Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 16165

1 Monday, 11 July 2005.

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.27 p.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, to everyone.

6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

8 number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 We have to deal with a few procedural matters first. I, first

11 of all, would like to go into private session, but it will not take any

12 more than half a minute.

13 [Private session]

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 16166

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 [Open session]

4 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session again.

5 There were some other procedural issues to be raised. One would

6 be raised either at the end or the beginning. I think it's checked on the

7 transcript what has been said by Mr. Tieger, but ...

8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

9 JUDGE ORIE: It has been checked on the transcript. There was

10 no specification whether it would be at the beginning or at the end, so

11 therefore both parties were right or wrong.

12 Mr. Hannis.

13 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.

14 I'm sorry, I was under the impression that we were going to take

15 it up at the end of the session, but I'm happy to address it now.

16 In relation to the cross-examination of Mr. Davidovic, Your

17 Honours will recall at the time I expressed some concern about some of the

18 questions that were being put to the witness, as I -- I was uncertain of

19 what the -- the good-faith basis was for some of those very serious

20 allegations that were being made against Mr. Davidovic, calling him a

21 criminal and a liar.

22 At the time I objected and questioned the basis. I don't have

23 any objection or quarrel with the Defence statement, then, when counsel has

24 reasonable grounds to believe that it has information that impeaches an

25 adverse witness. Then counsel should ask questions about that.

Page 16167

1 JUDGE ORIE: Could you perhaps remind us, Mr. Hannis, what day

2 exactly it was.

3 MR. HANNIS: That was -- most of the questions I'm talking

4 about, Your Honour, were on --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Especially the -- the questions in cross-

6 examination on -- I think on being robbed of --

7 MS. LOUKAS: That was the 27th of June, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: The 27th of June.

9 MR. HANNIS: Yes, in particular the questions -- I've given the

10 Court a chart, I believe; I don't know if you have that. I sent an e-mail

11 to your legal officer which contained a copy. I have hard copies I can

12 hand up now, Your Honour, that has specific references. Some of the

13 questions were on the 13th, but the ones -- most in particular were on the

14 27th.

15 As I said, I don't have -- I don't have a quarrel with the

16 proposition that when there's a reasonable ground, that there is impeaching

17 information, then counsel should ask those questions. But it's our

18 position, Your Honour, that there's also an obligation on counsel's part to

19 exercise caution in making such serious allegation against a witness. And

20 the fact that we've got a sort of judicial immunity as advocates should not

21 be a licence to slander or engage in character assassination. Reasonable

22 grounds to believe should be an objective standard, not merely a subjective

23 one.

24 We have evidence to show that several Defence counsel questions

25 are not supported and were not supported at the time that they were asked

Page 16168

1 by objective reasonable grounds. I've prepared --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, at least, Mr. Hannis, we do not know about

3 such support. Isn't that what you wanted to say?

4 MR. HANNIS: That's correct, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Because we still have to hear the Defence on the

6 matter as well.

7 MR. HANNIS: That's correct, Your Honour.

8 As I've said, I've set out some of these grounds on the chart.

9 One of the questions referred to the specific question about Mr. Davidovic

10 currently having three criminal complaints against him. We were furnished

11 some documents that related to those questions, and as I've set forth in

12 the chart, Your Honour, it appears to me that it does not support that

13 implication that there were criminal complaints against him.

14 I think in the context of the question, it would reasonably be

15 understood as saying that there were actually criminal proceedings, not the

16 mere fact that a private individual had written a letter to the Prosecutor

17 complaining about somebody's conduct.

18 But one of the most troubling examples relates to Defence

19 counsel's rigorous assertions that Mr. Davidovic exploited Bosniaks during

20 the war by taking property from them. In particular, I refer to the June

21 27th transcript citation at page 15.225, beginning at line 17. The

22 question was, "Now, Mr. Davidovic, you seized all the furnishings and

23 equipment from the dental office of Dr. Edina Alabaci Hujdurovic in

24 Bijeljina, didn't you? In fact, Mr. Davidovic, after seeing you on

25 Television Bosnia giving your evidence two weeks ago, Dr. Hujdurovic, Dr.

Page 16169

1 Edina Alabaci Hujdurovic spoke out on local TV about you doing just that."

2 Your Honour, I hope that you have copies of the affidavits from

3 her, her husband, and her office assistant.

4 JUDGE ORIE: We have received the affidavits.

5 MR. HANNIS: Which do speak to this issue. And I believe from

6 what they say, it appears there was no basis.

7 Most troubling about that is -- is the fact that her husband

8 indicates the morning of June the 27th he received two phone calls; one

9 from an individual in Belgrade, whose phone number we have - but I don't

10 have that number in front of me, but I will furnish that to Defence counsel

11 and the Court. I think I've already sent it by e-mail to Defence counsel -

12 in which the husband was asked if it was true that his wife had appeared on

13 local TV and said that thing. He told the caller that that was not true.

14 And half an hour later he received a second phone call from a telephone

15 number which we have now checked, and our information indicates that is a

16 phone number that is associated with the case manager for the Krajisnik

17 Defence counsel. And he spoke to that individual, who he said gave the

18 name that sounded something like Radojcic, who asked if it was true that

19 his wife had gone on TV and said those things. He again told that person

20 no, that she had not said that, that her property had never been seized by

21 Mr. Davidovic nor by anyone, and that they did not want their name used or

22 spoken of in court proceedings.

23 Your Honour, for many months the Prosecution has heard Defence

24 counsel put down markers for us where it was felt that our conduct or

25 manner of proceeding was improper or out of line. Today I want to put down

Page 16170

1 a marker on behalf of Mr. Davidovic and any future witnesses that

2 allegations of criminal conduct and -- and perjury should not be so

3 vigorously asserted without an objective good-faith basis. We leave it to

4 Your Honours to examine the record and our submissions on this matter. We

5 believe that what appears so far raises sufficient ground for further

6 inquiry.

7 Now, that may be a matter between the Bench and the Defence team

8 outside our presence, as it may involve attorney-client communications. I

9 would merely ask that if your view -- if your review satisfies you that --

10 that due diligence was not exercised in this manner, and as you yourself,

11 Judge Orie, said at page 15.309, "It would be of concern to the Chamber

12 whenever a witness would be uncomfortable for any reason that should not

13 make him uncomfortable." We believe there was and is cause for concern

14 here, and if you so find, then steps should be taken to prevent similar

15 results in the future.

16 Now, while we cannot undo certain harm that may have been done,

17 an apology to the witness might be appropriate and would go some way, Your

18 Honour, toward helping him explain to his five-year-old grandson why he was

19 being called a criminal.

20 Now, that's all I have to submit on this matter at this time,

21 Your Honour. Thank you for your time.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Hannis.

23 Ms. Loukas, I can imagine that you would like to take some time

24 before responding, but I also can imagine that, since, I take it, part of

25 the information Mr. Hannis provides to the Chamber is already known to you,

Page 16171

1 that you would respond immediately. I leave it to you.

2 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, firstly, of course, I indicated

3 on the day that Mr. Hannis first raised this, and Your Honour will recall

4 that I -- I made very clear that, Your Honour, I did have a reasonable

5 basis for putting the questions, firstly, and I also made the -- the point,

6 Your Honours, that as an advocate I have a duty to put the questions, and

7 if information is supplied and I don't put the questions, then Mr.

8 Krajisnik has a basis to complain about my conduct. There's a very

9 important balance here to be maintained by an advocate. And I also made

10 the point at the time, Your Honour, that these matters were raised on the

11 27th of June that, it is my obligation to put questions where there is

12 information of this nature, and it's an obligation that an advocate should

13 never shirk from, regardless of how unpopular it might make one, with the

14 Prosecution or the witness or whoever.

15 Now, Your Honour, I take it, as I had a discussion with Mr.

16 Hannis earlier today, as -- as I understood it, my conduct was not under

17 attack. If it is, I would like to know that very specifically, Your

18 Honour, because then I have to take a different course in addressing these

19 matters.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis.

21 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I don't have any reason to believe

22 that Ms. Loukas wasn't told that the dentist appeared on television and

23 made that statement, but my concern is about who -- who told her that based

24 on the information that the Krajisnik Defence team was provided in those

25 two phone calls by her husband.

Page 16172

1 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I would like to say something

2 about this. The -- the principles are -- are really very clear. It is

3 counsel's responsibility to make a conscientious professional assessment of

4 the reliability of instructions and information given before putting

5 matters to the witness, and Ms. Loukas has assured the Court that she has

6 done that, Your Honour. And so far as that element of the matter is

7 concerned, then in my submission, that is simply -- and certainly as far as

8 I'm concerned, because this is one of those areas where as lead counsel I

9 am entitled to assert my personal position, as opposed to simply a matter

10 of submission. So that's an end of that particular point. And it appears,

11 in any case, it's an end of that particular point, as far as the

12 Prosecution is concerned because that's what Mr. Hannis has just confirmed.

13 Your Honour, what this cannot become, then, while acknowledging

14 up to a point legitimate concerns by the Prosecution that information which

15 reaches counsel should at all times be conscientiously assessed, what it

16 can't become, then, is some sort of fishing exercise by the Prosecution

17 then to start investigating beyond the specific information -- or the

18 assurance of counsel, to go behind that to then investigate what the

19 sources of information are.

20 If on this occasion - and I say "if" because it's part of the

21 responsibility of counsel not just conscientiously to assess the position

22 in advance but, of course, in the light of any such concerns, as are

23 expressed by the Prosecution here, retrospectively to assess that

24 information, so far as it might cast any light for the future. Not to

25 conduct some ex post facto inquiry into the specific information in

Page 16173

1 relation to this particular matter, but just to absorb any lessons or

2 information and absorb any information that we have as to reliability --

3 reliability or unreliability of sources for future reference. And that's

4 part of the learning process, and that's a matter which counsel would take

5 account of in the future. But it is not the appropriate course, in our

6 submission, to start exploring now, in light of Ms. Loukas's assurance and

7 the Prosecution's acceptance of her professional position to start going

8 into the facts here. We note the concerns. We bear those concerns in mind

9 for the future. We will at all times conscientiously exercise our

10 professional judgement in relation to such matters having regard to all the

11 information at our disposal, and that is what we undertake to the Court to

12 do for the future. But this should not become any sort of mini trial or

13 investigation in relation to these particular matters which were put to the

14 witness. They were put by Ms. Loukas in good faith. We note what's been

15 said. We will continue to do our job conscientiously for the future, and

16 we strongly submit that that is, in relation to this particular matter, an

17 end to it.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Just -- I haven't got the affidavits in front of

19 me. Again, I remember that the telephone calls were made relatively early

20 in the morning of what is the 17th or the 27th of June?

21 MR. HANNIS: The 27th, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: 27th, yes.

23 MR. HANNIS: I have an extra copy, if you want.

24 JUDGE ORIE: And -- well, I think I have it relatively clear on

25 my mind. I remember the second phone call was at 9.15, if I'm ...

Page 16174

1 MR. HANNIS: The first call was about 8.30 or 8.45.

2 JUDGE ORIE: The second one.

3 MR. HANNIS: And the second call half an hour after.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Just after 9.00.

5 And at what time - because I did not check that of course - at

6 what time approximately were the questions put to the witness about seizing

7 all the furnishings and equipment?

8 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour --

9 JUDGE ORIE: I don't remember whether it was a morning or an

10 afternoon session.

11 MR. HANNIS: As I recall, the 27th was an afternoon session.

12 JUDGE ORIE: An afternoon session. Yes, that's just what I was

13 trying to reconstruct.

14 The Chamber will consider the matter, Mr. Stewart, but the

15 parties have responsibilities, one to the other: Parties have

16 responsibilities towards witnesses, their own witnesses, witnesses of the

17 other party. The parties have responsibilities towards the Trial Chamber,

18 and the Trial Chamber itself also has responsibilities towards the

19 witnesses, whether Defence or Prosecution witnesses. One of the matters

20 the Chamber will consider whether it needs further attention is whether it

21 needs some further analysis, assuming - and that's perhaps the first thing,

22 then, to be verified - that such telephone calls have taken place in the

23 early morning of the 27th of June. That perhaps needs some verification,

24 as well. And it needs further analysis whether, and if so, Witness

25 Davidovic was treated in an unfair way - that's one - and, second, if he

Page 16175

1 was, what caused this to happen; and, third, what, if the questions are

2 answered in affirmative, what should be done in order to avoid this to

3 happen again. Whether that would be something the Chamber should do,

4 whether it would be something the parties should do, that's all open. But

5 the matter, whether we will give further attention to it, we'll consider

6 that, and we'll let the parties know.

7 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may the -- just two things. A matter

8 of information, Your Honour, so as to avoid any misunderstanding at all.


10 MR. STEWART: I do confirm that the telephone call from the

11 mobile telephone number belonging to my case manager, Mr. Karganovic, was a

12 call made by him. And we do not in the least bit shrink from that. We

13 feel -- I feel it is correct that the Trial Chamber should know that

14 absolutely unequivocally.


16 MR. STEWART: The second thing I will say is this, Your Honour:

17 And that while maintaining our position, it really ought not -- such

18 matters ought not to be the subject of some retrospective mini trial. Of

19 course, if as a result of discussions between the Prosecution and the

20 Defence in this case -- after all, it might be the other way round on

21 future occasions -- if as a result of discussions between the parties, we

22 on our side in this case were satisfied that although conscientiously put

23 at the time to the witness, in fact, on further examination it is clear

24 that the allegation conscientiously in good faith put to the witness is, in

25 fact, not correct.

Page 16176

1 Your Honour, we would simply withdraw it, and we would publicly

2 withdraw it. That would be the proper course to take. However, we suggest

3 that one should be careful not to open the matter up so that allegations

4 put to witnesses in good faith then became even remotely routinely the

5 matter of some -- some further inquiry. Because there is a point, where we

6 all, I hope, show proper concern for witnesses -- there is a point at which

7 such matters -- I'm not saying anything about all the allegations here --

8 are, with respect, part of the rough and tumble of coming to give evidence

9 in court.

10 But, Your Honour, certainly in relation to anything of any

11 significance at all where we are satisfied that though put in good faith it

12 did not, in fact, well-founded, Your Honour, that we would, of course,

13 unequivocally withdraw it.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

15 MS. LOUKAS: And I, of course, place it on the record, Your

16 Honour, precisely in those terms as expressed by lead counsel.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber will consider the matter to see

18 whether, and if so, what further activities should be deployed by the

19 Chamber.

20 Mr. Hannis.

21 MR. HANNIS: Nothing further from me, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Nothing further for you.

23 MR. HANNIS: May I be excused?

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

25 MR. STEWART: I should say thank you, Mr. Hannis. There was that

Page 16177

1 misunderstanding as to whether it was at the beginning or end of the day.

2 It's most helpful to me that he's agreed to come down and deal with it now,

3 Your Honour. Thank you.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. He's living closer by.

5 MR. STEWART: Well, that's true. But nevertheless, it's still

6 appreciated. Thank you.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

8 Mr. Stewart.

9 MR. STEWART: Since I am here, Your Honour.


11 MR. STEWART: The -- no, very briefly, Your Honour, on a

12 entirely different but nevertheless important issue, I -- this is not, now,

13 to be some elaborate lengthy submission, Your Honour, but just to make the

14 position clear, in a nutshell, I said that I would consider and discuss

15 over the weekend the position generally that we are in particularly

16 relating to Mr. Krajisnik's announcement some weeks ago now that he wished

17 to represent himself and the consequential negotiations which have been

18 going on in some sorts of directions since.

