 2nd Company of the 5th Battalion were

25    in Kesten, in the village of Kesten, or in the hamlet of Kesten itself, at
 1    that time?

 2       A.   That's what I meant when I said "a hundred."  I meant a hundred

 3    men from the 2nd Company.  That's what I meant.

 4       Q.   But my question, sir, is:  How many of them did you observe in the

 5    village of Kesten when you arrived on the 11th of September, 1995?

 6       A.   At first, I saw a dozen of them in the vicinity of the hall.

 7       Q.   Can you tell the Trial Chamber, sir, what happened to these

 8    prisoners or detained persons shortly after your arrival?

 9       A.   These detained Serb soldiers had been kidnapped by the Arabs and

10    other soldiers of the El Mujahid.  I believe they were all Arabs, but I

11    don't know which unit they belonged to, actually.

12       Q.   What do you mean by "kidnapped," sir?

13       A.   The Arabs took them by force from the army, i.e., from the 2nd

14    Company that had originally captured these soldiers.

15       Q.   Can you describe, sir, the situation by which, as you put it, the

16    Arabs took them by force from the army?

17       A.   I can't give you any details of that event.  When I arrived at

18    Kesten, they had already surrounded them.  A majority were already

19    outside, almost all of them actually, and some 20 Arabs, or maybe even

20    more, had surrounded their group.

21            And as far as I could understand, an Arab who could also speak

22    Bosnian said that those were their captives, but my deputy, Muhamed

23    Omerasevic, tried to explain to him that those were soldiers that had been

24    captured by the 2nd Company.  But since the Arabs outnumbered us, we could

25    not protect them, and the Arabs, very soon after that, took them away.

 1       Q.   Now, Mr. Sehic, when you say "took them away," can you tell the

 2    Trial Chamber whether any of the prisoners or detainees remained in Kesten

 3    after the Arabs took them away?

 4       A.   Two children, two civilians, remained in Kesten.  None of the

 5    soldiers remained.

 6       Q.   Who were these two children, these two civilians, as you put it?

 7    Who were these people?

 8       A.   They were Serbs.

 9       Q.   Do you know approximately how old these children were?

10       A.   Fifteen and 17, or maybe 14 and 17 approximately.

11       Q.   What happened to those two individuals?

12       A.   I took the two children with me and put them in a van.  My deputy

13    was in the van.  He returned to the command post with me.  I drove them in

14    the direction of the command post.  En route, in the village of Marici, I

15    came across a patrol of the military police.  I pulled over and handed the

16    two children over to them, since they were civilians.

17       Q.   Now, let me focus your attention back on the group of persons

18    taken away by the Arabs.  Can you tell the Trial Chamber about that group

19    of persons taken away, in terms of their gender and ages?

20       A.   All the prisoners were male, and the ages ranged between 20 and

21    50, at the most.

22       Q.   Other than these male prisoners, did the Arabs take away anyone

23    else?

24       A.   I don't know.  I didn't see that.

25       Q.   After the Arabs took this group of persons away, did you ever see

 1    that group again?

 2       A.   No.

 3       Q.   Did you, at any point after the Arabs took the group away, see any

 4    of the Arabs who had taken the persons away again?

 5       A.   I'm not sure.  Probably not.

 6       Q.   Can you describe whether you observed anything as you left in the

 7    van with the two persons you've described as children?  Did you pass

 8    through any villages on that occasion?

 9       A.   I passed through the village of Krcevine, where I saw a group of

10    soldiers.  It seemed to me that they may have been those prisoners, but

11    I'm not sure.

12       Q.   Can you describe for the Trial Chamber what you meant by "a group

13    of soldiers" that you observed in the village of Krcevine?

14       A.   As I was passing through the village of Krcevine in my van, I was

15    some 50 metres away from the spot where I saw the group standing with

16    their backs facing me.  I -- the thought occurred to me that they might be

17    those very prisoners, but I am not sure.

18       Q.   After handing over the two, as you've called them, children to the

19    military police in Marici, where did you go?

20       A.   I went to the command post.  I ordered the assistant commander for

21    Moral Guidance to draft a report and to send it to the Moral Guidance

22    organ of the brigade.

23       Q.   Other than this step that you took, sir, what steps, if any, did

24    you take to brief the commander of the 328th Mountain Brigade, Mr. Zilkic,

25    on what you had observed in Kesten?

 1       A.   Yes.  I went to the forward command post of Commander Zilkic right

 2    away and reported to him on all the events at Kesten.  It was a verbal

 3    report.

 4       Q.   And when you say, sir, that you did this "right away," do you

 5    recall the approximate time and date that you orally reported this to

 6    Commander Zilkic?

 7       A.   On the 11th of September, at around 1600 hours, 1600 hours.

 8       Q.   What concerns, if any, did you have at the time the Arabs took

 9    this group of prisoners away?

10       A.   All the orders we received from the superior command contained an

11    item specifying what was to be done with persons captured and with war

12    booty.  The soldiers who did the military part of the task would be

13    rewarded, i.e., certain incentives would be applied.  I explained the

14    details to the commander, i.e., that the soldiers of the 2nd Company took

15    the persons prisoner and that they ought to have been rewarded for it, as

16    had the commanding officers who were there.  However, they took the

17    prisoners away, thus depriving the soldiers of the benefits that were due

18    to them.

19       Q.   Do you recall, Mr. Sehic, whether at that time, on 11 September

20    1995, you had any concerns about the safety or well-being of the persons

21    being taken away by the Arabs?

22       A.   At that point in time, no, not in particular, because the Arabs

23    themselves had had quite a few prisoners.  I thought that they would use

24    the prisoners to exchange them for their own who had been captured or that

25    they would use these prisoners to receive the benefits that were, in fact,

 1    due to the 2nd Company men.  Those were my thoughts at the time.

 2       Q.   What do you mean, sir, by you thought that they might use these

 3    prisoners to receive the benefits that were, in fact, due to the 2nd

 4    Company men?

 5       A.   The benefits were rewards, incentives, citations, that sort of

 6    thing.

 7       Q.   Did you ever come to learn, Mr. Sehic, what happened to the group

 8    of prisoners taken away from Kesten on 11 September 1995 by the Arabs?

 9       A.   Officially, no, never.

10       Q.   What about unofficially?

11       A.   Initially, there were stories to the effect that they had been

12    exchanged.  There were various stories collating, misinformation and

13    disinformation.  It's quite difficult to say what these stories were now,

14    more than 12 years later.

15       Q.   Do you ever recall, sir, whether this group of prisoners was ever

16    discussed at any briefings that you attended within the 328th Mountain

17    Brigade?

18       A.   Perhaps, in the days shortly following that period, to my question

19    as to what was going to happen to the soldiers of the 2nd Company who had

20    done that task, whether they would be rewarded or not, the commander

21    responded that he didn't know what was going to happen because he didn't

22    know whether the prisoners had been exchanged or not, which meant that the

23    commander himself did not have any information, and the same was true for

24    his subordinates.

25            MR. MUNDIS:  I would ask now that the witness be shown Exhibit

 1    646.  That's Exhibit 646.

 2       Q.   Mr. Sehic, do you see the document on the screen in front of you?

 3       A.   Yes.

 4            MR. MUNDIS:  Perhaps if we could go to the original, the second

 5    page of this exhibit.

 6       Q.   Can you tell us, sir, what this document is?

 7       A.   This is a list of captured Serb soldiers, drafted by my assistant

 8    for Security.

 9       Q.   And who was the assistant for Security?

10       A.   Mr. Izet Karahasanovic.

11       Q.   Do you know when Mr. Karahasanovic drafted this document and

12    where?

13       A.   I think it was written on the 11th of September, after 1300 hours,

14    in the village of Kesten.

15       Q.   Now, at the very top line, we see a date and the time.  Do you

16    know who made those markings on this document?

17       A.   The date was written by Mr. Karahasanovic; whereas, I added the

18    time at a later stage.

19       Q.   And when you say, sir, that this is a list of captured Serb

20    soldiers, where were these Serb soldiers captured?

21       A.   Well, I don't know where.  Perhaps they were exchanged.  I don't

22    know.

23       Q.   What happened to the people who were listed on this document?

24       A.   I don't understand.  Can you be more specific about what happened?

25       Q.   Earlier today, sir, you described how the Arabs took a group of

 1    persons away.  Are these the same persons or different persons, or do you

 2    not know the answer to that question?

