Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 1

1 Friday, 4 February 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.

5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case

7 number IT-01-48-T, the Prosecutor versus Sefer Halilovic.

8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

9 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

10 Before we have the witness, I'll give the opportunity to the

11 parties to state their views concerning of the witness list.

12 Yes, Ms. Chana.

13 MS. CHANA: The witness list, Your Honour? I'm not quite aware

14 of what -- as to what issue -- Mr. Re will address the issue of the

15 confirmation, if that's what Your Honour is referring to.

16 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes.

17 MS. CHANA: Yes, thank you.

18 MR. RE: Good afternoon, Your Honours. I understand the issue is

19 the Prosecution's proposed withdrawal from its witness list of some

20 witnesses whose -- whose statements were given to the Confirming Judge,

21 Judge Wald, in 2001.

22 I will address you firstly on the principles and then because I

23 will have to mention some of the witnesses' names and go into why we say

24 that they're repetitive of other witnesses, at that point we probably

25 wouldn't -- possibly need to go into private session for that aspect of

Page 2

1 these submissions, subject, of course, to --

2 JUDGE LIU: But please do it as concise as possible.

3 MR. RE: I certainly will.

4 The --

5 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry.


7 MR. MORRISSEY: I apologise for this. Your Honour, Mr. Mettraux

8 was going to take this argument. If the Court needs to press ahead with

9 it, I'll take it. But Mr. Mettraux has been tied up for, I would say,

10 eight minutes due to the technical problem of my cross-examination not

11 being printed out of the printers, both printers that we have available to

12 us at the Tribunal here. It's a technical problem. It's -- for which I

13 apologise, frankly.

14 He will be here shortly, and he was going to take this argument.

15 But, however, if the Court insists on proceeding now, I'll take it. But

16 it's -- as the Court will be aware, Mr. Mettraux has really handled the --

17 the discovery issues and the pre-trial matters, and he's most familiar

18 with it, and it would, I think, shorten the submissions if he was here.

19 So time lost at this moment might be saved.

20 JUDGE LIU: Well, maybe we could have the witness first and we'll

21 find another opportunity, maybe during the breaks or before the next

22 break, if we have time.

23 MR. MORRISSEY: I would be grateful.

24 JUDGE LIU: We'll discuss this matter.

25 Thank you. Could we have the witness, please.

Page 3

1 [The witness entered court]

2 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon, Witness.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

4 JUDGE LIU: Did you have a good rest yesterday?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

6 JUDGE LIU: Are you ready to start?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

9 Ms. Chana.

10 MS. CHANA: Your Honours.


12 [Witness answered through interpreter]

13 Examined by Ms. Chana: [Continued]

14 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Gusic. Yesterday we were discussing the

15 cease-fire, and you had said that the cease-fire took effect on

16 17th September 1993.

17 A. The order was dated the 17th, and I think it was to take effect a

18 day or two later.

19 Q. Yes. Now, I'm going to show you four more documents, and I'll

20 read out the numbers. The first one is 02196076, MFI126, and 65 ter

21 number 71; the next document is 01831492, 65 ter number 73, and MFI127;

22 the third is 02196108, MFI128, and 65 ter number 72. And the last

23 document is 02196116, MFI129, and 65 ter 82.

24 MS. CHANA: May we refer to Sanction, please, Your Honour.

25 Q. Would you look at this first document and first of all tell us

Page 4

1 what the date of this document is.

2 A. The 20th of September, 1993.

3 Q. That would be after the cease-fire?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Would you tell us what kind of a document this is, please.

6 A. This is a combat order, and it is sending a unit of 150 people to

7 secure the positions achieved during the past combat operations. It is

8 addressed to the commander of the 45th Brigade, and this is an order

9 issued by me.

10 Q. Yes. Now, the next document, can you tell us the date on that

11 document, please.

12 A. This is an order for defensive combat activities.

13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gusic.

14 A. And this is an order by General Halilovic, as the Chief of Staff,

15 on behalf of the IKM, the forward command post. And in the heading, we

16 see "The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces Supreme Command Staff," and it's

17 pursuant to the previous order, the one you showed me. The purpose is the

18 same.

19 Q. And who is it addressed to?

20 A. This order is addressed to me and to Zulfikar Alispago.

21 Q. And what is the date of this order?

22 A. The date is the 29th at 15.08 hours.

23 Q. Is it the 29th or the 20th? Because my English -- my English

24 copy seems to say the 20th. Can you look at the date, please.

25 A. It is the 20th.

Page 5

1 Q. Yes.

2 A. The 20th of September, 1993.

3 Q. And would this also have been after the cease-fire, then?

4 A. Yes. Yes. But this order likewise is concerned with defensive

5 combat activities.

6 JUDGE LIU: Ms. Chana.

7 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE LIU: Please ask this witness which order comes first.


10 Q. Which order comes first? Is it in the sequence I gave it to you?

11 A. This one. This one, yes. No, first you gave me this order, and

12 it followed this other order. First General Halilovic issued an order,

13 and after that I issued my order.

14 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. The next document, please. Can you please tell us what kind of a

16 document this is.

17 A. This is a report on measures taken, and it is addressed to the

18 Chief of Staff, General Halilovic, by my deputy, Bahrudin Fazlic. And

19 this report provides information that the order had been issued, that the

20 unit had been ordered in accordance with what had already been agreed with

21 the commander of the 45th Brigade at that meeting in Buturovic Polje which

22 was also attended by my deputy to comply with this and that the only

23 forces available are the East OG.

24 In the second point, the situation in Voljevac is reported to be

25 not satisfactory after the killing of the Foca Battalion commander two

Page 6

1 days previously, according to a telegram of the commander of the axis and

2 so on. This is probably the late Enver Zejnilagic. Further actions are

3 pointless. The commander of the axis feels that the activities should not

4 be continued because they're not justified.

5 In point 3, it says that: "Lack of energy sources is still a

6 huge problem." This refers to fuel and probably to generators for radio

7 equipment.

8 And in point 4, it says: "We have solved the problem regarding

9 the American citizen and Mr. Viktor Jakovic," who had been in the area of

10 the 45th Brigade.

11 So this is a report sent by my deputy to General Halilovic about

12 the measures undertaken and about the situation in the corps units. He

13 signed this document because at that time I was at the forward command

14 post of the corps in Fojnica.

15 Q. This was sent to the IKM command, was it? Who was it sent to?

16 Which place?

17 A. It was sent to the chief, that is, to General Halilovic.

18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gusic.

19 I'll now show you my last document. Could you please tell us

20 first the date on this document, the date of the document.

21 A. This document is dated the 8th of October, 1993.

22 Q. Who is it to and from? Could you tell us that, please.

23 A. This document is from the commander of the 4th Corps, the late

24 Arif Pasalic, and it is addressed to the forward command post in Jablanica

25 to the attention of General Sefer Halilovic. This is a request for the

Page 7

1 submission of information.

2 Q. That's fine, Mr. Gusic. You don't have to talk about the

3 contents of it.

4 Do you know when the IKM no longer existed? Do you know the date

5 the IKM was dissolved?

6 A. I don't know the exact date, but I think it's late October 1993.

7 I don't know the exact date.

8 Q. Did you say "late October"?

9 A. Yes. I think towards the end of October.

10 Q. Was it after 8th October 1993?

11 A. Yes. Yes.

12 Q. Definitely before November?

13 A. I think it was before November, that is, before Operation

14 Trebevic I began in Sarajevo. It was just before this Sarajevo operation

15 entitled "Trebevic I," which was carried out in the area of responsibility

16 of the 1st Corps. So it was just before that. I couldn't tell you how

17 many days before, but I think it was towards the end of October. I don't

18 think it existed in November.

19 Q. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Gusic.

20 MS. CHANA: That is my examination-in-chief of Mr. Gusic, Your

21 Honour, unless there's anything else you would want me ...

22 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much, Ms. Chana. Your examination is

23 very concise, effective, and up to the point.

24 Any cross-examination?

25 Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

Page 8

1 MR. MORRISSEY: [Microphone not activated]

2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

3 Microphone, please.

4 Cross-examined by Mr. Morrissey:

5 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Gusic.

6 Mr. Gusic, in October of 1993, you know that -- in September and

7 October of 1993, you know that Sefer Halilovic proposed that you be

8 replaced as the chief of the 4th -- of the 6th Corps; is that correct?

9 A. This is the first time I've heard that.

10 Q. You know that there was an inspection team in the area, at least

11 from the 29th of August, which reported on the 20th of September; is that

12 correct?

13 A. I don't know that a report was submitted. If there was a report,

14 a copy would have had to be sent to the command of the 6th Corps. Such a

15 report, however, never arrived in the command of the 6th Corps.

16 Q. Well, should such a report prove to have been made, what you'd

17 say is it certainly arrived at the 6th Corps command; is that correct?

18 A. It would have had to arrive, yes.

19 Q. Yes. And you know that Sefer Halilovic -- you know this because

20 Halilovic put it to you that Halilovic regarded you as a commander who was

21 trying to avoid contact with him personally; correct?

22 A. No.

23 Q. You know he made a complaint to Commander Delic about that late

24 in September; correct?

25 A. I don't know that either.

Page 9

1 Q. And you received a -- an order yourself -- yourself received an

2 order from Commander Delic indicating that in light of the complaint made

3 by Sefer Halilovic, you should meet with him; is that correct?

4 A. I don't know what order you're referring to. I'd like to see it.

5 Q. You'll have your chance in a moment. Are you saying that you

6 have no knowledge of that -- of Delic telling you to cooperate and contact

7 Sefer Halilovic?

8 A. I can't say no such orders were issued. There was more than one

9 such order that I should contact not just General Halilovic but also some

10 other officers with whom perhaps I had not been able to establish contact

11 or there was a need for me to meet them. It's possible that such an order

12 was issued. There was certainly more than one such order referring to

13 contacts with more than one officer in the army, but that does not

14 indicate, and I think it can in no way indicate, that I did not respect

15 General Halilovic or that I did not respond to his summons. I don't think

16 that order could prove that in any way.

17 Q. Mr. Gusic, the question is not whether you were a good and

18 responsive officer. The question is, and the proposition, I'll put it,

19 is: You knew that you were under criticism from Sefer Halilovic at that

20 time on that topic; is that correct?

21 A. No. No.

22 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness please be shown D32 -- please

23 be released.

24 [Microphone not activated]

25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

Page 10

1 MR. MORRISSEY: The microphone was on, but please remind me.

2 Could we please call up D32. It's DD00.0090.

3 [Defence counsel confer]

4 MR. MORRISSEY: And we believe it's MFI130.

5 [Defence counsel confer]

6 MR. MORRISSEY: [Microphone not activated] Could we please have

7 the next page.

8 Q. Mr. Gusic, you'll have to forgive the slowness here. There is

9 going to be some delays from time to time, for which the Defence

10 apologises to you, in terms of the presentation of documents while this

11 system is made familiar.

12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

13 Q. Very well. Do you have a page in front of you that displays

14 paragraph number 3?

15 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the Court just excuse me for one moment,

16 please.

17 [Defence counsel confer]

18 MR. MORRISSEY: There is a technical problem, Your Honour. We

19 are endeavouring to resolve it. It's no fun for the witness, I

20 appreciate, and probably just as little for everyone else. But I can

21 assure the Court that it's least fun for me at this moment, so we'll do

22 what we can to resolve it.

23 [Defence counsel confer]

24 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, no progress being made in the

25 short-term, could I ask that the witness be shown -- is it -- we need

Page 11

1 page 3 of this document, which is DD00.0052 -- 0092.

2 Q. Very well. Now, Mr. Gusic, do you have -- do you have in front

3 of you a page which contains the line in the middle of the

4 page "Concerning everything stated above, we suggest the following"?

5 A. I don't have that, but I can see items 1 to 8.

6 Q. Very well.

7 A. Oh, yes, I can see it now: "Regarding the above mentioned, I

8 propose."

9 Q. Very well. Now, do you see that paragraph 1 provides

10 this: "Drastic personnel changes should be made in the commands of the

11 4th and 6th Corps and the necessary changes in the commands and units of

12 the 1st and 3rd Corps. Therefore, replace commanders of the 4th and 6th

13 Corps and their deputies and Chiefs of Staff with more capable staff."

14 Now, firstly, do you acknowledge that that was the recommendation

15 of the inspection team when it reported on the 20th of September, 1993?

16 A. I cannot confirm that. I cannot confirm that, because this is

17 the first time that I am seeing this document. I would like to have a

18 copy of this document so I can have it in my archive because this is proof

19 of another political game, in my opinion, to which a number of people in

20 the military were ready to commit. And I never wanted to be part of their

21 group, and I think that it is improper that after so many years in this

22 position that I should be shown something like this. If nothing else, I

23 left my duty as corps commander at my own request. I sent a request to

24 Commander Halilovic asking him to relieve me of duty.

25 Q. Subsequently to the events of August and September of 1993,

Page 12

1 Mr. Halilovic was effectively removed from the army to your knowledge; is

2 that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. The details of which we'll go into later. But after that, in

5 1995, did you become aware that Sefer Halilovic went to the newspapers and

6 in particular a newspaper called Oslobodjenje and made a public demand for

7 an investigation into the crimes at Uzdol and Grabovica?

8 A. I don't know that there was a request, but I know that there was

9 an investigation and I participated in it. I was asked -- I was summoned

10 and I provided a statement before the cantonal court in Sarajevo; however,

11 I don't know who initiated this investigation.

12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Sorry, I just have to

13 interrupt for a moment perhaps my question wasn't clear. The question

14 was: -- Or the proposition was: You knew that Sefer Halilovic had gone to

15 the newspapers demanding an investigation, didn't you?

16 A. I think I replied to that question clearly. If you think that

17 you know better what I knew at the time, then perhaps we can switch places

18 and you can provide the answers instead of me. I don't know who initiated

19 the investigation, but I know that an investigation was carried out. So I

20 would please like you to accept my answers as they are and not twist their

21 meaning.

22 Q. Mr. Gusic, I have to make it clear what your position is here.

23 The Defence is putting to you that you haven't been truthful with this

24 Tribunal and that you played a much greater role in these events that what

25 you've admitted. Now, in fairness to you, do you now understand the

Page 13

1 direction of the questions that are going to be put to you?

2 A. No. No, you don't have to attempt to prove anything. General

3 Halilovic can stand up and say that I commanded there. He can stand up

4 and say that three times and I will accept my responsibility. He can get

5 up now and state three times that I led the units, that I was responsible,

6 that I commanded those forces, and at that very moment I will accept all

7 the responsibility that at the moment is being attributed to him.

8 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, the counsel was asking you a very

9 simple question, that is, did you know General Halilovic had gone to the

10 newspapers demanding an interview? Did you know that?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No.

12 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Thank you very much.


14 Q. Is your position this: That he didn't do that or that you just

15 don't recall now whether he did or not?

16 A. I don't know. I never knew that. I don't read Oslobodjenje.

17 It's a newspaper where I really don't find anything that would be of

18 interest to me.

19 Q. Was it a nationally newsworthy event that General Halilovic was

20 demanding an investigation into what appears to everyone to be two quite

21 ugly incidents?

22 A. I don't know. I cannot give you an answer to that question. I

23 don't know. I was never involved in politics, so I don't know what would

24 be a significant event politically and what would not be a significant

25 event politically.

Page 14

1 Q. Yes. All right. Did you know that Sefer Halilovic published a

2 book about his exploits in the Bosnian conflict?

3 A. I heard of that, yes, but I didn't read the book.

4 Q. Well, you read Sevko Hodzic's book, didn't you?

5 A. I didn't read Sevko Hodzic's book, I must admit, but I was shown

6 a couple of photographs and I saw myself on two of those photographs. So

7 it was because of the photographs that I actually bought the book. But I

8 didn't read it.

9 Q. Did you know that he mentioned you in that book?

10 A. Are you thinking of Sevko Hodzic now or General Halilovic?

11 Q. No, the question was, sorry, pardon me -- I'll make it clear to

12 you -- that Sevko Hodzic mentioned you in the book.

13 A. Sevko Hodzic has mentioned me in a number of books, but he was

14 putting his own opinion. I don't know in what context and how, but

15 probably since the photo of me was there, he must have mentioned me too.