19 Your Honour, the position, as we can assess it on the Defence

20 side, is this: On one particular issue, negotiations between Mr. Krajisnik

21 and the Registry do appear to have reached an impasse. I have been to see

22 Mr. Krajisnik again this morning. That is frankly my assessment. We have

23 explored that; that does appear to be everybody's assessment among those

24 concerned.

25 Your Honour, I have in a sense, although it's unhappy to express

Page 16178

1 it in exactly those terms -- I do in a sense have my -- or Mr. Krajisnik

2 and I have our own negotiations. There is, of course, always an area in

3 which there's something along the lines of negotiation between client and

4 counsel on any difficult case, as I'm sure everybody would agree this one

5 is.

6 On one point in particular - it may be two points. It doesn't

7 matter how one analyses it - but on one particular important point, Mr.

8 Krajisnik and I are also at an impasse. There is perhaps another point

9 where we've been at an impasse for so long that we've probably each of us

10 seized to notice it's an impasse any more, but it nevertheless is.

11 But, Your Honour, one of the matters which I have explored with

12 Mr. Krajisnik is what appears to be in some sense the logical consequence

13 or at least something closely connected logically with the Trial Chamber's

14 decision so far to allow Mr. Krajisnik to cross-examine witnesses in

15 addition to cross-examination conducted by counsel.

16 Now, not surprisingly, Mr. Krajisnik infers that the Trial

17 Chamber's position in relation to cross-examination of witnesses would

18 apply equally to examination of Defence witnesses, so that he would have

19 the right to supplement examination of Defence witnesses when counsel has

20 finished that examination.

21 But further connected with that and logically as part of the

22 same principle, the question which has been discussed between Mr. Krajisnik

23 and me - and we would at least suggest it's an intelligent question for us

24 to have discussed - is, who has the right to decide which witnesses to call

25 in the first place? Because if you don't call a witness, you can't

Page 16179

1 question the witness, and logically those two matters are very difficult to

2 distinguish in principle. And since the Trial Chamber's decision has

3 created and continues to create enormous difficulties between Mr. Krajisnik

4 and me in relation -- or between counsel and Mr. Krajisnik, but I must say

5 I do feel slightly at the sharp end as far as counsel is concerned on -- on

6 this issue. I don't mind. I work at the sharp end as lead counsel. But

7 we -- we have reached or failed to reach, if you like -- we have come to

8 enormous difficulties between the two of us in relation to that matter. We

9 correspondingly are now facing enormous difficulties in resolving that

10 issue. And I simply today put on the table, as one among a number of

11 matters which are still going to require careful and thorough and mature

12 exploration and consideration, what are the implications of the position

13 adopted at the moment if I and -- sorry, whatever co-counsel is with me

14 continue as assigned counsel for Mr. Krajisnik? What are the implications

15 for our conduct of the case, which is what we are supposed to have, in

16 relation to such matters as who decides which witnesses to call, who

17 decides which witnesses not to call, who decides which documents to put

18 before the Trial Chamber, who decides which documents not to put before the

19 Trial Chamber.

20 As I put the questions, Your Honours, I hope it can be seen that

21 the answers are not absolutely straightforward, and the practical

22 implications are extremely difficult. Your Honour, as a practical matter

23 right now it leads to this: It's a scheduling matter, as well, Your

24 Honour. We have Mr. Brown coming to give evidence now. And on the

25 projected time estimate from Mr. Harmon and on our assessment of time, Mr.

Page 16180

1 Brown is, for practical purposes, going to take up today, Tuesday, and

2 Wednesday. It looks as if his evidence is going to fit those days allowed.

3 It's not going to leave anything to spare. On the other hand, the earnest

4 hope all around is that he will be finished by close of play on Wednesday

5 because Thursday and Friday are virtually sacrosanct non-sitting for the

6 reasons the Trial Chamber has indicated, and then we have witnesses that I

7 won't name because, again, I can never remember exactly which of them are

8 protected and which aren't. But we have witnesses coming along then

9 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, spilling quite possibly into Thursday, and then

10 another witness on Friday when the whole Prosecution case is supposed to

11 finish and, indeed, the recess starts.

12 So, Your Honour, I simply raise the practical question, since

13 it's clear that if we don't achieve the unexpected breakthrough of all

14 these negotiations falling into place and everything being resolved, which

15 I have to conscientiously inform the Trial Chamber seems a remote

16 possibility at the moment, then some substantial time is going to be

17 required to resolve these issues because, again, I'm quite confident that

18 the Trial Chamber, as everybody else, feels that everybody has to know

19 where they are, at least some useful time before we all break up on the

20 22nd of -- of July to do whatever we have to do next. If we're lucky

21 enough to go on holiday, we're lucky enough, and if we're unlucky, we

22 don't. But whatever happens, we're not sitting after that date.

23 So, Your Honour, that's the practical position, and I think I've

24 felt it was only fair to give the Trial Chamber that indication of where

25 the Defence sees that we are now.

Page 16181

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll again carefully read your words, Mr.

2 Stewart, and we'll consider the present situation and see whether, apart

3 from being informed, the Chamber will respond to those observations or just

4 -- we'll wait and see how matters develop.

5 Meanwhile, just for the completeness of the transcript, Mr.

6 Krajisnik, you have sent a letter to the Judges in which you explain more

7 or less how you evaluate the talks you had with the representative of the

8 Registry. It took us some time to have this letter translated. Are there

9 any changes since you wrote us that letter?

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I had a talk with the

11 Chamber -- or rather, with the Registry, and I think that we have exhausted

12 all the possibilities. These talks have thus been brought to a conclusion.

13 What Mr. Stewart has said are talks between the two of us, and

14 new problems keep arising. I thought that we could bring this to an end

15 and simply have done with all the problems. It's not that I don't feel

16 that Mr. Stewart is right, but I feel that a client and his counsel have to

17 cooperate closely. I don't think that I have to direct Mr. Stewart's

18 actions, but I do feel I have to be an active participant and not just an

19 observer. That's what I spoke about with Mr. Stewart this morning.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I was mainly asking whether any new developments in

21 your conversations with the Registry took place, but I do understand that

22 you have not reached a final agreement with the Registry, so therefore the

23 situation is not anything different from what you wrote to us.

24 Thank you very much, Mr. Krajisnik.

25 Mr. Harmon, are you ready to ...

Page 16182

1 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, sorry, could I just say one more

2 thing?


4 MR. STEWART: It's just a small -- well, it's not a small thing,

5 Your Honour. We have Miss Tara Powers as a member of the Defence team in

6 court. It's the first time she's been in court on this case, so I wanted

7 to introduce her to the Trial Chamber and to the Prosecution. She's

8 actually -- unhappily, as often happens, she's leaving us very soon, which

9 we regret. We've been unable to persuade to her say. But she's here

10 today, anyway.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Powers, welcome in court. I think no one has

12 ever been introduced, first of all, with the words "it's not a small

13 thing." But welcome, and I hope your contribution to the Defence will be a

14 fruitful one.

15 Mr. Harmon.

16 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, our next witness will be Mr. Ewan

17 Brown, who will testify as an expert in respect of military matters

18 relating to the 1 Krajina Corps. For your information, Your Honour, I have

19 distributed four binders to the Chamber with exhibits that will be referred

20 to by Mr. Brown. I would ask the Court's permission to permit Mr. Brown to

21 keep at his side portions of the exhibits that are contained in the binders

22 that I have submitted to you, specifically his own expert report, the

23 errata sheet, the report on the army, and the transcript from the 16th

24 Session. Those are long items, lengthy items in the report, and Mr. Brown

25 has made some marks on them to indicate and quickly find passages that he

Page 16183

1 would like to refer to. And if the Court has -- and the counsel has no

2 objection, then I would ask that those be permitted -- Mr. Brown be

3 permitted to keep those by his side, rather than have wholly blank

4 documents -- wholly unmarked documents in front of him.

5 JUDGE ORIE: If the Defence has no objections, the Chamber has

6 no objections either.

7 MS. LOUKAS: I can indicate, Your Honour, I have no objections,

8 firstly. I would also raise two other matters, if I may, at this juncture,

9 and that is: Firstly, I'm in receipt of the errata sheet. That was, in

10 fact, only e-mailed yesterday afternoon, on Sunday, and, of course, it's a

11 report that is about to celebrate its third anniversary. So I think it's -

12 - I must place on the record that it's most unfortunate that this errata

13 sheet -- and the -- was delivered to the Defence at such a -- a late stage,

14 firstly.

15 I've had discussions with Mr. Harmon about it, and a significant

16 proportion appear to be in the nature of typos and what have you. But a

17 number of the entries actually arise from the cross-examination of Mr.

18 Brown in the trial of Mr. Brdjanin, and they're significant matters. And

19 in those circumstances, it's -- it's surprising that it took so long to

20 correct the report.

21 That's the first matter.


23 MS. LOUKAS: Secondly, Your Honour, I can indicate that the

24 Defence have -- have a military expert that we would be wishing to have

25 present in court during the evidence in chief and cross-examination. I can

Page 16184

1 indicate that a similar application was made in respect of a Defence

2 military expert in the Brdjanin trial that was accepted, and there's quite

3 clearly a precedent for it.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 MS. LOUKAS: And I make that application, Your Honour. I place

6 that on the record, as well.


8 No objection, Mr. Harmon?

9 MR. HARMON: No objection, Your Honour, as long as the expert

10 will be identified for the record.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, the request is granted.

12 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. I can indicate that

13 it is a Mr. Mirko Trivic, spelled T-r-i-v-i-c. He's a retired army

14 officer, and his rank is colonel.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Loukas.

16 MR. HARMON: Just for the record, can we have the corps; did he

17 serve with the Drina Corps?

18 MS. LOUKAS: I actually don't have the specific corps noted

19 there.

20 MR. HARMON: It would be helpful if we could have that

21 information, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that your concern might be, Mr.

23 Harmon, that experts who were perhaps involved in whatever activity that

24 would be covered by the indictment would not be applauded by the

25 Prosecution.

Page 16185

1 MR. HARMON: Or other indictments, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Or other indictments.

3 At the same time, Mr. Harmon, it might not, looking at the

4 number of indictments related to all parties, it might not be easy to find

5 a military expert who is totally out of that, but let's first see what the

6 facts are.

7 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I can indicate he gave evidence to the

8 Prosecution in Brdjanin.

9 JUDGE ORIE: I take it, then, that in the testimony in the

10 Brdjanin case he said something about his career. Is that ...?

11 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas --

13 MS. LOUKAS: And I also indicate, Your Honour, of course, that

14 the -- and I will place this on the record, as well: The Defence has

15 again, as has been the case throughout the conduct of this case, had not

16 nearly enough time to prepare appropriately for a witness of this

17 significance. We have at the last moment been able to find a Defence

18 expert. He flew in on Saturday; I spent all day Sunday with him.

19 Your Honour, I -- I can indicate that there's a real question as

20 to whether we will, in fact, be in a position to commence the cross-

21 examination straight after the end of the evidence in chief. Yet again, as

22 we have been throughout, in terms of the inadequate time we have been given

23 as the Defence in preparation of this case, had to do too much with too

24 little for too long, and that, yet again --


Page 16186

1 MS. LOUKAS: -- is the case in relation to a witness of this

2 significance.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's on the record, Ms. Loukas.

4 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, Your Honour. I shouldn't have said

5 Brdjanin. It was Blagojevic.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Blagojevic.

7 I take it that you don't have that information by heart.

8 Otherwise, I think you would tell Mr. Harmon, wouldn't you?

9 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, indeed, Your Honour. He gave evidence for the

10 Prosecution in the case of Mr. Blagojevic and Mr. Jokic, and -- and there

11 it is.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Do you happen to remember what he said about where

13 he was active in the period 1992 up until --

14 MS. LOUKAS: I -- I understand, Your Honour, that it may, in

15 fact, have been the Drina Corps.


17 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I just need to confirm that

18 information.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand.

20 Mr. Harmon, let's -- at this moment, I take it that you would

21 like further to inquire into the matter before you further respond to the

22 question. We have at this moment a very practical matter, that is, whether

23 we allow him to sit next to the Defence and hear it from this side of the

24 glass wall or whether we'd -- we would not allow him to do that when I

25 expect him to hear everything from the other side of the glass wall.

Page 16187

1 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, it would be inappropriate to bring him

2 in at this point in any event because I raised with the court officer

3 certain sensitivities in which I will be required to go into private

4 session briefly during the examination of Mr. Brown in respect of his

5 background. So I -- it would be inappropriate to have the witness in the

6 courtroom during that particular portion.

7 JUDGE ORIE: And apart from the private session, you take no

8 strict position?

9 MR. HARMON: At this point I take no strict position. I'm

10 making an inquiry at this very moment --


12 MR. HARMON: -- to find out about Mr. Mirko Trivic.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's, then, part of the -- Ms. Loukas, part

14 of the testimony which would be given in private session Mr. Harmon objects

15 against your expert being present during that.

16 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. In fact, Mr. Harmon raised this

17 issue just prior to our coming into court today, and it's just a question

18 of a portion of the curriculum vitae. It's ...

19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Are we going to start with that, Mr. Harmon?

20 MR. HARMON: We are, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then I suggest that the witness will be

22 called, that he'll give his solemn declaration, that we start with the

23 testimony in private session, and that on from that moment, Ms. Loukas,

24 that your expert, with all reservations Mr. Harmon has made as to whether

25 he will object or not, will be -- can sit next to you at the Defence bench

Page 16188

1 for the time being.

2 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.


4 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, we can start in public session, and

5 then we'll go into private session.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. I mean, the testimony, and then,

7 of course, the solemn declaration should first of all be given in public

8 session.

9 Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness into the

10 courtroom.

11 [The witness entered court]

12 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Brown.

13 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence in this court, the Rules

15 of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that

16 you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The

17 text is now handed out to you by the usher. May I invite you to make that

18 solemn declaration.

19 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. I solemnly declare that I

20 will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much.

22 Please be seated. You'll first be examined by Mr. Harmon,

23 counsel for the Prosecution.


25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Harmon.

Page 16189

1 Examined by Mr. Harmon:

2 Q. Mr. Brown, good afternoon.

3 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Harmon.

4 Q. Mr. Brown, since we speak the same language, I'm going to ask you

5 to pause between question and answer because of the difficulties the

6 language booth has in interpreting as quickly as we speak. So if you would

7 remember to pause between question and answer, it would be appreciated.

8 Also, Mr. Brown, I've informed the Court that you have in front

9 of you your report, the errata sheet, the army analysis, and the transcript

10 of the 16th Session where you have marked certain portions you may wish to

11 refer to. And let me inform you there's no objection to your having those

12 before you.

13 Mr. Brown, let me -- let me now begin, and I'd like you to

14 affirm the following. First of all, could you state your complete name and

15 spell your last name for the record.

16 A. My name is Ewan McGreggor Brown, that's B-r-o-w-n.

17 Q. Mr. Brown, were you born on the 15th of May, 1964? Are you a

18 British citizen? Are you currently employed as an investigator at the

19 International Criminal Court in The Hague, and have you been so employed

20 since 2005? Do you hold a bachelors degree in history from the University

21 of East Anglia, a masters degree from criminology from the University of

22 Leicester, and did you attend the Royal Military Academy in Sandhurst,

23 where thereafter you were commissioned as an officer in the British army?

24 A. That's correct, yes.

25 MR. HARMON: Now, Your Honour, if we can go briefly into private

Page 16190

1 session.

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

3 [Private session]

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 16191

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 [Open session]

23 JUDGE ORIE: And, Ms. Loukas, this is the moment that your --

24 the expert you're consulting at this moment - let's put it that way - could

25 sit next to you, if you want.

Page 16192

1 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I'll just see that

2 procedures can be put into place in that regard.