 3       A.   I think those were the same persons, and I mean the ones on the

 4    list here.

 5            MR. MUNDIS:  Can we go, please, to the first page of the document,

 6    the original.  I should just inform the Chamber that when these were

 7    ERN'd, the documents were ERN'd in the incorrect order, which is why the

 8    pages were like this.

 9       Q.   Sir, again, I ask you if you could carefully look at this document

10    and tell the Trial Chamber whose handwriting appears on this page of the

11    document.

12       A.   The list of Serb soldiers was written by Karahasanovic.  Whatever

13    I added to the text, I underlined.

14       Q.   Sir, that was -- when you made a reference to text that you

15    underlined, that was when you were interviewed by an investigator of the

16    Tribunal; is that correct?

17       A.   Yes.

18            MR. MUNDIS:  I'm going to ask, if the usher could assist, if the

19    witness could be provided with an electronic pen.

20       Q.   I'm going to ask you, sir, to underline any text on this page

21    which you wrote, personally.

22       A.   [Marks]

23       Q.   Now, Mr. Sehic, I'm going to ask you, sir, about this part that

24    you've underlined, which is the part that you, yourself, wrote.  Do you

25    recall when and where you were when you made these handwritten markings on

 1    this document?

 2       A.   I made these additional notes as soon as I learned the

 3    information.  It was at a later stage, not contemporaneously.  I made some

 4    annotations even after the war, in 1997 perhaps.  I'm not sure.

 5       Q.   Can you take us through, sir, the text of what's written after the

 6    name of the person listed next to number 51?  Can you tell us what that

 7    refers to?

 8       A.   "Four, Arabs took away right away," is that what you meant?

 9       Q.   Yes.  Can you tell us what that refers to, "Four were taken away

10    by the Arabs"?

11       A.   At first, Company Commander Sogolj informed me that the Arabs had

12    taken away four prisoners right away; however, they handed these four

13    prisoners to the soldiers of the 2nd Corps to use them as help to pull out

14    seriously-wounded or killed soldiers.  I'm not sure.  Subsequently, I

15    learned that the four Serb soldiers were exchanged, but I'm not sure about

16    that.

17       Q.   Do you know, sir, when and where these four prisoners were handed

18    over to the 2nd Corps?

19       A.   In the general sector of Kesten, on the very day, the 11th of

20    September, at around 1400 or 1500 hours.

21       Q.   Now, sir, the next line, can you read that out and describe what

22    that refers to, please?

23       A.   In the group of prisoners, there were three women, too, who the

24    security officer separated from the men and sent them, together with the

25    courier, to the command post of Marici.

 1            Later on, I came to know that one of the women had been

 2    called "Slobodanka," but this is all second-hand information.

 3       Q.   Do you recall, sir, who told you that one of them was

 4    named "Slobodanka"?

 5       A.   It was probably the assistant for Security or some of the

 6    soldiers.  I'm not sure.

 7       Q.   What about the next line?

 8       A.   "Two soldiers killed."  These were killed Serb soldiers lying on

 9    the roadside in the Kesten area.  I don't know if they are among the

10    persons listed here.  Probably not.

11       Q.   Okay.  Do you know the circumstances under which these two Serb

12    soldiers were killed by the roadside?

13       A.   No, no, neither the time nor the circumstances.  I think that they

14    had been killed probably before the other ones surrendered, since they

15    were lying by the roadside.  I'm not sure.

16       Q.   Did you inquire about what had happened to them from any soldiers

17    of your unit who were present?

18       A.   Yes.

19       Q.   What, if anything, were you told after you made these inquiries?

20       A.   Before the soldiers entered the village of Kesten, they had been

21    killed.  They must have been killed during the fighting.

22       Q.   Can you tell us, sir, what the next line on this document refers

23    to?

24            JUDGE MOLOTO:  May I just interrupt.

25            Had there been fighting in the village of Kesten, sir, at that

 1    time on that day?

 2            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  There was

 3    fighting in the morning.

 4            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 5            You may proceed, sir.

 6            MR. MUNDIS:

 7       Q.   Mr. Sehic, can you look, then, at the next line on this document

 8    and tell us what that's about?

 9       A.   "Two children released."  Those were the two children I drove in a

10    van.  They were civilians.

11       Q.   And what about the next line on the document, sir?

12       A.   This is one of the two who was from Miljevici, and later on we

13    learned that he lived somewhere around Kotorski.

14       Q.   When you say, sir, "this is one of the two," what are you

15    referring to?  What two are you referring to?

16       A.   Two lads, two civilians who were in the van and who were

17    exchanged.

18       Q.   And in the first line of this subcategory, there appears a name.

19    Do you see that name, sir?

20       A.   Yes.

21       Q.   How did you obtain that name?

22       A.   I think that the lad told me what his name was in the van, and

23    that he told me he hailed from Miljevici or Podvolujak.  I'm not sure.  I

24    wrote that earlier on; and after perhaps two or three years, I wrote that

25    he was living in Kotorski.

 1       Q.   Do you know, sir, what Mr. Karahasanovic did with this list after

 2    he compiled it?

 3       A.   I think he submitted it to the security organs of the 328th

 4    Brigade.

 5            MR. MUNDIS:  I would ask now that the witness be shown the

 6    document previously --

 7            JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question regarding this

 8    document.

 9            I would like to know what were the circumstances and what were the

10    reasons for which, after the war, you put those written annotations on

11    this document?

12            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was interested in knowing whether

13    the two children I drove in my van were exchanged or not, and we came to

14    know that they had been exchanged, indeed, and that they were alive.

15            JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So if we were -- if only the

16    children were the main focus of your interest, why were you then also

17    thinking or being preoccupied by other prisoners, after the war of course?

18            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the beginning, as I said, as we

19    came by information, I added it to this document.  Since I did not learn

20    anything new about the others, I didn't make any annotations.

21            JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, but I still don't

22    understand.  That information, you wanted to do what with that

23    information, to make an investigation?  Why did you need this information?

24    I still don't understand.

25            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  I wasn't able to conduct an

 1    investigation.  I was simply wondering about these persons.  Being a human

 2    being, I was interested in knowing what their destiny was, what fate they

 3    suffered.

 4            JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Was it was a personal interest,

 5    or was it for official purposes that you wanted to know this?

 6            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was a personal interest.

 7            JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, sir.

 8            MR. MUNDIS:  Your Honours, the Prosecution would ask that the

 9    marked version of this document be captured and admitted into evidence,

10    please.

11            JUDGE MOLOTO:  I see it's no longer marked on the screen -- I beg

12    your pardon, I'm sorry.  The marked portion of that document is admitted

13    into evidence.  May it please be given an exhibit number.

14            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number 695.

15            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

16            MR. MUNDIS:  I would ask now if the witness could be shown the

17    document previously marked PT2501, PT2501.

18       Q.   Do you see the document on the screen in front of you, sir?

19       A.   Yes.

20       Q.   Can you tell the Trial Chamber what this document is, please?

21       A.   This is a regular daily combat report by the brigade commander to

22    the division commander.

23       Q.   And which brigade commander, sir?

24       A.   328th Mountain Brigade.

25            MR. MUNDIS:  Could we please go to page 3 of the document in

 1    English and page 2 of the document in Bosnian, and if we could focus on

 2    paragraph 4, which is on the bottom in the Bosnian and in the middle of

 3    page 3 in the English.

 4       Q.   Sir, do you see paragraph 4 of this document?

 5       A.   Yes.

 6       Q.   Do you see the second bullet point or the second line under the

 7    number "4"?

 8       A.   Yes.

 9       Q.   Can you take a moment, sir, to read that to yourself, and then

10    I'll ask you some questions about that.

11            Have you read that, Mr. Sehic?

12       A.   Yes.

13       Q.   Can you please comment on what's contained under the second bullet

14    point of paragraph 4 of this document?

15       A.   In his regular combat report to the Division, the commander

16    informs them that in Kesten village, 61 enemy soldiers and three women

17    were captured and that two children were exchanged, i.e., handed over to

18    the military police.

19       Q.   Do you know, sir, how it was that the 328th Mountain Brigade

20    commander had this information?

21       A.   I've already told you that at the forward command post, I reported

22    to him about everything that had transpired in Kesten, and I suppose that

23    after that the commander drafted a written report and forwarded it, that

24    report, to his superiors.