16 Q. Yes. Well, you know also that General Halilovic mentioned you in

17 his book unfavourably; correct?

18 A. I don't know that. I don't know. But I regret that it is not in

19 a positive way because I respect General Halilovic to this very day. I

20 respect him as a senior officer.

21 Q. I'm grateful for those indications, Mr. Gusic.

22 Did you know that in 2000 in another newspaper interview

23 Mr. Halilovic mentioned you in relation to the Grabovica and Uzdol

24 matters?

25 A. I don't know that.

Page 15

1 Q. Mr. Gusic, I put it to you as a proposition that you are well

2 aware that Sefer Halilovic took the view and expressed the view publicly

3 that you were in the line of command of the units potentially involved in

4 the killings at Grabovica and Uzdol. Do you agree with that?

5 A. No. No.

6 Q. In short, you knew that Sefer Halilovic was accusing you of a

7 level of complicity or a potential level of complicity in those offences.

8 A. This is the first time that I'm hearing this from you, but I

9 would really like to hear it from his mouth as well. I really don't

10 believe that you are conveying his view on this matter.

11 Q. What I'm putting to you is this: You understood -- I've put that

12 to you already, so I withdraw that.

13 Now, your position has always been this, hasn't it, that you took

14 no steps to investigate either Uzdol or Grabovica and you took no such

15 steps because it wasn't your job to do so; is that correct?

16 A. Because this is according to the rules of the service. That's

17 how it's defined. Yesterday you could see that out in the field or in the

18 zone where there is a superior officer and if he's in command of those

19 forces, then a younger officer shouldn't do anything until the superior

20 officer issues an order for him to do something. This applies to

21 situations out in the field. I never myself received such an order from

22 General Halilovic.

23 Q. Okay. The answer to my question is yes, you did nothing, and the

24 reason why you did nothing is because it wasn't your responsibility to do

25 so; is that correct?

Page 16

1 A. It was not my responsibility to do so, and General Halilovic

2 never ordered me to do that either.

3 Q. So that if a tribunal, court, or other body was to find that you

4 were in the chain of command in relation to those matters, you'd have no

5 other defence whatsoever to those, would you, because you admit doing

6 absolutely nothing; correct?

7 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Ms. Chana.

8 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, he's asking to have a legal

9 characterisation of the facts. I object on that -- with respect to that

10 question.

11 MR. MORRISSEY: No, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE LIU: This line of the questioning is the kind of

13 hypothetical questions, you know.

14 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour --

15 JUDGE LIU: You may -- you may put it in another way.

16 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, yes.

17 Q. You are yourself concerned that your only defence to involvement

18 in Uzdol and Grabovica, for you, is that you weren't in the line of

19 command; correct?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Because you didn't do anything, according to you, at all;

22 correct?

23 A. That is your opinion. I cannot influence your opinion in any

24 way. But that is not correct.

25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'm just asking questions,

Page 17

1 okay?

2 Mr. Gusic, what I put to you finally is that in giving the

3 evidence against Mr. Halilovic that you give, you are protecting a

4 position, that is, to remove yourself from responsibility of any sort for

5 these crimes by saying that you weren't in the line of command; is that

6 right?

7 A. Sir, I never said anything that anybody wanted to hear. I always

8 stated my own opinion. This statement of mine or this testimony is not

9 directed against General Halilovic. I'm here to know what I -- to say

10 what I know and to present my point of view. So my testimony from

11 yesterday and my answers today contain only the truth. I have no

12 intention of accusing General Halilovic or anyone else, for that matter.

13 I'm here to tell the truth. I would be happiest if you wished to know if

14 it was proved that General Halilovic is not guilty, even at the price of

15 that, constituting my responsibility.

16 Q. [Microphone not activated]

17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

18 JUDGE LIU: Your microphone, please.

19 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry.

20 Your Honour, I would now seek to show the witness a map.

21 Q. Mr. Gusic, would you just excuse me for a moment, please. I want

22 to explain to the Court and to yourself what is proposed here.

23 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I'd seek to show and to tender

24 ultimately a map which is -- would ultimately become a Prosecution exhibit

25 in any event, I believe, but we have the original. This is a map which

Page 18

1 I'll just display to the Court. It's the original map of the Operation

2 Neretva 93. I would seek that that be placed on a board now so that the

3 witness can refer to it from time to time and the Court and Prosecution

4 can see it.

5 Your Honour, can my co-counsel assist in placing this on the ...

6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, it's all right.

7 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, can it be turned a little so we can also

8 have a view of it from our -- our side of the table, please.

9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, of course. But I hope, you know, the camera in

10 this room could pick it up so we could see it on our monitor.

11 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm in Your Honours' hands as to how it should be

12 positioned. I must confess to ignorance as to how the cameras actually

13 function. But what is important is that both the Court and the

14 Prosecutors and also the witness have a chance to see what is there

15 written.

16 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, may I just inquire from the Defence

17 whether this map is any different than the one which is at the back of the

18 room here, the black-and-white one.

19 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

20 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I'm not sure what the quality of the

21 black-and-white one at the back of the room is, and I haven't inspected

22 it, but it looks to be identical.

23 I thank the Court.

24 Q. Now, Mr. Gusic, I'm going to ask that you be shown some rules

25 concerning the drawing-up and signing of maps.

Page 19

1 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness please be shown P116, the

2 number of which before me is K0111786. This is MFI131, we believe.

3 [Defence counsel confer]

4 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, this being a Prosecution document,

5 we are just not sure precisely how this is going to unfold. But any

6 orders or suggestions from those who know, we'll simply accept straight

7 away.

8 I'm going to make a series of apologies to Mr. Gusic and to the

9 Court about this. I just make I want clear that we understand that this

10 inflicts boredom and hardship, so we're apologetic for that.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Morrissey, could you please repeat the number

12 that you -- MFI116, is it?

13 MR. MORRISSEY: It's P116. The MFI number is 131.

14 It hasn't been put forward as yet by the -- by the Prosecution,

15 as we understand.

16 We understand it would be in the Prosecution release documents.

17 MS. CHANA: Your Honours, if we could be of some assistance to

18 the Defence. We do have it in Sanction, and if it's our exhibit, we could

19 actually display it -- case manager Ana Vrljic could display it on

20 Sanction for the Defence.

21 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think we have already got it - Am I right -

22 on the screen. The problem is about that, you know, numbering system, you

23 know. I believe that at the beginning of a case it would be some, you

24 know, confusion. I hope later on all of us could get used to it.

25 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, it's -- it is something that might

Page 20

1 take some little time to -- to arrange, and we think it's best rather than

2 seeking adjournments and so on to press on, even though it involves delays

3 and difficulties. If we could seek the Court's leave to press on. I

4 understand that it is difficult for even, but we think we should try.

5 But, however, we are grateful to the Prosecutor so that things

6 can keep moving, we would be -- we would find it acceptable for a document

7 to be put on Sanction. Mr. Gusic could then inspect what he has to

8 inspect.

9 Q. Mr. Gusic.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. We now have -- do you now have in front of you a -- a

12 heading "Chapter IX, combat documents."

13 A. Yes. I see the English version. Could I see the copy in

14 Bosnian, please.

15 Q. Mr. Gusic, I'm instructed that you will see it in a minute.

16 A. Yes, I have it now.

17 Q. Do you recall being shown yesterday one part of this set of

18 rules, being Rule 501?

19 A. Yes. Yes.

20 Q. Mr. Gusic, I'm not going to ask you questions in the abstract.

21 I'll take you to specifics.

22 Now, would you look, please, at -- at Rule 493. And just looking

23 at it while I ask the question - this is a general question - does that

24 section define what are the -- what types of document may be a combat

25 document?

Page 21

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Does it include --

3 A. Yes.

4 A. [Previous translation continues] ... and schemes?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Very well. And it's the fact, isn't it, that plans -- sorry,

7 that maps and schemes can in some cases be orders and orders can be

8 communicated in the form of maps and schemes?

9 A. Orders to a lesser degree, but decisions, yes. Orders, no.

10 Basic concepts could be conveyed on a map or on a scheme, but not an

11 order, no.

12 MR. MORRISSEY: Could I request, since the Prosecution are being

13 extraordinarily helpful here, that they could turn to the next page, where

14 is to be found prong 498.

15 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, at the moment, I think Mr. Morrissey is

16 under the misapprehension that we are displaying the documents in

17 Sanction. But it is still the Court who is displaying. But we could

18 display them in Sanction if it would be faster for the Court and for the

19 Defence.

20 JUDGE LIU: Well, I quite understand that. But yesterday

21 Mr. Morrissey made a complaint that his client could not see the B/C/S, so

22 today we'll try our way to do it.


24 MS. CHANA: I was just being helpful, Your Honours. Of course.

25 JUDGE LIU: Oh, of course. Of course. I just explained the

Page 22

1 reason why we will try this e-court system at this stage.

2 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, we do not have the English version

3 on our screen right now. We now do. Thank you.

4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gusic. Does prong 498 provide as follows? Do you

5 have that again in front of you, Mr. Gusic? Do you have that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Does it provide "Orders, demands, directives, instructions and

8 reports contain the following: The name of the command, the time, day,

9 month, year, hour, and place, and issuance in the upper left-hand corner,

10 the confidentiality level and urgency level, section and scope, and year

11 of publication as needed in the upper right-hand corner"? Is that what it

12 says?

13 A. Yes. I stated this yesterday.

14 Q. I won't trouble you with the -- that may be so, Mr. Gusic.

15 Would you go -- don't worry about the next paragraph, but look at

16 the bottom one: "The following information is placed on plans, maps,

17 tables, or text. The annotation, I have approved it in the upper

18 left-hand corner and position, rank, first name, last name, and the

19 signature of the commanding officer and the time, date -- sorry, the time,

20 date (day, month, year, and hour) of approval is placed below it. The

21 level of confidentiality and registry number is in the upper right-hand

22 corner, the name of the plan and its code name, the section, if needed, in

23 the middle." Is that what's written there?

24 A. Yes. Yes.

25 Q. Although this question may sound funny, because it's going

Page 23

1 between a -- it's a translation-afflicted question. What's the word that

2 the commander is required to -- to write when -- when that section says "I

3 have approved it" in English? What's the word that is used there in -- in

4 Bosnian?

5 A. You had it a little bit earlier. The word is "odobravam." This

6 is not written by the person who approved it. It's written by the person

7 who prepares or drafts the document, and then the person who is authorised

8 to approve it then would place their signature there that they approved

9 the order, instruction, concept, or something that is being put to his

10 consideration.

11 Q. Would you just have a look at that map that's next to you now,

12 please. And for the benefit of the Tribunal, if you could approach the

13 map and read out the words that are to be found in the top left.

14 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry, Your Honours, perhaps --

15 Q. Mr. Gusic, I apologise. It may be mechanically difficult to do.

16 A. Yes. Yes. I've seen it already.

17 Q. Very well.

18 A. I've seen it.

19 Q. What does it say there?

20 A. It says: "Approved. Armed forces Supreme Command Staff

21 commander, Rasim Delic." Then his personal signature, and a stamp. Let

22 me just look at it. And it's the stamp of the military unit 5001 of the

23 Sarajevo commander. This is the Supreme Command Staff stamp.

24 Q. Now, Mr. Gusic, Rasim Delic signed that order -- that map as an

25 order in the capacity of commander pursuant to Rule 498, didn't he?

Page 24

1 A. I couldn't agree with you completely. This is not an order.

2 This is an idea as to how operations should be conducted. And it was

3 approved. This idea has to be accompanied by the other combat documents,

4 such as an attack command, commands about certain elements of combat

5 security, and a number of commands referring to the solving of specific

6 problems. What we see here is a working map. We see the commander's idea

7 which has been approved, but it is not an order for this to be executed.

8 So the plan has been approved, but the execution has not been ordered.

9 Q. Isn't that a pure and simple order to carry out those

10 documents -- to carry out those directions that are marked on the map?

11 A. No. No. No, no. That preparations are to be made in order to

12 act within the framework of this idea or this plan, yes. But we soldiers

13 understand that this is a document that cannot be carried out without a

14 combat order. Such as it is cannot be approved. Whoever approved it

15 would give a great deal of freedom for whoever drew up the plan to write

16 an order different from what was told to him. So this map is not an

17 order. It's simply a plan or an idea for combat operations, an idea that

18 actions should be taken along certain axes and that certain units should

19 be used. But the order itself would have the format that we saw in these

20 rules. That's the only thing you can call an order and a combat document.

21 This is simply an auxiliary document which clarifies matters in

22 graphic and visual terms showing how a certain combat operation can be

23 implemented on the ground.

24 Q. Mr. Gusic, in the bottom right-hand corner, do you see the

25 signature of Sefer Halilovic?

Page 25

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And is the word "nacelnik" to be found there?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And what --

5 A. That was his title.

6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

7 A. Yesterday, when asked by the Prosecutor about the rules of

8 service in the army, I said that up to December 1993 in the Army of BH

9 there were no ranks, only positions. This position had its designation

10 which was used instead of a rank. Today General Halilovic doesn't have to

11 say "chief." He can use his rank, General Halilovic, and sign his name.

12 However, in 1993, when there were no ranks, you had to write what your

13 position was and then sign your name. This was used instead of a rank.

14 His position, Chief of Staff, was used instead of his rank of general or

15 it was closely connected to it.

16 Q. You don't dispute that the word "nacelnik" means "Chief of Staff"

17 and is used to designate that function? Perhaps I'll rephrase that,

18 Mr. Gusic, because of the time aspect introduced --

19 A. Certainly. Certainly.

20 Q. Just a moment.

21 Even before the introduction of ranks, as you've described, that

22 term "nacelnik" meant nothing other than "Chief of Staff" and you

23 understood it to have that meaning; correct?

24 A. No. No, no, no. Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command, he was a

25 superior officer, and we treated him as a superior officer. So it was not

Page 26

1 just a title, just a post. It carried authority with it, authority which

2 was respected. It fully replaced -- I apologise for my speed. This

3 position -- well, I can't say fully replaced rank because rank carries

4 some other defining elements, but as far as relations in the army went, it

5 fully replaced rank. When it came to duties, assignments, and so on, the

6 function -- or rather, the post, such as a chief, assistant, a deputy, and

7 so on, fully replaced ranks.

8 Q. So if it's the Prosecution case that Mr. Halilovic was the Chief

9 of Staff of the Bosnian army at this time, you'd say that's a load of

10 rubbish; is that correct?

11 A. No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no. It means a lot, sir. It means

12 a lot. He is the second man in the army, the second-ranking general in

13 the army. That means a lot. The number-two man. It still means a lot

14 today.

15 Q. Okay. Very well.

16 Now, just to conclude the questions about the formal nature of

17 that map, I put it to you again that that's a decision and an order, not

18 an idea. Do you agree with that or do you maintain your position?

19 A. No. No, I don't agree with that. This is not an order. This is

20 an idea for the carrying out of combat operations, and this map would have

21 to be accompanied by an order. The map is not an order. It is simply an

22 idea as to how operations can be carried out. It forms part of an order,

23 but it's an incomplete document. I believe that the other part of the

24 document exists, and I would like to see that. Because this was only an

25 attachment to a combat order. Simply one of the attachments.

Page 27

1 Q. So is it your position, Mr. Gusic, that there is another combat

2 order somewhere out there -- well, perhaps I'll withdraw the

3 comment "somewhere out there." I'll start again.

4 Is it your position that there is another combat order signed -

5 just a minute - signed by Commander Delic authorising the launch of what

6 is described there, Operation Neretva? Is that your position?

7 A. I haven't seen it, but I am convinced that General Halilovic

8 would not have launched a combat operation if it did not exist, because

9 he's an experienced soldier.

10 Q. Did anyone tell you that such a document existed at any time

11 before today?

12 A. No. This was never something I was very interested in. I was

13 concerned with surviving. I was never engaged in looking into the past.

14 This is the first time I've seen the map as well. I have to say that.

15 Q. Didn't the Prosecutor show you the map to get your comments as a

16 experienced -- JNA?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Never?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Didn't the investigator Mr. Mikhailov show it to you at some

21 stage?