5 Q. Mr. Brown, now, you were a military analyst in the Office of the

6 Prosecutor from 1998 to 2004; is that correct?

7 A. Yes, that is correct.

8 Q. Could you explain to the Trial Chamber the role of a military

9 analyst in the Office of the Prosecutor, what functions you performed.

10 A. There is a small, dedicated team within the Office of the

11 Prosecutor formed predominantly from ex-military officers and military

12 personnel; invariably, ex-intelligence officers are people who work in

13 military analysis. It is their job to provide analytical support to the

14 investigative teams or to the senior trial attorneys. That work invariably

15 means assisting in interpreting material, reviewing documentation, military

16 documentation, and generally giving advice in relation to military issues,

17 should they require it.

18 Q. And in the course of performing your duties in the Office of the

19 Prosecutor, did you work with materials from the JNA and from the Bosnian

20 Serb Army, the VRS?

21 A. Yes, I did.

22 Q. And did you work with those materials over the course of six

23 years?

24 A. Yes, I did, amongst other things, but yes.

25 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, if I could tender Mr. Brown's resume,

Page 16193

1 which is found in tab 1 of the first binder that you have.

2 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you want to tender that under seal,

3 Mr. Harmon?

4 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: And let's just see. When we go to numbering, I ...

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harmon, we used to give one number to the whole

8 bunch of it and then say exhibit so-and-so, tab so-and-so. But we could

9 perhaps start with the resume and give that a number under seal, then give

10 the report one number and all the tabs a similar number, but then with the

11 addition tab so-and-so.

12 MR. HARMON: That's fine.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, that would be ...?

14 THE REGISTRAR: The curriculum vitae will be Prosecution Exhibit

15 P890, under seal.

16 MR. HARMON: Thank you.

17 Q. Mr. Brown, you prepared a -- an expert report entitled "Military

18 developments in the Bosanska Krajina 1992." It is dated the 21st of July,

19 2002. Who asked you to prepare that report?

20 A. Ms. Jo Korner, who was a senior trial attorney working in the

21 Office of the Prosecutor at the time, asked me to compile the report.

22 Q. What directions were you given in respect of preparing this

23 report?

24 A. Ms. Korner gave me something of -- some relatively general

25 guidance that she wanted a report produced based on -- predominantly based

Page 16194

1 on documentation about the military activities in the Krajina, but it was

2 very relatively general and was not necessarily detailed or specific. But

3 she wanted a report compiled based on material that we had, reviewing that

4 material on military activities and developments in the Krajina in 1992.

5 Q. And did you mainly use documentary material in preparing this

6 report?

7 A. Yes. I think I -- apart from some videos, I think it's

8 exclusively documentation.

9 Q. Can you describe to the Trial Chamber what types of documents you

10 examined.

11 A. I prodominantly used military documentation. A large section of

12 that had been obtained as a result of search -- search and seizure tasks

13 that the Office of the Prosecutor had conducted. Most of the documents or

14 a significant percentage of the documents are military documents. I also

15 utilised some police documents. Again, many of these had been taken as a

16 result of search operations. I utilised some political documents, which I

17 predominantly utilised if they related to Defence or military issues. I

18 also used a small number, I think, of open-source documents, media articles

19 and the likes, and some videos.

20 Q. You say certain documents were the result of searches and

21 seizures.

22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]


24 Q. When you say that you utilised documents that had been seized by

25 the Office of the Prosecutor pursuant to searches, did that include the

Page 16195

1 documentation from the 1st Krajina Corps?

2 A. Yes. There was a search and seizure operation which had happened

3 actually before I had arrived to the archive of the 1st Krajina Corps, and

4 a significant section of that archive was -- was taken back here.

5 Q. Mr. Brown, in preparing this report, who selected the documents

6 that formed the basis of this report?

7 A. I did.

8 Q. Approximately how many documents did you use in the preparation

9 of this report?

10 A. I'm not actually sure of the exact number, but I know -- I think

11 there was around 900 footnotes. Not the footnotes -- not every footnote

12 relates to an individual document. There's multiple references. I think

13 there's probably around about 600 or so individual documents, maybe a

14 little less, but around that number, I think.

15 Q. What was your objective in preparing this report?

16 A. Well, my objective was to -- to look at the documentation and

17 where I could, give an analysis of, as the title suggests, military

18 developments in Bosanska Krajina in 1992 as best as I could.

19 Q. There is an index in this report. In respect of that index, can

20 you tell us whose decision it was to organise this report in this manner?

21 A. It was mine and mine alone.

22 Q. Now, what limitations, if any, does this report have, in your

23 view?

24 A. Yes. There are limitations to this report, and I think I even

25 stressed some of those in the introduction. There's a limitation in

Page 16196

1 relation to time. It only deals predominantly with 1992; it does refer a

2 little bit to 1991. Some documents, I believe, also reference 1993, but

3 it's predominantly about 1992. So there's a limitation in relation to

4 that.

5 It's limited in relation to the source of the material. It's --

6 it's documentary based. It's not relating to witness testimony or any

7 sources of information. So that is a limitation to some degree.

8 It's limited, of course, in relation to my ability to search and

9 -- and conduct analysis on -- on many, many documents that we do have in

10 the Office of the Prosecutor. I couldn't clearly footnote every single

11 issue. I couldn't put in every reference necessarily that -- of

12 documentation there. But there is a natural limitation in that respect.

13 And these -- these, I think, are some of the references -- some of the

14 limitations that I do have. And it does deal -- maybe another one is that

15 it does deal to some extent very heavily with military issues. It's not

16 about predominantly a lot of other -- the other issues that were on there

17 at the time. So these are some of the limitations to -- of the report.

18 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, does Your Honour wish that at the end

19 of the examination that I tender the binders in toto, or as we go through

20 the documents?

21 JUDGE ORIE: I just had a brief discussion with Madam Registrar.

22 We would like you to tender the documents. It gets -- I did say otherwise,

23 but will get a separate number. And then a number will be assigned to -- a

24 general number will be assigned to all the exhibits attached to the report.

25 So I'd like you to tender the report, first of all, and then we'll see what

Page 16197

1 documents you will use -- what documents you will present to the witness.

2 And, of course, the Chamber, it would not surprise you, has similar

3 concerns, as expressed before, with large numbers of documents.

4 MR. HARMON: Well, then I would tender the report of Mr. Brown

5 at this time.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Registrar, that would be what number?

7 THE REGISTRAR: The report will be Prosecution Exhibit P891, and

8 the errata sheet, P891A.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. And could we already

10 assign a general number for the related exhibits.

11 THE REGISTRAR: The general number for the related exhibits will

12 be Prosecution Exhibit P892.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

14 MR. HARMON: Now, Your Honour, what I would like to do before I

15 get into the examination of Mr. Brown on the binders, I would be surprised

16 if Your Honours recall, but on the 13th of February, 2004 there was an

17 issue that was raised in respect of the testimony of Mr. Keronjic

18 specifically, in aren't of a diary of Petar Jankovic, and there was an

19 inquiry as to who Nikola Dencic was. And there is a reference in the diary

20 -- Your Honour asked -- Your Honour Judge Orie asked the question about who

21 was the godfather, and I undertook to come back to you at some point in

22 time with the answer, and Mr. Brown is now in a position --


24 MR. HARMON: -- to give you that answer. Again, I refer to the

25 transcript of the 13th of February, 2004.

Page 16198

1 Q. And, Mr. Brown, without belabouring the point, can you identify

2 Nikola Dencic and what his role was in the JNA and later in the VRS.

3 A. Yes. I -- I believe that Nikola Dencic was a JNA officer serving

4 in the JNA 17th Corps - the JNA 17th Corps was based in Tuzla - and he was

5 a staff officer working that -- in that corps. He later became, I believe

6 for a very short space of time, the first commander of the VRS East Bosnia

7 Corps, which was headquartered in Bijeljina. I don't believe he stayed in

8 that position for too long, but he was a JNA officer, and he was in the VRS

9 for a short space of time.

10 Q. Now we'll move to the testimony. And, Mr. Brown, in your expert

11 report between pages 12 and 20 there is -- you referred to the JNA, and I'd

12 like to have you address certain aspects in respect of the JNA. Are you

13 familiar, Mr. Brown, with a concept of the All People's Army?

14 A. All People's Defence?

15 Q. All People's Defence, yes.

16 A. Yes, I am.

17 Q. Can you explain to the Court briefly what that concept was.

18 A. Well, briefly, All People's Defence was a means by which

19 Yugoslavia could mobilise many aspects in the defence of the state, and the

20 JNA was a significant component of that. And the JNA was a multi- -- made

21 to be a multi- ethnic, multinational federal body engaged in the defence of

22 the Yugoslav territory. And All People's Defence was a doctrine in which

23 state and its components would be mobilised in a time of crisis in order to

24 defend the state.

25 Q. Now, I want to focus your attention, Mr. Brown, on how the JNA

Page 16199

1 evolved from being a -- an army that was multi-effect and defended the

2 different ethnic groups within the former Yugoslavia to becoming one that

3 defended exclusively the Serb interest.

4 And if I can direct your attention first to paragraph 1.3 of

5 your report in which you say, and I quote, "In relation to the first aspect

6 in particular, elements within the JNA were already aware of the problems

7 of ethnic and party divisions in early 1992, and some evidence indicated

8 that the JNA believed that all national parties and groups were

9 contributing to the volatility."

10 Why did that concern the JNA?

11 A. Well, I -- first of all, there was the war in Croatia, which had

12 -- there had been a negotiation by the end of 1991, but that clearly had a

13 significant impact on -- on them. They were engaged there, and clearly

14 ethnic tensions and ethnic divisions there had caused significant problems.

15 But maybe more widely, I think, because ethnic divisions threatened

16 Yugoslavia and the JNA, being a Yugoslavian or federal institution,

17 probably realised that this was a -- was a threat to -- to Yugoslavia and a

18 threat to them.

19 Q. What -- in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina, what policies did

20 the JNA adopt as time evolved?

21 A. I think I've articulated it in the report as something of a twin-

22 track policy. I think in the early part of 1992, as forces were being

23 withdrawn from Croatia into Bosnia, the JNA did have some references and --

24 and there were documentary evidence -- or there is documentary evidence

25 that they tried to reduce ethnic tensions in a way, presumably to try and

Page 16200

1 keep what was -- as much of Yugoslavia together as possible. But it's

2 clear, also, that documentary evidence, especially by the spring of 1992,

3 would seem to indicate that they themselves were aligning themselves with

4 the SDS or the Bosnian Serbs, and that there is evidence that -- that they

5 were converging and that there is also evidence that weapons were being

6 distributed from the JNA to the Bosnian Serbs. So I think there is

7 evidence of -- of a twin track of initially trying to diffuse ethnic

8 tensions because they realised the ethnic tensions were likely to endanger

9 what was left of Yugoslavia, but as the situation deteriorated, they

10 aligned themselves very much with the Bosnian Serbs.

11 Q. Now, I would like to turn to tab 4 in the binders.

12 MR. HARMON: I don't know if the witness has a copy of the

13 binders in front of him, but if he could be provided with one. I'd like

14 the first binder.

15 Q. Mr. Brown, if you could turn to tab 4.

16 A. Yes.

17 MR. HARMON: Now, Your Honour, this has a previous exhibit

18 number, and I'm prepared to read off the previous exhibit numbers, if Your

19 Honour would like, in respect of each exhibit where there is an exhibit

20 number.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you present it to the witness and just

22 mention the number. That would, for those who have to read the transcript

23 at a later stage, be very convenient.

24 MR. HARMON: This is Exhibit P51 and P51.1.

25 Q. Mr. Brown, if I can direct your attention to the exhibit in tab

Page 16201

1 4. This is a document classified as a military secret, and it is the

2 conclusions based on an assessment of the situation in the territory of

3 Bosnia and Herzegovina, area of responsibility of the 2nd Military

4 District. This document is dated March of 1992, and at the end of the

5 document, it bears the signature of Milutin Kukanjac, Commander General.

6 Can you, first of all, identify who General Kukanjac and what

7 role he had in the 2nd Military District.

8 A. General Kukanjac was the commander of the 2nd Military District.

9 The 2nd Military District covered, to all intents and purposes, Bosnia-

10 Herzegovina. It covered a little bit of Croatia, as well, but to all

11 intents and purposes, it covered Bosnia and Herzegovina, and he was the

12 commander.

13 Q. Now, have you had an opportunity to review -- you've reviewed

14 this document. I know that. So let me ask you: In respect of this

15 document, does this document, Mr. Brown, reflect a change in the attitude

16 of the JNA from being neutral to being one that reflects a pro-Serb stance?

17 A. Yes. I think there are a number of areas in this document that

18 would seem to highlight that. If I take you to page 3, where they discuss

19 the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in particular page 3 on where --

20 where it's highlighted "4" halfway down the page.

21 Q. Mr. Brown, before we get to point 4, can I direct your attention

22 to point 2 of that document, where it says, "The Serbian people has opted

23 for Yugoslavia." And in point 1 and point 3, it also discusses the

24 positions, the respective positions of the SDA and the HDZ, the two

25 political parties of the non-Serbs, and it indicates that the Serb party

Page 16202

1 had opted for Yugoslavia. What's the significance of that in this

2 document?

3 A. I think this is another example of where I see this convergence,

4 that clearly the JNA would have opted for Yugoslavia also and that the

5 Serbian people have opted for Yugoslavia, and so there is this convergence.

6 Q. Now, if you could give us your comments on point 4, please, Mr.

7 Brown.

8 A. Point 4 discusses a meeting that clearly had happened with Jose

9 Cutilheiro, where he seemed to want to hear, according to this document at

10 least, the truest possible version, presumably the truest possible version

11 of what was happening in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And Kukanjac writes here,

12 "The minister was briefed in great detail about the background to the

13 events, the real goals of the leaders of the nationalist parties and the

14 direction where this was heading. The position taken by the Serbian people

15 in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the reasons why it is justified were particularly

16 stressed."

17 Again, this would seem to indicate this convergence by this

18 time.

19 Q. Can we turn to the next page in the document, on page 4. It's

20 subpart C. And I would like to direct your attention to a sentence that

21 appears in the middle of that paragraph. It says, "This is quite normal

22 because the Serbian people is in all fairness under threat here yet again,

23 and accordingly we are protecting the interests of the people."

24 When the reference is "the Serbian people are under threat yet

25 again," do you know what that refers to?

Page 16203

1 A. It's not exactly clear whether he meant over a protracted period

2 of time or whether he was referring, say, to Croatia, as what had happened

3 in late 1991. But it's clear that, again, I would argue that this is a

4 statement that would seem to align certainly Kukanjac and the 2nd Military

5 District and the JNA with -- with the Serbs. And in this case, he makes

6 mention of the SDS leadership.

7 Q. Could you go -- let me pause.

8 Mr. Brown, could you go to the end of paragraph C.

9 A. Yes. He appears to highlight in the middle of the section that

10 there are some occurrences, and he lists them: "Criticisms of the army.

11 Emergence of Chetnik ideology. Warnings to leave them alone" - that's

12 presumably the army to leave them alone - "The assessment of some of their

13 officers." And in this regard, the commander of the 2nd Military District

14 will soon be talking to leaders of the Serbian people: Karadzic, Koljevic,

15 Plavsic, Krajisnik, and Djukic."

16 Q. What do you make from the fact that there's no reference to the

17 leaders of the HDZ talking to Kukanjac or the SDA talking to Kukanjac?

18 A. Well, he seems to be doing something in order to sort out what he

19 sees as a potential problem in that he's going to meet these leaders, and

20 he would seem to know who these leaders are. And he doesn't seem to be

21 making much of a reference in the other two preceding paragraphs, A or B,

22 necessarily that -- to dealing with them in the same way.