25       Q.   And so, sir, so we're all clear, are you telling us that you were

 1    the source of this information contained in this paragraph?  This was

 2    based on your oral briefing to Commander Zilkic?

 3       A.   I suppose so, probably.

 4            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Robson.

 5            MR. ROBSON:  Your Honour, objection.  I'm wondering how that

 6    witness can give the answer to that question.  If he can, perhaps the

 7    witness can explain why, how he knows that he's the source.

 8            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Robson, I've got a problem with you're

 9    objecting, and then you say, "If he can, he can explain why."  What do you

10    want him to do?  Do you want him stopped from telling, or do you want him

11    explaining how?

12            MR. ROBSON:  Well, Your Honour, from the question asked, I think

13    it should be established whether the witness can -- is in the position to

14    know whether he was the source of this information or whether there could

15    have been other sources.  It was put to him that, "Were you the source of

16    this information?"

17            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, and it was because he had said, "I've already

18    told you that I worked and made a verbal report to my commander."  So he

19    may be a source or one of the sources.

20            MR. ROBSON:  Your Honour, I withdraw the objection.

21            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

22            Yes, Mr. Mundis.

23            MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

24            The Prosecution tenders PT2501 into evidence.

25            JUDGE MOLOTO:  PT2501 is admitted into evidence, and may it --

 1            MR. ROBSON:  Your Honour, if I could just interject, this witness

 2    has been -- it has appeared previously in proceedings.  I understand that

 3    it's either an MFI exhibit or it is an exhibit.  I am just trying to find

 4    out what that is.  I'm told it's Exhibit 480.  It may be that Exhibit 480

 5    pertained to a different PT number, but it's the same document, I'm told.

 6            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  I don't know.  We can find out.

 7            MR. MUNDIS:  My case manager is checking that as well, and perhaps

 8    I'll move on and then we can revisit that in just a moment.

 9            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

10            MR. MUNDIS:

11       Q.   Mr. Sehic, I would now like to turn your attention to earlier

12    events; that is, events in January 1995.

13            Are you familiar, sir, with a location known as "Rudine"?

14       A.   Yes.

15       Q.   Can you tell us where that place is, sir?

16       A.   It is on the defence line of the 5th Battalion, in front of the

17    Paljenik facility or feature.

18       Q.   And, sir, in January 1995, what ARBiH unit, if any, was at this

19    location?

20       A.   The 5th Battalion was on that defence line, and I was its

21    commander.

22       Q.   How long did the 5th Battalion remain on the defence line at

23    Rudine?

24       A.   At Rudine, until January.  In January, five or six firing points

25    were taken over by the El Mujahid unit.

 1            MR. MUNDIS:  I would ask that the witness now be shown the

 2    document PT1942, PT1942.  And while that's coming up, my case manager has

 3    also confirmed that the previous document was, in fact, Exhibit 480 --

 4            JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's an MFI document.

 5            MR. MUNDIS:  -- which was marked as MFI, so we would go ahead and

 6    tender that into evidence, please.

 7            JUDGE MOLOTO:  May the document then be admitted into evidence

 8    and given an exhibit number.

 9            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will remain as Exhibit 480.

10            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

11            Mr. Mundis, if we can go back to the transcript, at page 42, line

12    7, you're asking -- I beg your pardon, line 5, you're asking the

13    question:  "How long did the 5th Battalion remain on the defence line at

14    Rudine?"

15            And the answer is:  "At Rudine, until January.  In January, five

16    or six firing points were taken over by the El Mujahid unit."

17            They had already been there in January, so they only stayed for

18    the month of January.  Is that the answer, sir?

19            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  That defence line

20    was manned by them for some three months or so, from January to April, as

21    far as I can remember.

22            JUDGE MOLOTO:  When you say "manned by them," who?

23            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The soldiers from the El Mujahid

24    unit.

25            JUDGE MOLOTO:  But my question to you is:  Before the soldiers

 1    from the El Mujahedin Detachment came in to man that place, how long had

 2    the 5th Battalion been there?  Because you told us that the 5th Battalion

 3    had been there in January, and the question by the lawyer was:  "How long

 4    had the 5th Battalion remained in Rudine for, before the El Mujahid took

 5    over," if you know?  If you don't know --

 6            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure.

 7            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Sehic.

 8            Mr. Mundis, you may proceed.

 9            MR. MUNDIS:

10       Q.   Mr. Sehic, do you see the document on the screen in front of you?

11       A.   Yes.

12       Q.   Can you tell the Trial Chamber what this document is, please?

13       A.   A regular daily combat report from the 328th to the Division

14    or - I don't know - in any case, to their superior command.

15            MR. MUNDIS:  Could we please go, in the Bosnian version, to the

16    middle half of the document, and could we please go to page 2 in the

17    English version.

18       Q.   Mr. Sehic, do you see, under paragraph 2, the eighth bullet point

19    down?

20       A.   Yes.

21       Q.   This paragraph or this bullet point begins:  "In the zone of

22    responsibility of the 5th Battalion."  I'm referring to that one.  Do you

23    see that, sir?

24       A.   Yes.

25       Q.   Can you tell the Trial Chamber what this refers to?

 1       A.   This is an inspection of the zone of responsibility in front of

 2    the 5th Battalion in the Popovo-Osoje sector -- in the Popovo-Osoje-Rudine

 3    sector, in order to take over these firing points that I just mentioned.

 4       Q.   And can you just tell the Trial Chamber briefly, what is referred

 5    to when you say "firing points"?

 6       A.   On any defence line, there are places where soldiers secure the

 7    line.  Those are the so-called firing points on the defence line.  They

 8    are trenches or dugouts.

 9       Q.   Now, sir, this part of the document makes reference to the Command

10    of the 5th Battalion and officers from the El Mujahid Detachment made this

11    inspection.  Do you recall who from the 5th Battalion was involved in this

12    inspection of the line?

13       A.   Probably somebody from the Command.  I don't remember.  I wasn't

14    there.  I suppose that it was either the deputy, the -- or the assistant

15    for Security and Intelligence, because those people were the most

16    responsible ones for the defence line.

17            MR. MUNDIS:  The Prosecution would ask that this document be

18    admitted into evidence, please.

19            JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

20    please be given an exhibit number.

21            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, Exhibit number 696.

22            MR. MUNDIS:  Can we please show the witness document PT1943,

23    PT1943.

24       Q.   Sir, do you recognise this document?

25       A.   Yes.  These are reports by the brigade commander.

 1       Q.   Can you please focus your attention, sir, on, again, paragraph 2,

 2    the line that begins immediately below the letters "BVG," and this is at

 3    the very bottom of the English.  Do you see what I'm referring to, sir?

 4       A.   Yes.

 5       Q.   Can you tell the Trial Chamber what this refers to?

 6       A.   I suppose this is a report by the brigade commander to his

 7    superior command, stating that the soldiers of the El Mujahid Detachment

 8    had taken over the six firing points in question towards the end of

 9    January 1995.

10            MR. MUNDIS:  The Prosecution moves for this document to be

11    admitted into evidence, Your Honours.

12            JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

13    please be given an exhibit number.

14            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, Exhibit number 697.

15            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

16            MR. MUNDIS:  We'd ask that the witness now be shown PT2032,

17    PT2032.

18       Q.   And while that document is coming up, sir, a few moments ago, in

19    response to a question from the Presiding Judge, you told us that the El

20    Mujahedin unit stayed at that location for a number of months.  Is that

21    correct?

22       A.   As far as I can remember, two or three.

23       Q.   Do you see the document on the screen in front of you, sir?

24       A.   Yes.

25       Q.   Can you tell the Trial Chamber what this document is?

 1            MR. MUNDIS:  Perhaps if we could have the full view on the Bosnian

 2    version.

 3            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is my order for the new

 4    hand-over of the six firing points.  I correct the line of defence in

 5    order to reduce the number of firing points because the El Mujahid unit

 6    had left that line of defence.

 7            MR. MUNDIS:

 8       Q.   Can you focus your attention, sir, on paragraph 3 of the document,

 9    and can you comment on that paragraph, please?

10       A.   This means that on the 14th of April, 1995, the soldiers of the

11    5th Battalion or the 2nd Company of the 1st Battalion were supposed to

12    take the defence line that had previously been manned by the El Mujahedin

13    unit, and that this had to be carried out by 1200 hours.  This means that

14    the El Mujahedin troops had left that part of the line in order to man the

15    line so that the line wouldn't be left unmanned.  The soldiers of the 5th

16    Battalion were supposed to take it again.

17            MR. MUNDIS:  The Prosecution asks that this document be admitted

18    into evidence, please.