22 A. No. No, never.

23 Q. Didn't you look at the map when you were consulted about the --

24 what you've described as the subordination of your units in this

25 operation?

Page 28

1 A. No.

2 Q. When the parts of the 44th and 45th Brigade were removed, as you

3 claim, from your control, were you ever shown the map in which operation

4 they were to be used?

5 A. Well, to say "removed," that's too strong an expression. They

6 were simply separated out for a time and then brought back. I've never

7 seen this map before. I repeat: This is the first time I've seen it.

8 Q. Yes. Well, I'm going to put some other opportunities to you to

9 see if you remember seeing it on those.

10 What about on the 5th of September at a meeting where the use of

11 6th Corps units in Operation Neretva 93 was discussed? You didn't see the

12 map at Dobro Polje on the 5th of September, 1993?

13 A. No.

14 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Commander Delic the night

15 before in Konjic?

16 A. No. No.

17 Q. You didn't see --

18 A. I didn't see it.

19 Q. No. No. And you didn't see this other order to which this map

20 in your account is a mere attachment on either of those occasions?

21 A. No. It wasn't the order that was attached to the map; it was the

22 map that was attached to the order. The order would have to pre-date the

23 map. I didn't see any of it. I never saw the order, and the map, well,

24 today is the first time I've ever seen the map.

25 Q. Yes. Well, I'm -- I'll ask you about the order now. I've

Page 29

1 already mentioned the 44th and the 45th Brigades. From the 6th Corps was

2 also taken the 317th Brigade and the Independent Prozor Battalion; is that

3 correct?

4 A. Yes, and the Sutjeska Battalion too.

5 Q. Yes. And I suppose you'd deny Zulfikar's Unit was also taken

6 from you.

7 A. There's nothing for me to deny. You have a document showing

8 that. There's nothing to deny. You saw that the commander of the

9 4th Corps commanded certain units and that he commanded Zulfikar's Unit as

10 his.

11 Q. Has that always been your position, or have you changed that

12 position?

13 A. That's always been my position. This is the first time I've

14 expressed it as such. I've never said anything else. My position about

15 these special units is something I expressed at the meeting in Zenica, and

16 I asked the commander to reply to my questions about this.

17 Q. Very well. In a --

18 JUDGE LIU: Are you leaving this map?

19 MR. MORRISSEY: No. Your Honour, can I indicate I'm going to

20 press him on certain topics, but I'm going to come back to the map from

21 time to time. Might it be --

22 JUDGE LIU: No. No.

23 MR. MORRISSEY: -- offered at this point, however.

24 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Well, I believe that it's the proper time for us

25 to take a break.

Page 30


2 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I think we'll take 20 minutes' break, and when

3 we come back, we'll spend a few minutes on housekeeping matters.

4 --- Recess taken at 3.31 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 3.57 p.m.

6 JUDGE LIU: [Microphone not activated] Yes, Mr. Re.

7 MR. RE: I've prepared a list for Your Honours so we don't have

8 to go into private session. I'll hand it up. It just has the names of

9 the people on the Defence list and the corresponding numbers on the

10 Prosecution's live witnesses list.

11 The guiding principles in our response to the Defence response

12 are twofold: That is, the role of the Confirming Judge, the Prosecution

13 submits, has been misunderstood by the Defence in its response; and,

14 secondly, the Defence response misunderstands that it is the Prosecution's

15 prerogative how to present its case and which witnesses to call.

16 In relation to the role of the Confirming Judge, the Tribunal's

17 jurisprudence is fairly settled on that, and the most recent pronouncement

18 I can find - there may be more recent ones - was in the Milosevic case

19 when Judge May ruled on the 22nd of November, 2001, the decision on the

20 review of the indictment quoting the test in the Kordic case of Judge

21 McDonald, that is, the decision on the review of the indictment of the

22 10th of November, 1995, adopting, as other Trial Chambers have, Her

23 Honour's pronouncement that: "A prima facie case for this purpose is

24 understood to be a credible case which would, if not contradicted by the

25 Defence, be a sufficient basis to convict the accused on the charge."

Page 31

1 When the Prosecution submitted its confirming materials to Judge

2 Wald in -- sorry, in 2001, it did so with a covering letter informing Her

3 Honour that the matter was -- was being referred to the Trial Chamber,

4 subject to continuing investigations. The indictment was therefore

5 confirmed on the basis that the Prosecution's investigations were ongoing.

6 Her Honour was satisfied on the material, the 109 statement which is were

7 put before Her Honour that there was a prima facie case in relation to the

8 indictment which, as the Trial Chamber understands, has remained

9 unchanged.

10 To be quite frank, hindsight is a wonderful thing. If anything,

11 the Prosecution probably put too many statements before Judge Wald in

12 2001. And there is much overlap between the statements of the witnesses

13 upon which Her Honour confirmed the indictment. And at some point the

14 case has to be severely -- or the witness list has to be cut back to make

15 it manageable for Prosecution, Defence, and Trial Chamber, given the

16 nature of what this case is in the context of proceedings before the

17 Tribunal. It's a much smaller case in scope, and the number of witnesses

18 that should be called, live or by 98 bis, had to be drastically reduced.

19 And the Prosecution has done this several times and most recently, and

20 quite frankly, most ruthlessly in December -- mid-December when we were

21 aware that a trial -- when we became aware that a trial date was going --

22 was very, very imminent, and we went through every witness who was on the

23 list and we compared all the statements to try and eliminate all -- as

24 much repetition as we could and to put forward what we considered the most

25 credible and reliable evidence, that is, the best evidence we thought we

Page 32

1 could put from the statements before the Trial Chamber.

2 The Prosecution -- our submission is that there is no prejudice

3 to the Defence here by our application to reduce the witness list. If

4 anything, it should help the Defence in their presentation of their

5 case -- sorry, in their defence to the Prosecution case. And if anything,

6 the Defence application, if it is based upon the fact that Judge Wald

7 confirmed the indictment and seven of the eight witnesses on the list

8 which I've handed up to Your Honours were on that list - the only one who

9 wasn't is number 6 - were before Judge Wald. She confirmed it on that

10 basis. The prima facie case existed because there were so many

11 statements. Take these away and the prima facie case doesn't exist. It's

12 illogical for the Defence to say that we should call these witnesses.

13 Because if the Defence submission is now there's no prima facie case as a

14 result, that would become fairly clear and one would think at the

15 Rule 98 bis statement Mr. Halilovic will walk free because the case --

16 there could be no prima facie case on that submission.

17 So the Prosecution doesn't understand the logic in that line --

18 in that line of thought.

19 Now, the reason why we cut -- or we have sought to cut these

20 witnesses is because of the repetition, the overlap. And if I could

21 briefly address Your Honours -- and I'll just give you the numbers on the

22 Prosecution list to compare against the numbers on the Defence list.

23 In relation to Witness 1 on the Defence list, Prosecution --

24 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down.

25 MR. RE: [Previous translation continues] ... the revised one, 2,

Page 33

1 11 -- I apologise for that. 15, 20, and 21. We say cover anything

2 witness -- Defence witness number 1 could cover.

3 Those same numbers apply to Witness 2 on the Defence list and

4 Witness 8 on the Defence list.

5 Further, on -- in relation to Witness 3 on the Defence list,

6 Prosecution Witnesses 11 and 28 cover the same territory.

7 In relation to Witness 4 on the Defence list, Prosecution

8 Witness 6 covers that.

9 Defence Witness number 5, an HVO soldier; the Prosecution is

10 calling Witnesses 33 and 34, also HVO soldiers who cover the same

11 territory.

12 Witness number 6, the Prosecution intends -- or seeks leave to

13 call Witness 27, who corroborates the taking of the statement to which he

14 would be called.

15 Number 7 on the Defence list; Prosecution Witness number 12

16 covers it same ground.

17 In fact, in some of these we are calling the witness's superior

18 or someone in the same chain of command who can cover the identical issue

19 of the failure to investigate or what should have been -- what should have

20 been done. And there is no benefit to the Trial Chamber or judicial

21 economy to -- for calling multiple witnesses to cover the same points.

22 Witness number 2 and Witness number 8 on the Defence list both

23 informed the Prosecution investigates and senior trial -- former senior

24 trial attorney at the end of 2003 that they did not wish to give evidence

25 for the Prosecution. That was a further factor in our consideration of

Page 34

1 choosing them -- sorry, choosing other witnesses instead of them.

2 In relation to Witness number 2, that information is contradicted

3 by a letter the Defence filed with their motion in which he said that he

4 would come. We've had conflicting information. But in relation to -- in

5 Witness number 8 on the Defence list, he said clearly in the letter which

6 is filed with the Defence motion, "I do not wish to testify against Sefer

7 Halilovic because I am of the view that he is not guilty and that I do not

8 have any arguments that would show that he is guilty."

9 Now, Your Honours should be completely satisfied with that. But

10 there is no reason why the Prosecutor would call someone who on the face

11 of the letter the Defence filed is hostile to the Prosecution case. There

12 will be no benefit in us calling him and seeking leave to have him

13 declared hostile when we have five other witnesses we say who cover the

14 same territory.

15 There are, of course, other avenues available to the Defence if

16 they feel they want to have these witness who is they say confirm the

17 prima facie case against their client called, that is, to seek the Trial

18 Chamber's leave to have the Trial Chamber call the witnesses if it

19 becomes -- if the Trial Chamber feels that it is necessary after having

20 heard the Prosecution case or, secondly, to call the witnesses themselves.

21 The Prosecution submits -- my final point is there is no

22 prejudice to the Defence and they -- the onus is on the Defence to

23 demonstrate the prejudice and it would have to be fairly significant

24 prejudice to -- to demonstrate -- sorry, to interfere -- to ask the Trial

25 Chamber to interfere with the Prosecution's prerogative to call the

Page 35

1 witnesses it says are most relevant to the case and to conduct the case in

2 the manner in which the Prosecution desires.

3 Those are my submissions.

4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

5 Just one question to you, Mr. Re: The seven new witnesses'

6 statement has already been furnished to the Defence, I guess?

7 MR. RE: Oh, yes.

8 JUDGE LIU: When was that?

9 MR. RE: I'm sorry, I -- I don't have that information at my

10 fingertips. I apologise for that.

11 JUDGE LIU: But you're definitely sure that the statements have

12 been furnished to the Defence team already?

13 MR. RE: I'm very, very certain of that. And I'm sure my learned

14 friend will be on his feet if it wasn't.

15 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Thank you very much.

16 Mr. Mettraux.

17 MR. METTRAUX: Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Your Honour

18 JUDGE LIU: Please be very concise.

19 MR. METTRAUX: I will be extremely concise.

20 First, concerning the issue of the statements of the seven new

21 proposed witnesses. It would appear on the face of it that we have indeed

22 received all of the statements of those seven persons.

23 Concerning the other issues raised by the Prosecution, I think

24 you asked us quite -- two quite clear questions yesterday. The first one

25 was: Which one of the eight witnesses which the Defence insists should

Page 36

1 not be withdrawn from the Prosecution list were put before the Confirming

2 Judge. And the answer is a simple one; it is all of them.

3 Concerning the second issue raised by Your Honour yesterday as to

4 the importance of those witnesses to the Prosecution case, the answer is,

5 I believe, equally simple. It would suffice to skim through the original

6 Prosecution pre-trial brief and look at the footnotes which the

7 Prosecution used in those pre-trial briefs. And one would find that the

8 two most-often quoted or cited witnesses are Mr. Bilajac and Mr. Suljevic.

9 In the order of most-often quoted witnesses, one would also find the rest

10 of those eight witnesses.

11 The Defence wants to make it clear that it does not claim to be

12 prejudiced by the shortening of the list in itself, and quite the

13 contrary, as the Prosecution pointed out. But the Defence believes and

14 has made it clear in its submissions that it is in the interest of

15 justice, the Defence would submit that, those witnesses should still be

16 called - and I'm talking about the eight witnesses - should be called by

17 the Prosecution.

18 For the rest, Your Honour, I would simply direct your attention

19 to our submission of the 29th of December.

20 Thank you very much.

21 JUDGE LIU: Well, thank you very much.

22 Well, Mr. Mettraux, there is also a question to you, that is: Is

23 there any possibility that the Defence team could call that eight

24 witnesses in your defence?

25 MR. METTRAUX: It is certainly a possibility for the Defence to do

Page 37

1 so, but there are a number of issues.

2 First, some of those witnesses may be hostile to the Defence, may

3 refuse to come if so requested by the Defence.

4 The other matter is the Defence would have obviously to examine

5 them in chief and the Prosecution to cross-examine them, and the Defence

6 want to make it quite clear that that material which those witnesses

7 provided to the Prosecution at the time was put before the Confirming

8 Judge and was a fundamental - fundamental - base on which the indictment

9 was confirmed.

10 And I would like to draw the Chamber's attention to the fact that

11 from the order confirming the indictment it would appear that the first

12 attempt by the Prosecution to have an indictment confirmed against

13 Mr. Halilovic was refused in July 2001 and there was a further

14 resubmission of the indictment in September when it was confirmed. We

15 would like to make that point quite clear.

16 But to answer Your Honour's question, yes, that is a possibility,

17 for us to call those witnesses. There may be a problem, there may be

18 refusal, and we would obviously be in favour of the proposals that we've

19 put forward; namely, the Prosecution be ordered to call those who are

20 still are their witnesses.

21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. I believe that the picture is

22 more clear than before, so we'll render our rulings as early as possible.

23 I hope today, but I'm not quite sure.

24 And anyway, at the beginning of the next week there will be a

25 written decision to this effect.

Page 38

1 Having said that, could we have the witness, please.

2 [The witness entered court]

3 JUDGE LIU: Well, are you ready to start, Witness?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

5 JUDGE LIU: I apologise for that later delay, because we had some

6 housekeeping matters to do.

7 Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

8 MR. MORRISSEY: [Microphone not activated]

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

10 JUDGE LIU: Your microphone, please.

11 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. I apologise.

12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gusic. Just excuse me for a moment, please, while

13 I find what I wanted to put to you.

14 [Defence counsel confer]

15 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you. My apologies.

16 Q. Now, Mr. Gusic, you indicated yesterday and -- that -- as to the

17 status of the Zulfikar Unit, that that had become resubordinated to the

18 4th Corps. Now you recall giving that evidence?

19 A. It did not become resubordinated, but it became part of the

20 composition of the 4th Corps. There is a difference. It became an

21 organic part of the 4th Corps.

22 Q. Yes. But the fact of the matter is that whatever orders to that

23 effect may have been drafted by General Delic -- sorry, I withdraw that --

24 by Rasim Delic and by Arif Pasalic, I put it to you that as a matter of

25 practice that transfer simply never happened at all. Do you agree with

Page 39

1 that?

2 A. No, I don't agree. If you have an order by Arif Pasalic that

3 Zulfikar Alispago becomes the commander of the Sjever OG, how could that

4 command have been implemented or been taken into account unless the unit

5 had become an organic part of the corps?

6 Q. Yes. And I put to you that you in the past have recognised that

7 that transfer never in fact took place. Do you agree with that?

8 A. No, I don't agree with that either. Because there was

9 communication between the commander, Zulfikar Alispago, and the late Arif

10 Pasalic.

11 Q. Very well. Mr. Gusic, I want to put something to you from an

12 interview that you had at the cantonal court in Sarajevo in 19 -- just

13 excuse me. I'll put to you the proper date -- on the 11th -- sorry, on

14 the 11th of March, 1999. Did you say this on that occasion, at

15 page 3: "To tell the truth" -- sorry, I take that back. I'll read you

16 another sentence. "For the purpose of the execution of the" --

17 MS. CHANA: Your Honours.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Chana.

19 MS. CHANA: We don't -- can we see what particular document he's

20 referring to, please. We don't have it on our screens.

21 JUDGE LIU: Well, it depends how long that document will be

22 quoted. Maybe just one sentence. We'll let Mr. Morrissey go and to see

23 whether there's a need to do that.

24 MR. MORRISSEY: To assist the Prosecutor, can I indicate that

25 it's -- it's from the statement that I quoted, provided to us by the

Page 40

1 Prosecution, and I'm going to read about six lines followed by about three

2 more lines subsequently.