23 Q. Let me direct your -- let me direct your attention to paragraph

24 5. In paragraph 5 in the last sentence above subpart D, there's -- strike

25 that.

Page 16204

1 Paragraph 5 deals with volunteer units in the 2nd Military

2 District zone. What is that referring to, Mr. Brown?

3 A. Part 5, as you say, deals with volunteers, and I think if you

4 read the section in its entirety, which goes on to the following page, page

5 5, and highlights -- where it says "some experiences," it would appear to

6 me reading that that the volunteers are those who are not JNA members, who

7 have been mobilised into the JNA, but who put themselves or volunteered

8 themselves in the district, in the -- in the districts and in the corps of

9 the district. And I think if you read the second page, or page 5, it would

10 appear that many if not most of these volunteers are Serbian volunteers.

11 And importantly in -- maybe in part F, they -- well, they talk about the

12 number of volunteers that are there. They then talk about the weapons that

13 have been distributed to these volunteers. And the JNA have given some,

14 and the SDS have given some. And I think the figure is 51.900 distributed

15 by the JNA, 17.298 by the SDS.

16 And then he -- he notes some experiences about these volunteers,

17 in that many of them don't, I think, want to leave their municipalities.

18 He talks about SDS leaders seeking weapons from the JNA and some other

19 problems in that area.

20 So I think the issue of volunteers are predominantly about

21 Serbian volunteers who are working in the -- in the whole of the district.

22 Q. So, Mr. Brown, what is your final conclusion in respect of this

23 document? What does it reflect?

24 A. I think it reflects, as I say in the report, by this date - and I

25 think the date may be around about the 19th of March, even though it says

Page 16205

1 "March" at the beginning - that there was this convergence and that the JNA

2 in Bosnia and the 2nd Military District were working with the Bosnian

3 Serbs, the Bosnian Serb leadership, and that they were providing weapons,

4 and that there was this convergence by this time.

5 Q. Mr. Brown, if I can direct you to paragraph 1.12 in your report;

6 that is found on page 15. In your report, you say - I quote - "By late

7 April 1992, the JNA were in a position exclusively assisting the Bosnian

8 Serbs and the SDS and any attempt at balance, if it had genuinely existed,

9 had gone."

10 Now, in April -- strike that.

11 We see the reference earlier to the arming of volunteers, but by

12 April were JNA forces, in fact, involved in combat operations supporting

13 the Bosnian Serbs?

14 A. I am aware of some instances where that happened, yes.

15 Q. Where?

16 A. I was aware or am aware of the JNA assisting in Bosanska Krupa.

17 I am aware that in Zvornik in early April 1992 there were -- there was JNA

18 support from the 17th Corps, and I think I've made some references to that

19 in the report.

20 Q. Mr. Brown, we're going to be talking at length today and in the

21 ensuing days about the 1st Krajina Corps, so I'd like to orient the Judges,

22 if I could, to the geographic area.

23 MR. HARMON: And I see that --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harmon, what about doing that after the break?

25 MR. HARMON: I'm happy to do that, Your Honour.

Page 16206

1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break until quarter past 4.00.

2 --- Recess taken at 3.50 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 4.22 p.m.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harmon, you may proceed.

5 MR. HARMON: Yes. Your Honour. Given the paucity of time and

6 the number of exhibits I have to go through, I'm going to give you a very

7 quick orientation of the are of the 1 KK, Your Honour.

8 If we could turn to tab 5 of a -- of the binder.

9 Q. Mr. Brown, if you could do the same.

10 Mr. Brown, briefly, what does this map depict?

11 A. [Microphone not activated]

12 MR. HARMON: I need you to turn your microphones on, Mr. Brown.

13 There we are.

14 A. This is a map that came from the 1st Krajina Corps archive. And

15 although it's undated, it probably comes from late 1992, and -- or shows,

16 depicts, the zone of responsibility of the 1st Krajina Corps in its

17 entirety. I know that it came probably from at least -- well, further on

18 than October 1992 because the area of Jajce is under 1st Krajina Corps

19 control, and that didn't happen until around about that time. Also the

20 corridor was expanded slightly. So I'd assess that this map was from at

21 least 1992. And it covers the zone of the corps and the sub-formations

22 within the corps.

23 MR. HARMON: And, Your Honours, if Your Honours refer to your

24 own map 527 on page 2 and Mr. Brown's report, footnotes 137 and 138.

25 Q. Mr. Brown, you can confirm -- would you confirm for me that the

Page 16207

1 municipalities that are wholly within the 1 KK area of responsibility on

2 the 4th of June included Bosanska Dubica, Bosanska Gradiska, Srbac,

3 Prijedor, Banja Luka, Laktasi, Prnjavor, Celinac, and Kotor Varos, and the

4 municipalities that fell partially within the area of responsibility of the

5 corps were Bosanski Novi, Sanski Most, Kljuc, Mrkonjic Grad, Sipovo, Jajce,

6 Skender Vakuf, Travnik, Teslic, Doboj, Derventa, and Bosanski Brod?

7 A. Yes, that's based on documentation that came from the Main Staff.

8 Q. All right. Now, if we could turn to the next exhibit, which is

9 tab 6. And I'm sorry to rush through the orientation so quickly, Your

10 Honours, but I've directed Your Honours to the appropriate municipalities

11 and footnote in Mr. Brown's report.

12 What I'd like to look at -- what I'd like to look at, Mr. Brown,

13 is -- it is a separate binder, a small binder, and it is the analysis of

14 combat readiness and activities of the Army of the Republika Srpska in

15 1992. This is a military secret, strictly confidential. It is dated on --

16 in April of 1993.

17 Mr. Brown, is this an important military document, in your

18 opinion?

19 A. Yes, I'd assess that it is an important military document.

20 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber what this document is and how it

21 came to be created.

22 A. Your Honours, this is another document that came from the archive

23 of the 1st Krajina Corps. It's a document that's military secret, strictly

24 confidential, which I believe is the highest classification of military

25 documents in the VRS, and it's an analysis of combat -- or it's entitled

Page 16208

1 "Analysis of the combat readiness and activities of the Army of the

2 Republika Srpska in 1992."

3 This document is -- appears to me both a reflection back on the

4 activities of the army in 1992, an analysis of the current state of the

5 army, as the document is dated in April 1993, and also highlights the areas

6 that they need to improve in the -- in the coming period, as well as

7 indicating some of the tasks that they are to -- to conduct in the -- in

8 the coming period. So it's both a reflection on the state of the army, a

9 reflection of what the army had achieved in 1992, and also a means by which

10 they could address any weaknesses or problems and -- and also highlight the

11 tasks that were to come.

12 This type of document, I had seen one previously which was a JNA

13 document in 1991, reflecting -- sorry, early 1992 reflecting back on 1991.

14 So I can only assume that they kept up with this type of analysis, that it

15 had been a JNA procedure to look back and to conduct some kind of analysis

16 of how they were, and I believe the VRS continued with this in 1992.

17 The document is very lengthy, and it's probably one of the most

18 lengthy documents I think I saw in the archive of the 1st Krajina Corps

19 that we had. And it's very detailed, and the index indicates all the

20 various components of command and control and logistics and addresses each

21 one individually.

22 I'd also draw your attention to the section on page 4 and page

23 5, which is -- or appears to be a briefing plan with a schedule of

24 speakers, and it in itself is quite detailed. And I believe this was

25 probably a briefing either presenting this document or presenting the --

Page 16209

1 the main components of this document. And if you look at the -- the actual

2 briefing of who attended it, it is all the very senior military figures of

3 the VRS at the time and includes representatives from the government,

4 representatives or men to brief from Yugoslavia, and Minister of Interior,

5 I believe, also is pencilled in here on the briefing to conduct a speech.

6 So I would assume that this plan was a briefing to present this document.

7 The document itself, I believe, was compiled based on a request

8 that had gone down from the VRS Main Staff earlier, in the early part of

9 1993. I'm aware that General Talic in the 1st Krajina Corps had received

10 an order from the Main Staff to submit his own corps analysis, which he did

11 do. I'm also aware of -- I think in the 2nd Krajina Corps, which is a

12 neighbouring corps to General Talic, they had had the to do the same and I

13 think that was around February 1003. So I assume that the Main Staff

14 issued an instruction, the corps submitted the details, and then those

15 details from the various corps were formed in this compiled report, which

16 in essence was a report on the state of the army and how it -- how it had

17 worked in 1992 and the state of play in 1993.

18 Q. Was this -- was this document, Mr. Brown, both objective on one

19 hand and critical, on the other?

20 A. Yes, it is. And -- and, in fact, it -- it does draw the -- the

21 state of the army in its -- and the problems that it faced at the time, the

22 problems it still had then, some of the weaknesses in the army that needed

23 to be addressed, and although it is, obviously, on the other hand, it -- it

24 discusses their successes too. And I think it's a key document.

25 Q. Mr. Brown, I want to direct your attention in this document to

Page 16210

1 pages 28 to 41.

2 MR. HARMON: And while you're finding those pages -- Your

3 Honours, this has been exhibited before as P64A and P529, Hanson tab 255.

4 Q. What I want to direct your attention to, specifically, and I'd

5 like you to summarise, the role and importance of the communications system

6 and its ability -- its capabilities as assessed by the army in 1992. Can

7 you summarise those capabilities, Mr. Brown?

8 A. Yes. This section deals with communications and signals, and I -

9 - I think to some extent it's somewhat self-explanatory. They highlight

10 that they had tasks to -- in order to -- to ensure continuous and safe

11 functioning of command and reports could go up and down the chain. They

12 had to establish a communications system, and that communications system

13 had various components to it. It had a number of means by which

14 information could be transmitted within the army and to other -- outside

15 the army, as well, and they themselves assess this capability to be very

16 good and that it was able to achieve its aim of -- they say one of the

17 aims, anyway, was the prompt transmission of large quantities of

18 information from the Main Staff of the army to the Supreme Command,

19 subordinating elements, participating units and contacts with a view to the

20 swiftest possible notification and informing -- and feedback in the form of

21 directive decisions and orders.

22 And the summary that they have at the end, they do discuss that

23 there were some difficulties, but the summary that they have was that

24 communications was very -- were very good.

25 Q. And in this particular segment of the report - for example, on

Page 16211

1 page 33, a radio relay communications - it indicates in the second

2 paragraph on page 33 under that heading that they had radio relay

3 communications with simultaneous translation of information through 523

4 communication channels consisting of 416 telephone and 107 telegraph

5 channels. They also describe, do they not, in this report that they had

6 radio communications, wire service, courier service, and they describe the

7 encryption capabilities of the communications in the VRS?

8 A. Yes, they do. They highlight each of those sections, and they

9 also talk about -- within -- within that broad range of communications that

10 they had to assist other users outside the army, as well. But yes, those

11 were the main means that they discuss in this -- in this issue.

12 Q. Can I direct your attention, Mr. Brown, to figure 4 on page 36.

13 A. Yes. This is -- in this section, they're talking about wire

14 services ask. That means both hardwire communications between two

15 communicators, but also they use the PTT system, which was the civilian

16 telephone line. And this particular chart outlines, as it says, the use of

17 PTT and military automatic telephone exchanges outside the army of the RS.

18 And it just lists -- so basically it was a system -- it wasn't a military

19 communications system per se, but they utilised that to communicate.

20 I'm not a communications expert particularly, but I'd imagine

21 each of the numbers here is either links to an individual line or a

22 telephone exchange or a telephone handset and a number of lines going into

23 the various formations, including the Supreme Command, Main Staff, the

24 corps, all the other units of the army, some logistic components, military

25 hospital, TV SRNA, press centres, and the warning and reporting centre.

Page 16212

1 And it -- it lists here the PTT lines and also the PTT from Belgrade. So

2 they used Belgrade PTT links, as well, in some cases to try and ensure

3 communications.

4 Q. Mr. Brown, can I direct your attention to the table that appears

5 on the next page, which is actually figure 5.

6 A. Yes. This particular section deals with encrypted and encoded

7 communications or telegraph communications, and the particular section

8 talks about the amount of written communications or encrypted telegrams

9 that were passed predominantly in the army. It also makes mention of the

10 Pale warning and reporting centre of the government. The warning and

11 reporting system, I believe, was a system that the JNA had established,

12 which was to do with national defence. I think the VRS simply utilised

13 that existing system. And there was obviously a Pale and warning and

14 reporting centre, which from this would indicate that the government was

15 utilising that system. And a number of encrypted or encoded telegrams, I

16 think two or three are highlighted here, seemed to have been established or

17 used during that period.

18 Q. Did the -- your review of this particular portion of the report

19 on the army permit you to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the

20 army had the technical means by which to communicate with the civilian

21 leadership over the -- who were above the army itself?

22 A. Well, I -- I would say from this, yes, that they had the means to

23 -- to do that. There is some indication that they had connections outside

24 the army, that they had to establish some connections outside the army, and

25 they themselves, I think, assessed that the -- that the communications

Page 16213

1 system in 1992 was very good.

2 Q. Mr. Brown, did you -- if you'd turn to tab -- tabs 7 and 8 of the

3 folder. If you'd look at tab 7. This is a previous exhibit. It's an

4 intercepted communication. It's a previous Prosecution exhibit, P292,

5 P389A, P389A.1 and 389B. This is a communication between Mr. Krajisnik and

6 an individual by the name of Radivoje Grkovic, and Mr. Grkovic is

7 identified on page 2 of the intercepted communication as being the

8 Nedzarici Battalion commander.

9 And if you will turn to tab 8, which is -- this is also an

10 intercepted communication between Mr. Krajisnik and an individual by the

11 name of Milan Kovic. This has been previously exhibited as 292 KID 39219,

12 and this is dated the 21st of April 1992. And it's a conversation where

13 Mr. Krajisnik is inquiring in getting a report as to the military situation

14 in Grbavica and in other parts of Sarajevo.

15 Now, does this confirm for you that the -- that the technical

16 capabilities --

17 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I'd object to leading of this nature.

18 In fact, the -- the entire prelude to the question and the nature of the

19 question are at a level of objectionable leading, in my submission.

20 MR. HARMON: Then I won't lead, Your Honour. I'll ask a

21 different -- I'll form the question differently.

22 Q. What does this suggest to you, Mr. Brown, in respect of the

23 communication capabilities permitting the senior political leadership to

24 inquire with battalion commanders and in respect of the military situation

25 on the ground?

Page 16214

1 A. Well, based on these two -- two transcripts, it would appear that

2 Mr. Krajisnik had an ability to speak to low-level commanders in order to

3 avail himself of the situation in the territory. It would seem -- if the -

4 - if the intercept is -- is as it said.

5 Q. Mr. Brown, let me return to the report on the army, and let me

6 direct your attention, if I can, to page 153. I'm going to read -- I'm

7 going to read to you the portion of this report on the army, page 153,

8 paragraph 4, and then I'm going to read another section to you.

9 This paragraph at 153 is a paragraph taken from the concluding

10 remarks of Dr. Radovan Karadzic on the 5th of April, 1993, in which he says

11 in paragraph 4, "The Supreme Command as a whole, as well as every

12 individual member of the Supreme Command, was informed of the objectives of

13 planned operations and concerted battles and of their results frequently in

14 great detail. This demonstrates that control and command of the Army of

15 Republika Srpska is united and that it is based upon a high degree of

16 concurrence and unity in selecting the targets of each individual operation

17 or battle and in assigning tasks to individual operational and tactical

18 formations."