19            JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

20    please be given an exhibit number.

21            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, Exhibit number 698.

22            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

23            MR. MUNDIS:  And can the witness now be shown PT2086, please.

24    PT2086.

25       Q.   And while that's coming up:  Sir, on Thursday, as reflected on

 1    pages 5017 and 5018 of the transcript, you made reference to troops -- 30

 2    troops directly involved in the operations Proljece and Farz 1995.  Do you

 3    remember that, sir?

 4       A.   Yes, approximately 30.

 5       Q.   Do you see the document on the screen in front of you, sir?

 6       A.   Yes.

 7       Q.   What is this document?

 8       A.   This is an order to attack from the Command of the 35th Division.

 9       Q.   And to whom is this document addressed?

10       A.   I can't see the addressee of the document.  I -- it was approved

11    by the commander of the 35th Division, and it was the 328th Brigade that

12    issued this order.  It was issued by Commander Zilkic.

13            MR. MUNDIS:  Can we please go to page 2 of this document in

14    Bosnian and page 4 in English.

15       Q.   Do you see, sir, under paragraph 2:  "Our forces," "Nasa Snaga"?

16       A.   Yes.

17       Q.   And the 2nd paragraph or subparagraph under paragraph 2 refers to

18    the 328th Mountain Brigade.  Do you see that, sir?

19       A.   Yes.

20       Q.   And, then, if we go down to the bottom or towards the bottom of

21    that page, we see a series of numbers.   Do you see that?

22       A.   Yes.

23       Q.   Can you comment upon this part of the document, please?

24       A.   This document refers to the assignment of soldiers from the 328th

25    Mountain Brigade, 12 from each of the battalions, and their attachment to

 1    the El Mujahid unit.  They were mostly used to carry the wounded.

 2            MR. MUNDIS:  And, perhaps, in the English version, we could go to

 3    the top of the next page.

 4       Q.   Do you see the reference to your battalion, sir, on this document?

 5       A.   Yes, the 5th Battalion of the 328th Brigade, ten men.

 6       Q.   And what was the purpose, as you've told us this document refers

 7    to the assignment of soldiers from the 328th and their attachment to the

 8    El Mujahid unit, what was the purpose for subordinating soldiers to the El

 9    Mujahid unit?

10       A.   The El Mujahid Detachment did not number a lot of soldiers at the

11    time, so they used our soldiers in order to carry out the wounded.

12            MR. ROBSON:  Your Honour, objection.  The phrase used earlier by

13    the witness was "attachment," and in the last question by the Prosecutor,

14    it was asked:   "What was the purpose for subordinating soldiers to the El

15    Mujahid unit?"  So it was a leading question, suggesting that this was

16    subordination.

17            In our submission, there's a difference between "detachment" -- or

18    there could be a difference between "detachment" and "subordination."

19            JUDGE MOLOTO:  There could be a difference between?

20            MR. ROBSON:  "Detachment" --

21            JUDGE MOLOTO:  "Detachment" or "attachment."

22            MR. ROBSON:  Your Honours, I'm trying to find the exact expression

23    used by the witness.  I believe it was "attachment."

24            JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's right.  Okay.

25            Mr. Mundis, do you follow the drift?

 1            MR. MUNDIS:  I do, but I think it's a distinction without a

 2    difference, but I'll rephrase the question.

 3       Q.   Sir, can you tell the Trial Chamber why men were attached from the

 4    5th Battalion of the 328th Brigade to the El Mujahid unit?

 5       A.   The El Mujahid unit used the soldiers from the 5th Battalion,

 6    i.e., from the 328th Brigade, to carry the fallen and wounded soldiers,

 7    which is exactly what is stated in the document.  Usually, one of the

 8    commanders would go together with our soldiers, which means that those

 9    soldiers were not under the command of the El Mujahid unit.  They were

10    just assigned to them to assist them with some tasks, such as the carrying

11    of the wounded.

12            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Could we go to the previous page, please.  Can we

13    go to the previous page on this document, both.  I want the witness --

14    well, stay on the same page in B/C/S.

15            Sir, I would like to understand something, and you may be able to

16    explain it to us by reading the B/C/S version.  It says here, if you look

17    at the 3rd and 4th Battalions:   "11 fighters, plus 15 carriers of the

18    wounded."  So it seems as if, from the 3rd Battalion, not only are we

19    getting carriers of the wounded, but we are also getting fighters.  Eleven

20    of them are fighters and 15 of them are carriers, so it doesn't look to me

21    as if the battalions were being assigned to the El Mujahid Detachment for

22    purposes of carrying the wounded only, but also for fighting.

23            Am I wrong in that?

24            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the El Mujahid unit did

25    not trust the soldiers that manned the defence line, and it would only

 1    very rarely use them in combat because they did not have enough

 2    experience.  Sometimes they would use them if the conflict was a

 3    smaller-scale one.  They mostly used them to carry their wounded.

 4            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Would this be one of those rare occasions where

 5    they used them also for combat?

 6            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure.

 7            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  You may proceed.

 8            MR. MUNDIS:  Your Honours, the Prosecution moves this document

 9    into evidence, please.

10            JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

11    please be given an exhibit number.

12            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, Exhibit number 699.

13            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

14            MR. MUNDIS:  May the witness now be shown PT2096, PT2096.

15       Q.   Do you see this document, sir?

16       A.   Yes.

17       Q.   Can you tell the Trial Chamber what this document is, please?

18       A.   This is an order by the commander of the 328th Mountain Brigade.

19       Q.   And can we focus your attention, sir, on paragraph 3.

20            MR. MUNDIS:  And for that purpose, we need to go to page 2 in the

21    English.

22       Q.   And, again, sir, in the middle of paragraph 3, again, we see some

23    numbers indicated.  Can you tell the Trial Chamber what this document

24    relates to, in terms of these numbers?

25       A.   Again, this is an order by which ten fighters and 30 carriers of

 1    the wounded are assigned from the 5th Battalion for the execution of a

 2    certain task.

 3            MR. MUNDIS:  We would tender this document into evidence, Your

 4    Honours.

 5            JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

 6    please be given an exhibit number.

 7            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, Exhibit number 700.

 8            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 9            MR. MUNDIS:  I note the time, Mr. President.

10            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

11            Are you saying you it is --

12            MR. MUNDIS:  It would be convenient, Your Honour.  I'm sorry.

13            JUDGE MOLOTO:  I beg your pardon.  I thought you were saying you

14    just noted it, but you were still doing something else.  Thank you very

15    much.

16            We'll take an adjournment and come back at half past 12.00.

17            Court adjourned.

18                          --- Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.

19                          --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.

20            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Mundis.

21            MR. MUNDIS:  Can the witness now be shown PT2103, please. PT2103.

22       Q.   Mr. Sehic, can you tell us what this document is, please?

23       A.   I think this is a report of the brigade commander to the commander

24    of the 35th Division.

25       Q.   Can you please --

 1            MR. MUNDIS:  If we could scroll down in the Bosnian version to the

 2    very bottom of the document, and in the English, if we could go to page 3

 3    in the middle, please.

 4       Q.   Mr. Sehic, do you see the very bottom paragraph of this document?

 5       A.   Yes.

 6       Q.   Can you tell us what that refers to, please?

 7       A.  "Raising the unit's readiness to full combat readiness, with

 8    certain tasks.  Take 12 soldiers out of the reconnaissance unit and 30

 9    helpers to carry the wounded, and leave them in the deployment area of the

10    village of Sehici."

11       Q.   And, sir, can you tell us or tell the Trial Chamber the reference

12    to the 30 carriers for the wounded, what other unit, if any, were these 30

13    carriers for the wounded deployed with?

14       A.   In the vicinity of the 4th Manoeuvre Battalion or other battalions

15    of the 328th Brigade, that's where they were probably deployed.  That's

16    the area of Sehici.  At least this order states that they should be on

17    standby.

18            MR. MUNDIS:  We would ask that this document be admitted into

19    evidence.

20            JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

21    please be given an exhibit number.

22            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, Exhibit number 701.

