Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 21168

1 Wednesday, 12 March 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number

8 IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus Stanislav Galic.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 Good morning to all of you as well.

11 Mr. Mundis, I think the last thing you asked yesterday, how much

12 time there would still be available. It would be 45 minutes.

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


15 [Witness answered through interpreter]

16 Cross-examined by Mr. Mundis: [Continued]

17 Q. Witness, yesterday you told us that you do not recall precisely

18 when you reviewed the transcript of the intercept or listened to the tape

19 but that it was prior to reading the transcript of Major Indic's interview

20 with the Prosecution; is that correct?

21 A. No, I said afterwards.

22 Q. Witness, the Prosecution disclosed the tape to the Defence in

23 October 2001, and the Serbo-Croatian transcript in December 2001. Your

24 report was filed in November 2002, so it would follow that you reviewed

25 the transcript and listened to the tape sometime between December 2001 and

Page 21169

1 November 2002. Do you accept that?

2 A. Well, I can only guess now. I can only try to read from the cards

3 like a gypsy. But I said I really don't know when it was. I feel

4 embarrassed having to tell you that I don't know when it was, but this is

5 the fifth time I've told you that.

6 Q. Witness, would you agree that if this tape and transcript are

7 authentic that this material contained in the tape and transcript are

8 significant to the issues in this trial?

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, objection.


11 MR. MUNDIS: Could I ask this be done in the absence of the

12 witness, please.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the witness please be escorted out of the

14 courtroom.

15 [The witness stands down]

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that

17 sleeping on matters is beneficial sometimes, but apparently not always

18 because yesterday the witness said that he couldn't check either the

19 authenticity of the tape or of the transcript. He said that it wasn't

20 part of his competence. He said that he couldn't check it.

21 It's obvious that the witness is not in a position to comment on

22 the authentic nature of an audiotape. We contested it ourselves. But how

23 can such a witness confirm the authentic character of something which he

24 knows by hearsay alone? And such a question, this type of question,

25 is -- the purpose of this question is to embarrass the witness, to put him

Page 21170

1 in a difficult situation, nothing else. It's obvious that the witness

2 cannot comment on the authentic nature of the tape.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, could you please indicate where it

4 is asked to comment on the authenticity of the tape. This is what you

5 usually call a "question hypothetique," that is assuming something would

6 be the case -- yes.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I agree that

8 the expression itself implies if, if it's authentic. We agree. But

9 nevertheless this witness has already clearly said there was nothing he

10 could say about it. And this is the second part of my objection. If

11 there is nothing he could say about it - I think he already said this

12 yesterday - and we are going back to a subject that has already been

13 addressed. Thank you.

14 JUDGE ORIE: The witness, as far as I understand, Mr. Mundis, is

15 invited to tell us that if this would be an authentic copy, whether it

16 would be of relevance, the witness has been -- or at least says that he

17 reviewed the material. Therefore, I think we could ask questions about

18 it. And if it finally turns out not to be authentic, then of course the

19 Chamber will have to draw consequences. If it turns out to be authentic,

20 then perhaps the consequences might be different. But --

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I would

24 like to add that the Defence also has the impression that when such

25 questions are put in the way that the Prosecution put it, we are outside

Page 21171

1 the framework determined by your Trial Chamber yesterday with regard to

2 the type of questions to be put about such documents because we are

3 addressing the substance of the matter; that is to say, the authenticity

4 or the lack of such authenticity of this cassette. Thank you.

5 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber considers the question not to be -- the

6 witness is not asked about whether these are authentic tapes. The witness

7 is asked on whether, if authentic -- I would say the subject matter of the

8 tape would be relevant.

9 But, Mr. Mundis, you said relevant for the trial. Whereas we,

10 yesterday have seen that there seems to be some confusion as to who

11 decides what's relevant for the trial. But if you would limit that to the

12 subject matter of the report.

13 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, Mr. President. I would rephrase the question.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you'd please do so.

15 Then, Madam Usher, can you please escort the witness into the

16 courtroom.

17 [The witness entered court]


19 Q. Witness, if this tape and transcript are authentic, what is

20 contained in the tape and the transcript would be significant to the

21 issues that you address in your report; isn't that right?

22 A. I said before this Trial Chamber that I wrote my report on the

23 basis of the operative documents of the sides. All the other documents

24 had secondary importance.

25 Q. Witness, you've listed a wide range of material that you relied on

Page 21172

1 in producing your report. My question goes to the tape and transcript of

2 what purports to be an intercept wherein General Mladic is issuing orders

3 regarding shelling of certain areas of Sarajevo. If that tape and

4 transcript are proven to be authentic, that would certainly be an

5 important issue with respect to your report.

6 A. I told you what my attitude towards tapes were. In my opinion,

7 this material doesn't have the probative value of an operative document,

8 so I couldn't assess its importance in that sense and rely on it. I

9 reviewed this, just as I reviewed hundreds of documents. Occasionally I

10 used this as an illustration when it corresponded to the data that I found

11 in operative documents. But tapes or transcripts I didn't use as primary

12 documents, but I did review them and tried to establish to what extent

13 they corresponded to my findings -- to what I found out in operative

14 documents. But with regard to this specific tape, you showed me a part of

15 it, but I'm not familiar with the entire tape. I don't know what you're

16 interested in exactly. I don't know about everything that you're

17 interested in, so I cannot tell you whether this is important for me or

18 not. I don't remember every transcript.

19 Q. Witness, you've told us that you've reviewed the tape and the

20 transcript of the -- what appears to be an intercept of General Mladic.

21 In the intercept, it appears that he is ordering shelling of the city of

22 Sarajevo. You've told us that you primarily looked at operative

23 documents. Are you telling us that if we have an intercept of an oral

24 order by the commander of the VRS that that would not be of significance

25 in preparing your report?

Page 21173












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 21174

1 A. For my report that would have had importance if it concerned the

2 period during which General Galic was the commander. If this was an order

3 issued to General Galic --

4 Q. Witness, let me stop you. You've mentioned the period during

5 which General Galic was the commander. You have read the indictment that

6 the Prosecution prepared against General Galic and you've read the

7 pre-trial brief which the Prosecution filed. Is it not clear from those

8 two documents that the Prosecution has alleged that General Galic in

9 effect assumed command whereby a pre-existing campaign was in existence?

10 Is that not clear from the documents from the Prosecution which you have

11 read?

12 A. That is the Prosecution's claim, but the findings contradict that

13 claim.

14 Q. Witness, the issue is whether or not you would have found the

15 contents of the tape and transcript significant for purposes of your

16 report.

17 A. It's not enough just to hear what is said on a tape. It's

18 necessary to know who said what, when, to whom, in what period of time.

19 It's necessary to know the context. It's necessary to know what was

20 happening in Sarajevo at that time. These are facts on the basis of which

21 this answer should be answered. It's not possible to take this out of

22 context and then comment on this because then --

23 Q. Witness, please.

24 A. -- Then what I -- the information I provide you with would not be

25 reliable.

Page 21175

1 Q. Let me ask you this, witness: This intercept is not referred to

2 anywhere in your report, is it?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Yes, it is referred to in your report or yes, it is not referred

5 to in your report? Is it referred to in the report?

6 A. Your question was formed as a claim. In your report -- this

7 intercept isn't mentioned in your report; is that correct? And I said

8 yes, it's not mentioned in my report.

9 Q. Witness, it would seem that in light of your previous answer with

10 respect to placing the intercept in context and to know what was happening

11 that the proper place to do that would have been in your report.

12 A. It wouldn't. If I were to write the report now after having

13 spoken to you about this matter, I still wouldn't include it in the report

14 because this is something that didn't occur during the term of office of

15 General Galic and that is a period during which war was raging in Sarajevo

16 and all JNA features had been attacked and all Serbian settlements had

17 been fiercely attacked by the Muslim forces. And to take this out of

18 context and not analyse everything else would be imprecise.

19 Q. Witness, there is a wide wealth of material in your report dealing

20 with issues before the indictment period. Why was this tape and

21 transcript not dealt with in a similar manner, in light of the fact that

22 you have discussed at great length a series of events that occurred before

23 General Galic assumed command?

24 A. I discussed the events before General Galic assumed command to

25 show how the forces ended up in the Sarajevo theatre. I wanted to

Page 21176

1 demonstrate the situation to the Trial Chamber, to show that there was a

2 war in Sarajevo and that it wasn't a matter of some wild Serbs having

3 descended from the hills, who started terrorising the civilians. I wanted

4 to show that there was a war, that they engaged in a conflict, and that

5 that conflict had certain consequences. That was the purpose of my work.