3 Q. Okay. Sorry, Mr. Gusic. Now I'll read to you the preliminary

4 sentence followed by what comes: "For the purpose of the execution of the

5 combat activities, besides the units deployed to carry out the combat

6 tasks, the forward command post established the unit, that is, the

7 Zulfikar special purposes detachment of the Supreme Command Staff, under

8 the command of the brigadier, Zulfikar Alispago. To tell the truth, the

9 unit was also a part of the 6th Corps under my command, but during the

10 execution of planned combat activities the unit was under the command of

11 the forward command post. Senior officers of the forward command post

12 were giving war combat assignments to this unit. Therefore, the unit was

13 obliged to fulfil tasks given by the commander of the forward command

14 post."

15 Now, Mr. Gusic, it's the fact, isn't it, that on that occasion

16 you were acknowledging that Zulfikar's Unit was under the 6th Corps,

17 albeit having been resubordinated to the IKM, and you didn't refer to the

18 4th Corps resubordination in the least; correct?

19 A. I stated this yesterday, and I don't want to say anything that

20 wasn't true. Under the organisational structure, there was a unit under

21 the command of Zulfikar. And the reason why I requested the commander to

22 resolve the status of that unit at the advisory meeting in Zenica was

23 precisely because I wasn't commanding that unit.

24 I'm not trying to say that it wasn't within the composition. It

25 was, until the order that the commander issued, and it was sent there.

Page 41

1 After that, Zulfikar's Unit was in the -- in the composition of the 4th

2 Corps. I never at any point claimed it was not part of it but practically

3 it wasn't because I never actually assumed command of that unit, and I

4 stated that before and I will continue to say it. And I said the same

5 thing before that court. I stated it probably in the way you read it out.

6 But the gist is as I have just explained it.

7 Q. Well, let's just be clear, in fairness to you. What you're

8 saying is that the Zulfikar Unit was originally, in theory, under the

9 6th Corps, although it was not necessarily within the line of command and

10 control; is that correct?

11 A. I don't know if it was essential. I wouldn't like to -- like to

12 assess that. But when the organisational decisions were made, probably

13 there was a need for that. There is an order stating when the corps was

14 formed, that the special purpose unit was part of the 6th Corps. It's

15 true that out in the field it was never part of the 6th Corps; it was

16 always directly linked to the Supreme Command Staff. And I did put the

17 question about the status amongst other things, not only of that unit but

18 other special units at the advisory meeting in Zenica, and it's true that

19 after that the commander resolved the status of that unit by deploying it

20 as part of the organic composition of the 4th Corps.

21 Q. But, Mr. Gusic, just -- perhaps my questions are not perfect.

22 And I apologise for that. But your position is this. I'll summarise it

23 and you tell me if that's right. You say that the Zulfikar Unit was

24 transferred by Delic to the command of the 4th Corps and that thereafter

25 the commander of the 4th Corps resubordinated it to the IKM? Is that your

Page 42

1 position now?

2 A. I think that you saw those documents, so I cannot tell you

3 anything else than what has been shown over the past couple of days. Yes,

4 that was so. Yes.

5 Q. Thank you. The answer is yes.

6 All right. Well, in the statement I was reading out to you

7 before, did you go on to say this: "Regarding the combat tasks, this unit

8 under the command of the forward command post was responsible for

9 execution of combat activities to the commander of the forward command

10 post. The unit was part of the 6th Corps, and as commander of the

11 6th Corps, I was still authorised to provide logistical help to the unit.

12 That was the 6th Corps's permanent activity that could not have been

13 stopped." Did you say in the statement to the cantonal court in 1999?

14 A. The second part regarding logistics referred to all of the units

15 which were engaged in the mentioned operation, so the need for logistics

16 did not stop when the -- I don't know about the Zulfikar Unit. I am not

17 claiming that we did not perform logistics functions for them as well.

18 There were things that I could provide from Konjic or Jablanica or from

19 the area of responsibility from the 6th Corps, but that could also come

20 from Brdo or over the mountains. But I'm categorically stating that that

21 unit was not part of the 6th Corps during the combat operations.

22 I think the report that you've read out to me, it's six years old.

23 I find it very difficult to remember things. I remember what I had for

24 lunch yesterday but not for the day before. It's very hard to remember

25 what I said 20 minutes ago, never mind six years ago.

Page 43

1 But the essence of what I said is the following: The Zulfikar

2 Unit was not an organic part of the 6th Corps. As far as logistics are

3 concerned - fuel, and ammunition, possibly communications equipment,

4 food - that is probably something that did happen, so I cannot remember

5 that we did or didn't carry out these functions for them. There probably

6 were such activities on our part, but that does not mean or -- that they

7 were in the chain of command, even if we did perform such functions.

8 Q. Mr. Gusic, have a look at that big map behind you.

9 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, before I ask Mr. Gusic to do that,

10 might I tender that map. I think I started to do so before the break.

11 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that the Prosecution also tendered

12 the similar maps which is a copy of this map. Do we have to tender it

13 twice?

14 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I'm not sure that that map was

15 tendered. Although there's a copy leaning over there, I don't think that

16 was one of the two. My recollection is that they tendered the big

17 regional map that had the -- which you can see behind the black and white

18 Neretva 93 over there. And that they also tendered the standard Bosnian

19 map, which is tendered in many cases. I think that's the fact. My friend

20 can confirm that, if that's right.

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

22 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, the position about the map is, I used it

23 in the opening, but when I did ask for my learned counsel whether he

24 objects for it to be tendered into evidence, he had objected at that

25 point. So that is why it's not tendered. But if he no longer has that

Page 44

1 objection, of course we have no objection for it to be tendered into

2 evidence.

3 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, many times I'm unclear. I'm sorry

4 to the Prosecutor, because I didn't mean to oppose them tendering that map

5 into evidence. I've got no doubt I expressed myself that way, but in any

6 event --

7 JUDGE LIU: Well, it depends on which stage.


9 JUDGE LIU: If you know in the opening stage, well, usually that

10 the Trial Chamber does not admit any documents at that stage. But now we

11 are in the trial stage. I think, you know, the parties are free, you

12 know --

13 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE LIU: -- You know, to tender any documents into evidence.

15 By my question is that: The map used by the Prosecution and the

16 map tendered by you today, are they the same map?

17 MR. MORRISSEY: I -- well, what I can say is that map there was

18 acquired by the Defence and we think it's the original map, and it's

19 likely that the Prosecution one is a -- a better but only a copy. And,

20 therefore, we'd seek the tender the original map as we understand it to

21 be.

22 It's better because it's in colour and it's -- it would be more

23 helpful to the Chamber and quite frankly more helpful to witnesses,

24 especially if it should happen to prove, Your Honour, that any witnesses

25 actually saw it.

Page 45

1 JUDGE LIU: Any objections?

2 MS. CHANA: No, Your Honour. Because we only have the

3 black-and-white map. I stand to be corrected. But that is my

4 understanding. So therefore we are quite happy to have that one in colour

5 because that is a photocopy of this map.

6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Thank you very much. So this document is

7 admitted into the evidence.

8 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D131, Your Honours.

9 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gusic.

11 Now, would you mind, after that, have a look at the map, please,

12 and indicate where on that map you see signified the IKM forward command

13 post at which the Prosecution and you say the -- was the command post for

14 Sefer Halilovic.

15 A. I don't see that the IKM is marked anywhere, or at least the

16 usual symbol was not used that would indicate a forward command post. I

17 don't see the brigade command posts either. I don't see the IKM command

18 post. I don't see any of the command posts. So that element of the

19 combat order has not been marked. That is why I told you a little earlier

20 that this is not an order, that it's a concept or an idea for operations

21 and it must be accompanied by an order. Here you just have access of

22 operations. This document is not an order and does not have all the

23 elements that an order is supposed to have.

24 One of the elements of an order, of course, are all the positions

25 of the command posts. And, again, I claim that this is only an idea or a

Page 46

1 concept for a combat operation.

2 Q. Or is the answer, the other one, that there's no forward command

3 post marked on there because there really was no forward command post and

4 the commander was Commander Rasim Delic?

5 A. Yes. Please, please, I would like to be fair, so please don't

6 make me give you the wrong answer. Can you claim that I wasn't at the

7 forward command post? I know I'm not in a position to ask questions, but

8 I personally was at the forward command post of the Supreme Command Staff

9 in Jablanica and I was at the thermoelectric power station. I was there

10 personally once, perhaps even twice.

11 Q. Mr. Gusic, what we're going to put to you is that not only did

12 you go to the Jablanica power station for a meeting but you attended at

13 numerous meetings because you played an important part in

14 Operation Neretva 93. Do you agree with that?

15 A. I don't agree that I was there many times. I could have been

16 there two to three times at the most at the forward command post. I was

17 not an important person in the Neretva 93 operation because I was not

18 familiar with the plan of the operation.

19 Q. Mr. Gusic, you're certainly going to have an opportunity to

20 answer questions about that in due course.

21 Can I indicate to you now that -- I'm going to ask you some

22 questions about a brief chronology, just to locate some of the other

23 matters that are going to be the subject of questioning. And then I'm

24 going to take you to particular instances broadly in a chronological order

25 and that may assist to know where the questions are aimed at so that you

Page 47

1 can understand what -- what is being put.

2 As to a very broad chronology, can I just ask you whether the

3 following facts are right? And this might assist the Court as well. Is

4 it the fact that you and all the other corps commanders attended at Zenica

5 for a meeting of corps commanders on the 22nd -- sorry, 21st and 22nd of

6 August, 1993?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. In the week after that, was there considerable activity by the

9 HVO of a hostile kind on the front line in Herzegovina and particularly in

10 the vicinity of Mostar?

11 A. Yes. It went on during the meeting itself. Also, it was very

12 complex and the intensity of the operation was quite considerable. This

13 began in late August and went on into September. The intensity of the

14 operations, according to the reports that I had -- I wasn't there in

15 Mostar, so during the war, I never entered the encircled Mostar, but what

16 I had in information from the Supreme Command Staff and directly from

17 contacts with the late General Arif Pasalic is that the enemy activities

18 in that area of Mostar was quite intense. That was the part that was

19 under the control of the B and H army.

20 Q. Thank you. Mr. Gusic, I'm going to come back to you for detail

21 about each of these matters, but at the moment I just want to get a broad

22 chronology, if that's okay.

23 Now, after the -- on or about the 29th of August - and I'm not

24 putting a specific date to you now to remember after these many years -

25 but at the end of August, an inspection team arrived in your area

Page 48

1 consisting of Mr. Suljevic, Mr. Bilajac, Mr. Karic, and Mr. Dzankovic; is

2 that correct?

3 A. Generals Suljevic, Bilajac, and Brigadier Vehbija Karic, I did

4 see them, but I did not see Dzankovic. They stopped by at my forward

5 command post. And not only that. They stopped by to see me quite often

6 at the command. These were the generals who most -- who most often came

7 to see me. These were the generals, Bilajac and Suljevic.

8 Q. On or about the 1st of September, Sefer Halilovic arrived to take

9 up team leadership in that team; is that correct?

10 A. I cannot know the exact date. I cannot tell you the exact date.

11 But it's true that in early September General Halilovic came to that area.

12 Q. There's a journalist called Sevko Hodzic who is to give evidence,

13 we believe, in this case at a later time. If Sevko Hodzic took good notes

14 of the dates when he met you and other operatives, are you in a position

15 to dispute the accuracy of -- I'm not referring to the accuracy of

16 everything he says happened but the accuracy of the dates that he

17 ascribes.

18 A. With reference to the writings of Sevko Hodzic, I cannot confirm

19 anything. I do not have a good opinion of his writings, but I have no

20 reason to doubt the dates he mentions. However, I feel that his way of

21 writing is improper and that he makes comments he is not qualified to make

22 because he doesn't have sufficient knowledge, at least military knowledge.

23 Q. Very well.

24 JUDGE LIU: Well -- well, Mr. Morrissey, when you mention a

25 person, please do not say that -- whether that person is going to testify

Page 49

1 or not because at this moment we have no idea whether there's any request

2 for the -- for the protective measures.

3 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, Your Honour. I apologise for that. I was

4 really endeavouring -- well, there's an excuse, but you don't need to hear

5 it. I'm sorry, Your Honour. I'm endeavour to do better.

6 Q. Yes. Thank you. And on the 4th of September, Rasim Delic, the

7 commander of the army, arrived in Herzegovina and spent the night in

8 Konjic, where your base also was; is that correct?

9 A. He didn't spend the night in the corps command. He spent the

10 night in another building. It was a JNA building. I cannot say that that

11 was the date, but it's true that it was within the first ten days of

12 September that General Delic was there.

13 Q. The following day from that -- from that day, the 5th of

14 September, you attended at a meeting of commanders, including Sefer

15 Halilovic and Selmo Cikotic and other commanders, at a village called

16 Dobro Polje; is that correct?

17 A. I don't know the precise date, but it's true there was a meeting

18 at Dobro Polje. Brigadier Cikotic was there, the commander of the

19 independent battalion, Enver Buza, was there; the commander of the 317th,

20 the late Enver Zejnilagic was there, Haso Hakalovic was there; the

21 commander of the Sutjeska Battalion was there; Brigadier Vehbija Karic was

22 there; General Bilajac was there; I think General Zicro Suljevic was there

23 as well.

24 Q. Had you met Vehbija Karic before?

25 A. Yes. I knew him from 1992 in Sarajevo.

Page 50

1 Q. Was he a married man?

2 A. I know he had a son. But whether he was married, I don't know.

3 I did meet his son on Igman -- or at least, he introduced himself as

4 Vehbija Karic's son. He was a young man who introduced himself as Vehbija

5 Karic's son. As to whether he was married, believe me, I don't know.

6 Q. Well, let me just see if you can exercise your memory on that.

7 Was he married to a Croatian woman?

8 A. I told you I didn't know whether he was married at all. I don't

9 know about that, no.

10 Q. Very well. To your knowledge - and I'm talking about knowledge

11 that you've acquired later on - were citizens killed in Grabovica on the

12 night of the 8th and the morning of the 9th of September 1993?

13 A. I learnt that a crime had been committed in Grabovica, but to

14 this day I cannot say that I know the exact date when this was done. I

15 was never on the scene of the crime, and I cannot say whether it was on

16 the 9th or the 8th or on some other day. I do know that two or three days

17 later, between the 12th and the 15th, I got this information from Nermin

18 Eminovic, my assistant for security.

19 Q. Thank you. On the 13th of September, was there an attack

20 launched by Bosnian army units towards Makiljen [phoen] and in the area of

21 Crni Vrh - that's C-r-n-i V-r-h - and I apologise for any massacre of the

22 pronunciation.

23 A. I don't know. I don't have this information because I wasn't

24 involved in those combat operations. I don't know the date when it was

25 launched. I know that there were combat operations on that axis, but I

Page 51

1 don't know when they were launched.

2 Q. Well, if the evidence proves that -- if other evidence proves

3 that it was the 13th of September that the 317th Brigade and some attached

4 units went into battle in that area, you would not be disputing that date;

5 is that correct?

6 A. How can I dispute it when I don't know the date? I can neither

7 dispute it nor confirm it. I don't know the date when it was launched.

8 Q. All right. And on -- but what you can say is that on the day

9 following that, the Prozor Independent Battalion went into an attack in

10 the vicinity of the villages in Uzdol; is that correct?

11 A. I can't tell you whether it was on that day or the day before or

12 the day after. I wasn't in charge of those combat operations, and I don't

13 know when it happened. But I do know that the Prozor Battalion was active

14 on that axis. I know that. The general direction, that is.

15 Q. Okay. Well, I understand that's your position.

16 Now, on the -- on the 16th, you received an order from Stjepan

17 Siber indicating that the cease-fire had been clinched in Geneva; is that

18 correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And that's --

21 A. The 16th.

22 Q. I cut you off. Pardon me.

23 A. On the 16th, all the units received that order, not just the

24 6th Corps. All the units and all the elements of the Supreme Command

25 Staff received this order.

Page 52

1 Q. Yes. And that order included a requirement that all combat

2 activity cease by the 18th; is that correct?

3 A. I think that's correct, yes. To cease offensive combat

4 operations. I believe that defensive actions were never in any doubt, but

5 all offensive actions were to be halted.