19 Can you comment on Dr. Karadzic's remarks that I've just read.

20 A. Well, I think the remarks probably speak for themselves, and --

21 and Karadzic obviously believes that the Supreme Command was not only

22 informed but took part in the planning of operations and -- in some detail

23 and had an ability to do that. I would assume that if the communication

24 system hadn't been functioning, that the -- that would have hampered that

25 process, and he himself seems to be admitting here that -- that that was --

Page 16215

1 these objectives were planned operations, reports, and that was linked to

2 command and control. And from the law on the army, I know that was also a

3 function of the commander-in-chief, so it would seem to be self-evident

4 that he was briefed on operations and took an active part in that.

5 Q. Mr. Brown, let me direct you to pages 8 and 9 of this same

6 report, again dealing with the issue of communications. I want to read you

7 the paragraph -- the last paragraph on page 8, continuing over to page 9.

8 "The command. Report and command liaison links. Warning and notification

9 functions were well organised in communications plans, with appropriate

10 documents and data, were precise so that it was possible on the basis of

11 these to establish the planned communication links. With a high degree of

12 certainty, we can say that the existing communication system meets the

13 needs of command, coordination, and reporting needs at all levels from the

14 Supreme Command, the Supreme Commander, the General Staff, to the lower

15 levels."

16 I invite your comments, Mr. Brown, as to that paragraph I have

17 just read.

18 A. Well, it would seem to echo what Mr. Karadzic had said, and --

19 and this particular component was presumably the army's perspective and not

20 Dr. Karadzic's perspective, and -- and it seems to echo very much what they

21 said, and also replicate the issue of communications, that communications

22 were very good.

23 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, I'd like to come back to page 153 of this report,

24 paragraph 4, and I'd like to focus your attention on the second paragraph

25 contained in paragraph 4. "The Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska

Page 16216

1 has performed the functions of the staff of the Supreme Command and at the

2 same time that of the superior command for operational and some joint

3 tactical formations, which presupposed the agreement of the Supreme Command

4 in respect of all tasks and objectives of the armed struggle. This

5 relationship between the command structures and the organs of government

6 and the Supreme Command made it impossible for the Main Staff to make

7 decisions absolutely on its own. Rather, every operational battle was

8 politically endorsed on the basis of the interests of the Serbian people

9 and approved by the highest authorities of Republika Srpska."

10 Mr. Brown, can I again invite your comments and observations on

11 that paragraph.

12 A. Well, I think this would indicate very much this issue of unity

13 of command and that there wasn't a division between what the military were

14 trying to do or doing and their wider political objectives of the Bosnian

15 Serbs. I think it highlights that by that comment, and I think there are

16 other documents that would -- would seem to echo that.

17 Q. When you say "unity of command," Mr. Brown, can you be more

18 precise, more explicit? What does that mean?

19 A. Well, very much that there was not a divergence here, that there

20 was -- there was a very close relationship, that the political leadership

21 in essence were -- were giving overall guidance to the military, and that

22 all decisions and operational battles were -- were politically endorsed by

23 them.

24 Q. Now, I'd like to focus your attention, Mr. Brown, on essentially

25 how orders were transmitted from the highest levels down and from the

Page 16217

1 lowest levels of the army back up to the highest levels with -- up to the

2 political leadership.

3 And if I could first of all, Mr. Brown, ask you -- if we could

4 turn to page 159 of the army report.

5 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I have a question because

6 things -- we are moving very quickly. Could we come back to page 9,

7 please, and to the third and fourth line. [In English] "And reporting

8 needs at all levels from the Supreme Command, the Supreme Commander, the

9 General Staff, to lower levels."

10 [Interpretation] I would like to understand what "Supreme

11 Command" means and what "Supreme Commander" also means. What do these

12 words actually mean, please.

13 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I was aware that in late 1992 the

14 Supreme Command was established, I believe, in November; although, I'd have

15 to say I defer to those who have done political analysis more. But I would

16 believe that what they're talking about here is the Supreme Command, the

17 Supreme Commander probably being Dr. Karadzic, the General Staff being the

18 Main Staff, and the lower levels being the corps and probably subordinated

19 formations of the VRS.

20 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Yes. But is there a difference

21 between the Supreme Command, on the one side, and the Supreme Commander?

22 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I would like to defer to someone who

23 might know more about the -- the law on the regulations and the political

24 leadership. But it may well mean here the Supreme Command is a corporate

25 body and the Supreme Commander being the president of the republic or Dr.

Page 16218

1 Karadzic.

2 JUDGE HANOTEAU: Thank you. Thank you very much.


4 Q. Mr. Brown, again, using this same document, if we could turn to

5 page 159. And, first of all, very generically, can you identify the

6 various ways in which orders were conveyed in the VRS from the top, from

7 the political leadership down through the Main Staff and down through -- to

8 the lower echelons? Just identify the various ways in which that was done.

9 MS. LOUKAS: Well, just in relation to that, I think the witness

10 has quite clearly indicated even as recently as the last question that he

11 would defer to those who have done political analysis more. That's page

12 53, line 10. And it's quite clear from the beginning of his evidence in

13 chief in relation to the limitations of his evidence -- it's clear that

14 this is an analysis on military developments in the Krajina for a certain

15 year period. This witness is simply not in a position to answer the

16 question that Mr. Harmon has asked him in relation to the -- particularly

17 in relation to -- from political leadership down through the Main Staff, in

18 my submission, Your Honours.

19 MR. HARMON: And I disagree with that, Your Honour, because this

20 report indicates precisely the manners in which these orders are directed

21 down. The question is, Can you tell us the very -- identify the various

22 ways in which orders were conveyed? And I can direct Your Honours'

23 attention to paragraph 1 -- I'm sorry, page 159, specifically referencing

24 oral orders from the president of the republic as the Supreme Commander of

25 the forces did orally assign a number of tasks. So --

Page 16219

1 JUDGE ORIE: Let's ask the witness what he knows.

2 Do you have any -- Ms. Loukas has drawn the attention to the

3 fact that your report is in certain respects limited. Now, we are talking

4 here -- the question is dealing with, I take it, orders of a military

5 nature and suggests that it came from the political leadership, where it,

6 well, at least comes at a borderline of -- because we have heard some

7 evidence that Mr. Karadzic was the Supreme Commander, which makes him both

8 a political figure and a military figure. Are you able to answer that

9 question since it comes at the edge of what seems to be your expertise?

10 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I -- again, I would defer very much

11 to people who were in the political analysis sphere, but I am aware of

12 documentation that I have reviewed, including some political documents of a

13 military nature, that indicate that there were directives, that there were

14 meetings. This document indicates oral orders being assigned. I am aware

15 of meetings that occurred, and I am aware of some documentation of reports

16 that go up the chain, as well. And so I am in part aware of -- of -- of

17 meetings that occurred, minutes of meetings, schedule briefings. The 16th

18 Assembly Session, for example, is another example -- you know, Mladic was

19 there.

20 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have to expand on that at this moment. I

21 do understand your answer to be that although it is about political

22 leaders, that it does not necessarily go beyond the field you studied and

23 beyond your expertise.

24 THE WITNESS: No, but I am aware of military documents that make

25 reference to this issue of the chain of command and the passage of

Page 16220

1 information down and up the chain.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then you may answer the question put to you.

3 Perhaps, Mr. Harmon, it would be wise to repeat it.


5 Q. Can you summarise, and then we'll explore each particular detail

6 -- Mr. Brown, can you summarise the -- the means in which orders were

7 conveyed from the Supreme Commander and political leaders to the Main

8 Staff, members of the Main Staff, and down through the lower echelons of

9 the 1st Krajina Corps and the army.

10 A. Well, this document indicates oral orders as being a means of

11 communication. I'm aware of Presidency sessions in which members of the

12 military were present, according to the minutes of the meetings. I'm aware

13 of references in this document that strategic objectives led to the

14 issuance of directives from the military, and I'm aware of a functioning

15 chain of command within the military down to the lower levels.

16 Q. Can I direct your attention, Mr. Brown, to an intercepted radio -

17 - a telephone communication that is found in tab 10. This is P --

18 Prosecution Exhibit 67, tab 32, and also P292, KID 31423. This is an

19 intercepted radio communication, Mr. Brown, between General Mladic and Mr.

20 Momcilo Krajisnik dated the 27th of May, 1992. And if you turn to page 2

21 of this intercept, you see a conversation wherein Mr. -- General Mladic

22 says, "I'm going further as planned, and tomorrow I will stop by to get new

23 instructions."

24 Mr. Krajisnik responds, "Excellent."

25 General Mladic says, "So we'll arrange for what we should do

Page 16221

1 next."

2 And Mr. Krajisnik says, "All right."

3 Can I have your observations as to this particular intercept,

4 Mr. Brown.

5 A. Well, again, if the intercept transcript is -- is accurate, it

6 would seem to be that a senior member of the Bosnian Serb leadership was

7 able to speak to Ratko Mladic and -- and give him instructions, and that

8 would seem to -- seem to show that.

9 Q. I seem to be missing the English translation of tab 9.

10 Mr. Brown, does the English translation of tab 9 appear to be in

11 your binder?

12 A. Yes, it does. Is this the one on the 21st of May?

13 Q. Without having it in front of me -- it is. Actually I have the

14 B/C/S version in front of me, but I don't have the English version, so let

15 me just get the English version.

16 Now, is this -- is this, Mr. Brown, an illustration of a -- an

17 order in writing from the 1st Krajina command to other members within the

18 army?

19 A. Yes. This is a -- an order that General Talic sent out on the

20 21st of May to his subordinate units in the corps, and it's -- it's an

21 order on general mobilisation. And the order starts by saying, "A decision

22 of the Serbian Republic of BH Presidency on the 20th of May has initiated

23 general mobilisation of all citizens of the Serbian Republic." And then he

24 goes on in his order to identify what that means in his corps.

25 And I'll draw your attention to point 1, which is, "To

Page 16222

1 immediately establish direct contact with municipal and military and

2 territorial organs on the ground, offering expert and material support for

3 the mobilisation process."

4 The end discusses issues about mobilising conscripts. If I draw

5 your attention to point 6: "Explain to conscripts on their -- as they

6 arrive the goals of our struggle, and brief them on their rights and

7 duties."

8 And then in paragraph 8, he states that "Until units receive

9 concrete combat tasks," presumably meaning that they're expecting some

10 combat action in the forthcoming weeks, "engage them in the following

11 tasks."

12 And point 4: "Establish the closest possible cooperation with

13 the people and legal authorities within their zones of responsibility."

14 The -- point 11, the orders that they're "not to allow the

15 presence of any paramilitary formations or other special organisations

16 within the zone." And that these people are to be dispersed -- or

17 "disperse individual members," presumably meaning paramilitary formations

18 or special organisations, "amongst the units as volunteers. If they

19 refuse, break them up, and if necessary, destroy them."

20 And then he orders that unit commanders of units are directly

21 responsible for implementing these assignments, and this order is

22 disseminated to all the various components of his corps, that distribution

23 list of the units within his corps. And this document to me would seem to

24 indicate that there was a decision at the highest level of the Presidency

25 on the 20th of May. That was then disseminated down the chain. General

Page 16223

1 Talic was disseminating that down to chain to his subordinate units.

2 Q. If we could turn to page 8 of the report on the army once again,

3 Mr. Brown, and in the second paragraph in the middle of that paragraph, it

4 says, "The main documents used to regulate the utilisation of forces at

5 Main Staff level were directives." And earlier in your testimony, you

6 mentioned directives, and you also mentioned directives in your expert

7 report on page 169 of paragraph 3.27. What is a directive, Mr. Brown?

8 A. A directive is a large planning construction or -- or order that

9 deals generally with the higher level military -- military planning, and

10 these were used by the VRS throughout the war, not just in 1992. I'm aware

11 of four directives pushed out by the VRS in 1992, and there were a number

12 of other directives that were subsequently pushed out in the following

13 years, but they are, in essence, large military high-level planning orders

14 to subordinate corps.

15 Q. Mr. Brown, if we can turn to page 159 of the military report, the

16 analysis, once again. Let me read to you from the second paragraph. It

17 says, "The strategic objectives of our war which were promptly defined and

18 set before the Main Staff of the Army of the RS, the commands and units,

19 served as a general guideline upon which we planned the actual operations

20 and concerted battles. This means that objectives were set before us

21 rather than specific tasks spelled out; although, the president of the

22 republic is the Supreme Commander of the armed forces of the RS did orally

23 assign a number of tasks which were general and vital significance to our

24 struggle and protecting the Serbian people and its territories. The Main

25 Staff of the Army of RS translated the set of objectives and tasks into

Page 16224

1 general and individual missions of the Army of the RS and the individual,

2 operational, and tactical formations with the goals of every individual,

3 combat action, operation, or battle being specifically defined."

4 Can you comment on this particular passage in the army report,

5 Mr. Brown?

6 A. Well, I think that is a -- a fairly accurate reflection of -- of

7 how at the higher level these -- these goals were disseminated into the VRS

8 Main Staff, and then from the earlier quote, that they took those

9 objectives, wrote them into directives, and those directives were passed

10 down the chain to subordinate corps, and the objectives, I would argue, in

11 this reference and elsewhere relate to the objectives that were stated in

12 the 16th Assembly Session on the 12th of May. And I'm aware in the two

13 directives that we have from 1992 that there are a number of references

14 that directly link -- it would appear to directly link the objectives, the

15 strategic objectives articulated at that Assembly session that are in the

16 military objectives of the VRS. And furthermore, I would argue that the

17 operational activity certainly in the area that I know reasonably well, the

18 1st Krajina Corps, the operational activity that they conducted can be

19 directly linked to those strategic objectives.

20 Q. So, Mr. Brown, if we could turn to tab 11, which has been

21 previously exhibited as P727, and also in the Brcko dossier as tab 15.

22 Is this one of the directives that you have referred to? Is

23 this ...?

24 A. Yes, this is operational directive 3, which was written in, I

25 believe, the 3rd of August, 1992.

Page 16225

1 Q. And generally speaking, these directives, they came from the Main

2 Staff; is that correct?

3 A. Yes. I think this one is signed by -- or it's got Mladic's

4 signature block, I believe. Yes.

5 Q. And did this objective -- did this directive, Mr. Brown, as set

6 forth on pages 4 and 5, go to the subordinate corps, including the 1st

7 Krajina Corps?

8 A. Yes, I believe it -- I'll just check the ...

9 Q. I'm referring specifically to paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and

10 5.5.

11 A. Yes. It would appear that all the various corps of the Main

12 Staff were given tasks. I'm not sure if this one actually has a

13 distribution list. And it may well be because this was on the

14 dissemination -- the dissemination means, maybe the use of telegraph or

15 whatever, but I am aware of General Talic reacting to this directive

16 because, I believe, not long afterwards, in fact, a day or so afterwards,

17 he himself wrote his own corps-level instruction. But this is an example

18 of a directive, and it does go to give various tasks to the corps within

19 the Main Staff.

20 Q. You referenced earlier, Mr. Brown, that these directives were --

21 were centred around -- or involved the strategic objectives that had been

22 announced at the 16th Session of the Bosnian Serb Assembly. Can you direct

23 the Court's attention to references within this document dealing

24 specifically with the strategic objectives?

25 A. The strategic objectives -- well, for example, the strategic

Page 16226

1 objective 5, which related to Sarajevo, Karadzic announced that they were

2 to divide Sarajevo, they were to control their territory of Sarajevo, and

3 they were all to -- also to ensure that forces in Sarajevo were not going

4 to be moved to other areas that were of some importance. He also mentioned

5 at the 16th Assembly Session that they had encircled Sarajevo. And when

6 you go to the task that's given to the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps in this

7 directive - and there are references there - that they are to maintain this

8 blockade of -- of Sarajevo and prevent its breaking. And I would argue

9 that in order to stop forces, Muslim and Croat forces in Sarajevo from

10 going to other areas that were of importance to the Bosnian Serbs, that the

11 way to do that would be to blockade the city and make sure they didn't come

12 out. And that would seem to be one link in this directive that the task

13 being given to the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps related to an objective that was

14 articulated by Karadzic at the 12th of May.