6 Q. Witness, let me --

7 A. And I think that you can gain a picture of this from my report.

8 Q. Let me just stop you there, witness. Does it not seem from the

9 transcript or tape of this intercept that what General Mladic was ordering

10 goes to the very issue of terrorising the civilians?

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President.

12 MR. MUNDIS: Again, Mr. President, I'd ask that it be done in the

13 absence of the witness.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May the witness be escorted out of the

15 courtroom.

16 [The witness stands down]

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] First of all, I'm assuming

19 that we are still discussing matters hypothetically. If we assume that

20 this transcript is something real and assuming that the voice we hear is

21 that of General Galic and assuming that there is a certain Vukanovic,

22 assuming all of this, Mr. President --


24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] -- If we assume all this and

25 if we assume that it isn't fabricated, in this attempt we are trying to

Page 21177

1 return to the substance, that is to say, the general quite clearly said

2 that everything depends on the context. Everything depends on the

3 context, and he quite clearly said that he couldn't answer if he's not

4 aware of the context.

5 If he is told that if we don't know in relation to what this order

6 was issued, perhaps there was an ongoing operation, perhaps the barracks

7 were blocked, we know that they were in the month of May - this is one of

8 possible questions - but we can't put to question to him as such if he is

9 not provided with all the contextual elements. This is too microscopic

10 view of the problem and it is then blown up to present a false image of

11 the situation on the ground, of the reality. So this is a distorted form,

12 a distorted version of what should have been done, nothing else.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.

14 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, again, the Prosecution is attempting

15 to adduce this information because it goes to the methodology that this

16 expert used in preparing his report. At no time have we suggested that

17 this witness could authenticate anything, nor have we -- I'm not quite

18 sure what the objection is with respect to microscopic view of the

19 problem.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I think the objection mainly is that where the

21 witness has testified that he could not give any comment on the matter

22 unless he would know more details. It is not possible to characterise the

23 subject matter of the conversation without knowing more details.

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from the objection, Mr. Mundis, the Chamber

Page 21178

1 invites you to move on. The issue has been sufficiently dealt with, I

2 would say.

3 MR. MUNDIS: That's fine, Mr. President.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Usher, can you please escort the witness

5 into the courtroom again.

6 [The witness entered court]


8 Q. Witness, I'm now going to return to the issue of the interviews

9 that you personally conducted. You told us on page 6 of your report that

10 you interviewed a number -- a series of outstanding superior officers of

11 the SRK and direct participants in the war at Sarajevo battlefield, and

12 you also spoke with seven UNPROFOR and UN military observers.

13 If you tally up the numbers presented on page 6, it would appear

14 that you interviewed 34 individuals. We have your notes from 11 of those

15 interviews, and you told us that you didn't take notes with respect to the

16 other individuals; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Now, witness, these 34 individuals that you interviewed, how were

19 those -- how was the initial contact with those 34 individuals

20 established? Did you prepare a list of 34 individuals that you wanted to

21 interview? Did the Defence legal team arrange that? How did that come to

22 pass that you interviewed these 34 individuals?

23 A. I conceptualised my methodology of work. Then of course I drafted

24 my own plan of work. Under number 1 came the operative information from

25 the parties. In the second place I put -- I can't explain it to you

Page 21179












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 21180

1 otherwise, except by telling you the sequence in which I proceeded. If

2 you want me to answer, I'll answer. If you don't want me to answer, you

3 can reply yourself.

4 Q. Witness, the question is: How were these 34 individuals selected

5 and how did you make the initial contact with these individuals?

6 A. The persons were chosen by me, and I contacted them through the

7 Defence team. Specifically, I agreed my study trips with Mrs. Pilipovic

8 and I always travelled with her. She had the authority to enable me to

9 speak to these people. Some of these people were in Belgrade, and I

10 occasionally saw them in Belgrade, not only on the site. As far as

11 UNPROFOR members are concerned, those were members of the Russian

12 Battalion and the members of the UNMO from Moscow. I went on one occasion

13 with Mrs. Pilipovic to Moscow and talked to them. And I was primarily

14 interested in the Monitoring Mission, how they gathered information, how

15 they drafted their reports, how they sent them. This part was not quite

16 clear to me, so I wanted to get first-hand information.

17 I was particularly interested in this part, in learning about this

18 part from Mr. Indic. And since this contained very little of that kind of

19 information, I was not particularly interested in that transcript.

20 Q. Let's -- you've classified these individuals according to their

21 positions. Let's start with the two corps commanders. You indicate that

22 you interviewed two corps commanders. It would appear from your notes

23 that one of those was General Djurdjevac, the commander of the JNA 4th

24 Corps. Is that right?

25 A. Yes.

Page 21181

1 Q. Did you interview Dragomir Milosevic?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Where were you when you interviewed Dragomir Milosevic? Where did

4 that interview take place?

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President.

6 MR. MUNDIS: Again, Mr. President, I'd ask that it be done in the

7 absence of the witness.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, on the other hand, we are not going to -- I

9 think you have these little houses where the people turn in and out

10 according to whether the weather is better or worse. We're not going to

11 do this.

12 Could you say in one word - so not argument - but is it relevance?

13 Is it --

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Yes, Your

15 Honour. It's a question that's purely --

16 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking -- is it about relevance that

17 you're -- I mean, what is very often done is that you just indicate in

18 what field the objection should be sought. If there would be needed

19 further argument, then of course we have to ask the witness to leave the

20 courtroom. But sometimes one word is enough. Is it relevance or is

21 it ...?

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's what I said, Your

23 Honour, relevance to the subject.


25 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, again, it goes to methodology and

Page 21182

1 perhaps credibility. I can't elaborate more upon that.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honour.


5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I thought I said in French

6 immediately "objection, relevance," but that's what I said in French from

7 the very beginning.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, it is clear now, so there's no need to

9 reiterate the matter.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE ORIE: At this very moment the relevance is not clear. But

12 if you want to come back to that specific question, we'll perhaps do it

13 after the break and then you can explain. But at this moment, please

14 proceed with another question.


16 Q. Witness, did you interview any other corps commanders?

17 A. No.

18 JUDGE ORIE: To be quite clear, Mr. Mundis, it was about the place

19 of the interview that our ruling was. Yes.

20 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President, for that clarification.

21 Q. With respect to Dragomir Milosevic, when did you interview him?

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Same. And at this stage,

23 Mr. President, I would like to say something in the absence of the

24 witness.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 21183

1 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll ask the witness to leave the courtroom.

2 [The witness stands down]

3 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I'd ask that --

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

5 MR. MUNDIS: I'd ask that this be done in private session,

6 Mr. President.

7 JUDGE ORIE: We'll then turn into private session, unless -- but

8 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if the matter you would like to raise should not be

9 done in private session, then we'll first give an opportunity to the

10 Prosecution to explain the -- what in their view the relevance of the

11 question is, and then we could return in open session and you can make

12 observations as needed.

13 Mr. Mundis.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think, Mr. President, that

15 this should be done in public session. I don't know what the method is

16 that's used. Maybe we go into private session and then we go back into

17 public session. I am at your disposal.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll first turn into private session.

19 It seemed that we were, but now it's not on our screen any more.

20 So -- yes, we are in private session now.

21 [Private session]

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 21184












12 Pages 21184 to 21187 redacted private session














Page 21188

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 [Open session]

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, there was an issue you'd like to

25 raise in open session. You told us before. Or was this the matter you --

Page 21189

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No -- yes, Mr. President. I

2 was trying to say that these questions should be asked in public session.

3 You decided otherwise, but we are at your service. We thought that this

4 should be settled in public session.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could the witness be brought into the

6 courtroom again.

7 Mr. Mundis, oh, you're just waiting for the witness to re-enter

8 the courtroom.

9 [The witness entered court]

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.

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

12 Q. Witness, you told us again on page 6 that you interviewed two

13 chiefs of staff of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. What were the names of

14 those individuals?

15 A. It was Dragan Marcetic and Milosevic.

16 Q. I'm a bit confused, witness. You -- in response to a question

17 about corps commanders, you gave us the name Dragomir Milosevic. It's

18 true he was previously chief of staff of the SRK. Who did you include in

19 the category of the two corps commanders?

20 A. Let me explain one thing, please. I spoke to Mr. Milosevic, both

21 as corps commander, as chief of staff of the corps, and as commander of

22 the 216th, that is, the 1st Romanija Brigade. So you will find him in

23 three places in my interviews.

24 The chief of staff position was occupied by both Dragan Marcetic

25 and Milosevic, and I talked to both of them.