6 Q. To your recollection, did the HVO cease its activities on the

7 18th of -- of September and stop firing bullets into Mostar?

8 A. I can't reply to that question with any precision because, as I

9 said, I never went to Mostar. The information I received was that combat

10 operations did not stop. However, whether it was the HVO or the Army of

11 BH that did not stop combat operations, I don't know. I cannot confirm

12 this because I was never there. So I cannot say who failed to stop their

13 combat operations, which side.

14 Q. Now, in the week -- you're aware that -- we'll come to that

15 later.

16 You're aware that -- that Sefer Halilovic went back to Sarajevo on

17 approximately the 19th or -- I'm not asking you -- I'm not asking you to

18 be precise about it, but you know that Sefer Halilovic returned to

19 Sarajevo very soon after that date, the 18th?

20 A. I don't know the precise date, but whether it was in October or

21 September, I don't know. But it's true that at some point, not very long

22 after the end of combat operations, General Halilovic did go to Sarajevo.

23 Q. Very well. Now, I want just to clinch a matter that was raised

24 earlier on, which I want to conclude now, and it's a matter that arises at

25 that end period of time.

Page 53

1 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness please be shown a document,

2 it's Defence Rule 65 ter number D104; Defence ERN number DD00.04 -- 0420.

3 It's marked for identification 132 or going to be marked ultimately.

4 A. I can see only the English version.

5 MR. MORRISSEY: While that's being brought up, can I just -- I'll

6 raise one matter with you.

7 Q. This is a correspondence from the accused man, Mr. Halilovic, to

8 Rasim Delic. And once you've looked at it, I'm going to ask you to

9 confirm whether you've -- and drawn your attention particularly to one

10 part of it, I'm going to ask you whether you've seen the document and I'm

11 going to ask you whether you remember the incident.

12 Do you now have the -- the Bosnian version of that in front of

13 you?

14 A. Not yet. Not yet.

15 It's here now.

16 Q. Thank you. Would you please look to the second indented

17 paragraph, which commences with the words: "Although with your

18 permission, I said to Salko Gusic..." Do you have that paragraph?

19 A. Yes, I see it now.

20 Q. Would you read it and I'll read with you, that Sefer Halilovic

21 says there: "Although with your permission, I said to Salko Gusic, the

22 commander of the 6th Corps, that we would see each other in Jablanica on

23 Saturday, he has not shown up yet or contacted me. This has become his

24 habit. I was looking for him in the area of responsibility of the

25 6th Corps for four or five days, and then met him by chance in the command

Page 54

1 of the 6th Corps. If Pisvir is lost, then Jablanica and the valley of the

2 Neretva would be very difficult to defend. He seems to have taken it very

3 seriously that I cannot order him, which is basically what I do not want.

4 However, it would be only fitting if he or someone else from the corps

5 command at least contacted me because there is fierce fighting going on

6 here."

7 Have you read and understand -- have you read now in this court

8 and understood that paragraph?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did any investigators or any other person ever show you that

11 document to comment on?

12 A. I never commented on this document.

13 Q. Do you agree with the allegations that Sefer Halilovic was

14 making, that you wouldn't talk to him and that you took it very seriously

15 that he could not command you? Do you agree with what he said when he

16 said it back in September of 1993?

17 A. I cannot agree with this. I can't believe that General Halilovic

18 would write this. Somebody probably wrote this on his behalf. I won't

19 say he didn't sign it, but somebody else must have drafted this for him.

20 This is not correct. It could be true that we didn't meet, but had he

21 told me we had to meet, we would have met, or at least we would have

22 talked by some means of communication. That he had to go looking for me

23 in my area of responsibility for four or five days, well, everybody knew

24 where I was. I was at the forward command post in Fojnica. If I had

25 received a message, I would have gone to see him. Anyone from the corps

Page 55

1 command - for example, my deputy - hadn't he gone to the meeting in

2 Buturovic Polje? He was authorised to make decisions on my behalf.

3 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay. Could the witness now please be shown

4 another document. Perhaps I offer that document as well.

5 The next document that I would wish the witness to be shown is

6 Defence document D17 -- Defence Rule 65 ter number D17; Defence ERN number

7 DD00.0055; MFI133.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I have the full screen on this

9 document?


11 Q. Do you now have that document, Mr. Gusic?

12 A. Yes. Yes. I'm reading it. Can you give me a moment to read it

13 through?

14 Q. I'll read it with you. Is it -- is it addressed to the chief of

15 Sjever, Sefer Halilovic personally, and to the commander -- the command of

16 the 6th Corps, the commander personally? Is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Does it recite that: "We received a document from Mr. Sefer

19 Halilovic in which he states that among other things he did not manage to

20 find you although he had an appointment with you at Jablanica on the

21 30th of September, 1993 and for this reason I hereby order..." and Rasim

22 Delic goes on to order certain things. Is that the fact?

23 A. Yes. Yes.

24 Q. Well, did you complain to Rasim Delic that this was an

25 unjustified complaint by Sefer Halilovic and that you weren't failing to

Page 56

1 meet him at all? Or is the answer to that "never"?

2 A. No. I contacted the commander after receiving this order and

3 told him I never knew about the meeting scheduled for the 30th of

4 September. I never knew about it. And when I received this document,

5 that was the first time I saw that an appointment had been scheduled.

6 There were ways in which I could have been informed that this meeting had

7 been planned and that I was supposed to attend it.

8 Q. Mr. Gusic, from that you now acknowledge receiving this document

9 from Rasim Delic, don't you?

10 A. Yes. This document stuck in my mind because of what it says that

11 further combat activities should not be carried out without the

12 commander's approval because there was an order on cease-fire. So that's

13 why this document sticks in my memory.

14 Q. Did it stick in your memory yesterday?

15 A. Yesterday? It wasn't shown to me yesterday.

16 Q. All right.

17 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I tender that document.

18 Q. I just want to ask you -- I'm sorry, I just want to ask one

19 further question about the -- one further topic about that. Would you

20 look, please, to document number -- sorry, to prong number 4.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. I just --

23 A. Delivered to the commander --

24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... to you. I put to you that

25 there, just as on the map that's behind you, a person who's the commander

Page 57

1 of the Operation Neretva 93 is made perfectly explicit in the form of an

2 order and that that person was none other than the commander of the army,

3 Rasim Delic.

4 A. That's what you say. I cannot confirm this. I don't want to

5 deny it. I'm not denying for a single moment that somebody else was

6 perhaps commanding the operation, but I have no proof of that. I know who

7 was the commander at the forward command post. I know who directly issued

8 tasks to the units on the ground. And whether that's someone -- not

9 someone but General Halilovic. Whether he had to consult General Delic

10 about each one of his decisions and receive approval from him, it was not

11 General Halilovic's duty to inform me of this nor can I claim to know

12 about it.

13 But from what you are showing me here, this does not refer to the

14 Neretva operation but, rather, to the preparations that I was ordered to

15 carry out, and in connection with these preparations I was to submit

16 reports to General Delic. In other words, I was to report to him on how

17 the preparations were going and in what manner.

18 Q. Are you suggesting that Neretva 93 had finished by this time?

19 A. No. No. I am not saying it was finished.

20 Q. What combat -- what combat operations were you planning and

21 preparing in Herzegovina with the chief of the Sjever, Sefer Halilovic

22 personally, to which General Delic refers if not Neretva 93? What other

23 combat activities in the area of General Halilovic's Neretva 93, as you

24 would have it, were being prepared?

25 A. Defensive operations. It was necessary to defend the positions

Page 58

1 we were holding in order to avoid a fiasco because of the lack of success

2 of the operations that were being carried out.

3 Q. Have a look at number -- paragraph 4 again, please.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... reference to defensive

6 operations or is it in truth a reference to offensive operations?

7 A. Paragraph 4?

8 Q. Yes, paragraph 4 and none other.

9 A. Four?

10 Q. Yes, four. Is that a reference in your account to defensive

11 operations or, rather, is it a reference to offensive operations?

12 A. Just a moment. This can refer either to offensive or to

13 defensive activities. Let me remind you that a defence can be flexible

14 and that there can be offensive activities with smaller units in certain

15 directions, which doesn't mean that this is an offensive activity. It's

16 aimed at maintaining the positions we are already holding. One can't say

17 that this couldn't refer to large-scale offensive operations, but I know

18 that after this order we did not prepare any large-scale offensive

19 operations.

20 Q. But it's your -- you're the one who says here - and I just want

21 to clarify this - you're the one who says this is not -- this order is not

22 connected to Neretva 93. And I'm asking you to specify what offensive

23 operations, if any, this order refers to if not offensive operations

24 within Neretva 93. Could you clarify that, please. If it's not

25 Neretva 93, what is it?

Page 59

1 A. This order doesn't have to be an order within the framework of

2 the Operation Neretva 93. If command of the operation were taken over by

3 the commander who would introduce new forces, which he's doing here, he

4 could either order combat activities within this operation or open up a

5 new operation. I personally think that this order cannot prove that this

6 is a continuation of the Operation Neretva 93 but it cannot prove that

7 preparations were not being made to create the conditions for a

8 continuation of combat operations.

9 The goal of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina was the liberation

10 of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was a permanent task.

11 And we always had to prepare our units for offensive operations. In this

12 particular case, there is an axis or a direction that is given and an idea

13 or a plan that we had to prepare for.

14 Q. One final question arising out of this document, and then we're

15 going to go back to the start and we'll work through in a more

16 chronological way than I have currently been doing.

17 What you can say is that looking at that order there is no doubt

18 that by the time of the issuing of that order, on the 1st of October,

19 1993, there was potential offensive conduct in Herzegovina being planned

20 and prepared that was not part of Neretva 93; is that correct?

21 A. Could you please repeat the last part of your question. I

22 haven't really understood it very well.

23 Q. The last part was "is that correct," but I'll put the question

24 again to you just to make sure that -- to be fair. The question was

25 this --

Page 60

1 A. I apologise.

2 Q. And I'll put it in the precise terms I put it.

3 By the time of the issuing of that order, which you have, on the

4 1st of October 1993, there was potential offensive conduct in Herzegovina

5 being planned and prepared that was not part of Neretva 93; is that

6 correct?

7 A. Potential activities -- planned potential activities is something

8 that did not happen. But from this order there was the instruction to

9 plan potential activities. So in my opinion, it was pointing in the

10 direction of planning new other combat activities, but still it's

11 difficult to assess whether these are offensive or defensive combat

12 operations, but I think that we're talking about a series of minor strikes

13 in order to achieve the desired possessions. But outside of Neretva 93 at

14 that time, I cannot confirm that there were any other combat operations,

15 but work was underway in planning new combat operations or even to

16 continue combat operations as part of Neretva 93.

17 But I would just like to note -- or perhaps I'm commenting on

18 something that I should not be commenting on, but if the combat operations

19 as part of Neretva 93 were to continue, after an order like this it would

20 be inevitable for the commander himself to assume command since this order

21 emanated from him, if activities were to continue, further activities

22 within the framework of Neretva 93. I think that it would be improper to

23 leave a person to do something, but we were already interfering in his

24 area of responsibility and limiting his work by beginning new operations.

25 He should be permitted to finish, from start to finish, what he began.

Page 61

1 But the commander was the one who would continue when these

2 operations would continue, if there were to be operations -- further

3 operations as part of Neretva 93. And at that stage, the stage of the

4 order, following the order then the commander should be the one who would

5 assume or should assume command.

6 Q. Thank you for that, Mr. Gusic. I take it you've noticed who the

7 commander is in relation to this order. Yes?

8 A. I don't understand who the commander -- you mean the Supreme

9 Command Staff commander?

10 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... the order as commander.

11 That was Rasim Delic, wasn't it?

12 A. Rasim Delic is the commander of the Supreme Command Staff of the

13 Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and this order is addressed to

14 General Halilovic and myself. Therefore, because I did not up to that

15 point participate in these combat operations - I was being tasked to begin

16 preparations or to join the preparations - probably the commander had some

17 new idea which could be different from the one that we can see here on the

18 map. That is possible. But it could also be the same concept. So I

19 don't know what the commander's idea was before he drafted this order,

20 because this is a preparatory order. That's the form it's given in. It's

21 not an order that meant that we were to begin implementation.

22 Q. Thank you again. Do you see there any sign of the order being

23 directed to an IKM or sent to an IKM?

24 A. Could I please just look at the beginning of the document,

25 because I only have the places that the order is supposed to be delivered

Page 62

1 to. So I would just like it to be -- I would like to see a little bit

2 down on the page. Could you please just scroll it up a little bit more.

3 I would like to look at the end of the document, please.

4 The only thing that would indicate that it was sent to the IKM

5 would be the stamp of the communications centre that received it and that

6 in the heading it is also addressed to General Halilovic. These are two

7 indications which would tell me that -- that this document was sent to

8 the IKM. The document was received at the IKM at 22.45 hours on the 1st

9 of October.

10 Q. You're referring to the part that's shown on the screen there,

11 are you? Do you have on the screen there the stamp?

12 A. Yes. Yes. Yes.

13 Q. And what -- what -- you don't see the words "IKM" there, do you?

14 You see: "C-OP Jablanica; correct?

15 A. Yes, you can see "The Jablanica communications centre."

16 MR. MORRISSEY: All right. Your Honours, I tender MFI132 and

17 MFI133. Both are for tender.

18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gusic.

19 JUDGE LIU: Well, we could, you know, consider the admission of

20 the documents at this stage or we could do it later on, because I believe

21 that there are a bunch of the documents on the side of the Prosecution.

22 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry. Pardon me.

23 JUDGE LIU: Who has not been tendered yet. So -- so maybe you

24 could do it all together at the end.

25 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, Your Honour.

Page 63

1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

2 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Thank you.

3 Q. Very well. Now, Mr. Gusic, I'm going to now take you back to

4 Zenica and the meeting at Zenica. Very well.

5 Now, the meeting at Zenica, I put to you, was a very important

6 meeting for the leadership of the army of Rasim Delic and indeed was the

7 first occasion when he had assembled all of the corps commanders together

8 to discuss future directions for the war. Is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And when you attended, apart from the people that you mentioned

11 as being present yesterday, also in attendance was the Minister of the

12 Interior, an individual named Bakir Alispaic; is that correct?

13 A. I cannot remember. I dare not say that he was or that he wasn't.

14 When I was preparing for the testimony, I saw a video clip in Sarajevo

15 perhaps about half a year ago, and I can't recall seeing him. Since there

16 is a video recording, if I see -- saw him on that recording, perhaps I --

17 then, of course, it would indicate that he was there. But I really cannot

18 remember whether he was there or not.

19 Q. Very well. That raises the issue of the tape. At the time when

20 that meeting took place, it was videotaped and audiotaped, to your

21 knowledge?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. When you were shown the videotape -- sorry, I shouldn't

24 shouldn't say "videotape." You were shown a DVD, weren't you, by the

25 investigators?

Page 64

1 A. Yes, I saw a DVD. It was on DVD. I looked at that recording in

2 Sarajevo on the Office of the Tribunal.

3 Q. And one thing you did at that time was to point out to the

4 investigators that a significant portion of that tape at the end was

5 missing; is that correct?

6 A. That's correct. I think that the meeting did not conclude in the

7 way it -- that can be seen on that recording because tasks were issued at

8 the end. There was a brief address by the commander with specific and

9 concise tasks, and I didn't see that on this recording.

10 And not only that. I told the investigator also that a part of

11 the tape that was in -- showing some part of the meeting, there was a lot

12 that I recall that certain people said which is not on the tape. So this

13 is -- in the course of the tape, you can see that not everything that each

14 person said is on the tape. This is what I told the investigator at the

15 time. I think that what I said is almost entirely recorded, but I can't

16 claim that with 100 per cent certainty. But I did refer to certain

17 statements by those who spoke before me, and I don't remember hearing some

18 of the things they said or seeing that on the tape. I know that I

19 referred to the statement by the late General Arif Pasalic, and I don't

20 remember hearing him say that on the tape.

21 Q. Very well. I'm going to take you to some specific questions

22 about the tape, but there are some questions I want to put to you about

23 the substance of the -- of what was said.