23            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

24            MR. MUNDIS:  Can the witness now be shown PT2104, please.  PT2104.

25       Q.   Do you recognise this document, sir?

 1       A.   Yes.

 2       Q.   Can you tell us what this document is, please?

 3       A.   This is the implementation of the earlier order of the brigade

 4    commander, whereby these 30 soldiers were detached from their units to

 5    carry out the task of carrying the wounded.  The commanding officers who

 6    were supposed to be in charge of the 30 men were also designated in this

 7    order.

 8            At the point in time when the superior command decides to issue

 9    such an order, they would be subordinated to the El Mujahid unit --

10    resubordinated to the El Mujahid unit.

11       Q.   If you could please focus your attention on paragraph 4.

12            MR. MUNDIS:  And if we could go to the next page in the English

13    translation, please.

14       Q.   Can you tell us what the meaning of paragraph 4 is?

15       A.   This means that together with the El Mujahid unit, they would be

16    assigned to a given task.  Here, this relates to the 30 men assigned to

17    carry the wounded; and, probably, at the certain point in time, they would

18    do precisely that.

19       Q.   And who signed this document, sir?

20       A.   I personally did.

21            MR. MUNDIS:  We would ask that this document be admitted into

22    evidence, Your Honours.

23            JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

24    please be given an exhibit number.

25            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, Exhibit number 702.

 1            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 2            MR. MUNDIS:  Can the witness now be shown PT2124, PT2124.

 3       Q.   Again, Mr. Sehic, I'd ask you if you recognise this document.

 4       A.   Yes.

 5       Q.   Who signed this document?

 6       A.   I did.

 7       Q.   Can you please look at the first paragraph of this document.  Take

 8    a look at that, and I'd like to ask you some questions about that.

 9       A.   Yes.

10       Q.   Can you describe or recall -- if you recall, tell the Trial

11    Chamber what this paragraph relates to, please.

12       A.   Out of every company, ten soldiers were supposed to be assigned to

13    keep the defence lines reached.  That meant the total of 30 men.

14       Q.   Can you comment, sir, upon the phrase "with the El Mujahid unit"

15    at the end of that paragraph?

16       A.   The El Mujahid unit had liberated the Podsjelovo feature in

17    offensive activities; and, as this was a rather large area, they were

18    unable to hold it themselves.  They, therefore, sought assistance from the

19    328th Brigade, or rather, its battalions, who then reassigned some men out

20    of their units to hold the newly-reached lines.

21            MR. MUNDIS:  The Prosecution asks that this document be admitted

22    into evidence, Your Honours.

23            JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

24    please be given an exhibit number.

25            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, Exhibit number 703.

 1            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 2            MR. MUNDIS:  We would ask the witness now be shown PT2130, PT2130,

 3    and if we could please go to about --

 4       Q.   Let me ask you this, sir:  Do you recognise this document?

 5       A.   No.

 6            MR. MUNDIS:  I'll will withdraw this document.  Let's now show the

 7    witness PT2162, PT2162.

 8       Q.   Do you recognise this document, sir?

 9       A.   Yes.  This is my document.

10       Q.   Can you turn your attention, please, to paragraph 2 of this

11    document.  I'd like to ask if you could perhaps elaborate or comment upon

12    paragraph 2 of this order.

13       A.   It was necessary to select ten most highly-skilled servicemen for

14    combat activities from each platoon, probably because they were preparing

15    for certain combat actions.

16       Q.   Do you recall, sir, what combat actions?

17       A.   I believe that they were due to liberate the Podsjelovo feature.

18    I'm not sure.

19            MR. MUNDIS:  The Prosecution tenders this document into evidence,

20    Your Honours.

21            JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

22    please be given an exhibit number.

23            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, Exhibit number 704.

24            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

25            MR. MUNDIS:  We would now ask the witness be shown PT2323, PT2323.

 1       Q.   Do you recognise this document, sir?

 2       A.   Yes.

 3       Q.   Who signed this document?

 4       A.   I signed it.

 5       Q.   Can you please look at paragraph (a) of this document.

 6       A.   Yes.

 7       Q.   Can you comment upon what's being ordered in this document of

 8    yours, sir?

 9       A.   These are soldiers who had been attached to the El Mujahid unit

10    earlier on and were probably about to be attached to them again, in order

11    to carry out certain combat tasks on a given date; that is to say, the

12    26th of July, 1995.

13            MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, sir.

14            The Prosecution tenders this document into evidence, Your Honours.

15            JUDGE HARHOFF:  Excuse me, Mr. Prosecutor.

16            Could we elicit from the witness how the soldiers that were

17    allocated or subordinated to the EMD for these particular actions, how

18    were they taken back to the 2nd Company?

19            MR. MUNDIS:

20       Q.   Mr. Sehic, do you understand the question Judge Harhoff has asked

21    you?

22            JUDGE HARHOFF:  Did you issue a new order to have them assigned

23    back to you each time, or did they just come back automatically after

24    having completed the actions for which they were assigned to the EMD?

25            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They would come back of their own

 1    accord once they completed their assignments.  We did not write orders to

 2    that effect.

 3            JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

 4            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Do you tender it, sir?

 5            MR. MUNDIS:  We do tender it, yes, Your Honour.

 6            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  It is admitted.  May it please be given an

 7    exhibit number.

 8            THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, Exhibit number 705.

 9            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

10            MR. MUNDIS:

11       Q.   Mr. Sehic, I'd like to turn to one final topic to discuss with

12    you, and that concerns training.  Can you tell the Trial Chamber where the

13    5th Battalion of the 328th Mountain Brigade conducted or underwent

14    training in 1995?

15       A.   Training was normally held in the general area of Gostovici, in

16    the hamlet of Sehici, from where most of the soldiers in question hailed.

17       Q.   And when you say, sir, "in the area of Gostovici," can you tell

18    the Trial Chamber in what location or locations this training was held?

19       A.   For the most part, in the fields in the vicinity of the school

20    building or close to the logistics or rear command post of the 5th

21    Battalion.

22       Q.   And who conducted the training which you've referred to in the

23    vicinity of the school?

24       A.   Normally, platoon commanders and some of the senior commanding

25    officers of the El Mujahid unit when it came to religious training.  It
 1    depended on what kind of training it was.

 2       Q.   Can you describe for the Trial Chamber a little bit about this

 3    training which you've referred to by the officers of the El Mujahid unit?

 4       A.   I did not attend their training, and I cannot give you the details

 5    of it.  Generally speaking, the soldiers, as they came back from that

 6    training, would complain about the El Mujahid officers having been hard

 7    upon their heels, asking them to work.  It was mostly religious training,

 8    and some of it was dedicated to them being physically fit, in order to be

 9    able to carry the wounded and pull the dead out of a combat area.

10       Q.   Now, with respect to soldiers of the 5th Battalion of the 328th

11    Mountain Brigade who underwent this training from the El Mujahid unit

12    officers, can you describe for us how that came about, in terms of how

13    people were selected or sent for this training?

14       A.   Platoon commanders or company commanders did the selecting.  I

15    didn't.

16       Q.   How long would this training last?

17       A.   A couple of days, two to three days, depending on how much spare

18    time the soldiers had.  Normally, they didn't have much spare time because

19    they were duty-bound to be on the defence line.  One unit would be manning

20    the defence line, one would be on standby, and a third one would be

21    resting.  So they could not have lasted more than a day or two.

22            MR. MUNDIS:  Thank you, Mr. Sehic.

23            The Prosecution has no further questions at this time, Your

24    Honours.

25            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Mundis.

 1            Mr. Robson.

 2            MR. ROBSON:  If you'll just bear with me a moment, please, Your

 3    Honours.

 4                          Cross-examination by Mr. Robson:

 5       Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Sehic.  I'll be asking you some questions

 6    today on behalf of General Rasim Delic.

 7       A.   Good afternoon.

 8       Q.   Can you confirm, Mr. Sehic, that before joining the ARBiH, you had

 9    little or no military experience?

10       A.   Next to none.

11       Q.   You certainly hadn't served in a position as a commander of an

12    army unit?

13       A.   I hadn't.

14       Q.   And before the war, it's correct to say that you worked as a

15    metalworker?

16       A.   Yes.

17       Q.   Now, you told us that after holding various positions in the

18    ARBiH, it was in March or April of 1995 that you became the commander of

19    the 5th Battalion of the 328th Brigade; is that so?

20       A.   Yes.

21       Q.   And during 1995, your headquarters was in the village of Marici,

22    and you had a rear command post in the village of Borovnica, specifically

23    in the hamlet of Sehici?