15 There are other references. I think -- I have to go through --

16 Q. Can I direct your attention, Mr. Brown, to page 3, third

17 paragraph from the bottom, where it deals with an advance on the left bank

18 of the River Neretva.

19 A. Yes. That was another objective that Karadzic had stated. I

20 think it was Operation Strategic Goal Number 4, establish a border on the

21 Una and Neretva Rivers. And I think if you look at what the Herzegovina

22 Corps was tasked to do here, which was the corps that covered the Neretva

23 area -- Herzegovina Corps used part of the forces to prevent penetration

24 from the territory of Croatia, Western Herzegovina, and direct operations

25 of the main forces towards the Neretva River.

Page 16227

1 Q. Mr. Brown, can I direct your attention to paragraph 5.1, where

2 there is a reference to the Posavina and the main forces carrying out

3 offensive operations in the Posavina. Do you see that reference, under

4 "Tasks of units"?

5 A. Yes. The 1st Krajina Corps had actually already established a

6 corridor in the Posavina area, which was strategic goal number 2. They had

7 achieved that goal by early July 2002. But in this, this is August, so

8 it's a little bit later, but what they had to do was expand that corridor

9 so they could get to the river. And the Krajina Corps here was given --

10 given that task, in essence, of protecting the corridor. So I would argue

11 this is a directive which would relate back to these strategic goals as

12 articulated on the 12th of May.

13 Q. Now, what do the documentation show, Mr. Brown, in respect of a

14 directive being sent from the Main Staff to the corps level? What

15 happened, then, at the corps level?

16 A. I know that this directive, in particular directive 3, General

17 Talic issued his own corps-wide instruction. I'm aware of another example.

18 We don't have directive 1 or 2, or at least we don't when I was working

19 here with the OTP, but there are examples when a directive came out in June

20 and General Talic issued his own corps-wide instruction based on that

21 directive. And I'm aware that an operational directive 4 which followed

22 that the corps followed those directives and issued their own corps-wide

23 instructions.

24 JUDGE ORIE: [Interpretation] Could I ask you to speak slower and

25 think of the interpreters, please.

Page 16228

1 MR. HARMON: Yes.

2 Q. Mr. Brown, we're going to have to pause, or I'm going to have to

3 slow down. I don't know if I can go any slower in my manner of speech.

4 But if we could turn, Mr. Brown, to tab 12. Can you identify

5 the document in tab 12.

6 A. Tab 12 was another directive. It's operational directive number

7 4., dated 19th of November, 1992.

8 Q. This is a document that comes from the Main Staff of the army to

9 the subordinate corps; is that correct?

10 A. That's correct, yes.

11 Q. Now, I -- while we were discussing the strategic objectives, Mr.

12 Brown, can you turn to page 2 of this particular document. In the middle,

13 the paragraph that starts with "Most of the tasks carried out in full, and

14 amongst the most significant we would stress the following." Can you tell

15 the Judges what this passage means.

16 A. This passage would seem to be a reflection on what they had

17 already achieved, and I think it echoes my point that the strategic

18 objectives that had been announced at the 12th of May formed -- or the

19 military worked to those objectives. And here they are highlighting where

20 they managed to achieve some successes in relation to those.

21 So, for example, the 1st Krajina Corps had preserved the

22 corridor through the Posavina. That was strategic goal number 2. 2nd

23 Krajina corp is successfully defending the north-west border of the

24 republic on the Una River; the Una River was an objective that Karadzic

25 announced at the 12th of May. The Sarajevo-Romanija Corps had fully

Page 16229

1 established command and control and prevented the lifting of the blockade

2 of Sarajevo. Again, I would argue that that links to what Karadzic had

3 said in relation to the strategic goal number 5 about Sarajevo.

4 Q. Indeed the -- number 3, the East Bosnia Corps is to preserve the

5 corridor, which was also another strategic objective; is that correct?

6 A. Yes, the East Bosnia Corps was also involved in securing the

7 corridor. It wasn't just the 1st Krajina Corps, but it was the

8 neighbouring corps of the East Bosnia Corps. So they moved from opposite

9 directions to secure the corridor, and that was achieved in July, the very

10 few days -- first few days of July 1992.

11 Q. Mr. Brown, if we turn to the next page, there's a reference at

12 the top to the following tasks from directive 3, which we have just seen,

13 not being carried out. Can you comment on that, please.

14 A. Yes. I think here they're -- although they initially said we've

15 achieved some success, they -- they haven't completely carried out the

16 tasks from number 3, directive number 3. In particular, the towns of

17 Gorazde, Gradacac, Maglaj, Bugojno, Olovo, and Orasje have not been

18 liberated.

19 The Posavina Corridor, although it had been achieved, had not

20 been successfully widened.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If I say it in English, is it then better,

22 instead of in French, to make it clear to the interpreters that it is very

23 sorry for them, my words being described to Judge Hanoteau in the

24 transcript. But could I please ask you to really slow down. It's -- the

25 interpreters cannot follow it in that --

Page 16230

1 THE WITNESS: I apologise to you, Your Honour, and also to the

2 interpreters.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mainly to the interpreters, yes.

4 THE WITNESS: And number 4, the Herzegovina Corps had failed to

5 reach the Neretva River, which, again, Karadzic had said was a strategic

6 goal.


8 Q. Mr. Brown, I'm listening to the French interpretation, so I'm

9 going to pause until that is completed. But if -- could you turn, Mr.

10 Brown, to page 4 of this document. Again, approximately seven lines down

11 there's a reference to the left bank of the Neretva River, and there's also

12 a reference to --

13 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] If you please. I'm sorry. But

14 I have a question to ask. It's going extremely fast, Mr. Harmon, right?

15 It's going very, very fast. So I'd like to be really sure that I've

16 understood everything.

17 When the witness is talking about Mr. Karadzic's decision, is it

18 a decision made by Mr. Karadzic himself or by the civilian authorities or

19 the Assembly? I'd like to really understand what is meant by "decision

20 made by Mr. Karadzic." Please.

21 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, maybe the word "decision" was not --

22 not the most appropriate, then. What I'm just referring to are the

23 announcements at the 16th Assembly Session on the 12th of May that he made

24 in relation to what the wider strategic goals of the --

25 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Sorry, Mr. Witness. I'm

Page 16231

1 reading what's on the transcript. When I see "decision made by Mr.

2 Karadzic," is it a decision made by Karadzic himself, or is it a decision

3 that he had the Assembly enforce?

4 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I'm -- I believe that at this 16th

5 Assembly Session Radovan Karadzic announced the strategic goals, and he

6 articulated that those strategic goals had been formulated by the

7 government, the Presidency, the Council for National Security, and he

8 articulated those at that session, and that is what I'm -- I mean by that.

9 Now, who composed those bodies and what they're composed of, I think I

10 would rather defer to somebody who's involved in political analysis. But

11 what I mean is that Radovan Karadzic announced those goals and articulated

12 who had been involved in the formulation of those goals.

13 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you.


15 Q. Mr. Brown, I'd like just to direct your attention again to the

16 portion at the top of page 4, where there is a reference to "reaching the

17 left bank of the Neretva," and then later in that same paragraph, "gaining

18 access to the sea." That again is another reference to the strategic

19 objectives; is that correct?

20 A. Yes, it is.

21 Q. Now, if we look at the rest of this document. On that page 4, it

22 says, "The tasks of the units," and thereafter, between subparts A through

23 subparts F, found at page 6, those units he's giving the tasks to are

24 identified; correct?

25 A. Yes.

Page 16232

1 Q. That includes the 1st Krajina Corps and the other corps under the

2 command of the Main Staff.

3 A. Yes, that's correct.

4 Q. If we turn to page 5 of this directive, under D, "the Drina

5 Corps," it says, "From its present positions, its main forces shall

6 persistently defend Visegrad (the dam), Zvornik and the corridor, while the

7 rest of its forces in the wider Podrinje region shall exhaust the enemy,

8 inflict the heaviest possible losses on him, and force him to leave the

9 Bilac, Zepa, and Gorazde areas, together with the Muslim population. First

10 off are the able-bodied men and armed men to surrender, and if they refuse,

11 destroy them." That reference to "force the Muslim population to leave,"

12 does that relate to a strategic objective, Mr. Brown?

13 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I object to the question in the nature

14 of the way that Mr. Harmon has formulated. Firstly, in relation to its --

15 its leading form. And -- and secondly, Your Honour -- yes, in essence it's

16 the leading, Your Honour. I'll leave it at that.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, I think Mr. Harmon has four or five

18 times asked whether portions of this document relate to certain strategic

19 goals. What's different now, and in what way exactly is it leading?

20 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Mr. Harmon reads out a portion of the

21 document --


23 MS. LOUKAS: -- and says, "That reference, does that relate to

24 a strategic objective?"


Page 16233

1 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, the answer can only be a yes or no.

2 That's a classic leading question, in that respect. That's the first

3 aspect.

4 The other -- the mere fact, Your Honour, that I haven't objected

5 to a question formed in the previous in that manner does not mean that I'm

6 disentitled to objecting from this particular question, Your Honour,

7 because --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas --

9 MS. LOUKAS: We're talking about something that refers to the

10 Neretva River, the Una River.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas -- yes, Ms. Loukas, I have always

12 understood that a leading question is a question which either suggests the

13 answer to be given or a question that suggests something that has not yet

14 been established. That's, at least, in accordance with ...

15 MS. LOUKAS: It does suggest the answer. The answer is, "Yes,

16 that does relate to a strategic objective."

17 JUDGE ORIE: Or no, it does not relate to any strategic

18 objective, isn't it?

19 MS. LOUKAS: Well, we'll see what his answer is.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I mean, to say it doesn't relate to anything

21 at all, this, of course, would not be a question, which would make much

22 sense.

23 MS. LOUKAS: I guarantee you the answer is yes, Your Honour.

24 Let's see.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But this is unfair, Ms. Loukas.

Page 16234

1 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, Your Honour?

2 JUDGE ORIE: This is unfair. You might know the answer.

3 MS. LOUKAS: No, I don't know the answer.

4 JUDGE ORIE: You don't know the answer. Okay.

5 Well, then, Mr. Harmon, you may proceed. The objection is

6 denied.

7 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.


9 Q. Mr. Brown, you can answer the question.

10 A. The answer is I do believe it does -- it does link -- it links --

11 I would argue to strategic objective number 3, which was to establish a

12 corridor in the Drina, the Drina River or the Drina Valley, and those

13 areas, Bila, Zepa, Gorazde fall within that area. And I would also argue

14 that along with other documentation and other material and -- which I've

15 included in my report, that the reference to forcing them to leave together

16 with the Muslim population is tied to strategic goal number 1, about

17 separation.

18 Q. Mr. Brown, let me direct your attention -- Mr. Brown, let me

19 direct your attention to tabs -- bear with me for just a minute.

20 A. Can I just possibly comment on one other aspect of this directive

21 if that's okay?

22 JUDGE ORIE: If -- I do not mind. Mr. Harmon has to use his

23 time in the best ways of ...

24 THE WITNESS: Very briefly, if I can draw your attention to page

25 6, and in relation to the use of the Air Force. It states here that, "The

Page 16235

1 use of aircraft can be ordered by, one, members of the Presidency of the

2 Republika Srpska/the Supreme Command; two, commander of the army of the

3 Republika Srpska; and three, Chief of the Main Staff of the army."

4 That -- I just wanted to flag that up as maybe of some

5 importance when we were discussing that earlier issue of whether leadership

6 or the political leadership or the Presidency have any relationship with

7 the military.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that clarification.

9 Please proceed, Mr. Harmon.


11 Q. Now, finally in respect of this document, because I'm going to

12 refer to the number in the next two exhibits, directive 4 at the top left-

13 hand corner bears the number 02/5, and can -- I turn -- direct your

14 attention to tabs 13 and 13.1. Mr. Brown, can you tell the Court what the

15 exhibits found under tabs 13 and 13.1 are. Let me just -- I'm sorry. I

16 have the wrong number. 13.1 -- I'm sorry, I have the wrong number. 13.1,

17 Mr. Brown, and 14. What are those documents?

18 A. 13.1 is a Drina Corps command document entitled "Decision for

19 further activities," and it comes shortly after directive 4.

20 Q. Can I direct your attention, Mr. Brown, to paragraph 1 in both of

21 those exhibits, 13.1 and 14, please. Do you see a reflection in the first

22 paragraph of those respective documents to directive 4?

23 A. Yes, I do. And the reference to forcing the Muslim population to

24 leave the area is similar to that found in the quoted document, which is

25 directive 4.

Page 16236

1 Q. Now, in summary, are documents 13.1 and the document in 14, both

2 of these documents are issued by Commander Colonel Milenko Zivanovic. Who

3 was he?

4 A. At the time he was the Drina Corps commander.

5 Q. And are both these documents that I've just referred to orders

6 that flow from the commander of the Drina Corps to subordinate units within

7 the Drina Corps? If I look and I direct your attention in paragraph -- in

8 document 13.1, this is directed to the Zvornik Light Infantry Brigade

9 command, and in document 14 directed to the Bratunac Light Infantry Brigade

10 command.

11 A. Yes. These are two subordinate units of the Drina Corps.

12 Q. So this -- these are military orders.

13 A. Yes, and I think if you take the documents together, they show a

14 functioning chain of command.

15 Q. Can I -- in both of -- both of these tabs, 13.1 and the document

16 in 14, can we turn to -- we'll just take 13.1 to page 4, under the portion

17 of "Morale and psychological preparations." That's found at subpart C. It

18 says, "Prior to starting any activities, members of the unit are to be

19 informed about the significant aim of the activity. It is to be pointed

20 out that the achieving of the goals of the Serb people, that is, the

21 creation of the Serb state in these areas, depends on the outcome of small

22 actions and on the outcome of the entire operation."

23 Can you comment on that, Mr. Brown?

24 A. Well, I think it's of some -- some note that they reference the

25 goals and that this is being passed down to the lowest formation of the

Page 16237

1 army; these are not issues that are kept at a high level. And the -- the

2 fact that they're talking about small actions as having an important -- an

3 importance is -- is of some note. It, again, re-emphasises to me that the

4 strategic goals and the goals articulated were important; they were related

5 and ended up with military action on the ground, and they were disseminated

6 down through the military chain to the lowest level. This is a brigade

7 level.

8 Q. Mr. Brown, I'd like you to quickly look at the documents that are

9 found in tabs 15 through 19, that all reference a number, 2-126, dated the

10 24th of November, 1992. If you'd look at each of those documents and tell

11 the Judges what these documents are.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harmon, for me, also, sometimes it goes a bit

13 too quick. I would like to take the witness back to 13.1 and 14, if you

14 would not mind.

15 MR. HARMON: Yes.

16 JUDGE ORIE: You said, "Can I direct your attention, Mr. Brown,

17 to paragraph 1 in both of those exhibits. Do you see a reflection in the

18 first paragraph of those respective documents relating to directive 4?"

19 And the answer of the witness was, "Yes, I do. And the reference of

20 forcing the Muslim population to leave the area is similar to that found in

21 the quoted document, which is directive 4."

22 Paragraph 1 is rather lengthy, so I would like to invite the

23 witness to tell me exactly where in paragraph 1 - and let's start with 13.1

24 - where it says that -- "forcing the Muslim population to leave the area."

25 Could you please -- because it's two pages, so I have not found it yet.

Page 16238

1 THE WITNESS: Paragraph 1, when I say it's similar -- paragraph

2 1 --


4 THE WITNESS: -- states, "Wear the enemy out, break it up or

5 force it to surrender, and force the Muslim population" --


7 THE WITNESS: -- to leave the area of Cerska, Zepa, Srebrenica,

8 and Gorazde."