24 You can confirm, I take it, the following facts: No such --

25 sorry, I take that back. No Operation Neretva 93 was mentioned at all; is

Page 65

1 that correct?

2 A. The name of the operation was never mentioned. I did not hear it

3 mentioned at the meeting. I did not hear the term "Neretva 93" mentioned

4 at the meeting.

5 Q. The next point: Sefer Halilovic offered no plan at that meeting

6 for an operation related to Mostar or indeed related to Herzegovina at

7 all; is that correct?

8 A. As far as I remember, no, he didn't. Not as an operation, no.

9 Q. In fact, in a statement that you made to the Prosecutors

10 recently, the most recent statement that you made -- you made the comment

11 that the -- that -- I'll read it to you: "Listening to the statements of

12 General Sefer Halilovic during the meeting and on the recording, I can see

13 that his main focus was the warehouse in Zemunica, Hadzici, and an

14 explosives factory in Vitez, Vitez being the priority. General Halilovic

15 did not even mention Mostar. The situation in Mostar was presented by

16 General Arif Pasalic." And that's what you said to the -- to the

17 investigators and that was the truth; correct?

18 A. Yes. Yes. Yes.

19 Q. Okay. And on that -- at that meeting, no one was appointed to

20 command an operation in Herzegovina; is that correct?

21 A. As far as I recall, that is correct; no one was appointed.

22 Q. Mr. Gusic, I understand it's a very long time ago, and should you

23 need or feel the need to read a transcript or even to look at the tape, it

24 may be possible that that opportunity to be furnished and we'd come back

25 to question you about it at a different time; not to play you lengthy

Page 66

1 slabs of tape in this court. But I just want to make it clear that if

2 that is your position, you indicate it and we'll see.

3 Now, you don't know yourself who it was who caused the parts of

4 the tape which are missing to go missing, do you?

5 A. No, I don't. The first time I saw the tape was on the premises

6 of the Tribunal in Sarajevo. I didn't view the tape prior to that.

7 Q. Certainly. Now,--

8 A. And just one more thing: I am not claiming that somebody removed

9 those parts. It's possible that the person who was actually taping it at

10 the time did not tape everything. So I'm not going into the reasons why

11 he would tape certain things and not other things. But based on what I

12 saw, it's not a complete tape, I believe, and not all the particulars are

13 depicted on the tape that took place on that day in Zenica.

14 Q. Very well. Now, I'm going to press on to ask you certain details

15 of what was said by individuals, particularly Commander Delic, you, and

16 briefly Arif Pasalic.

17 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Morrissey, before you go into details, is

18 this the right time for us to take a break?

19 MR. MORRISSEY: Certainly, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. And we'll take a 20-minute break.

21 --- Recess taken at 5.21 p.m.

22 --- On resuming at 5.42 p.m.

23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Morrissey. Let's go into details.

24 MR. MORRISSEY: Thanks.

25 Q. Now, Mr. Gusic, there's a document that -- a document that I

Page 67

1 think the Prosecution used yesterday, MFI109. This is a document referred

2 to as the Zenica conclusions.

3 MR. MORRISSEY: I wonder if the witness could be shown the Zenica

4 conclusions, please.

5 Q. Mr. Gusic, while that's being arranged for you, I just indicate

6 I'm going to take you to a couple of the comments made in those

7 conclusions by Rasim Delic and ask for your comment on a couple of

8 matters.

9 MR. MORRISSEY: Could we please have the following page. Do we

10 need a page number?

11 [Defence counsel confer]

12 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you.

13 Q. Very well. Now, I won't ask you to comment on the knife in the

14 back line there, but do you see a line beginning "The HVO attack ..."?

15 It's four lines from the top, I think you'll find.

16 A. You're talking about item 4, if I understand you properly, or ...

17 Q. I was going to talk about item 4, but, Mr. Gusic, you have

18 anticipated the question. However, could I just ask you to confirm

19 something about items 2 and 3, first of all.

20 Mr. Gusic, I should say this, that in this Tribunal it's not

21 permissible to ask questions about who is in the right and who is in the

22 wrong in wars, and it's simply not relevant to the determination. But I

23 have got some questions for you about your perception and the shared

24 perception so far as you understood it of the army as to the dangers being

25 faced by the Bosniak people and the Bosnian people, not just Bosniak but

Page 68

1 Bosnian generally.

2 First of all, in the Bosnian army, were there numerous Croats

3 fighting?

4 A. Well, I don't know about numerous, but in the Army of

5 Bosnia-Herzegovina there were Croats. I don't know what the percentage

6 would be, but there were Croats, yes.

7 Q. Was Stjepan Siber, the deputy commander, a Croat?

8 A. I don't know how he -- what his ethnicity is, how he declares

9 himself, but I think that he was a Croat. I think he is a Croat. I don't

10 know how he feels, which group he belongs to.

11 Q. And regardless of whether the policy was always carried out

12 perfectly, was it the policy of the Bosnian government to fight for a

13 unified multi-ethnic Bosnia?

14 A. Whether that was the policy, I think, yes. But to tell you the

15 truth, I was a soldier. I carried out orders by -- from my superiors, and

16 I was convinced that I was fighting for the right cause. But I think that

17 the policy was just as you mention it.

18 Q. Yes. And --

19 A. These were my convictions as well, that in Bosnia and Herzegovina

20 that we were creating, we were to be all equal, that it would be a

21 multicultural state, that it wasn't important who belonged to which ethnic

22 group but it was important to see what kind of a person somebody was

23 and -- and what kind of results they were achieving and what their

24 contribution to the society as a whole was.

25 Q. Yes. Very well. Would you mind going, please, to paragraph

Page 69

1 number 7. Now, if you would just -- just briefly read paragraph number 7,

2 and I'll ask you to comment on that. Tell me when you've read it and --

3 A. Yes. Yes, this is better. If you could just make it a little

4 smaller. This is good now.

5 Q. Tell me when you've read it.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Okay. The Bosnian army at the time of the Zenica meeting was

8 just past its first birthday; is that correct?

9 A. Yes. I think that Army Day was on the 15th of April. That is

10 Army Day. So the 21st, the 22nd of August, I don't think that it was an

11 important date or anything like that, other than the fact that this

12 meeting was held at that time.

13 Q. And although the -- the old history of the beginnings of the army

14 might be strained beyond what's relevant in this case, it still is the

15 fact, isn't it, that in -- in August of 1993, when this conference was

16 held, you had an army which was really a group of people in the process of

17 becoming an army rather than an army which was functioning with mature

18 structures of command and control well understood by all parties? Do you

19 agree with that?

20 A. We wanted to have an army that was as good as possible, but we

21 didn't have a perfect army. It's true that there were problems, that

22 there was a lot of personnel who carried out certain functions which they

23 were not trained for. Even I wasn't trained for the duty of corps

24 commander, but I was a commander of a corps. The level of training in the

25 JNA was up to battalion level. We were doing certain operations at the

Page 70

1 level of a brigade; however, corps operations at that level was something

2 that I only encountered during the war. The majority of people who were

3 occupying certain positions, in particular company commanders, were in the

4 process of being trained for that position. They were not well versed at

5 that point in everything that they needed to know in order to be able to

6 function at such a position.

7 Q. I'll just stop you there for one moment and I'll ask you for a

8 brief comment not related to the officers but related to the men, and I'll

9 perhaps guide the answer by putting a couple of short questions to you.

10 Most of the soldiers in -- in the Army of Bosnia were volunteers

11 and civilians to your knowledge; is that correct?

12 A. Yes. But the majority had already been through training in the

13 JNA through their regular military term of duty, so they did have some

14 soldier's knowledge and training, the majority of them. However, there

15 were some who were being trained in the course of the war. There were

16 many very young men who had joined any kind of army ranks for the first

17 time in their life.

18 Q. The problems referred to in paragraph 7 really arose out of the

19 realities of the soldiers you had to work with and the officers you had to

20 work with and, to make it a longer question still, out of the situation --

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. -- of war in which you were first forced to conduct your training

23 and your planning.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... to paragraph number 9,

Page 71

1 please.

2 Now, there's a reference there, in paragraph number 9, to

3 difficulties of finance. Is it the fact that individual units often had

4 to find their own money to buy weapons, clothing, and food?

5 A. I don't know that they had to, but it's true that individuals did

6 that. I don't know whether they had to. There were many who left the

7 country and conducted various fund-raising activities and returned to the

8 country and then used that money the way they felt it had to be used,

9 evading any possibility of any kind of monitoring from the state or the

10 military. So these were not just certain events or individual

11 occurrences, but it was something that happened. It was ...

12 Q. Okay. Is it correct to say that there was an irregular flow of

13 ammunition and weaponry to your units?

14 A. I don't know the exact situation in the army overall. I know

15 what the situation was in the Neretva River Valley, in the area of

16 Visoko. In the units where I was in command, I know that there was very

17 little ammunition, not too many explosive devices. The artillery that I

18 had at my disposal had perhaps one or two projectiles, not more than five

19 according to each model. I never had more than five at a time.

20 The ammunition reserves were -- well, it's true that there was an

21 ammunition factory in Konjic; however, in 1993 -- I can't say it

22 definitely that it was the only source of ammunition for -- to supply the

23 units, but it was a very important one. It was a crucial facility for the

24 resupply of infantry ammunition, as we called it. It was under the direct

25 control of the Supreme Command Staff. The raw materials required for the

Page 72

1 production of this ammunition was seized in combat from HVO forces. I

2 don't have all the information, but I think this was one of the main

3 sources of supply for ammunition, particularly in the second half of 1993.

4 It's true that we had very scarce material and equipment at our disposal

5 and that is why the use of those -- or the allocation of those funds and

6 the equipment was in the hands of very, very few people, who then had a

7 lot of influence because of that.

8 May I just add for purposes of comparison: When I, on the 20th

9 of January, 1994, handed over my duty as corps commander, I told General

10 Drekovic -- I presented to him an open casket of ammunition. When I

11 say "open," it means that it wasn't full, a couple of boxes of

12 7.2 millimetres, one or two projectiles for tanks, and Howitzers, and I

13 also gave him about 500.000 German marks. This means that I did have

14 money but I didn't have ammunition. That was the situation before then

15 also.

16 Q. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Gusic. I'm sorry, and I'm not

17 cutting you off because you're going outside the question, I just -- I

18 just want to focus on something else now and thank you for what you said.

19 Mr. Gusic, would you look now, please, at paragraph number 10.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Now, you see that Rasim Delic has given expression to a concern

22 that the -- the local media in Bosnia was not popularising the struggle

23 and that it's -- that the media's professionalism and principles and

24 patriotism were, at least at this stage of Zenica, more damaging than

25 useful to the Bosnian army.

Page 73

1 Now, noticing that there, did you understand what the -- what

2 Mr. Delic -- I'm calling him Mr. Delic -- what Commander Delic wanted was

3 that the media engage more, if you like, proactively and positively in

4 covering combat operations of the Bosnian army?

5 A. I really don't know what he wanted in this paragraph; meaning

6 General Delic. But he probably wanted to have this issue popularised

7 through the media, in terms of the real situation out in the front and in

8 creating conditions for the military to have the correct and proper

9 information rather than some distorted information, because there was a

10 lot of distortion in the media regarding the situation. You could not

11 trust and believe the media to the extent that you should have been able

12 to do that, and he felt that the media should convey authentic information

13 instead of adapting it.

14 Q. Well, he was going a bit further than that, wasn't he? He was

15 suggesting that they should boost morale as well. Just having a look at

16 the paragraph there.

17 A. You're putting me in a particular situation. I do not wish to

18 comment on the positions and orders of my commander. From the point in

19 time of now, I would not write something like that, looking at it from

20 today's point of view. But at that time, perhaps I would have written

21 something like that. But today, when I look at this and when I view the

22 media now, I think it is not all right to do this. The media, their role

23 is not to improve or raise morale. It is up to the organisation, the

24 superior officers, the development of positive qualities amongst all

25 members of the army. That's how we should raise morale. So the media

Page 74

1 should really present information from close by or a little further off,

2 information as they perceive it to be, but it should also be fair and

3 correct.

4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gusic. Could I ask you to go to number 3 now,

5 point 3. And can you confirm that there under the heading of "Tasks,"

6 Commander Delic allocated the task to all corps, which presumably included

7 yours, the 6th Corps, that "Offensive action shall be applied to a greater

8 extent than before." In other words, he was encouraging a greater amount

9 of offensive actions.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Yes. Thank you.

12 Would you go, please, to number 4. And can you confirm there

13 that Commander Delic -- Mr. Gusic, I've just had a --

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Would you just excuse me one moment, please.

16 [Defence counsel confer]

17 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you.

18 Q. At number 4, Commander Delic was making it quite clear that there

19 needed to be a greater coordination of services, both civilian and

20 military, in the service of the army.

21 A. Could I please just look at that part of the text.

22 Q. Certainly.

23 A. Yes. That's point 4.

24 Q. Yes. Okay. Sorry, well, just to conclude, do you agree with the

25 comment --

Page 75

1 A. That's what it says here in this point, but I wish to express my

2 opinion about this. This is a matter of politics into which I never

3 entered. I perhaps took note of this, but I was a soldier. I don't know

4 how much it had to do with me. You might do better to put this question

5 to someone who was working on the connection between politics and the

6 army.

7 Q. Yes. Well, we might. Thank you very much for the suggestion,

8 Mr. Gusic.

9 Well, thank you for that. And would you go, please, to paragraph

10 number 9.

11 A. Yes. I've already commented on this.

12 Q. No, it's -- sorry, pardon me. We now have a -- could the page

13 please be turned over to the following page.

14 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, we should be under the heading of

15 Roman numeral II, "Tasks," here. There we have it. It's correctly on my

16 screen now. But I still need it to go over to the next page after that.

17 Thank you. Yes.

18 Q. Do you now have at paragraph number 9 one that concerns a number

19 of colourful military units?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Very well. Can you confirm that in -- at task number 9,

22 Commander Delic made it clear that the previous small independent units

23 which are named there should be attached to corps and effectively brought

24 into the line of command under the organic control of corps?

25 A. Yes.

Page 76

1 Q. And it chanced to be your good fortune that in your area of

2 operations all of the mentioned units there were to be found; is that

3 correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And --

6 A. That was what I asked, that this be solved. I asked that this

7 issue be solved at the meeting, but it wasn't solved at the meeting. It

8 was left to be solved by some new order.

9 Q. Yes. And in fact, when you turn to the -- to the order that was

10 issued by Commander Delic later on, on the 1st of September, when he

11 purported to resubordinate certain units, your understanding is that he

12 was doing so pursuant to this resolution or conclusion from Zenica; is

13 that correct?

14 A. I think so, yes.

15 Q. Okay. Would you just consider a couple of those units. The

16 Crni Labudovi - I'm sorry about my pronunciation there - that's a unit

17 called the Black Swans, the Crni Labudovi; is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Were they a particularly well-dressed and well-paid for unit of

20 soldiers?

21 A. They had uniforms that were a bit better, but as to whether they

22 were paid or not, I don't know. I don't know whether anyone was paid by

23 these units. I did not have access to that information. I have never

24 seen any proof that anyone received any kind of remuneration in any of

25 these units. But they did have better equipment --

Page 77

1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... what you say. I'm sorry.

2 I'm sorry, that was an unfair question, to ask you what you didn't know.

3 But let me just press on. That unit, the Black Swans, never

4 actually came under the effective control of the 6th Corps after this

5 time, did it?

6 A. Never. Never completely. Because I could never go to that unit

7 to analyse the situation in it, to influence appointments made within that

8 unit, to use the entire unit as I wanted. No, never.

9 Q. And I'm just stepping outside of this document for a moment to

10 ask you a more general question: Is it the case that in the Bosnian army

11 at that time you could have all sorts of orders being issued which on

12 their face looked as if they were binding but which the units on the

13 ground just simply disregarded?

14 A. I wouldn't agree with you, but I wouldn't say that there were not

15 orders that were not carried out. Most of the units of the Army of Bosnia

16 and Herzegovina carried out the orders they received. However, there were

17 individual units protected by certain lobbies, and these units could not

18 be commanded to the extent that was felt to be necessary. That did

19 happen. The units you listed, all of those units, belonged to this latter

20 category. Behind each of these units there was a lobby protecting it.