24       A.   Yes.

25       Q.   Now, the Prosecution has just shown you a number of documents in

 1    which the El Mujahid unit is mentioned.  It's correct, isn't it, that

 2    during 1995, the El Mujahedin Detachment performed reconnaissance at the

 3    front line where your battalion operated?

 4       A.   Yes.

 5       Q.   And is it correct to say that on a number of occasions, the El

 6    Mujahedin Detachment would pass through your battalion's area of

 7    responsibility without making any announcement?

 8       A.   Well, they mostly never announced that.

 9       Q.   Normally, if one army unit is passing through the area of

10    responsibility of another unit, the commander of that unit would expect to

11    receive some sort of communication about the movement; is that correct?

12       A.   Correct, yes.

13       Q.   And it's right that problems can arise if you have one unit

14    passing through the unit of another without any sort of communication or

15    announcement?

16       A.   Well, yes.  For the most part, there were problems with the El

17    Mujahid unit.

18       Q.   So the El Mujahedin Detachment didn't communicate to you when they

19    were passing through your area of responsibility.  It's right to say that

20    you could do nothing about that?

21       A.   That's correct.

22       Q.   If I can ask you about the appearance of these members of the El

23    Mujahedin Detachment that came into your area of responsibility.

24            Would you agree with me that some of them wore military uniforms;

25    whereas, others wore civilian clothing or non-military clothing?

 1       A.   The El Mujahid passing through my area of responsibility had some

 2    sort of uniform, most of them.  But they did not have any insignia, and we

 3    believed them all to be or to have been members of the El Mujahid unit.

 4       Q.   The Prosecution showed you a document a little earlier about El

 5    Mujahedin -- the El Mujahedin Detachment in your AOR.

 6            MR. ROBSON:  If we could please bring up Exhibit 698, please.

 7       Q.   Now, Mr. Sehic, do you recall being shown this document earlier

 8    today?

 9       A.   Yes.

10       Q.   You were asked about paragraph 3 of the document, which

11    states:  "By 1200 hours on the 14th of April, 1995, take the Rudine

12    defence line which had been taken by the El Mujahedin unit."

13            Now, is it right to say, Mr. Sehic, that the reason you had to

14    issue this order was because earlier that day, the El Mujahedin Detachment

15    had simply got up and left the front line at about 9.00 in the morning?

16       A.   Yes.  In the morning, perhaps even earlier than 9.00, they left

17    the line of their own accord without even letting us know about it.  It

18    was the soldiers who were close to those positions that told us about it,

19    and I then issued an order assigning these men to occupy that line.

20       Q.   So they left the line of their own accord.  Was the result of the

21    El Mujahedin Detachment doing that a danger or risk that the enemy forces

22    would simply be able to come down and take the unmanned line -- front

23    line?

24       A.   Yes.

25       Q.   So you had to act quickly to ensure that the front line was still

 1    kept under the control of the ARBiH?

 2       A.   Yes.  I reported to the brigade commander about that.

 3       Q.   In your statement, the statement that you gave to the Office of

 4    the Prosecution investigator, at paragraph 36, you said that the El

 5    Mujahedin Detachment came into your area of responsibility and did

 6    whatever they wished.  Do you stand by that comment in your statement?

 7       A.   Yes.

 8       Q.   Now, Mr. Sehic, I'd like to turn to the documents that you were

 9    shown concerning the attachment of soldiers from your unit to the El

10    Mujahedin Detachment.

11            Now, earlier on in your evidence, you told us that those men were

12    used to carry the wounded and fallen soldiers.  It's right to say, isn't

13    it, that when the men from your battalion were attached to the El

14    Mujahedin Detachment, you defined the tasks and duties that they had to

15    carry out?

16       A.   Next to a number of soldiers, every -- almost every order also

17    designates a commanding officer who was in charge of men, and their task

18    was only to occupy the defence lines reached and to take care of the

19    wounded.  The orders would be issued by the commanding officers in charge

20    of such groups of men.

21       Q.   So it's correct to say that at no time were those soldiers placed

22    under the command of the El Mujahedin Detachment?

23       A.   Not directly, no.

24       Q.   Could we describe this as being a case of coordination between

25    your unit and the El Mujahedin Detachment?

 1       A.   The battalion level did not have any particular coordination with

 2    the El Mujahid unit; however, we were duty-bound to designate a commanding

 3    officer to accompany every group of men and who was responsible for the

 4    soldiers from the 5th Battalion.

 5       Q.   So perhaps, Mr. Sehic, just to clarify that, we could describe

 6    this more as a case of cooperation between the two units?

 7       A.   Yes, more or less.

 8       Q.   I'd just like to refer to some of the documents that you were

 9    shown.

10            MR. ROBSON:  If we could bring up Exhibit 700, please.  And in

11    this document, it's page 2 of the English version that I'm interested in.

12    Perhaps if we can look at the first page to establish what the document

13    is.

14       Q.   Do you recognise this document from a little earlier, Mr. Sehic?

15       A.   The brigade commander issued this document.

16       Q.   Yes.  I'm interested in point number 3, which you were asked to

17    comment upon by the Prosecutor.

18            If I could just read out what this paragraph states, it says:  "By

19    1200 hours on 24 May 1995, place the units for carrying out the combat

20    tasks on full combat readiness and billet them in barracks or buildings

21    under full combat gear and with numerical strength according to the

22    following disposition."

23            And then we can see, Mr. Sehic, in respect of the five battalions,

24    it gives some instructions about the soldiers of those battalions.

25            Do you accept that?

 1       A.   Yes.

 2       Q.   Now, if we can just look at the first one, by way of example, it

 3    states here:  "1st Mountain Battalion, 12 soldiers for BZ," which I take

 4    to mean "combat tasks," "and 30 bearers for the wounded for the El

 5    Mujahid."

 6            Would you agree with me, Mr. Sehic, that what the brigade

 7    commander is doing in this order is placing 12 soldiers from the 1st

 8    Battalion on combat readiness, and then separately he is instructing 30

 9    soldiers to carry out duties as bearers for the wounded from the El

10    Mujahedin Detachment?

11       A.   I've already stated that soldiers who were assigned for combat

12    activities would take the lines reached.  They were mostly not used for

13    combat.  And as for those who were assigned to bear the wounded, their

14    tasks were quite well defined.

15       Q.   So just to clarify that, what I'm trying to get at, from this

16    order, is that the 12 soldiers from the 1st Mountain Battalion who were

17    tasked for combat readiness, they are not being tasked to cooperate or

18    work alongside the El Mujahedin Detachment, are they?

19       A.   No.  No battalion was given any precise assignment to that effect,

20    i.e., the assignment for the ten men from the battalion.

21       Q.   Okay.  Now, we can see that the date of this document is the 23rd

22    of May, 1995.

23            MR. ROBSON: I'd now like to turn to Exhibit 701, which is dated

24    the 24th of May, 1995 -- I beg your pardon, it should be Exhibit 702.

25       Q.   So, Mr. Sehic, would you agree with me that in the last document

 1    that we just looked at a moment ago, that was the order of the brigade

 2    commander; and what we can see in front of us now, dated the 24th of May,

 3    1995, this is your instructions to your subordinates based on that order?

 4       A.   Yes.

 5       Q.   And, then, it's clear here, in this order at point number 1, that

 6    you are ordering 30 men to be selected to carry the wounded, and that was

 7    in accordance with the order of Commander Zilkic?

 8       A.   Yes, yes.

 9            MR. ROBSON:  Your Honours, we can put this document away.  I'd

10    like to, still on this topic, turn now to Exhibit 703.

11       Q.   Now, while we're waiting for the document to come up:  Mr. Sehic,

12    you told us in your evidence a little earlier on that when men were

13    attached to the El Mujahedin Detachment, they would have their own

14    commander?

15       A.   I believe that every statement that I ever issued indicates the

16    person responsible, sometimes even by name.  It would have been the

17    platoon or company commander.  It would state clearly that that person was

18    responsible for the execution of a certain task.

19       Q.   And just to confirm that point, this is a document that you were

20    shown a little earlier.  This relates to an order for ten soldiers to hold

21    the defence line at Podsjelovo.  Is it right that, at point number 3, we

22    can see here that you were assigned a squad commander to that group of ten

23    men?

24       A.   Yes.

25            MR. ROBSON:  And still on this topic, and the final point, if we

 1    can please look at Exhibit 705.