Page 21190

1 Q. So when you list the interviews by their functional titles in your

2 report, some of these individuals would have counted more than once. Is

3 that what you're telling us?

4 A. Yes. I made -- in fact, if I had made a list of persons in an

5 attachment, I would have written that I have spoken to Milosevic in his

6 three capacities, with Sajlovic in two of his capacities, but I didn't

7 think that was necessary and I didn't do it. It is insignificant. I can

8 explain this here if you want to take my word for it. If not, I'm sorry.

9 Q. We have some time constraints, witness. Let me ask you about the

10 seven brigade commanders that you've indicated you interviewed. Who were

11 those brigade commanders and which brigades did they command?

12 A. Let's begin with the 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade. The person

13 is Stojanovic. Then going eastward, according to the operative

14 disposition, the commander of the 1st Romanija Brigade was Lizdek;

15 commander of the same brigade, Milosevic; and commander of the 216th

16 Brigade from Han Pijesak, which came to the Sarajevo theatre in May,

17 commander was Milosevic, and I spoke to him about this aspect of the

18 theatre of war. The commander of the Kosevo Brigade was Mr. Krajisnik.

19 The commander of the Ilijas Brigade --

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I wonder if I can say this

23 here. If by mentioning certain names we are not falling into the same

24 trap as before. I know that the witness himself is doing it, but we

25 should be cautious about this.

Page 21191












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 21192

1 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed. But it's inappropriate to deal with

2 the matter in the presence of the witness, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

3 Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.

4 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you.

5 Q. Witness, when you were interrupted, you were about to give us the

6 name of the commander of the Ilijas Brigade that you interviewed in

7 preparing your report. Can you please continue.

8 A. A young man by the name of Savic. I think Savic is his name. The

9 commander of the Ilidza Brigade, Radojcic, and Sehovac, who was commander

10 of the 2nd Sarajevo Brigade.

11 Q. You also indicate that you interviewed two chiefs of brigade

12 staff. Can you please tell us who these two individuals were and of which

13 brigades they served as chief of staff.

14 A. Chief of staff of the 1st Sarajevo Brigade was Sajlovic, and

15 before that he used to be a commander of one mechanised battalion, whereas

16 commander of the Ilijas Brigade used to be chief of staff of that brigade

17 previously.

18 Q. And when you say the commander of the Ilijas Brigade, would that

19 again be the individual with the name Savic?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. You told us also that you interviewed two security officers. Who

22 were those two individuals?

23 A. That was Lugonja and Bukva.

24 Q. The next category is three battalion commanders. Who were those

25 three individuals and which battalions did they command, please?

Page 21193

1 A. One was the commander of the battalion at Hresa. I don't know his

2 name. One was the commander of the battalion at Grbavica. And the third

3 was the commander of the 2nd Sarajevo Brigade at Vojkovici. I must tell

4 you that I honestly don't remember the names.

5 Q. You then told us that you interviewed some, as you characterised

6 it, fighters. And you mentioned four fighters from Grbavica. Who were

7 these individuals that you interviewed?

8 A. I can't remember the names. I can't remember the names, to tell

9 you the truth. I can't remember the names of the soldiers because I spoke

10 to them very briefly. I just wanted to feel what the atmosphere was like,

11 to see how they felt when the front was 200 metres away or even closer.

12 That's the atmosphere that interested me from the psychological point of

13 view.

14 Q. Witness --

15 A. But I didn't remember them.

16 Q. You indicated that you interviewed three fighters from Nedzarici.

17 What were their names?

18 A. I don't know their names.

19 Q. And you --

20 A. They were fighters at the front line. They used nicknames, you

21 know. They're still afraid of being identified on the basis of their

22 names because the consequences of the war are still present there and

23 they're very reluctant to speak.

24 Q. You indicated that you interviewed two fighters from Dobrinja. Do

25 you remember their names?

Page 21194

1 A. No, I don't remember the names of the fighters.

2 Q. Now, you told us earlier in setting up the interviews that you

3 prepared the list of individuals that you wanted to speak with. Does that

4 include these nine fighters from Grbavica, Nedzarici, and Dobrinja?

5 A. No, I didn't say that I made a list of soldiers, but I decided on

6 the sort of people I wanted to speak to. But I didn't make a list because

7 that didn't depend on me, whether we found these people didn't depend on

8 me.

9 Q. So you prepared a list of the types of people you wanted to speak

10 with, and then the Defence legal team prepared the list of people for you

11 to speak to and made arrangements for you to speak to them; is that right?

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have a

13 problem.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What's the problem, Mr. Piletta-Zanin?

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We have a problem. I want to

16 draw your attention to it now. Page 23, line 6 and 7. It seems that the

17 English booth did not fully reproduce what the witness said, or that the

18 French booth added something, because we don't have the same thing in both

19 transcripts. I know that the French booth mentioned discussions with

20 Mrs. Pilipovic.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We have to check whether the translation of

22 your words is complete and correct, General. In the English translation,

23 your answer to a question reads: "No, I didn't say that I made a list of

24 soldiers, but I decided on the sort of people I wanted to speak to. But I

25 didn't make a list because that didn't depend on me, whether we found

Page 21195

1 these people didn't depend on me." Is there anything extra you said which

2 is -- does not appear in this translation of your answer?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't say anything else.

4 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you then now, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, what

5 appears in the French translation which does not appear --

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I asked for

7 this to be confirmed because I'm only using one set of headphones today,

8 which is not my custom. Mrs. Pilipovic tells me that she heard that the

9 general said that it also depended -- General Radinovic said that this

10 depended also on interviews with Mrs. Pilipovic, because she was the

11 person who could guide her in relation to these contacts. This was

12 translated into French, but apparently it wasn't translated by the English

13 booth. That's all.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Is it correct that you said that it depended on

15 your -- we could check it in the original, but if you could confirm that

16 you said that it depended on your interviews with Ms. Pilipovic. If you

17 said this, please confirm it. If you didn't say it, then it's -- one of

18 the two booths translated different from the other, and we could check the

19 original, but if you could help us out, please do so.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mentioned Mrs. Pilipovic in this

21 context, in the following context: I didn't personally contact these

22 people, but it was through Mrs. Pilipovic, or rather, her team. I don't

23 know whether she arranged for this or someone from her team, but for me

24 the only thing that was important was that I should tell her about what

25 and with whom I wanted to speak, and that is why I mentioned

Page 21196

1 Mrs. Pilipovic in my answer, so all contacts with the people that I spoke

2 to went through Mrs. Pilipovic, or rather, her office, her team, her

3 associates.

4 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear.

5 Mr. Mundis, you were interrupted where you were about to ask a

6 question. Could you please repeat the question, Mr. Mundis.


8 Q. Witness, the question was: You prepared a list of the types of

9 people you wanted to speak with and then the Defence legal team prepared

10 the list of people for you to speak with and made arrangements for you to

11 speak with them. You've --

12 A. No, you haven't understood me correctly. The Defence didn't make

13 a list. I told the Defence that I wanted to speak to commanders -- to

14 brigade commanders, and then I said that I would like to -- when going to

15 certain places, I said that I would like to speak to certain people in

16 those places and I would like contact with certain people in certain

17 places so that we could talk about certain issues that I was interested

18 in. That's how we proceeded. When we went to Sarajevo, I said that I

19 would like to speak to people in Sarajevo on that day, people who were in

20 the SRK, and I had contact with a lot of people in Belgrade and this was

21 through Mrs. Pilipovic, apart from the fact that we used her offices for

22 discussions. Well, I didn't need that kind of intervention. But since

23 she was my host, we did all of these things through her.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis, may I invite you to conclude within a

25 couple of minutes.

Page 21197

1 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, Mr. President.

2 Q. Witness, you told us you interviewed seven UNPROFOR or other UN

3 personnel. Do you remember the names of any of these United Nations

4 personnel?

5 A. I remember the commander of the UNPROFOR Russian Battalion,

6 Vorobev, he was also a witness as far as I know here, and I followed that

7 testimony live. I don't remember the other names because I didn't obtain

8 anything particular in the course of speaking to them.

9 Q. Witness --

10 A. The name was Vorobev.

11 Q. Witness, other than the names that you've given us this morning

12 and of course Mrs. Galic, that you told us yesterday, did you interview

13 anyone else other than the people you mentioned this morning and

14 Mrs. Galic?

15 A. Not in official communications, but in professional terms, yes,

16 perhaps I did, but I can't really remember. But officially, no.

17 Q. Witness, on page 64 of the English translation of your report,

18 footnote 72, there's a reference to a statement of Kojovic given to the

19 Defence. Did you interview anyone by the name of Kojovic and do you know

20 who that person is?