21 Q. Let me ask you a question about the Akrepi unit. Were they based

22 in Konjic?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And after the Zenica meeting and leading up to -- and up until

25 November the 1st, did the Akrepi unit remain based in Konjic?

Page 78

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. I've got a question about the Zulfikar Unit. The Zulfikar Unit

3 was commanded by Zulfikar Alispago; is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And that was a unit which was keen to preserve its independence

6 from the command of any particular corps; is that correct?

7 A. That unit claimed to be directly under the staff of this Supreme

8 Command and they even included that in their title, that they were under

9 the Supreme Command Staff.

10 Q. Yes. And could you tell the Tribunal here what's the -- the

11 acronym. Is it PNSO that they would write next to their name to indicate

12 that?


14 Q. I'm sorry. I had it wrong. But thank you for that.

15 Very well. Could you go to point number 10. Do you have point

16 number 10?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And in particular, I'm most interested in the boundary - it's the

19 last -- it's the last subparagraph - the boundary between the 6th Corps

20 and the 4th Corps. Correct? Do you see that?

21 A. Yes. Yes.

22 Q. That boundary was --

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. -- readjusted by virtue of this -- this document; is that

25 correct?

Page 79

1 A. Yes. Yes. For the forthcoming combat activities. That's why it

2 was changed. The area of responsibility for combat operations.

3 Q. Very well. Could I ask you to look at another map, please.

4 And I just ask for the assistance of the court usher in this

5 regard.

6 MR. MORRISSEY: I just wonder -- before that's been placed on the

7 device, I wonder if the witness could be asked to read out the title of

8 that map. Perhaps he could just have the map -- the title displayed to

9 him.

10 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Gusic, I'd just ask you to look at the title of

11 that map and indicate what that says. You may need to look on the other

12 side as well.

13 A. "Conclusions and assignments from the meeting in Zenica, August

14 1993, number 1/297-230 of the 29th of August, 1993, document number

15 01831684, Defence number 11."

16 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Morrissey, does it have a MFI on it?

17 MR. MORRISSEY: Would Your Honour excuse me for a minute, please.

18 THE REGISTRAR: That will be MFI134, Your Honours.

19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

20 MR. MORRISSEY: MFI134, Your Honours. I'm grateful for the

21 assistance which I've been given.

22 MS. CHANA: Are we going to see the map on the ELMO?

23 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

24 MR. MORRISSEY: What I had in mind -- the Prosecutor is right to

25 have asked the question. The witness is just inspecting it. I've

Page 80

1 indicated to the court usher a particular part that I would like shown,

2 and I ask now that that be shown to the witness and the Court.

3 Q. Now, Mr. Gusic, I'm going to ask you to comment on that map in

4 just a moment. But does that appear to you to be a map drawn to reflect

5 the changes brought about by the decision at Zenica?

6 A. This is the first time I've seen this map, and since you let me

7 read the title, the date appearing on the map is a bit odd. It's not

8 clear to me why the writing is a bit thinner -- the line is a bit thinner

9 than the remaining text on the map, if you look at it here. I'm not going

10 into it, but this is the first time I've seen this map.

11 And as for your question, in connection with the area of

12 responsibility, it's like any other map. If you had brought me a blank

13 map to draw in what it says here, I would probably do it in the same way.

14 Q. Well, does it appear to you on the face of the map who -- by any

15 initials who drafted that map -- oh, sorry. Pardon me. I'm instructed

16 that -- not to worry about that. Pardon me, Mr. Gusic.

17 Well, just have a look at that map and tell me if it accurately

18 depicts the -- sorry, the redrafting of your boundaries as agreed in the

19 light of Zenica.

20 A. I'd have to check it against the text you let me read previously,

21 but -- let me just have a look.

22 Q. Have a look at the area of --

23 A. Yes, I see.

24 Q. Okay. Does that accurately reflect the area of operations and

25 the zone of operations of the 6th Corps after the Zenica meeting?

Page 81

1 A. In the area of the village Gornja Grabovica, it does not reflect

2 the area of responsibility of the 6th Corps because there should have been

3 a sign like this one here. The way it appears at Plocno [phoen], Zeleno,

4 indicating whether it's inclusive or exclusive. In Grabovica -- you can't

5 see from this whether Grabovica is included or excluded. As this is on a

6 communication, it had to be defined, whether it was included in the area

7 of responsibility of the 6th Corps or whether it was excluded from the

8 zone of responsibility.

9 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Morrissey, maybe you could ask the witness which

10 side is the zone of responsibility of the 6th Corps on this map.

11 MR. MORRISSEY: [Microphone not activated]

12 Q. Yes. Well, you heard the question from His Honour. Which side

13 is the zone of responsibility on that map and where do you say the 6th

14 Corps' zone of responsibility actually began?

15 A. On the upper side.

16 Q. Yes. And looking at that map, is it the fact that the houses,

17 the small black dots of houses that are marked at Grabovica, do rather

18 appear to fall within your zone of responsibility?

19 A. No. No. The village as such has to be clearly defined. It has

20 to be defined who it belongs to, whether to the 6th Corps or to the

21 4th Corps.

22 Q. Mr. Gusic --

23 A. Because you see, I can draw the same kind of map leaving out the

24 houses and --

25 Q. Just a moment, please. Mr. Gusic, if you're not persuaded by the

Page 82

1 map, could I please read to you your own words from the statement that I

2 took you to earlier on, the 11th of the 3rd, 1999: "I learned of the

3 events that took place in Grabovica after it all happened. Although it

4 happened in the 6th Corps's area of responsibility, the forward command

5 post was responsible for disciplinary offences committed by soldiers who

6 were under the command of the command post and officers who established

7 the forward command post."

8 Now, do you agree that your position in the past had nothing to

9 do with this resubordination to the 4th Corps but at the time you made

10 that statement your explanation was that the incidents took place under

11 the direction of the forward command post?

12 A. The incident I still think is something that the forward command

13 post had to take care of, but as for the area of responsibility and the

14 position of the village of Grabovica, this line that has been drawn here

15 is the way it is. However, none of the villages in the area was in the

16 zone of responsibility of the 6th Corps because the order --

17 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... sorry. May I stop you.

18 Therefore, do you renounce relying on the account that this village was in

19 the zone of the 4th Corps?

20 A. The village was in the area of responsibility of the 4th Corps.

21 Q. Very well.

22 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Morrissey, if you don't mind, could I ask a

23 question to this witness.

24 Witness, suppose there is a forward commander post. Would you

25 please point out for us where it is.

Page 83

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This road in Jablanica here, this

2 is the crossroads, and these buildings here. This is where the

3 hydroelectric power plant in Jablanica is.

4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

5 You may proceed, Mr. Morrissey.

6 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. Although it's out of order, in response to His Honour's question,

8 I might just ask you a question about that. When you went to visit the

9 IKM -- and could I just ask you this question: You know what an

10 inspection team is, don't you?

11 A. I know what the inspection team is. I know that today. And the

12 questions were --

13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... if you know what an

14 inspection team is, do you know what the official name for the office

15 whilst on the terrain of an inspection team is?

16 A. The official name for an inspection team?

17 Q. The office -- sorry, I must have misled you there, so I'll ask

18 the question again. What I'm asking is the official name, the proper

19 name, for the office of an inspection team when it's out in the field.

20 A. The area of deployment of the inspection team. Although, the

21 inspection team never formed any such thing because they didn't have the

22 elements for that. They usually relied on the elements of the combat

23 disposition of the unit where they were; otherwise, they would have had to

24 have their own security, logistics, communications, and so on in order to

25 function and work normally if they did not rely on the units already

Page 84

1 existing in the area.

2 Q. Yes. Well, this does come to the question asked by His Honour:

3 The fact is that the inspection team did not have any of those things

4 within the -- within the inspection team at all; is that correct? But had

5 to rely upon whatever it could get from local units.

6 A. I don't know whether it did or not, but it set up a command post

7 which did have all this. They had their premises. They had their

8 communications centre, their security. I don't know how the food was

9 provided. I don't know how it functioned. But they had many of the

10 elements that a forward command post has to have, the essential ones. I'm

11 not trying to say they had everything necessary, but they had the

12 essentials.

13 Q. Do you -- you know Bahrudin Fazlic, Braco; is that correct?

14 A. Bahrudin? He was my deputy.

15 Q. That's correct. I just want to put something. He indicates that

16 you on the 8th of September went -- I'll read from it rather than

17 paraphrasing it: "On the 8th of September, before the start of the

18 operation, Commander Salko Gusic told me" --

19 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, I'm not sure where counsel is reading

20 from.

21 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry. Pardon me.

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

23 MR. MORRISSEY: My apologies.

24 JUDGE LIU: You have to lay down the foundations for that.

25 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Well, what I'm proposing to put to the

Page 85

1 witness is a comment of his deputy. If there's no objection, I'll proceed

2 with it. If there's an objection to it, then I won't frankly.

3 So sorry, pardon me -- if there's -- I didn't know if I took it

4 if there was an objection or not there, Your Honour. If that was an

5 objection --

6 JUDGE LIU: No, no, no. I don't regard it as an objection but

7 just to clarify what the source --

8 MR. MORRISSEY: What the document is.

9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, the source of the document.

10 MR. MORRISSEY: Pardon me. Well, this is a statement provided to

11 the Defence by the Prosecution of Bahrudin Fazlic, F-a-z-l-i-c, and it's

12 dated the 27th of May, 2003. It's an interview with Bernard Brun,

13 investigator, and we're referring here to paragraph 14 of that document.

14 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, now I would object. I don't think it's

15 an appropriate procedure to be quoting from statements of -- of other

16 people.

17 JUDGE LIU: Why not?

18 MS. CHANA: It's not evidence at this point, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE LIU: Well, the witness gives a piece of the evidence. I

20 believe that the party doing the cross-examination could use whatever

21 material to challenge that kind of piece of the documents, which is the

22 practice in this Tribunal for every other cases. Why not in our case that

23 we should not allow them to do so? I just wonder, you know, what's the

24 reason for that.

25 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, could I just indicate this: My

Page 86

1 learned friend and I have had --

2 JUDGE LIU: There must be an issue of relevance, of reliability,

3 of probative value, you know. Only out of these three conditions the

4 Trial Chamber will bar any document to be used in the proceedings.

5 Otherwise, I believe that the Defence team could use whatever documents

6 they have.

7 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Your Honour, could I indicate in fairness

8 to the Prosecutor, I understand her objection. There have been some

9 discussions between us about the way in which we're going to use these

10 statements because there's so many witnesses not being called. I'll

11 continue those discussions, and what I'll do now is to hear the comment by

12 my friend. I also hear what Your Honour's ruling is, but I'm going to

13 content myself to putting some facts to the witness and seeing what he

14 says.

15 So I withdraw that question now.

16 Q. Mr. Gusic, I'm sorry about that departure into the land of

17 statements, but now I'll -- I'll now put some propositions to you.

18 On the 8th of September, did that -- that IKM in the hydro power

19 plant consist of one big conference room with one telephone set, looking

20 empty, not looking like a command post, and lacking -- generally speaking,

21 lacking the facilities that you'd normally associate with a forward

22 command post?

23 A. I don't know what it looked like to my deputy, but what I saw

24 down there looked to me like quite a decent place, because my own command

25 place was no better. It was no better furnished and equipped, and we used

Page 87

1 the facilities we found there. We didn't have any special facilities.

2 And my command post was in the office of the director of an enterprise. I

3 draw no special distinctions between one such facility and another. I

4 don't want to say --

5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry. But there's a

6 question I want to ask you about that. When you say you don't draw any

7 distinctions between them, the fact is your corps command had a proper

8 staff, with all the branches that are attached to a staff, security,

9 communications, morale, intelligence, and all the other organs; correct?

10 And if the question is: If that's correct, did you see any such organs

11 attaching to this IKM?

12 A. You interrupted me just as I was about to say that.

13 Q. My apologies.

14 A. It seems that we are beginning to think alike. I don't want to

15 say anything improper and say that they had all the elements I had at my

16 command post, but they did have a building. They were able to establish

17 communications. They had a far better trained staff than I had, because

18 they had experienced officers. The forward command post, when it is

19 established, doesn't have to reflect fully the structure of the command.

20 It is only the essential officers that are brought to a forward command

21 post, and I think that they were brought there. All the people I saw

22 there - and I still think this today - were the best trained and most

23 professional men in the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the forward

24 command post could function with them there.

25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... who was in charge of the

Page 88

1 military police of that IKM?

2 A. Well, you're asking me as if I was there at that command post. I

3 don't know that --

4 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... if you weren't there, were

5 there any military police at that command post?

6 A. When I visited that place, what I noticed was that that security

7 was conducted by members of the special purpose unit, the Zulfikar Unit.

8 What I saw at the entrance, at the entry gates, that's what I saw. I saw

9 people from that unit. And I think that they were performing security

10 functions in that location.

11 Q. Yes. And the communications by the IKM was performed - and I'm

12 using the term "IKM" as you do -- because you do - the communications

13 functions were those of the 44th Jablanica Brigade, which was a local unit

14 based in Jablanica; is that correct?

15 A. You could see that from the initial documents, because in the

16 heading obviously when the first documents were sent out, you could see

17 the "44th Brigade" in the heading and then below that it was the "IKM

18 order." That's what you could see on the documents. Very soon after that

19 you had in the heading "The IKM" only. In the very beginning, yes, but

20 afterwards the IKM used its own documents and its own headings in

21 correspondence within and outside of the command post.

22 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay. Could the witness please be shown a

23 document, DD00.0278. It's 65 ter number D73. And it's MFI, marked for

24 exhibit MFI135.

25 While that's being produced, could I offer the map which was

Page 89

1 shown to the witness and is sitting next to him.

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, of course. And -- but you have to tell us

3 what's the source of this map.

4 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Well, it's -- that map is in fact a

5 document drafted contemporaneously by a witness who is present in court by

6 permission of the Court, Mr. Dzambasovic.

7 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll deal with admission issues at a later

8 stage.

9 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.

10 Q. Do you have in front of you now a document which is --

11 A. Could you just please zoom in a little bit. Excellent. Thank

12 you.

13 Q. All right. Now, are you able to see that that's an order setting

14 up a IKM?

15 A. Would you please scroll the document up. I just want to see the

16 bottom of the document. I've already read the heading.

17 Could you roll it down a little bit so that I could see from that

18 place "I order." Can you put that at the top, the word that

19 says "Naredujem," and then I want to see the text below that. Yes, I can

20 see it.

21 Q. All right. Could we continue to see the following page to that

22 one.

23 [Defence counsel confer]


25 Q. Okay. Now, on the second page, you see that this is an order

Page 90

1 from many months before what we're talking about from Sefer Halilovic at

2 the time when he was the commander of the army; correct?

3 A. I am seeing this document for the first time in this form, and I

4 see that somebody signed for the general.

5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Yes. I understand you

6 haven't -- I'm not suggesting that you have seen it. I'm really showing

7 it to you as an example and to make some points arising out of the form of

8 the document bearing in mind the question asked by His Honour earlier on.

9 Now, could we -- having looked at that, do you see that it's

10 signed on behalf of Sefer Halilovic? Correct?

11 A. [No audible response]

12 Q. All right. Could we now return, please, to the first page,

13 again.

14 Could I indicate, Mr. Gusic, and perhaps also to the Court that

15 the reason for taking time on this matter is that -- the nature of the

16 term "IKM" can be of interest and issue in this case, and that's why I'm

17 asking the questions in some level of detail.

18 Very well. Would you just look now, please, and note this: That

19 this IKM is established by an order; correct? Because of the words "I

20 hereby order"; do you agree?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you also agree that this order sets out in detail the

23 responsibilities of various individuals connected with the IKM established

24 under the order?

25 A. I can say that it speaks about specific responsibilities, but it

Page 91

1 does delineate the areas.

2 Q. Yes. Okay. Well, that will suffice.

3 And do you agree - and you can look at the document as much as

4 you want - that there is no commander of the IKM appointed or listed in

5 that document? And you can look from the top to the bottom.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And --

8 A. In this part I see that there isn't one.

9 Q. By all means, look on the following page if you need to.

10 A. There's no need.

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. I believe you.