 2       Q.   Again, Mr. Sehic, this is a document that you were shown by the

 3    Prosecution only a short while ago.  It relates to the attachment of men

 4    to the El Mujahid unit.

 5            It's right, isn't it, at point number B, you are clearly

 6    indicating there who is to be the commander of the men attached to the El

 7    Mujahedin Detachment?

 8       A.   Yes.

 9       Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

10            Now, Mr. Sehic, I'd like to turn to another issue, and that is the

11    issue of other Mujahedin fighters within the area.

12            Would you agree with me that apart from the El Mujahedin

13    Detachment, there were other Mujahedin groups operating in Central Bosnia?

14       A.   Yes.

15       Q.   Do you know the locations of where any of those -- where the

16    Mujahedin groups were based?

17       A.   Some were deployed in the village called "Borovnica," i.e.,

18    Sehici,, where I was born.  Some were born in the village of Imamovici and

19    the surrounding villages.  In any case, they were deployed in the general

20    sector of Zavidovici.

21       Q.   You've mentioned that they were in Imamovici.  Whereabouts is

22    Imamovici in relation to Borovnica, where you were based?

23       A.   To the northeast from Borovnica.

24       Q.   And are you able to say approximately how far away Imamovici is

25    from Borovnica?

 1       A.   About 20 kilometres or so.

 2       Q.   And it's right to say, isn't it, that these groups were in the

 3    Ozren-Vozuca region around the time of the Vozuca action in September

 4    1995?

 5       A.   Yes.

 6       Q.   Are you able to say when the group of Mujahedin arrived,

 7    approximately, in Borovnica?

 8       A.   A somewhat larger group arrived maybe on the 8th or on the 9th

 9    September.

10       Q.   Now, in terms of the appearance of these Mujahedin fighters, could

11    you tell us -- well, is it right to say that they dressed in a similar way

12    to the El Mujahedin Detachment?

13       A.   Yes.

14       Q.   So some of them would wear military uniforms; is that so?

15       A.   Yes.

16       Q.   Would some of them also wear civilian clothing?

17       A.   Yes.

18       Q.   And would you agree with me that if you were to look at members of

19    the Mujahedin based in Borovnica and compare them with a member of the El

20    Mujahedin Detachment, you wouldn't be able to make a distinction between

21    them?  In other words, you wouldn't be able to tell, simply by appearance,

22    which group they belonged to?

23       A.   It would be difficult.  Only some of those stayed in that village

24    and they were referred to by the term "Kurds."  They smoked and they did

25    not look like Arabs.  Some people said they were from Kurdistan, but I'm

 1    not sure.  I can't confirm that.

 2       Q.   Just to clarify that, did you say "Kurds," Mr. Sehic?

 3       A.   Yes.  Rumours had it that there were 20 or more Kurds, and I

 4    personally saw them in the Vozuca sector.  I was really astonished to see

 5    them smoking; whereas, Arabs almost never smoke.  I don't remember ever

 6    having seen anybody from the El Mujahid unit smoking.

 7       Q.   And, again, just to clarify the issue, apart from the Kurds that

 8    were in Borovnica, it's right that there were also Arabs based in that

 9    village who were similar in appearance to members of the El Mujahedin

10    Detachment?

11       A.   Yes.

12       Q.   Okay.  I want to turn to September 1995.  You told us how, on the

13    10th of September, the attack was launched, and how the front lines moved.

14            If I can take you to the 11th of September, you've explained how

15    you received information that a large group of Serb soldiers had

16    surrendered to the 2nd Company of your battalion; is that right?

17       A.   Yes.

18       Q.   You also mentioned that orders had been issued by the 35th

19    Division to the effect that all prisoners of war had to be taken to a

20    collection point so that military police officers could take them over; is

21    that right?

22       A.   Yes.

23       Q.   You've told us that you believe the collection location was in

24    Zavidovici, somewhere near the division command; is that so?

25       A.   Yes.

 1       Q.   Now, you've explained that at a certain point, on the 11th of

 2    September, you yourself travelled to Kesten village, where you spoke to

 3    your deputy, Muhamed Omerasevic.  Do you remember saying that?

 4       A.   Yes.

 5       Q.   Now, were the Arabs, as you have called them, present in the

 6    village when you arrived at Kesten?

 7       A.   Yes.

 8       Q.   So you had the chance to see these Arabs for yourself.  Is it

 9    correct that they had no insignia upon them to identify them as belonging

10    to a particular group of Mujahedin?

11       A.   They did not have any insignia.

12       Q.   So would you agree with me that these Arabs that you saw there

13    that day could have been members of any of the Mujahedin groups present in

14    the Vozuca region at that time?

15       A.   Yes.

16       Q.   Now, your assistant commander for Security, Ismet Karahasanovic,

17    made a list of all Serb detainees.  Had he make the list after you arrived

18    there, or did he make it after your arrival?

19       A.   I believe that he had already made that list.  I'm not sure that

20    he included everybody on the list, but I should have thought so, yes.

21       Q.   Are you able to confirm that Mr. Karahasanovic had the identity

22    cards and papers of the Serb soldiers with him when he prepared that list?

23       A.   He had some documents.

24       Q.   Do you recall did he take those documents away with him?  Are you

25    able to say?

 1       A.   I believe so.

 2       Q.   In your evidence, you've explained how the Arabs took the

 3    detainees away.  As I understand your evidence, you yourself left Kesten,

 4    accompanied with two young boys.

 5       A.   Yes.

 6       Q.   And you travelled to Krcevine on a route that took you through --

 7    I beg your pardon.  And you travelled to Marici village on a route that

 8    took you through Krcevine; is that right?

 9       A.   Yes.

10       Q.   As you travelled through Krcevine, you saw some men there that you

11    think may have been the detained Serbs, but you're not able to say for

12    sure; am I correct?

13       A.   Yes, yes.

14       Q.   Did you notice if there were Arabs with those men at the time?

15       A.   They were at a distance of some 50 metres or more.  Their backs

16    were turned to me, so I can't be sure, but I would have thought so, yes.

17       Q.   Now, I want to turn our attention to the list that was prepared by

18    Mr. Karahasanovic.

19            MR. ROBSON:  Perhaps if we could bring up the exhibit which shows

20    the underlined portions made by Mr. Sehic, 695.

21       Q.   So, Mr. Sehic, is it correct that Mr. Karahasanovic gave you the

22    list that he prepared in Kesten?

23       A.   No, not in Kesten, no.  Some time later.

24       Q.   Now, you've explained to the Trial Chamber that you added certain

25    phrases to the list prepared by Mr. Karahasanovic.  You've told us that it

 1    was some time after.  Are you able to say when you made these additions to

 2    this list?

 3       A.   I added some things ten or 15 days later, some other things after

 4    three or four months, and the last remarks were added maybe two or three

 5    years after the event.  As I came by certain information, I added things

 6    on.

 7       Q.   So the information was added over a period of time, as long as

 8    maybe even three years after the list was prepared?

 9       A.   Yes, you're right.

10       Q.   Now, I'd like to ask you about what happened after you returned to

11    Marici from Kesten.

12            You told us that you gave a verbal report to your commander, Fuad

13    Zilkic, around 1600 hours?

14       A.   Yes.

15       Q.   You were also asked if you gave -- if there are any more

16    discussions with the 328th Mountain Brigade about what happened in Kesten,

17    and your response - and the reference to the transcript is page 31, line

18    21 - and what you said was:  "In the days following that period, it was

19    discussed as to what was going to happen to the soldiers of the 2nd

20    Company, whether they would be rewarded or not."

21       A.   Yes.

22       Q.   You've explained to us that there were financial incentives in

23    place for members of the ARBiH to capture enemy combatants.  Would I be

24    right -- would I be correct in saying that when you spoke to Commander

25    Zilkic that day, and in the days that followed, your primary concern was
 1    about the financial situation relating to your men?

 2       A.   The soldiers and the officers of the 2nd Company that had carried

 3    out the task wanted explanation from me, whether they would be rewarded or

 4    not.  It was only the money reward.  Sometimes it was recognitions;

 5    sometimes it was commendations.

 6            So the commander of the 2nd Company should have been rewarded in

 7    writing, with a citation or something.  But given the outcome of the whole

 8    situation, nobody was rewarded, nobody was promoted.  There were no

 9    written citations issued or anything.