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I found it. Most of the lines were about

10 enemies, but here it's clearly the population. Yes.

11 And in 14, yes, it's the same: "Force the Muslim population" --

12 I found it. Thank you very much.

13 THE WITNESS: There's --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you. It's clear now.


16 Q. Mr. Brown, I was asking you to identify what the documents are

17 that are contained in tabs 15 through 19.

18 A. These would appear, at face value, to be receipts for that Drina

19 Corps instruction, the Podrinje Light Infantry Brigade command and a number

20 of other receipts.

21 Q. So this is a reflection of the orders going from the top, from

22 the directive, to the corps command, down to the brigade command, and down

23 to the lower units; is that correct?

24 A. Yes, that is correct.

25 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, if we could turn to tab 20, a document that is

Page 16239

1 dated January 23rd, 1993, signed by the commander of the corps -- the Drina

2 Corps, Colonel Milenko Zivanovic. And this is an operation -- a combat

3 order, so -- and it's an order directed to the commands of all corps units.

4 And if I could direct your attention, Mr. Brown, to the top of

5 page 8. It is a continuation from the -- the morale and psychological

6 preparation, and it says, "Transport to other areas must be provided for

7 the civilian population of the enemy, and those who accept the authority of

8 the Republika Srpska are to be disarmed and returned to their homes."

9 So when there's a reference in this to transport to other areas

10 the civilian population, can you comment on that, Mr. Brown?

11 A. I would imagine here what they're talking about is moving them to

12 areas outside of the places that they were -- they were living.

13 MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, Your Honour, as a contextual document,

14 since directive 4 dealt with the Drina Corps in the area of Zepa and

15 Cerska, I have included for Your Honours the report from Mr. Mazowiecki

16 dated the 5th of May, 1993. Yes, tab -- it's found in tab 21, and it

17 outlines in part -- or describes in part the operation General -- General

18 Zivanovic and the Drina Corps were involved in. Not all parts are

19 relevant, but there are selected paragraphs in here that are relevant.

20 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, we will move on, and I'm interested in having you

21 generally describe, based on the documentation that you've seen, and how it

22 was that the army reported to the highest civilian structures in the

23 Republika Srpska. How did they do that?

24 A. From the Krajina Corps documents that I've reviewed, there was a

25 very detailed reporting chain that ran from brigade level, low-level units

Page 16240

1 of the corps, to the corps command. General Talic issued instructions that

2 brigades were to report twice a day. I know that there were notebooks and

3 documents at the corps command in which references were made to brigade

4 activity. The 1st Krajina Corps itself was ordered to send combat reports,

5 regular combat reports, and in the documents that I reviewed in 1992, the

6 1st Krajina Corps generally sent two reports a day, sometimes three, and

7 infrequently one. I don't remember of one day in 1992 that the 5th Corps,

8 when it was the 5th Corps/1st Krajina Corps did not send a daily combat

9 report to its superior formation. Those regular combat reports were all

10 structured in the same way, covering enemy activity, situation on the

11 territory, logistic issues, manning issues, and any special problems that

12 had arisen. Those daily combat reports, when the 1st Krajina Corps was

13 established, went to the VRS Main Staff. And as I say, they generally went

14 two and sometimes -- or very frequently twice -- three times.

15 There were occasionally special reports that they sent up to the

16 Main Staff; I saw a small -- a small number of those. I saw some

17 documentary evidence that related to briefings that the corps commanders

18 had to give. I know of one example in documentary evidence that was a

19 briefing to the senior political leadership that the corps commanders had

20 to give in, I believe, early June 1992. There were requests for maps

21 occasionally. And those were some of the ways that I know that the reports

22 went from the ground through the corps up to the Main Staff.

23 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, do we take a break at --

24 JUDGE ORIE: We do take a break at --

25 MR. HARMON: 5.45.

Page 16241

1 JUDGE ORIE: -- approximately this time. We'll have a break for

2 20 minutes and resume at five minutes past 6.00.

3 --- Recess taken at 5.45 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 6.16 p.m.

5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

6 JUDGE ORIE: Before you continue, Mr. Harmon, there would be a

7 possibility to sit tomorrow and the day after tomorrow in the morning. I

8 also am aware that that sometimes creates problems as far as visiting Mr.

9 Krajisnik is concerned. Therefore, I inquire with the parties whether that

10 would be something they would support or object.

11 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I can indicate it's something I

12 would not support.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I think that's a sufficient reason to

14 remain in the afternoon.

15 Mr. Harmon, please proceed.


17 Q. Mr. Brown, what I'd be interested in hearing from you is what

18 your -- what the documents that you reviewed showed as to how the army,

19 either at the corps level or at the Main Staff level, communicated to the

20 civilian structures, the Presidency and the political leaders above them.

21 A. I am aware of some documentary evidence that would highlight some

22 of the methods in which they were able to communicate to the senior --

23 senior political leadership. If we -- or if I draw your attention to the

24 report on the army in 1993, there are a number of references in that

25 document that would indicate that there was a good communication between

Page 16242

1 the -- the army and the senior political leadership.

2 Page -- page 9, which we have already seen before, "With a high

3 degree of certainty we can say that the existing communications system

4 meets the needs of command, coordination, and reporting needs at all levels

5 from Supreme Command, Supreme Commander, and General Staff." We've seen

6 that before.

7 Page 13, the fourth bullet down, under the general heading of

8 "Control and command functions," "which have been implemented through the

9 establishment and maintenance of permanent and mutually beneficial

10 cooperation with the authorities, the SDS, the Serbian Orthodox Church at

11 all levels."

12 Page 29, we've seen before, which was the issue of

13 communications and the signals units, and they were set the task of the

14 prompt transmission of large quantities of information from the Main Staff

15 of the army to the Supreme Command, subordinated elements, and so on. And

16 they later on say that they -- they had judged that they had been able to

17 meet those tasks and that the corps' signal system and communication was

18 very good.

19 Page 153, we've seen that -- that one before, as well, I think,

20 from Dr. Karadzic, who himself articulated that "The Supreme Command as a

21 whole, as well as every individual member of the Supreme Command, were

22 informed of the objectives of planned operations, concerted battles, and

23 their results frequently in great detail." So this document would seem to

24 highlight that there -- there was a -- a relationship between the military

25 -- that both the military are saying that it functioned, Dr. Karadzic said

Page 16243

1 that it functioned.

2 But I am aware of other documentation, some documentation that

3 would indicate meetings, the Presidency session, minutes which discussed

4 military or defence-related issues, the briefing of members of that --

5 those -- those sessions by military officers. And so there are -- there is

6 other documentation in it that would seem to echo what was said in 1993.

7 MR. HARMON: Your Honours, I have selected a number of

8 Presidency session minutes that Mr. Brown has reviewed. Those are found in

9 tabs 22 through 36 of the binders. They -- it splits between binder 1 and

10 binder 2. I shall not go through all of those items, but I'd like to

11 direct Mr. Brown's attention to three of those session minutes.

12 JUDGE ORIE: And you present the other as contextual exhibits,

13 then?

14 MR. HARMON: They're already in evidence, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: They're already in evidence. Yes, yes.

16 MR. HARMON: So it's not a problem.

17 JUDGE ORIE: I've forgotten to check on the list. Yes.


19 Q. If I could, Mr. Brown, in the first binder, if we could start

20 with tab 24 of the first binder in front of you --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas.

22 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I just want to indicate to the

23 Court in relation to the documents that Mr. Harmon's referring to -- and

24 when one looks at the exhibit list associated with these binders, I can

25 indicate that I first became aware of these political exhibits when I got

Page 16244

1 this list when I came into court today.

2 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, if I may respond. I'm not sure when

3 that list was sent to Ms. Loukas. These exhibits I'm referring to are old

4 exhibits. They have been the subject of examination and cross-examination

5 in Mr. Treanor's evidence. These are documents that I believe Ms. Loukas

6 has in front of her at the very moment we're talking. These documents are

7 not a mystery.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, that's not the only criterion, whether

9 it's a mystery or not. Is it material used in the footnotes in the report?

10 Could we perhaps ask the witness the minutes of the Presidency sessions.

11 Are they footnoted material?

12 THE WITNESS: I believe they're not in the report, Your Honour.

13 I'd have to check again. Maybe --


15 THE WITNESS: -- at the very end they could have been, but I'm

16 not sure if they are. I don't think they are.

17 MR. HARMON: However, Your Honour there, is reference to direct

18 communication and information to the higher-ups in and throughout the

19 report of the army, in Mr. Brown's report.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Nevertheless, it's to be preferred, Mr.

21 Harmon, that if you want to -- I mean, the material is of such a volume by

22 now that -- if it were only for Ms. Loukas to find the material and bring

23 it with her -- and I'm not saying this because that's, of course, not the

24 main issue because we could present it on the ELMO. But for preparation

25 purpose, it's good if these lists -- I mean, just looking at this list,

Page 16245

1 whether it bears a date or not ...

2 Well, let's see what happens, but it's clear that this is not

3 the best way to do it. Please proceed, Mr. Harmon.

4 [Prosecution counsel confer]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, perhaps I'm -- may I ask you another

6 question: Do I understand from your present position that you would live

7 not too far away from this Tribunal?

8 THE WITNESS: You're very correct, Your Honour; I don't live too

9 far away.

10 JUDGE ORIE: That at least, Ms. Loukas, if it would finally

11 cause you major problems, would make a decision when needed to recall the

12 witness on this material easier than it would be if he would live in --

13 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. But I can -- I just very

14 briefly want to indicate for the record that, of course, my preparation was

15 based on the report.


17 MS. LOUKAS: It's based on -- and, of course, I went through all

18 the documents and footnotes.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but Ms. Loukas, I think I've been clear enough

20 until now.

21 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Harmon.


24 Q. Mr. Brown, if we could turn to the 24th -- tab 24. And I'm going

25 to refer to two other tabs, and then I'm going to ask you some questions.

Page 16246

1 This 5th Session of the Presidency was held on the 10th of June, indicates

2 that members of -- that the following members were present: Dr. Karadzic,

3 Dr. Plavsic, Dr. Koljevic, Momcilo Krajisnik, and Branko Djeric. And it

4 says, "At the beginning of the session, the Presidency reviewed information

5 received during the night on the situation at the front and reports of the

6 international public foreign press?"

7 And if we turn to tab 32 - that's found in the second binder -

8 the beginning of the second binder. Mr. Brown, this is the -- this is --

9 these are the minutes of the 21st Session of the Presidency. They were

10 held on the 2nd of August, 1992, and it says at the top that the session

11 was attended by Dr. Radovan Karadzic, Dr. Miljana, as printed, Plavsic, Dr.

12 Nikola Koljevic, Lieutenant Ratko Mladic, and it also refers to Mr.

13 Krajisnik as being present, although not in the top paragraph. In item 1 -

14 -

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harmon, if you would look at the original,

16 perhaps that might ...

17 MR. HARMON: I do not have the original, unfortunately, in front

18 of me in this binder.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, from what I see, it's tab 32 on the original.

20 If I look at the names at the top, it's Radovan Karadzic, Miljana - so that

21 means that it's the same document with the same mistake - Dr. Nikola

22 Koljevic, Mr. Momcilo Krajisnik, and then comes Ratko Mladic and Tolimir.

23 MR. HARMON: All right. Well, thank you, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ORIE: So I invite the parties to correct this obvious

25 mistake. Ms. Loukas, I take it that you agree with that.

Page 16247

1 MS. LOUKAS: Well, yes, absolutely, Your Honour. I've checked

2 the B/C/S version myself, and it's quite apparent.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Harmon.


5 Q. If we turn to item 2 on the second page, Mr. Brown, it says, "On

6 the basis of the condition and assessment of the political situation

7 presented, Lieutenant General Ratko Mladic briefed those present on the

8 assessment of the military situation in Serbian Bosnia and Herzegovina,

9 describing the situation in each combat sector, the necessary tasks, and

10 the connection between ensuring material potentials and financial resources

11 and the necessity of adopting the decision on general mobilisation."

12 At the end of that paragraph, it also discusses that the

13 president of the republic should issue an order, a proclamation on general

14 mobilisation.

15 And the final one of these minutes I'd like to refer you to is

16 found in tab 35.1. This has previously been exhibited as P64. This is the

17 22nd Session of the Presidency held on the 31st of August, 1992. The

18 Presidency session -- the session was attended by the following members of

19 the Presidency: Dr. Radovan Karadzic, Momcilo Krajisnik, Dr. Biljana

20 Plavsic, Dr. Branko Djeric, and Dr. Nikola Koljevic and Dr. -- I'm sorry,

21 Deputy Prime Minister Milan Trbojevic." If we go to the bottom of page 1

22 of the English translation, it says, "During the session of the Presidency,

23 representatives of the army of the Serbian Republic, Colonel General Ratko

24 Mladic and Major General Milan Gvero arrived. Generals briefed the

25 Presidency in detail on military and strategic questions, state and

Page 16248

1 position of military units, their equipment, and other questions, such as

2 the need for the relocation of the Main Staff and highest authority organs

3 to more suitable places."

4 Can you comment, Mr. Brown, on these minutes and the other

5 minutes that you have seen in respect of the communications?

6 A. I think they are on face value somewhat self-evident in that or

7 self-explanatory that the senior military leadership are briefing the

8 Presidency, sometimes in -- in significant detail, and -- and that would

9 seem to echo some of the comments from the army report in 1993.

10 Q. Can we turn to tab 38, please, Mr. Brown. 38 is a 9 June 1992

11 report from the command of the 1st Krajina Corps. It is sent to the

12 Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina army Main Staff and to the

13 Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Presidency. So this document --

14 what is this document, Mr. Brown? Explain this to the Judges.

15 A. This document, which I do reference in the report, is a document

16 -- in summary, there had been a meeting of the Autonomous Region of Krajina

17 at which the issue of Muslims and Croats who were serving in the army, and

18 in particular, I think, the 1st Krajina Corps, had come up at a -- at a

19 meeting of the -- the ARK Crisis Staff. And there had been a -- an

20 ultimatum issued that these Muslims and Croats, 67 I think are highlighted

21 here, should be removed or they say they would take over control of the

22 armed forces; "they" presumably meaning the local ARK leadership.

23 This report comes from the 1st Krajina Corps, and it's signed by

24 Colonel Milutin Vukelic, who is the assistant commander for morale; he was

25 a staff officer under General Talic, the corps commander. And he's

Page 16249

1 reporting to the Presidency and to the Main Staff about this meeting, and

2 he says that the -- "We consider the demand is justified, but it's

3 impossible to find adequate professional replacements." So although he

4 agrees with the sentiment, there is some implication if 67 officers are

5 presumably going to have to be removed from the 1st Krajina Corps.

6 So he sends this document up on the 9th and asks for, you know,

7 a solution to the -- to the problem. On the same day, I think this

8 document, if I remember rightly, was sent sometime in the afternoon. Yes,

9 I think it's sent in the afternoon. I believe on the same day, the Main

10 Staff, Ratko Mladic, sent an order down sending all officers of non-Serb --

11 or Muslims and Croats, sent them to Belgrade, where their status would be

12 resolved, and in essence that meant that Muslims and Croats who were in the

13 1st Krajina Corps were then removed. But it's of interest that this issue,

14 which clearly was of some significance to the 1st Krajina Corps, is also

15 sent to the Presidency, presumably signifying it's -- it's an important

16 issue. And it also highlights that the corps had a capability of

17 disseminating a report to the Presidency, again highlighting maybe the

18 communication issue that we've talked about in the VRS Main Staff report

19 that it was a functioning communications system.