13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... ask you a couple of other

14 questions.

15 An IKM is not a commanding body but a place, a location; is that

16 correct?

17 A. The IKM, the way it's used, is "istureno komandno

18 mesto," "forward command post." That's a location. That's true. But a

19 forward command post in the combat order is a place from which command is

20 carried out. It's a place --

21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... your answer is relevant, but

22 I want to test you about something there.

23 You say that the -- a forward command post may, when it's in a

24 combat area, be of a different nature. But what I'm putting to you, just

25 to be clear about it, is that the forward command post itself is merely a

Page 92

1 location to which the commander may come. Is that correct?

2 A. The command post is just a location. It's all locations. So you

3 are right. Not only the IKM, but also the command post, the

4 communications centre. The communications centre is also a location

5 because when the equipment is brought into the communications centre, then

6 it starts performing its functions. But until then, it's just a location.

7 Q. But a -- an IKM will continue to be an IKM -- well, first of all,

8 I should take a step back. This IKM that's -- that's referred to in the

9 document in front of you is a location in Zenica. It is located in

10 Zenica; is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Okay. And that IKM being -- being created by order, continues to

13 be an IKM and to operate even when there's no one there at the IKM who's

14 got commanding power; is that correct? In other words, if the typists are

15 there and if a couple of staff officers are there working away, that IKM

16 continues to exist but there's no one there who's got any commanding

17 power; is that correct?

18 A. After such an order until an order is issued to abolish that IKM,

19 the IKM continues to exist.

20 Q. And just because somebody is the most senior person at an IKM,

21 that doesn't mean that -- sorry. That doesn't mean that that person has

22 got any command power; is that correct?

23 A. This is a question that depends on the specific situation. If

24 the person is sitting there at the IKM and is not doing anything, then

25 this is correct what you are asking. But if that person is sitting at the

Page 93

1 IKM but is conducting certain activities from the IKM, then that person is

2 in command of the IKM.

3 Q. And in short, of course it's the case that if a commander comes

4 to the forward command post, then they remain the commander and they give

5 their orders. That's correct, isn't it? It may sound tremendously

6 self-evident, but I just ask you to answer it. It's correct, isn't it?

7 A. The rules of service define who is senior and who is subordinate.

8 Whenever a superior appears, they take over the command role.

9 Q. Yes. Now -- well, I'm going to ask you questions about that on

10 Monday. But the point is this: Just because a person is based at an IKM,

11 you cannot infer from that fact alone that they themselves have any

12 particular commanding function. Rather, you must look to the terms of the

13 order granting them whatever authority they have. Now, do you agree with

14 that proposition?

15 A. I don't understand. Who is supposed to look at the terms of the

16 responsibility or authority? Is the one who's receiving the orders from

17 that person or the person themselves?

18 Q. I'm actually thinking of the -- of the Tribunal here, Mr. Gusic.

19 Let me put a more concrete example, if that -- if that might assist.

20 The question of whether Sefer Halilovic was or was not in command

21 of a particular operation is not to be determined by reference to his

22 presence or otherwise in a location called an IKM by, rather, is to be

23 inferred or established by reference to the orders, if they exist,

24 appointing him commander. Do you agree with that?

25 A. General Halilovic and General Delic or any other of my superiors

Page 94

1 could not come -- could have come to my command post and at the time they

2 were there they could have issued a binding order to me. But a presence

3 at the command post does not imply that they had taken over a command of

4 an operation and its entire course. Unless there is an order indicating

5 such a thing and if they did not actively take part in operations,

6 their presence at the command post does not necessarily mean that they are

7 the person who is commanding the forces, unless they are actually making

8 some command decisions and conducting the command duties.

9 Q. Yes. I understand, Mr. Gusic.

10 And in short, in order just to determine the scope of

11 Mr. Halilovic's command responsibilities in law, I take it what you say is

12 this: We need to look to the orders which granted him any such authority.

13 MS. CHANA: Your Honour.

14 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

15 MS. CHANA: I object to the -- I'm very hesitant to get on my

16 feet and disturb counsel, but again, the same objections as last time on

17 the characterising of the law.

18 JUDGE LIU: I agree with you on this aspect.

19 Maybe you could put your question another way.

20 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour.

21 JUDGE LIU: Or maybe you'll drop it, because the question is too

22 obvious to ask this, you know, witness to answer.

23 MR. MORRISSEY: I shall drop it.

24 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.


Page 95

1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gusic.

2 Very well. Could the witness please be shown the third page of

3 this document which is on the screen.

4 Mr. Gusic, the further page is going to be shown to you in a

5 minute.

6 A. Yes. If you could just enlarge it a little bit.

7 Q. Now, Mr. Gusic, what's being shown to you here -- could I just

8 indicate, lest you notice with surprise which army this comes from. This

9 is a document that I'm showing for the same reason as the last one, but

10 it's a document of the Army of the Republika Srpska, so it's not a

11 document directly from the Bosnian army. But it may be that the form of

12 it is sufficiently similar for you to notice the things I want to point

13 out and you can make any comment that you want to if you think that the

14 fact of it coming from the Republika Srpska interferes with its value.

15 First of all, does this appear to you to be another order

16 establishing an IKM?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... All right. I'll come up

19 with some more examples of the form of this order in a moment. But I just

20 want to ask you a more general question which might assist the Court: The

21 term IKM, as it's translated in English, "Forward command post," describes

22 a derivative command place which implies the existence of a primary

23 command post. In other words, a commander has a command post, and he may

24 have a variety of other small posts, IKMs, forward command posts, or rear

25 command posts, or other types of command posts. I understand that's not

Page 96

1 perhaps put in acceptable military terminology, but is that accurate?

2 A. Yes. Yes. Yes, it is. But there is just one thing: Earlier I

3 was not sure whether I should or shouldn't ask you. Very well. I would

4 rather comment like this on documents which are not documents of my

5 commander or my superiors. I don't think that I am capable or called upon

6 to comment on the documents of my commanders and my other superiors. But

7 in the form that you are doing it, all the commanders were in the position

8 to form IKMs in order to have a more easier manner of commanding their

9 compositions and their units.

10 Q. Okay. I'm sorry, just so that I understand there, are you -- if

11 you say you're uncomfortable looking at Republika Srpska documents like

12 that, I won't put it to you, because it's really just meant to help. Are

13 you happy to look at this document or not?

14 A. No. The documents of Republika Srpska do not bother me at all.

15 But when we're talking as we are, I would rather comment on this rather

16 than the documents by my commanders. My superior was General Halilovic

17 and General Delic. So I would rather not comment on such documents. This

18 order here is written in accordance with the rules and regulations in

19 force in the JNA, and then this -- these rules and regulations continue to

20 be used in the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

21 Q. Mr. Gusic, thank you for that clarification. I -- I fear that

22 I'll be putting questions to you that -- that might indicate that you and

23 I are not thinking along the same path any more in the future. But,

24 however, we'll leave those for -- for Monday. And now I want to continue

25 with these questions about the IKM.

Page 97

1 You raised a point a minute ago of interest, and that was that

2 it's within the power of a commander from his command post to designate

3 another area as his forward command post if he chooses.

4 A. [No audible response].

5 Q. Well, on the theory that Sefer Halilovic was the commander of

6 Neretva 93, where do you say his command post was?

7 A. His command post was at the forward command post, the IKM, of the

8 Supreme Command Staff out in the field at the location. We said that the

9 IKM is a location, so his command post was at that location.

10 Q. Yes. But the existence -- I want to put this proposition to you.

11 Mr. Gusic, you understand that this is accepting for a moment your thesis

12 about the existence of the forward command post. If it was the case that

13 Sefer Halilovic was at a forward command post in Jablanica, where's the

14 main command post of which the forward command post is a derivative

15 location?

16 A. The main command post of the Army of the Republic of

17 Bosnia-Herzegovina was always in Sarajevo, the main command post.

18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... commander of the army at

19 that location, other than Rasim Delic?

20 A. I cannot really talk about the positions at different time

21 periods.

22 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... at -- you know what we're

23 talking about here. We're talking about at the time of this IKM. Now,

24 what I'm putting to you is: Rasim Delic was the commander of the army in

25 Sarajevo at that time. Do you agree?

Page 98

1 A. No, I don't. Because there's an order signed by General Siber.

2 At the time General Siber was at the position of being the most

3 responsible person at the main command post in Sarajevo. He -- General

4 Siber signed the order to cease combat operations. At the time, he was

5 the one who issued that order which was binding on all of us.

6 Q. Yes. But just a moment. General Siber -- you're referring to a

7 time when -- Mr. Gusic, aren't you referring to a time when -- when

8 General Delic was in Geneva and Siber was acting as his deputy and signing

9 documents as his deputy? Isn't that the fact?

10 A. I don't know where General Delic was. Probably he was in Geneva,

11 like you said. But it is a fact that General Siber issued orders on his

12 behalf.

13 Q. Mr. Gusic, I think -- I put it to you earlier that you and I were

14 going to part company again at a later time on the existence of the IKM,

15 but what I'm putting to you now is this: On your theory that Sefer

16 Halilovic is the commander of the IKM, that institution in Jablanica was

17 no IKM at all but a KM, a command post of the primary and basic kind;

18 isn't that correct?

19 A. I apologise to the general and to my commanders, my superiors,

20 but you're putting me again in the position of having to comment on what

21 they called what. I am not dealing with how they called certain things.

22 I know what the heading on the documents was and the orders which I,

23 amongst others, received, and it said on that order "forward command post

24 of the Supreme Command Staff Jablanica." Based on that order, based on

25 the fact that I was there and in the admin building of the thermoelectric

Page 99

1 power station, I came to the conclusion that there was a forward command

2 post, an IKM, from where the forces of -- during the Neretva operation -

3 I know that now, but I didn't know that up until a while ago - were

4 commanded. So we're talking about the active combat operations conducted

5 towards Mostar and Prozor.

6 [Defence counsel confer]


8 Q. Bearing in mind the -- the detail on the document that you're

9 looking now, the order forming the IKM, and the previous document that you

10 looked at, forming the IKM at Zenica, would you indicate what document you

11 say forms the IKM which you claim existed at Jablanica. I'm not talking

12 here about documents that refer to it. I'm talking here about a document

13 that forms it, that establishes an IKM. And perhaps I should ask you in

14 fairness: Do you know whether any such document exists?

15 A. You don't have to put an honest question to me, but I will give

16 you an honest answer. I was not in a position to be given such a document

17 unless I had some duties in relation to the formation of such a combat

18 entity. I never saw a document in which it's -- which stated that a

19 forward command post was being formed.

20 Q. I understand that. What you'd say is somewhere in the archives

21 or somewhere in history there was such a document forming this IKM but

22 you've quite understandably never seen it? Is that your position?

23 A. I believe that such a document existed. I believe that. When I

24 say "I believe that," it doesn't mean that I assert that. Because it's

25 much easier to work if certain things are specified in the proper time,

Page 100

1 then it is much easier to set up certain -- a certain organisation or an

2 order of things. But I never saw such a document and probably since I

3 didn't see it, there was no need for me to see it.

4 Q. I understand what you say, Mr. Gusic.

5 Can I just ask you one -- I note the time is now creeping --

6 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, could I indicate -- do you intend to

7 finish at 7.00?

8 JUDGE LIU: Well, you have to understand it's a Friday afternoon.

9 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I --

10 JUDGE LIU: We have to stop. We have to stop at 7.00 sharp.

11 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I must indicate that it's learned

12 counsel for the Defence's birthday and whose children have demanded that

13 he stop at 7.00, and I'd be grateful if -- I'd be very grateful to comply

14 with standard practice.

15 Could I just ask a couple more questions before 7.00?

16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, before 7.00.

17 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, definitely.

18 Q. Mr. Gusic, the final questions are about an -- about the use of

19 the term "IKM." I want to put something to you here. Experienced

20 officers might -- well, what I want to put to you is something different.

21 Experienced officers in this case did refer to the Jablanica post as an

22 IKM and that that term was used in documents from time to time and it was

23 also used, I suppose, in discussion from time to time. But what I'm

24 suggesting is to you: You can't rule out the possibility that that use of

25 the term "IKM" was an imprecise use and that it was used in a shorthand

Page 101

1 way to describe the location of the team that came down from Sarajevo in

2 the absence of an official term for an inspection team's office. What do

3 you say to that proposition?

4 A. I wouldn't agree with you. I have a right to disagree with that.

5 Why? Had you put that question to me without my having seen certain

6 documents, I probably would have said that that is all right. But if

7 there was no need to change the heading, why was the change -- the heading

8 changed from the beginning which contained the name of the 44th Brigade?

9 So probably there was a need to change the heading because from the

10 document and the signatories of the document you could see that this was

11 from the -- a document from members of the Supreme Command Staff. You

12 could see who the signatory was. If that was the thing, then, again,

13 there was the possibility of saying "IKM" in the heading and then put the

14 name of the brigade or -- or the corps there also.

15 What you are saying right now is something that I cannot wholly

16 agree with, no. Although, I am not disputing it totally. But I cannot

17 fully agree with what you are saying.

18 Q. I take it your position is it's possible but you are not -- not

19 prepared to assert it yourself. Is that a correct analysis of your

20 position?

21 A. No. No. It's possible, but you were speaking about practice.

22 We're talking about practice. And this is something that is clearly

23 defined, that you could use a heading -- you didn't have to emphasise

24 the IKM. You could use the heading -- the standard heading used by the

25 chief in Sarajevo. It didn't have to contain the term "IKM." The one who

Page 102

1 sent it to the IKM would know where the document is coming from.

2 Finally, if the Jablanica communications centre was used, then

3 you would know it came from Jablanica. So if that institution didn't

4 exist, there would have been no need to change the heading. Why this was

5 done is something that I would not really speculate about, but in my

6 opinion it was possible not to change it as well.

7 Q. Except for this though - and this is the last question I'll put

8 to you for the evening - that once that -- once that location had achieved

9 the popular name of -- of being the IKM among people working in the area,

10 it would have caused more trouble than it was worth to change it. Do you

11 agree with that possibility?

12 MS. CHANA: That's speculative, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

14 Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

15 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour --

16 JUDGE LIU: It's a speculative question.

17 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I must say it was speculative.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

19 Well, I think, you know, we have to stop at this moment, and I

20 believe that the cross-examination has a point in it, but the question is

21 that, you know, how to make it more concise, you know. Maybe during the

22 weekend, you know, the Defence team could reorganise a little bit their

23 strategy, you know, in this way. And at the same time, you know, I have

24 to remind the witness that most of the questions put to you by the Defence

25 counsel could be answered by simply saying yes or no. If the Defence

Page 103

1 counsel need more information, there will be, I guess, follow-up questions

2 to you.

3 And at this stage I also remind you what I said yesterday because

4 I'm afraid that we have to keep you in The Hague for the weekend.

5 Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

6 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I just thought as a matter of

7 courtesy to the witness and also to the Court to indicate that the

8 cross-examination is unlikely to be completed at the end of Monday. Every

9 attempt is going to be made to streamline it. But as I indicated, the

10 Prosecution has decided to -- frankly, to put a fair amount of its case

11 through this witness, as they did. And therefore, the witness is going to

12 be pressed on a number of matters which have been led through him, and

13 therefore I see it as likely - and this may assist for scheduling of

14 witnesses - as likely that the cross-examination would go into Tuesday but

15 leaves the possibility of some time for a witness on Tuesday. In any

16 event, we undertake to be finished by the time that the videolink

17 witnesses are to be scheduled, which I believe to be later in the week, on

18 a fixed date.

19 JUDGE LIU: Well, thank you very much for your information.

20 I understand that this witness is a very important to both

21 parties, so we did not strictly limit the time of the direct examination

22 or cross-examination. But anyway, we have to make the best use of the

23 time available to us and try to -- try your best during the weekend to,

24 you know, make it shorter.

25 Well, having said that, I wish everybody a happy weekend. We

Page 104

1 will see you Monday morning in the same courtroom. The hearing is

2 adjourned.

3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.06 p.m.,

4 to be reconvened on Monday, the 7th day of

5 February, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.