10       Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

11            MR. ROBSON:  If you'll just bear with me for a moment.

12       Q.   Mr. Sehic, you met with Commander Zilkic that day, the 11th of

13    September.

14            The Prosecution showed you a document in the name of Fuad Zilkic,

15    dated the 13th of September, and you were asked to comment upon that

16    document.  Would you agree with me that Commander Zilkic -- that you can't

17    know what Commander Zilkic did with the information that you gave to him

18    that day, if anything?

19       A.   No.  He was my commander, and I was in no position, nor did I have

20    to know, what he did with that.

21            MR. ROBSON:  Your Honour, I have no further questions.

22            Thank you, Mr. Sehic.

23            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Robson.

24            Mr. Mundis.

25            MR. MUNDIS:  No questions arising.

 1            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Judge.

 2                          Questioned by the Court:

 3            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Sehic, when you got to Kesten and you saw these

 4    Serb soldiers being taken by the Arabs, did you know whether those Arabs

 5    were soldiers or not soldiers?

 6       A.   I didn't know.  I assumed that they were soldiers, but I didn't

 7    expect civilians to be involved in such activities.  That's how I assumed

 8    that they must have been soldiers.

 9            JUDGE MOLOTO:  And did you have any idea what army they might have

10    belonged to?

11       A.   Your Honour, I've already said earlier that it was exceptionally

12    difficult to know which of the Arabs belonged to what units.  We could not

13    communicate with them.  For the most part, they did not communicate either

14    to the troops or to the officers of the army.

15            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now, you said those Arabs outnumbered you.  Do you

16    remember saying that this morning?

17       A.   Yes.

18            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now, there's something that I don't understand,

19    because you indicated that there were about a hundred 5th Battalion

20    soldiers around Kesten on that day.  Am I right?

21       A.   In the general area of Kesten, which included an area as far as

22    five kilometres from the place where these things happened, on the road in

23    the direction of Prokop, the terrain is quite rugged and the line of sight

24    is impaired.  The soldiers were close to that area.

25            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Now, forget about people who were five

 1    kilometres away.  Right in Kesten, in the immediate vicinity of the

 2    capture, are you able to guesstimate how many of the 5th Battalion

 3    soldiers were there?

 4       A.   Around ten, at the most, judging from what I saw.

 5            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  That explains my query.

 6            You also testified, when you were asked questions by the

 7    Prosecutor, that there were always orders that specified what should be

 8    done with captured persons and booty.  Do you remember that?

 9       A.   Yes.

10            JUDGE MOLOTO:  What did the order say should be done with these

11    people and the booty?

12       A.   The captured soldiers were to be treated in a military fashion.

13    As per the Geneva Conventions, they were to be handed over to the military

14    police of the 328th Brigade of the 35th Division, and that's what almost

15    every order contained.

16            JUDGE MOLOTO:  And at the time, you were aware of those

17    instructions in the order?

18       A.   Yes.

19            JUDGE MOLOTO:  And according to your observations, were these

20    captured prisoners being treated according -- being handled according to

21    the Geneva Conventions?

22            You're saying your orders instructed you that they must be given

23    over to the military police of the 328th Brigade.  Was that what was

24    happening at the time?

25       A.   For the most part, yes, and I believed that that group was going

 1    to be handed over to the military police, too.  However, the problem was

 2    that they wanted to take the war booty for themselves.

 3            As for the other prisoners, including the two civilians and the

 4    two children, we always handed them over to the military police.

 5            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now, you were asked earlier a question by Judge

 6    Lattanzi as to what your major interest was at the time, and I think you

 7    had indicated that your major interest was the two children; right?

 8       A.   Yes.

 9            JUDGE MOLOTO:  You're saying and do I understand it is your

10    evidence that you were satisfied that the other prisoners that were taken

11    away were being dealt with okay, and that's why they were not part of your

12    concern?  That they were being treated according to orders, that's your

13    evidence?

14       A.   Yes.

15            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  That clarifies my point.

16            My last question to you is:  You say, when you left Kesten, going

17    to the village of Sehici [sic], past Krcevine, you saw these people who

18    were plus/minus 50 metres away, and you believed that they were the

19    captured soldiers?

20       A.   You mean the village of Marici, not Sehici?

21            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Marici, I beg your pardon, Marici.  You were going

22    to Marici, but you were passing Krcevine?

23       A.   I saw a group I was not sure was of those captured soldiers.  I

24    believe that they were, but I was not sure because they had their backs

25    turned to me.  I did not see their faces.

 1            JUDGE MOLOTO:  You didn't recognise anything about them that you

 2    had seen when you were in Kesten?

 3            It was just a belief.

 4            Okay.  Thank you very much.

 5       A.   It was in passing.

 6            JUDGE MOLOTO:  How strong was that belief?

 7       A.   I don't know.

 8            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 9            Yes, Judge Harhoff has a question.

10            JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

11            Mr. Sehic, I just have one question relating to another

12    observation you made in respect of the prisoners of war, and that relates

13    to the three women that you testified were there also.

14            I thought you said that the security officer had delivered them to

15    the command post in Marici.  Is that correct?

16       A.   Yes.  He separated them from the men and sent them by courier

17    toward the command post in the village of Marici.

18            JUDGE HARHOFF:  So these three women were not taken by the El

19    Mujahid Detachment; is that correct?

20       A.   On the road toward Marici, the El Mujahid vehicle saw the escort

21    accompanying these three women.  They pulled over, and they took the three

22    women away with them.

23            JUDGE HARHOFF:  I see.  So the three women never reached the

24    command post in Marici?

25       A.   No.

 1            JUDGE HARHOFF:  How did you learn this?

 2       A.   The courier who was supposed to take them there came to me as I

 3    returned from the village of Marici, at around 1600 or 1700 hours, or

 4    rather, it was from Kesten that I returned, not from Marici, that the

 5    person who was tasked with escorting them there informed me about it.

 6            JUDGE HARHOFF:  But the three women, I take it, were civilians,

 7    were they not?

 8       A.   I'm not sure.  I don't know.

 9            JUDGE HARHOFF:  Were they taken out of the group of prisoners of

10    war before you arrived to Kesten?  Is that why you did not see it.

11       A.   Yes, yes.  I didn't see them at all.

12            JUDGE HARHOFF:  Did you inquire whether they were civilians?

13       A.   Yes.  I inquired about that.  One of them said that she had worked

14    in the army kitchens.  So she was in the army, and I don't know about the

15    others.

16            JUDGE HARHOFF:  What was your assessment of these three women

17    being taken prisoners of war?  Did you consider that a lawful, a legal

18    action or not?

19       A.   I believed that they, too, would be exchanged.  Later on, we

20    received some information indicating that they had been exchanged, indeed,

21    but I don't know.

22            JUDGE HARHOFF:  Well, sir, for them to be exchanged as prisoners

23    of war, they would have had to be taken legitimately as prisoners,

24    themselves.  You can't take --

25            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 1            JUDGE HARHOFF:  Obviously, you cannot take civilians and use them

 2    as devices to exchange.

 3            So if you were not sure that they were civilians or lawful

 4    combatants, I would have thought that you would have inquired about this

 5    and made sure that they were, indeed, combatants and not civilians,

 6    because if they had been civilians, they would have been unlawfully

 7    detained.

 8       A.   The soldier who talked to them said that one of them admitted to

 9    having been in the Army of Republika Srpska; whereas, the other two did

10    not admit that, although he believed that, indeed, all three were members

11    of the army.

12            I have to tell you again that I didn't see them at all. We

13    expected that they would be handed over to the military police and that

14    the military police would talk to them, or rather, that the security

15    organs would act in keeping with the order.

16            JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you very much, sir.

17            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Any questions arising, Mr. Mundis?

18            MR. MUNDIS:  No, thank you.

19            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Robson?

20            MR. ROBSON:  No, Your Honour.

21            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Robson.

22            Sir, Mr. Sehic, that brings us to the conclusion of your

23    testimony.  Thank you very much for taking your time to come and testify

24    at the Tribunal.  You are now excused.  You may stand down, and please

25    travel well back home.

 1            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 2            JUDGE MOLOTO:  You may stand down, sir.

 3                          [The witness withdrew]

 4            JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  That brings us to the conclusion of the

 5    proceedings for the day.  We will postpone to Wednesday, the 7th, at

 6    quarter past 2.00, Courtroom II.

 7            Court adjourned.

 8                          --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.,

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

10                          November, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.