21 A. Not Koljevic, it's Kojovic, Kojovic, the pre-war minister for

22 culture and information in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the director of

23 Sarajevo Television. On a study trip to Banja Luka, I had the pleasure of

24 having dinner with him, and it was a totally informal conversation. It

25 had nothing to do with the report, but I read his statement, and in

Page 21198

1 particular I read his book called "The Bloody Sarajevo Shirt," and it

2 talks about the war in Sarajevo.

3 Q. Witness, I have just a couple of remaining questions. Page 167,

4 footnote 252 of your report you also make reference to information of

5 General Zdravko Tolimir, deputy commander of VRS main staff for

6 intelligence, security affairs. Did you interview General Tolimir?

7 A. No.

8 [Prosecution counsel confer]


10 Q. Thank you, witness.

11 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution has no further questions at this

12 time, Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mundis.

14 Is there any need to re-examine the witness, Ms. Pilipovic?

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. We have a

16 certain number of questions, with your leave.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19 Re-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:

20 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, we'll first of all start with what you

21 said today and then we will examine what you said yesterday in relation to

22 questions put to you by the Prosecution.

23 First of all, good day. I'd like to go back to the numerous

24 questions put to you about the well-known document which is apparently a

25 transcript of a tape on which there is a Serbian general and another

Page 21199

1 Serbian officer, and it apparently concerns the shelling of Sarajevo. My

2 first question is a methodological one: What do you do when you have a

3 document the sources of which have not been identified, not in a

4 sufficiently credible or serious way, a document which doesn't have a date

5 of any kind or any information that would make it possible to establish a

6 date for such a document? And could you answer this question purely in

7 methodological terms.

8 A. Well, as far as the methodology is concerned, this isn't a

9 document that I could accept as a relevant one for my analysis. But as

10 far as the facts contained in that document, this could be a reason for

11 checking in operative documents, checking this in operative documents,

12 checking in sources that I said were relevant. Perhaps something could be

13 found in such operative documents. This could be a reason for further

14 investigations.

15 Q. Thank you. To make sure that we have understood you correctly,

16 the documents that you saw or attached to your expert report and the

17 documents on which you based your report, did you verify the dates, the

18 fact that they had dates, et cetera?

19 A. Yes, I did.

20 Q. Thank you. General, let's imagine that the date of the 12th of

21 May, 1992 was a date that one had to remember. And as I said, let's

22 imagine this. You spoke about the relation to context, the importance of

23 context. Could you tell us what you meant to say when you were

24 interrupted by the Prosecution. What was happening in Sarajevo around the

25 12th of May, 1992? Could you briefly give us certain elements,

Page 21200

1 certain -- could you tell us about certain event, certain facts that you

2 are aware of?

3 A. In mid-May -- well, there was almost no area in Sarajevo where the

4 war wasn't raging. That was a time which more or less overlapped with an

5 operation carried out by the Territorial Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina at

6 the time. It still hadn't become the official Army of BH. It was called

7 the Territorial Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That was the so-called

8 Pofalicki battle, the bottle for Pofalici, as the commander of the

9 Territorial Defence, Hasan Efendic says in his book. They still

10 celebrate this as a great victory, but in fact it was an attack on the

11 Serbian settlement of Pofalici, and over 200 people, mostly civilians,

12 were killed on that occasion. That was the time when Grbavica was

13 attacked frontally. It was under the control of the Army of Republika

14 Srpska. Before that there was a mass attack on Ilidza. Nedzarici was

15 constantly under fire. There was an attack on Rajlovac towards the end of

16 May. Efendic also writes about this in his book. Vogosca was also

17 attacked and many people were killed on that occasion. That was a period

18 during which the war was extremely intense. It was the most intense

19 period of fighting in Sarajevo.

20 Q. General, during this period of time, mid-May - we're talking about

21 this period in relation to this document - in inverted commas, these

22 attack, these military operations you have mentioned, did they include

23 mounting operations, logistics -- on the level of logistics, troops, et

24 cetera, in the centre of Sarajevo, according to your expertise as a

25 professional member of the military?

Page 21201

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.

2 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President. Beyond the scope of

3 cross-examination.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, absolutely not.

5 We wanted to discuss this document at length. The general said it would

6 be necessary to place it in its proper context. I'm just asking whether

7 the context makes it necessary --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.

9 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the purpose of taking that witness to

10 that document related to the methodology and credibility of the witness

11 with respect to a statement he had made. We certainly did not in our view

12 open up the door to a lengthy discussion on the contents of that document.

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.


15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I sat down as a matter of

16 courtesy, but I think that everyone saw that I hadn't concluded. But I

17 should be allowed to finish. I have nothing against genies out of

18 bottles, but I should be allowed to finish.

19 JUDGE ORIE: But let's try to minimise the theatrical part of the

20 debate in this courtroom.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Gladly, Mr. President. To

24 return to more specific matters, was this witness aware in technical terms

25 of the fact that it was necessary to group people in the centre of the

Page 21202

1 city or not. This is the expert who is supposed to tell us whether such

2 attacks took place on the line because one snapped one's fingers or were

3 there serious preparations. This is an expert. He can tell us about

4 this. And if we are told that this is not within the sphere of his

5 competence, this is barely acceptable. It's almost theatrical.

6 JUDGE ORIE: I earlier asked you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, not always to

7 echo my comments on what the parties do. Would you please refrain from

8 that. To a limited extent you'll be allowed to ask the witness questions

9 about the context. To a limited extent because the witness has testified

10 that he could not answer the question of the relevance of the audiotape

11 without looking in more detail to the context. That means that the

12 context to the extent of importance for the witness not being able to

13 answer the question is relevant and arises from cross-examination. The

14 context as a, well, part of the conflict of Sarajevo in general terms does

15 not arise from cross-examination. So one or two questions in this respect

16 so that the witness can explain himself, I'll allow it, and then please

17 move to your next subject.

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. Gladly.

19 Q. One question, witness: Mounting operations, what can you tell us

20 about the principle -- about how such operations were mounted in

21 principle? And I'm not asking about what actually happened.

22 A. Well, this was a period of time during which the inner part of the

23 city, the part of the city mentioned on the tape, operations were mounted

24 from that part of the city in the direction of the Army of Republika

25 Srpska, or the fronts that it held, and also towards Serbian settlements

Page 21203

1 such as Grbavica, Velesici, Nedzarici, Ilidza, Vogosca, et cetera. And

2 the fact that from the very centre of the town, that the army headed out

3 from there and that it was used for basing the army there, because of that

4 it was a legitimate target. So what you could hear on the tape could be

5 legitimate, in spite of the fact that it seems terrible. I'm just

6 discussing this from the point of view of military doctrine.

7 If you have an active enemy, it's quite legitimate to counter

8 attack.

9 Q. Witness, we will now move to certain responses that you provided

10 to questions put to you by the Prosecution yesterday. I'm referring to

11 pages yesterday. On page 5 of the transcript yesterday you spoke about

12 anti-sniper units, but you didn't finish what you were saying. I would

13 appreciate it if you could add something and tell us why there were such

14 anti-sniper units.

15 A. Well, anti-sniper units existed because combat with snipers is the

16 most difficult part of combat. It's the most efficient way -- the most

17 efficient way to eliminate a sniper is to use a sniper, provided that you

18 detect the sniper and provided that the position from which fire is being

19 opened can be reached, is accessible. UNPROFOR insisted and the Serbian

20 side too, they insisted on reaching an anti-sniper agreement and on

21 forming units which would deal with snipers. As far as I know, UNPROFOR

22 also had an anti-sniper unit and on several occasions it eliminated

23 snipers on the Muslim side in Sarajevo.

24 Q. Thank you. You provided certain answers yesterday on page 12 and

25 the pages that followed. You mentioned documents that you were able to

Page 21204

1 consult, and you mentioned the documents you had access to. You mentioned

2 the military archives, and my question is as follows: The BH army

3 archives, were they made accessible to you and were you able to gain

4 access to those documents?

5 A. The archives of the BH army were not open to me, because that's in

6 another state. I'm not a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina and I could

7 not gain access to the archives, but I did examine documents from that

8 side on the basis of the documents that the Prosecution provided to the

9 Defence, and there were quite a lot of documents. Naturally, the ones

10 that I mentioned were missing and that had to do with the civil part of

11 command, so the political strategy and military strategy in the context of

12 political strategy cannot be observed. I think that this is a weakness

13 perhaps in my report.

14 Q. But do you think that the BH archives exist somewhere according to

15 your information? Do you know how they are treated today? Do you know

16 anything about this?