20 And in this case, the response from the Main Staff was very

21 quick, and -- and I think it was on the very same day that the response was

22 that these non-Serbs were to be sent to Belgrade and their status resolved.

23 Again, indicating that not only was the communication up the chain quick

24 but that the communication and the response back down the chain was pretty

25 quick, as well, on issues of -- of some importance, presumably, to the

Page 16250

1 corps.

2 Q. Can we return to tab 37.1, Mr. Brown. And staying with the topic

3 of keeping the political leadership of the Republika Srpska informed by the

4 army itself, can you discuss this document, which is dated the 1st of June,

5 which is entitled "A meeting of the corps commanders," and it is signed by

6 the Chief of Staff, General -- Major General Milan Milovanovic. Can you

7 tell us what this document is.

8 A. Yes. This is a document which is sent to the corps from the Main

9 Staff indicating that "Pursuant to a decision of the Presidency and the

10 Main Staff of the army, a meeting of the political leadership of the

11 republic and the military commanders was to be held in Pale on the 3rd of

12 June." And this instruction orders -- this is an order actually -- orders

13 that the corps commanders and the commanders of the Air Force and air

14 defence were to attend that meeting and to prepare a briefing, which

15 included a map indicating troop dispositions within the corps, state of

16 affairs, composition, manpower, disposition, enemy intentions, proposals

17 for further activities, and problems. So it's not only the current state

18 but -- but the difficulties that the corps had and also suggestions for

19 further activities. And each corps commander was to last -- was to give a

20 briefing to that effect, and it goes to all the corps.

21 This -- this document indicates that the briefing was to be on

22 the 3rd of June. There's another Krajina Corps document, dated the 9th of

23 June, which makes direct reference to a directive which the corps had

24 received from the Main Staff and which they themselves were following or --

25 or carrying out. Now, I haven't seen that directive but they clearly had

Page 16251

1 got a directive round about maybe the 8th, 7th or 8th, or maybe even on the

2 9th of June. And it is possible, and I only suggest here, that what you

3 have is the Main Staff ordering the corps or the corps commanders to attend

4 a briefing pursuant to a decision of the Presidency and the Main Staff,

5 i.e., the senior political leadership, the senior military leadership, at

6 which they themselves were to brief in some detail. And then a few days

7 later there's a reference to a directive which came out, and that the 1st

8 Krajina Corps followed that directive. And I know they followed the

9 directive because we have General Talic's corps-wide instructions on the

10 9th and 10th of June.

11 So it may well be a pattern that what there was a request to --

12 to the corps, a briefing in -- on the 3rd of June, and potentially what

13 fell from that briefing was a directive a few days later, and what fell

14 from that directive was combat operations that the corps conducted --

15 certainly the 1st Krajina Corps conducted.

16 Q. Mr. Brown, can we turn to tab 40, please. Again, on the issue of

17 meetings between the military and the political leadership. This is a

18 document that is dated the 12th of September, 1992. It is to the command

19 of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. Can you tell the Judges what this document

20 is about, very briefly.

21 A. Yes. This is a Sarajevo-Romanija Corps document disseminated, I

22 believe, to the subordinate units of that corps, which highlights that

23 there was a meeting that had happened on the 6th of September, 1992, in

24 Jahorina, attended by the SRK command, brigade commanders, presidents of

25 Municipal Assemblies, chief of municipal recruiting officers, members of

Page 16252

1 the Main Staff, and members of the government and Presidency of the Serbian

2 Republic.

3 Now, I believe that this, although the SRK is not necessarily my

4 area of expertise, I believe this came around the time that General Galic

5 took control of the SRK. I think he -- he had arrived in or around that

6 time period. So, clearly, the change of command of the SRK would have been

7 some -- of some significance, and it may well have been that one of the

8 reasons why this briefing had happened was because of this important change

9 of command in the corps. But it makes reference to a meeting that happened

10 in Jahorina on the 6th, and it discussed the issue of tasks. In essence,

11 we received tasks from the conference, so we received tasks from the -- the

12 conference on military and political matters with all those individuals.

13 And General Galic outlines what those tasks are. And they're -- they're

14 quite lengthy and quite detailed.

15 Q. Mr. Brown -- Mr. Brown, we won't go, I don't think, any further

16 with this document unless there's another important feature you want to

17 point out to the Judges.

18 A. Maybe the only issue I would highlight reflects back to this

19 issue of the strategic goals of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, which by then

20 was to maintain a blockade. And -- and the tasks are given, which seem to

21 indicate, you know, they're to continue with decisive defence. So not

22 necessarily going on a defensive position but they're holding the territory

23 that they already had. Maybe that that could link back to this issue of

24 the strategic goals and keeping the blockade maintained in Sarajevo.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harmon, you know that the Judges are always a

Page 16253

1 bit behind. Could I take the witness back to tab 35.1.

2 At the end of that document, after the briefing by the Generals

3 Mladic and Gvero, it reads, "All details were discussed, but they were not

4 put on the record because of their level of confidentiality." Is that

5 language you have found at other occasions, as well?

6 THE WITNESS: I cannot remember that language being used, Your

7 Honour. I noticed it was also in the previous Presidency, where Mladic

8 briefed, but the details were not put in into the minutes. It's -- it's

9 not something that I remember in other -- in other documents.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Was the situation at that time such that

11 information on what happened militarily was very sensitive -- I mean, I do

12 understand that military operational information is always sensitive, but

13 was there any reason to assume that it was specifically sensitive at that

14 time?

15 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't like to make any projections on that,

16 Your Honour. I'm not sure why.

17 JUDGE ORIE: If you don't know, no problem.

18 Please proceed, Mr. Harmon.


20 Q. In respect of what the Judge -- Judge Orie, has just asked, I

21 would refer you, Mr. Brown, to page 45, I believe of this army report,

22 paragraph 2.1.1, which is the attitude of the international community to

23 the resolution of the Yugoslav crisis and the war in the territory of the

24 former BH. And it -- this paragraph says that the -- "The situation in the

25 former Yugoslavia in the fullest expression of which was the civil ethnic

Page 16254

1 religious war in the territory of the former BH was the focus of media

2 attention and diplomatic and political activities," and it goes on.

3 And then further down in the paragraph, that same paragraph, it

4 says, "The Serbian people, who were subjected to inconceivable

5 demonisation, the unscrupulous information and propaganda war in almost all

6 of the powerful states of the world, in particular the orchestrated

7 planting of lies about alleged massacres of civilians, the bombardment of

8 civilian facilities, POW camps, ethnic cleansing, the raping of women, and

9 other media fabrication served to project a distorted picture of the

10 national interests of the Serbian people and the alleged indisputable

11 responsibility of the Serbs for all the horrors of the war in the territory

12 of the former BH. International public opinion was largely turned against

13 the Serbs."

14 Now, Mr. Brown, you stated in your report - I believe it is in

15 paragraph 2.248, which is at 154 of your report - that the international

16 press, "who appeared to be generally as anti-Serb and particularly singled

17 out for criticism."

18 Mr. Brown, was the army, based on your review of the documents,

19 sensitive, in the period of August, September, and earlier, to the

20 criticisms it was receiving by the international media?

21 A. Yes. And -- and I would say in some documents it's not just that

22 -- necessarily that time, but there is this undercurrent that -- that there

23 was -- the international press were -- were misreporting. But in terms of

24 August, in particular in relation to camps, I know of one document in

25 particular from the Krajina Corps which they specifically point to the

Page 16255

1 criticisms of the international press about the existence of what they call

2 concentration camps and the negative impact that that is having. So yes,

3 they were. And it's clear, I think, from the Krajina Corps, certainly, the

4 documents there, that the military were acutely aware of -- of the media

5 reporting and, in fact, established their own press centre. Well, in fact,

6 the VRS established press centres throughout the area of responsibility,

7 but the Krajina Corps had its press centre in which it was both providing

8 information which they say could counter that and -- and presumably also

9 making them aware of what the international media were doing.

10 Q. Can we turn your attention, Mr. Brown, to tab 41 on that very

11 topic. Mr. Brown, this is a previous Prosecution exhibit, Prosecution 583,

12 Trbojevic, tab 58. If I could direct your attention. This is a 6th August

13 1992 document from the 1st Krajina Corps command, Department of -- for

14 Intelligence and Security Affairs, and it is signed by Chief Colonel Stevan

15 Bogojevic, and it says "the 5th Corps Command," which obviously in August

16 was no longer in existence, was it, Mr. Brown?

17 A. No. I'm assuming they were just required to keep the stamps and

18 used the stamp --

19 Q. Can you --

20 A. To the security of the corps.

21 Q. Can you comment on this document, and particularly the --

22 A. Well, this was -- yeah, this was the document I referred to. And

23 they realised there were a lot of people in Manjaca that don't deserve to

24 be there, don't deserve to be treated as prisoners of war, don't have

25 weapons, didn't participate in combat, they were not in uniform, and in

Page 16256

1 order to free up space, they're asking the Prijedor police to -- to, in

2 essence, review these -- these prisoners. And it highlights at the end the

3 -- "As you know, we have recently been attacked by the European world media

4 in connection with the existence of concentration camps. So this is

5 sufficient reason to carry out this selection." And I think this comes

6 around the time that the issue of camps had arisen in the media in

7 Prijedor, around that first week -- first week in April.

8 So it seems to me that the security chief of the corps is aware

9 that many people in Manjaca, which is a camp that the 1st Krajina Corps

10 ran, didn't deserve to be treated as prisoners of war.

11 MS. LOUKAS: Just in relation to that, before we proceed, in

12 view of the fact that there's been reading from the document, and to make

13 the record clear, of course "concentration camp" appears in quotation

14 marks.

15 JUDGE ORIE: It does.

16 Please proceed, Mr. Harmon.


18 Q. In the final analysis -- in your final analysis, Mr. Brown, in

19 terms of what was available to the -- the VRS from the corps level to the

20 Main Staff, the army in general, and to the political superiors, was there

21 sufficient communication equipment and infrastructures to prevent them to

22 receive information from outside in respect of what was happening in Bosnia

23 and Herzegovina as a result of their actions?

24 MS. LOUKAS: I object to that question. It's quite clear that

25 the report on which the witness was brought here to give evidence is one

Page 16257

1 that's very specifically delineated to a particular area and a particular

2 time frame and what have you. Now, as a result of the additional exhibit

3 list this morning, we have a more broader scope of evidence being brought

4 out from this witness, and the -- the question that's being asked there,

5 Your Honour, I would submit the witness should not be allowed to answer on

6 the basis of what he has already indicated are the limitations of the

7 report he actually produced for the Court.

8 JUDGE ORIE: What limits exactly -- of course, the witness said

9 some limitations he has drawn our attention to, but what exactly would here

10 prevent him from having any knowledge?

11 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, the report is "Military developments

12 in the Bosanska Krajina 1992."


14 MS. LOUKAS: This is a more broader question about the situation

15 in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The documents that are being examined by this

16 witness are specifically delineated in this report. The limitations of the

17 report are specifically delineated in the report, as were circumscribed by

18 the evidence he gave earlier today in his evidence in chief about the

19 limitations.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, it's --

21 MS. LOUKAS: It's broadening, Your Honour; I object to it.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, of course sometimes subjects are

23 -- I mean, information you receive from -- for example, from foreign press

24 or foreign -- could relate to military matters, as well. So let's ask the

25 witness whether he thinks that the limitations he has mentioned at the

Page 16258

1 beginning of his testimony are such that he has difficulties in answering

2 the question, and perhaps he could also explain to us that if he thinks he

3 can answer the question, how this related, both, to his subject and why

4 it's not bothered by the limitations he expressed.

5 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I -- I did highlight the limitations

6 of the report, but I -- I have worked in that field for some time. I was

7 within the military analysis team looking at military documentation between

8 1998 and last year. Many of the documents I use in the report also do --

9 or a number of documents do speak to the issue of communications. The

10 combat analysis, readiness report of 1993 is a document I've looked over

11 many times. And, you know, as best I can I think I can comment on -- on

12 some of that material. Some of the documents that I have not included

13 which I've commented on, I don't think are ones that are necessarily

14 outside my -- my scope, and I believe I -- I can -- I can cover those.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may give the comments you have in mind.

17 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question for me, please.


19 Mr. Harmon.


21 Q. Mr. Brown, what I asked you is whether the communications

22 structures and infrastructure in the Republika Srpska that was extant could

23 permit and did permit the Main Staff -- VRS army members from the Main

24 Staff, down to the corps level, and up to the Supreme Command and superior

25 civilian command to be aware of the various serious criticisms that were

Page 16259

1 being made against the Serbs in respect of their conduct in pursuing the

2 war.

3 A. Yes, I think the communications structures were there. The

4 communications structures worked; they themselves said the communications

5 structures were very good. There are documents which seem to bear that out

6 in the passage of information up and down the chain. The Presidency

7 minutes would indicate that, at least in the one you've just shown me, that

8 the international media issue was briefed and raised. The army themselves

9 made note of concerns they had relating to the international media. And so

10 I would say yes, they -- they were able to be made aware of this issue.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harmon.

12 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour. It's 7.00, and --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm just looking at the clock.

14 MR. HARMON: -- I'm prepared to conclude for the day.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll finish for the day.

16 I have one issue I'd just like briefly to address, but a very

17 minor one, I would say.

18 Ms. Loukas, the Chamber has asked questions in relation to the

19 Celinac and Teslic dossiers and wanted to know who Milos was. You remember

20 that?

21 MS. LOUKAS: Oh yes, Your Honour, yes. I recall that issue.

22 JUDGE ORIE: We have considered that, and with this information,

23 the Chamber accepts these parts of the dossiers, admits them into evidence.

24 And as you know, one week after admission you always can comment on it

25 because the dossiers, of course, are not discussed with witnesses. So on

Page 16260

1 this issue, the decision of the Chamber is they are only now -- you

2 remember, we had additional questions?

3 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. I'm just reading it on the --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I might not be that clear at this moment.

5 Usually the Chamber receives the documentation, the dossiers; we admit them

6 into evidence, but we grant one week to the Defence to make further

7 objections or observations.

8 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.

9 I would indicate, just in relation to this -- this question of

10 Milos. Your Honour will recall that I cross-examined a witness in relation

11 to a document involving that particular individual, and it -- we left it as

12 marked for identification. So at some point we'll have to tender that

13 formally now that the identity of Milos has been established.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the other one was the Chamber has asked

15 the Prosecution to clarify the relevance of tab 2 and the highlighted

16 portions of tab 5 in the Novi Grad dossier. The OTP has now clarified that

17 tab 2 was included to show the presence of the accused at a meeting,

18 because someone says that Mr. Krajisnik was at a meeting; not the meeting

19 reported on, but it's part of what is said during that meeting.

20 And the second issue to be that in respect of tab 5, that only

21 the highlighted portions of tab 5 were tendered. That means that it's

22 limited to the first four pages because as far as I can see, only in the

23 first four pages of tab 5 there appear any highlights.

24 The Chamber with these limitations admits into evidence, Ms.

25 Loukas, and, as usual, seven days for the Defence to make objections in

Page 16261

1 that respect.

2 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. And I would indicate

3 that at some point this week because I know there is so question of

4 finalising documentation; I also have that material in relation to 280 to

5 tender.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll then receive that at an appropriate

7 time. You know the week is short; it goes only to Wednesday.

8 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, indeed, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll then adjourn.

10 Mr. Brown, I'd like to instruct you not to speak with anyone

11 about the testimony you have given or you're still about to give, and we'd

12 like to see you back tomorrow at quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, same

13 courtroom.

14 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.,

16 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 12th day of

17 July, 2005, at 2.15 p.m.