17 A. Well, I think they do exist, because given the documents that I

18 examined here - because as you know, I've been here on two occasions to

19 examine documents that the Prosecution provided to the Defence, documents

20 which have to do with the documents of the BH army 1st Corps - that

21 consisted of many documents and these documents were very well ordered,

22 and I was able to come to the conclusion that these archives had been very

23 well organised and put in good order, and I hope that there will be a time

24 when these archives will be accessible and it will be a great satisfaction

25 to be able to use what these archives -- the documents that these archives

Page 21205

1 have. I mean, it will be a great satisfaction for investigative purposes.

2 Q. On page 18, General, you said that there were no sniper units.

3 I'd like you to provide us with more information and to tell us on what

4 kind of information you -- on the basis of what kind of information you

5 provided such a claim.

6 A. Well, my claim is based on operative documents, above all. Not in

7 a single document of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps did I come across

8 indications that there were special sniper units. Not a single document

9 issued by the commander of the corps, his deputy acting as commander, not

10 a single document mentions a separate sniper unit under the command of the

11 corps commander. Likewise, I personally didn't come across any

12 indications according to which there were special units in brigades under

13 the command of brigade commanders. I'm referring to sniper units. The

14 only indication of a special sniper unit in the brigades of the SRK was

15 found in a document provided by the Prosecution, and it has to do with a

16 sniper section as part of the 1st Ilijas Light Infantry Brigade. And this

17 is something that I heard in the course of the testimony of the

18 Prosecution expert, Mr. Philipps. I examined this document, and I must

19 admit that it raised certain doubts -- I have certain doubts as to its

20 authenticity, but I'm not going to comment on that because this is not my

21 field. This document doesn't have a stamp. So the form of the document

22 is not right. But as this is not my sphere of competence, I'm not going

23 to tell you what my reservations are. But I didn't find any confirmation

24 in any other document that might show that there were sniper units within

25 the SRK. I didn't come across such information in documents, and not a

Page 21206

1 single brigade commander with whom I spoke confirmed that he had a sniper

2 unit. All of them told me that they had snipers. Of course they had

3 snipers in sections, but far fewer than you might expect in terms of the

4 establishment. And they did not have sniper units that they would have

5 used as a manoeuvre force, sniper units they would have issued orders to.

6 Q. General, a few questions about sniper units. Did you ask

7 commanders direct questions about the existence of sniper units in

8 brigades?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And when they replied, how did you perceive this response? Was it

11 doubtful? Was it timid? Was it quite clear? Was it a response that you

12 thought was truthful?

13 A. Well, these answers corresponded fully to my previous view of this

14 situation, my previous knowledge of the establishment of the brigades of

15 the SRK. I know what the formations looked like. When you form an army,

16 you have so-called formation books, and in the formation books they don't

17 mention sniper units as special units within brigades, and this only

18 confirmed what I knew. If I had found something that contradicted this in

19 the documents, I would have taken this into account.

20 Q. Witness, we'll continue this subject after the break.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] But I think it's time to have

22 a break now, Mr. President. Perhaps we should have a break now, if you

23 wish.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, could you indicate how much

25 time you would approximately need.

Page 21207

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have a dozen

2 questions or so. I'm going to try to control the witness's answers to

3 make sure that they are a little shorter.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. 12 questions, 20 minutes would be fair, I would

5 say.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I don't think so. I don't

7 think so.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Try to economise, both in your own words and in the

9 words of the witness, and we'll see where it ends. But certainly not much

10 longer than 20 minutes.

11 Then we'll adjourn until 11.00.

12 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

13 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, I see that you're on your feet.

15 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President. Mr. President, in view of the

16 answers given by the current witness during the morning session, I have an

17 application to make. I'd seek to make it in private session.

18 JUDGE ORIE: We'll turn into private session.

19 [Private session]

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 21208












12 Pages 21208 to 21222 redacted private session














Page 21223

1 [Open session]

2 JUDGE ORIE: And Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness

3 into the courtroom.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] While waiting and to economise

5 time, the document dated the 12th of June, 1993, which is the one that we

6 examined yesterday, I think the Defence number is D259, it could be placed

7 on the ELMO. And I have the same request to make with regard to a

8 document the number of which is D64 [as interpreted]. That is to save

9 time, Mr. President.

10 It hasn't been correctly entered into the transcript because we

11 have 264.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: 264, please. That's the number I gave. Do

13 you have some difficulties -- yes, that's all right now. Thank you.

14 [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't know if Madam Registrar

15 has found the documents, but I could show them to her so that we are sure

16 that we have these documents.

17 [The witness entered court]

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I suggest that we start with

19 document number 259.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Could it please be put on the ELMO so that we are

21 certain that there's no mistake.

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

23 Q. General, to your right you have a document. Is this document

24 dated the 12th of June?

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's it.

Page 21224

1 Q. Yesterday you read out the second paragraph, I think. Do you

2 remember that; yes or no?

3 A. Yes, I do.

4 Q. Thank you. Could you briefly read out the following paragraph,

5 that is to say, paragraph 3 that starts with the word "upozoravam," "I

6 warn." And the fourth paragraph too, could you do that very quickly.

7 A. I can.

8 Q. Please go ahead.

9 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President. It's beyond the scope of

10 the cross-examination.

11 JUDGE ORIE: No. The objection is denied. The -- you limited

12 your questions during cross-examination to one line of this document, and

13 the context -- the Defence should be in a position to create the context.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

15 Q. General, could you read these two paragraphs very rapidly, please.

16 A. "I hereby warn unit commanders that criminal proceedings shall be

17 instituted against irresponsible and wilful officers. All officers and

18 soldiers should be told, should be explained what the consequences of

19 irresponsible and wilful behaviour will be."

20 Q. And then?

21 A. "Saving ammunition is the primary task. We have exhausted supply

22 sources. It is not possible to obtain ammunition."

23 Q. Please continue.

24 A. "Explain to soldiers and officers that they should only open fire

25 when ordered to do so and authorised to do so by their officers and they

Page 21225

1 should only open fire on visible targets and when this is essential.

2 Soldiers and officers who disobey and are irresponsible should be held

3 responsible and they should be reported so that criminal proceedings are

4 instituted against them."

5 Q. General, according to your experience of military documents, does

6 this document have a stamp, et cetera, a signature? Does it appear to you

7 to be an authentic document?

8 A. Yes, this is an authentic document.

9 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President --

10 JUDGE ORIE: The authenticity does not arise from

11 cross-examination, I would take it.

12 MR. MUNDIS: No, Mr. President. And the Prosecution again would

13 like to articulate an objection to this line of questioning on the grounds

14 that the Defence had ample opportunity to go through these documents in

15 their direct examination, they chose not to. These are Defence exhibits,

16 Mr. President.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand, Mr. Mundis. On the other hand,

18 these documents have been introduced in a rather general way, and in the

19 time restraints, that is understandable. Nonetheless, the Prosecution

20 cross-examination sought to have one single line read out of this

21 document, and under these circumstances the Defence is allowed to then

22 have a couple of more lines read out as well.

23 But it would give rise to me for one question for you,

24 specifically in view of the last line you read, General Radinovic. Did

25 you come across any reports or subsequent criminal charges in respect of

Page 21226

1 such incidents? And I'm referring to the last line, where it says that if

2 you violate this order, then soldiers and officers could be prosecuted for

3 that. Did you come across any such prosecutions or reports?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't come across any

5 documents on criminal prosecutions, but I did come across documents in

6 which requests were made to investigate cases and to establish the

7 responsibility of the persons concerned.

8 JUDGE ORIE: And did you come across any reports as a consequence

9 of such investigations ordered? I mean, ordering an investigation usually

10 results in a report of the investigator. Did you come across any report

11 of such investigations?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I came across such reports, and

13 I referred to those reports in my report, reports in which commanders

14 respond to the requests from their superior commands, from the Sarajevo

15 Romanija Corps, with regard to certain incidents. I mentioned them in my

16 report. In most of those reports the questions are answered as to whether

17 they're responsible for opening fire and why fire was opened. On the

18 whole, it is explicitly stated that they were either responding to fire or

19 that they didn't take action from their positions.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So -- yes, I do understand.

21 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

23 Q. Witness, the question I'm going to put to you has to do with

24 document 264. I'm going to ask you whether you remember it. It mentions

25 an order from the army which says that measures should be taken to spare

Page 21227

1 civilians on the other side who remain in Serbian territory. Do you

2 remember this document?

3 A. Yes, I do.

4 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President. Beyond the scope. This

5 document was not put to the witness during the cross-examination.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, it was indirectly,

8 Mr. President. First of all, by us and then there was a question of a

9 general nature put to the witness by the Prosecution. They asked whether

10 he had found the document showing -- establishing the conclusions he

11 reached. The Prosecution asked such questions. They wanted to know which

12 documents he was basing himself in order to reach his conclusions, and my

13 question is to see what the intention was and to see whether certain

14 documents concern this matter. This is with regard to the

15 cross-examination.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is sustained. It does not sufficiently

18 arise out of cross-examination. Please proceed.

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. We'll forget that

20 document and we'll refer to document 259.

21 Q. General, do such orders on the basis of your experience conform to

22 what one should do? I'm talking about document 259. It's still on the

23 screen. Do such orders, in your opinion, conform to what a commander

24 should do if and when such problems arise? And I'm referring to the

25 Geneva Conventions. I'm making a direct reference to the Geneva

Page 21228

1 Conventions or to other conventions.

2 A. Yes. It seems quite appropriate to me.

3 Q. Thank you. If we assume that the signatory of this letter, who

4 is, I think -- the name isn't important, but he's a colonel.

5 A. Dragan Marcetic, the deputy commander of the SRK.

6 Q. From whom did he probably receive these orders? From which level

7 did he receive these orders?

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, this is really -- I just told you

9 to what extent and for what reasons it was allowed that other parts would

10 be read, but you're now entering a totally new area that's -- although,

11 you do it on the basis of this document, but that goes beyond what the

12 Chamber allowed you to do, apart from that it's also speculation. So

13 would you please move to your next subject.

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Gladly.

15 Q. Witness, I'd like to go back to the issue of snipers. You were

16 asked a certain number of questions about snipers, rifles, your personal

17 notes that you showed on the screen, et cetera. My question is: Did you

18 often see or did you rarely see orders, specific orders coming from the

19 corps or from the SRK that concerned opening fire on the line? And I

20 mean -- I'm referring to infantry weapons in particular.

21 A. I have come across documents governing the opening of fire.

22 Restrictions related to the use of opening -- or opening of mortar fire or

23 calibres upward of 7.6 millimetres. In documents there is no mention of

24 imposed restrictions because fire is opened when the situation requires

25 it. That is, when there is fire from the opposite side, fire is returned

Page 21229

1 from the contact line, the separation line. So restrictions are imposed

2 exclusively during truces or cease-fires, when appropriate agreements

3 exist, and it is the obligation of immediately superior officers on the

4 front line to regulate the return of fire when there is fire from the

5 opposite side. That is the obligation of officers on the spot.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to

8 show this witness a document that was examined at length yesterday. It

9 was also produced as D10, but this document includes five points, P10413.

10 THE INTERPRETER: Or P3413, correction.

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This document that was shown

12 yesterday to this witness exists, therefore, in several versions, but we

13 want to take the one we saw yesterday and to save time, to save time I

14 would like to ask this witness from page 3. I would like him to read from

15 page 3.

16 Q. Do you have this document? I think so.

17 So from page 3 -- sorry, page 4. Would the witness kindly read

18 item 2.

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Has this text been placed

20 before the witness?

21 Q. Item 2 of the summary of the conclusions.

22 A. You mean "At the end of the meeting Colonel Galic proposed the

23 following conclusions"?

24 Q. Thank you. Now item 2.

25 A. "To implement the conclusions from the Banja Luka meeting, which

Page 21230

1 conclusions should be delivered to unit commands and municipalities."

2 Q. Now bullet 2, please.

3 A. "To preserve the current positions and to defend them without

4 waging war."

5 Q. General, isn't there a contradiction in terms between the

6 requirement to defend without waging war and what we heard yesterday,

7 namely that the town should be razed to the ground?

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we would like

9 to present 1926 now, and we would like to witness to read it.

10 A. To your question, of course. These two things are diametrically

11 opposite. If you defend your positions peacefully, then you can't at the

12 same time raze the town to the ground.

13 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the Prosecution objects to this

14 document being shown to the witness, again on the grounds that it could

15 have been put to him in direct, it doesn't arise out of cross-examination.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I don't know whether this is a

17 matter that should be discussed in the presence of the witness, but ...

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It would be better for the

19 witness to withdraw.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, I'll ask you to escort the witness out

21 of the courtroom.

22 I'm sorry for you, General Radinovic --

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is something I have to do more

24 often than anything else.

25 [The witness stands down]

Page 21231

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. To be

3 quite honest, it is not quite true. We ourselves spent some time on it.

4 And thank you for this additional hour. We selected our questions

5 carefully.

6 As for the Prosecution, they decided themselves to intervene and

7 to ask questions about the alleged fifth objective of the Serb side.

8 We have here a document which is not a transcript a posteriori,

9 which is a summary of the conclusions of the meeting. It is dated not the

10 14th but the 12th from that notorious meeting. And now considering what

11 is item 5 here, we see clearly that the necessity to raze to the ground

12 the city of Sarajevo is not in question here. We have opposite evidence,

13 evidence to the contrary, namely that Sarajevo was a very important place

14 in the strategic game that was going on. But we would like to show this

15 witness other documents. And if we didn't do it before, it's because that

16 we didn't know that the Prosecution was going to raise this issue. Of

17 course we cannot know in advance everything that may be raised here as an

18 issue.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Did I understand the questions of the Prosecution

20 well that it was not -- whether it was true or not what item 5 said, but

21 whether the expert considered it worth mentioning it, since true or not it

22 is at least a document which casts a different light -- true or not but

23 casts a different light, compared to other documents, on the events and

24 that it was not mainly the issue of exploring whether it was true or not?

25 The expert, when asked about whether he found it useful to mention it

Page 21232

1 didn't say, "No, I did not use that because it is contradicted by another

2 document I reviewed," but -- so would you please give us the questions you

3 would like to put to that witness -- to the expert witness so that we can

4 consider whether this would arise from cross-examination or deals with

5 another subject. Yes.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will take the

7 liberty of specifying certain things, in fact adding to what you said. I

8 have in mind the context because two types of questions were asked of this

9 witness: The first had to do with this item 5 and the purpose of this

10 item 5; and the second that links up with the first is to read out to this

11 witness that General Galic, who was colonel at the time, asked that these

12 five points from the other meeting be accepted, be adopted. Thus the

13 question was formulated in such a way as to infer the possibility that

14 General Galic asked the participants to adopt something which amounted to

15 the strategy of destroying Sarajevo. That is how the questions from the

16 Prosecution were formulated.

17 What we want to show is that the minutes from this notorious

18 meeting do not mention anywhere the destruction of Sarajevo in item 5.

19 There is mention of division but not the intention to raze Sarajevo to the

20 ground. It is a basic distinction that we would like to have the

21 opportunity of making.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the issue of what the facts are

24 and whether the expert should have explained on the basis of this document

25 that it was not correct what the other document says is -- there's a very

Page 21233

1 thin line between dealing with the facts and dealing with the methodology

2 used by the expert witness. And since in my consultations with the other

3 Judges I found that one of the Judges had already in mind to ask some

4 questions about it, I would prefer that these questions first be put to

5 the expert witness.

6 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the

7 courtroom.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.


10 [The witness entered court]

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Who is going -- I don't know

12 for sure that I have followed correctly. Who is going to ask questions?

13 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...

14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. Now I've got your

15 answer.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Nieto-Navia.

17 Yes. General Radinovic, you've just been presented with a

18 document and one of the Judges, Judge Nieto-Navia, has one or more

19 questions to you in relation to that.

20 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President. I am taking

21 advantage of the fact that you have the document there.

22 Yesterday a document was shown to you which supposedly contains

23 the report on a meeting of military commanders and the presidents of

24 municipalities. That document mentions a meeting in Banja Luka where

25 strategic goals were formulated.

Page 21234

1 My first question is: Is that session in Banja Luka the same one

2 that you mentioned in page 50 - I am talking of the English version of

3 your report - item 102 under number "1"? Do you have your report there?

4 Please look at number 102.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

6 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: There you say that "such allegations are not

7 true for several reasons: 1." And you mention a session of the Assembly

8 of the Republika Srpska in Banja Luka. So my question is whether the

9 mention made in the second report, the one that was shown to you

10 yesterday, page 3, according to which some strategic goals were formulated

11 in Banja Luka is the same meeting that you are referring to here.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you mean the session of the 12th

13 of May, 1992, which is the sixteenth session of the Assembly of the

14 Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, then yes. But I was also

15 shown yesterday a document related to the meeting in Mrkonjic Grad, and

16 I'm not sure, maybe you mean that document.

17 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Previous interpretation continues] ... The

18 document that we saw yesterday. I don't have an exhibit number, but it's

19 the one related to a meeting of the --

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] 259, I believe,

21 Mr. President.

22 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: 259. Okay.

23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] 3413.

24 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: This one, yes.

25 These go to page 3. I think that it is the same in both versions.

Page 21235

1 The second full paragraph mentions the strategic goals formulated at a

2 meeting in Banja Luka.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A crucial difference is between the

4 formulation of objective 5 in this document compared to the objective --

5 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: No, no, no. My question is: When you make a

6 reference to the meeting in Banja Luka in your report --

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: -- Is it the same meeting referred to in that

9 document? Do you think so? When we are talking about strategic goals

10 formulated in Banja Luka, is it the same meeting you are referring to in

11 your report in the part that we have looked at a moment ago?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my report I referred to the

13 minutes of the session of the Assembly of Republika Srpska, that is, in

14 item 102 of my report. On the second page of this paragraph 102 I

15 mentioned this document, showing how the objective adopted at the Assembly

16 of Republika Srpska was misrepresented in this document. The objective

17 was rephrased in a very important manner and therefore this document is

18 absolutely useless for this purpose.

19 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: If I understand you well, when you mentioned

20 here the meeting in Banja Luka and the strategic goals of that meeting,

21 you are referring to this document, to the one that you have there. Is

22 that true?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not this one. Not this

24 document. The minutes from the session of the assembly, as published in

25 the Serbian gazette, in an official document.

Page 21236

1 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Let me say something. We have a meeting of

2 the assembly that was held on the 14th May 1992.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not the 14th. The 12th of May,

4 1992 is the date when the assembly session was held.

5 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: That's correct. Then we have another document

6 dated the 14th May 1992, which is supposed to be a meeting between the

7 presidents of municipalities. That's the one that you have there. Okay?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

9 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: In that second meeting, a reference is made to

10 the strategic goals formulated at the meeting in Banja Luka. That

11 reference is made to the document of 12th May?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

13 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Okay. Now we have -- the second issue is that

14 in number 5 of the second document, the one of the 14th of May, it says

15 that it was said that Sarajevo must be either divided or razed to the

16 ground.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what's written.

18 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Then the question is whether that statement

19 was in fact one of the strategic goals formulated in Banja Luka on the

20 12th of May. If you want, you can have a look on the minutes of the

21 session held on 12th May. I don't know which is the page in B/C/S.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 8. It's on page 8.

23 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: In page 14 of the English version, mention is

24 made to the fifth strategic goal.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

Page 21237

1 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: That paragraph, please have a look on that

2 paragraph.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have it before me. Shall I read?

4 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: You have it before you. Can it be summarised

5 as it was summarised at the meeting of the 14th May, that is, it was said

6 that Sarajevo must be either divided or razed to the ground?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in this paragraph. In this

8 paragraph it says that the fifth strategic objective is to divide the city

9 of Sarajevo into the Muslim and Serbian parts and to establish efficient

10 governments in each of these parts of town with elements of constituent

11 states. That's what's written in the original minutes of the original

12 meeting. There is no mention whatsoever of razing the city to the ground.

13 It is precisely that bearing in mind this objective Sarajevo was

14 designated in the constitution of Republika Srpska as its capital. There

15 was no mention of ever destroying Sarajevo. Why would they otherwise

16 designate it as their capital? Sarajevo was seen as Serbs -- by Serbs as

17 a town which historically belongs to them.

18 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Is there any mention in this document, the one

19 of the 12th May, to the possibility of razing to the ground the city of

20 Sarajevo at all?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

22 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

25 Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 21238

1 Q. Witness, I would like us now to come back to the map, the infamous

2 map that you yourself developed and presented here, the map of targets.

3 You have been asked questions about the chronological relationship of that

4 map with the document you've seen. My question is as follows: Could you

5 give us an idea of the number of legitimate targets in the city of

6 Sarajevo? Could you briefly tell us the number of brigades, the number of

7 battalions, the number of companies, and so on and so forth, present there

8 so that we have a clearer picture how your map would look like if you had

9 had the time or the relevant information?

10 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President.


12 MR. MUNDIS: It's beyond the scope, and it was an issue that

13 should have more properly been addressed in direct examination when they

14 first took the witness to this map.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, is my recollection well when I

16 have in mind the witness said that 1500 targets would be in the city, or

17 is it an incorrect recollection?

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Your Honour. That

19 is quite correct. I wanted him to say this differently. But anyway,

20 thank you for this intervention.

21 Q. Regarding the map, witness, and regarding the chronological

22 aspect, that is, the time aspect, I want to ask you the following: What

23 could you tell us regarding not only the chronological aspect but also the

24 mobility of weapons? This mobility, could it have had an impact on the

25 targets, or would they have had to be static?

Page 21239

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. What would be the impact?

3 A. There are static targets. In terms of space, a static target

4 means that brigades did not leave their areas of responsibility, and I

5 have shown the areas of responsibility of various brigades on the big map

6 shown here on the board and you could see from that map that the 1st Corps

7 in Sarajevo had 10 to 15 brigades throughout the war with minor changes in

8 the volume of brigades.

9 The areas of responsibility of brigades were fixed throughout the

10 war. It could therefore be said that the position of sections as military

11 targets and battalions as military targets were relatively static

12 categories. However, weapons, sniper positions, firing positions of

13 mortars, firing positions of cannons changed, shifted, but only within

14 that zone of responsibility. Therefore, it could certainly happen that

15 within one and the same brigade one target appeared as a potential target

16 in several places.

17 For instance, a battalion firing group, when changing the position

18 of its mortar, could have been recorded three or four times as a target,

19 although objectively it remained one group. But by shifting positions,

20 the number of potential targets within one brigade changed.

21 You have also to bear in mind another fact: When considering the

22 total number of military targets in Sarajevo, according to the doctrine of

23 All People's Defence that was in force and applied to all the three

24 warring parties, all trailer trucks, cisterns, engineering machines,

25 construction machinery, all vehicles for special purposes had their own

Page 21240

1 wartime assignment. In times of war, they were requisitioned. And I did

2 not consider them as military targets at all. So one has to know it is a

3 certainty that there were many more military targets in Sarajevo than I

4 depicted on my map.

5 Q. General --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, as you correctly indicated at the

7 beginning of your question that your question was not about the

8 chronology, the only thing I think that was raised in cross-examination

9 that was raised was the chronology. So I let you go, and the witness's

10 answer, and the mobility that could have been dealt with easily also in

11 examination-in-chief has been now answered. It's not the way of doing it

12 to go through the whole map again, as you more or less were about to do.

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you.

14 Mr. President, I would like to ask another three questions, and I'm going

15 to finish very soon.

16 Q. One question of methodology: If you had found documents which

17 would have been obviously contrary to what you described as conclusions in

18 your report, documents which are certain and dated, would you have used

19 them or reacted to them in your report or what?

20 A. Yes, of course. Certainly. And there were a lot of such

21 documents. In fact, the majority of documents from the documentation of

22 the 1st Corps of the BH army were in contradiction with the main claims

23 made in the documents of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. I analysed both

24 categories of documents, looking for things which in my experience and in

25 my view and in my knowledge could be true. I did not ignore a single

Page 21241

1 piece of evidence from the Prosecution whose tapes I listened to, and I

2 didn't ignore a single fact they asserted.

3 Q. Thank you. In fact, I have just one or two more questions. The

4 last would have to do with protests, and this has to do with the claim of

5 the Prosecution.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And we'll deal with it very

7 soon, Mr. President.

8 Q. In view of the elements that you were able to examine, documents,

9 sources, primary or secondary, was there a contradiction - and if yes,

10 what contradiction - between the fact that, as you said, from the

11 beginning the Serb side wanted peace or strived for peace, specifically

12 non-use of heavy weapons, and what is alleged in item 5 recently under

13 examination? What can you tell us about this?

14 MR. MUNDIS: Objection. This does not arise out of

15 cross-examination, Mr. President, and the issue of which side wanted peace

16 was thoroughly covered in the direct examination of this witness.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.


19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very briefly, Mr. President.

20 This does arise because it's not only the claim of the Prosecution who

21 dealt with this matter at length but since a certain number of questions

22 were put by the Trial Chamber, I think that I am in a position to ask this

23 witness to confirm what the attitude was of General Galic. This is what

24 interests us, what the attitude was during the war with regard to the

25 alleged claim that there was a desire to raze Sarajevo to the ground. And

Page 21242

1 I think this is essential for everyone.

2 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, in Mr. Piletta-Zanin's response he

3 raises issues that may call for the witness to speculate and also a lack

4 of foundation as to the accused's knowledge or state of mind.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is sustained.

7 Please put your last question to the witness, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.

9 Q. Witness, General, following an intervention from the Prosecution

10 you said that you hadn't found any documents that might show -- anything

11 that might contradict your conclusions. My question is as follows: With

12 regard to the documents about which the Prosecution asked you, were there

13 any protests lodged by UNPROFOR, and if so what sort of protests and how

14 were they processed?


16 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President. That mischaracterises the

17 nature of the cross-examination and the question which I put to the

18 witness. The question wasn't whether he found any documents but what use

19 he made of any such documents in his report.

20 JUDGE ORIE: It was also a question of methodology and not a

21 question to enter into the area of -- you're going to the subject of the

22 matter rather than to the methodology. If you'd have one final question,

23 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'll confer, but I think that

25 the response will be negative.

Page 21243

1 [Defence counsel confer]

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have one last question.

3 Ms. Pilipovic has asked for one last question. It concerns the

4 methodology and perhaps the Trial Chamber. We have a tape we would like

5 to have viewed. The witness on several occasions made reference to it. I

6 don't know whether it would be a matter of interest for this Trial Chamber

7 to view this cassette to see the elevated points around Sarajevo.

8 JUDGE ORIE: No. Questions have been put in respect of elevated

9 points. The witness has -- first of all, there's something played on the

10 screen at this moment without my permission, so I would like that nothing

11 would be played on the video evidence channel at this very moment.

12 The matter has been raised in examination-in-chief. The Defence

13 has chosen to do that without playing the tape. So therefore, it's not

14 something that arises from cross-examination.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I agree with you absolutely,

16 Mr. President.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Nieto-Navia has one or more questions to you.

19 Questioned by the Court:

20 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President.

21 I think that the day before yesterday a reference was made to the

22 4th JNA Corps and it was said that it was renamed as the new SRK. You

23 said that they were not the same thing, that they were different troops,

24 different corps. My question is: How were the relations, if any - if

25 any - between the JNA and the VRS or the SRK in this case after the

Page 21244

1 withdrawal of the JNA from Sarajevo in May 1992?

2 A. At the time that was already the Army of Yugoslavia. It had been

3 renamed as the Army of Yugoslavia. And after the withdrawal from Bosnia

4 and Herzegovina, not a single regular unit of the Army of Yugoslavia

5 participated in the combat on the side of the SRK. Unfortunately, at the

6 time in Sarajevo other parts of the school centre, Marsal Tito, these were

7 cadets and they had been withdrawn. That only succeeded in the month of

8 June. They remained there, but this was not a combat section and they

9 didn't participate in the fighting. And furthermore, the general staff

10 and the Supreme Command of the Army of Yugoslavia certainly didn't have

11 any direct or indirect influence on the command in the Republika Srpska,

12 apart from the fact that attempts were made to achieve peace. This was in

13 the framework of the Geneva negotiations and the contact established

14 between delegations. The Yugoslav People's Army had influence on the Army

15 of Republika Srpska in the sense that it assisted in taking care of the

16 families of officers and non-commissioned officers who were members of the

17 JNA and who had remained in the Army of Republika Srpska. They would

18 receive salaries because the families would live from these salaries.

19 They didn't have anything else to live off.

20 And furthermore, they were provided with medical treatment in

21 medical centres of the Army of Yugoslavia.

22 The Army of Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia behaved as if it were a

23 friendly country towards the Army of Republika Srpska and towards

24 Republika Srpska, which was the political entity of the Serbian people.

25 They behaved as a friend, not as allies, because being an ally involves a

Page 21245

1 lot more than friendship does. And naturally it's a tradition -- there's

2 a volunteer tradition among the Serbs and there were volunteers from all

3 over the place. In all the wars that were waged by Serbs, there were

4 volunteers. In the Second World War, 10.000 Serb volunteers came to fight

5 for the liberation of Serbia, they came from America.

6 THE INTERPRETER: Correction: In the First World War.

7 A. I didn't manage to find a single document, a single indication,

8 single decision that would show that there was any kind of direct

9 influence of the Army of Yugoslavia on the Army of Republika Srpska after

10 the withdrawal had taken place. In fact, this army was almost thrown out.

11 They were left to the mercy of all those who wanted to disturb them, to

12 interfere with them, because it's impossible for such an army to withdraw

13 in 15 days in this manner from Bosnia.

14 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you. Yesterday when you were referring

15 to the relations between the SRK, between the commander and the officers

16 of the SRK, you said that the commander was very well regarded by his

17 subordinates. I would like you to have a look again on document

18 D59 -- sorry, D259, the first paragraph. Could you read that paragraph

19 aloud.

20 A. Yes. "In spite of several orders and warnings issued by SRK

21 commanders to the effect that fire shouldn't be opened on the city of

22 Sarajevo from weapons of a large calibre, they are continuing to do so.

23 Certain commanders, especially those of battalions and divisions, wilfully

24 violate this order from the SRK commander and fail to take into account

25 the consequences."

Page 21246

1 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Does this paragraph show the consideration and

2 obedience from battalion and division commanders to his chief, as you

3 mentioned yesterday?

4 A. This says that certain commanders did not respect this. It

5 doesn't say that the entire commander system was not functioning. I said

6 that Galic, the corps commander, did have certain problems with certain

7 commanders, with the commander of the Igman Brigade, to an extent with the

8 commander of the Ilijas Brigade, with certain paramilitary formations, and

9 this shows that it was correct for the corps commander to repeat in his

10 orders that fire should not be opened on the city without his

11 authorisation or the authorisation of the operative centre or the system

12 of command according to his decisions.

13 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you. When you were referring to your

14 handwritten notes and you made -- well, reference were made to snipers,

15 ask you said, answering a question of the Prosecutor, that sniper squads

16 were established in the second half of 1994. Do you recall it?

17 A. Yes, sniper groups, sniper units. People called them in various

18 ways.

19 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Could you elaborate a little bit on that.

20 That is, when, where, how were those squads established and whether they

21 were established more or less at the same time by the SRK and the BiH army

22 or not, something about that.

23 A. In the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, sniper units existed a lot

24 earlier. I mentioned a number of documents which show that the battalions

25 had sniper units and the brigades had sniper platoons, but the 1st Corps

Page 21247

1 as early as 1993 set aside snipers and formed sniper units at the level of

2 a corps, and this was to be -- these were to be units that would be under

3 the command of the 1st Corps commander. The Sarajevo Romanija Corps

4 didn't do this and it didn't have sniper units during the relevant period

5 of time that I analysed, during General Galic's mandate. I didn't come

6 across any documents showing that sniper units had been formed as part of

7 the corps or as part of his -- of its subordinate units. And

8 afterwards -- after that I didn't analyse any document, documents that

9 concern the period when General Galic no longer had the mandate. But

10 commanders told me that in the second half of 1994 they formed sniper

11 groups as anti-sniping units.

12 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you.

13 Thank you, Mr. President.

14 JUDGE ORIE: General Radinovic, unfortunately we are not able to

15 finish today because it's quarter to 2.00 and Judge El Mahdi would have

16 questions for you, I might have some questions for you as well. So I'll

17 give you the same instruction as I did the last few days, that you should

18 not speak about your testimony given or still to be given in this court.

19 And we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning, 9.00.

20 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness out of the

21 courtroom.

22 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] As there are a few translation

24 issues, could someone from the French booth come to see me. I would be

25 very grateful if they could show me such kindness. Thank you. After the

Page 21248

1 hearing, so that we don't waste any time.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'd prefer to have it -- how much time would it

3 take to --

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I can do it very rapidly.

5 [The witness stands down]

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] But there was a problem --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Not much time at all.

9 It has to do with yesterday, above all. There was a problem. The

10 witness never said what we can see in the French transcript. He never

11 said that he had a request to make to the general. That might imply

12 something. He spoke about a general request. And on page 7 we have

13 "before" instead of "afterwards"; page 16, we're not talking about a

14 person who was accused but a person accused -- not the accused but an

15 accused; and on line 21, it's a matter of spelling that should be

16 verified. Thank you.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

18 Before I adjourn, General Galic, when I am well informed today is

19 your 60th birthday. Is that correct?

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, today is my 60th birthday. My

21 61st year is about to start.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Although the Chamber is fully aware that the

23 circumstances are not such that you would wish at your birthday, we

24 nevertheless would like to congratulate you with your birthday and wish

25 you at least a pleasant remainder of the day, and we hope that you still

Page 21249

1 can enjoy at least a bit your birthday.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Your Honours, I'd

3 like to thank you and everyone else here. Everyone has to bear their

4 cross.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00.

6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

7 at 1.48 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,

8 the 13th day of March, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.