1 Monday, 5 June 2001
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.25 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning, ladies and
6 gentlemen. Good morning to the technical booth and the interpreters, the
7 staff of the Registry. Good morning to the counsel for the Prosecution
8 and Defence. Good morning, General Krstic.
9 We're here today to continue the Krstic trial, our proceedings,
10 and I think that it is Mr. Harmon's turn to guide us today.
11 Mr. Harmon, you have the floor.
12 MR. HARMON: Yes. Good morning, Mr. President and Your Honours.
13 It's been a long time. Good morning to my colleagues for the Defence.
14 Initially, Mr. President, I wish to advise you that I have been
15 informed by the Defence that they wish to withdraw their objection to the
16 document that has been a subject of many motions back and forth. They are
17 withdrawing their opposition to the introduction of this document on the
18 basis that the Prosecutor did not use reasonable diligence in obtaining
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Perhaps we can now give the
21 floor to Mr. Petrusic, to hear his response, or Mr. Visnjic. I don't know
22 which one wishes to address the issue.
23 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour,
24 Mr. President, my learned colleagues of the Prosecution.
25 The Defence did indeed withdraw its opposition with respect to the
1 value -- diligence -- I'm sorry, with respect to the diligence that the
2 Prosecution proffered in coming to -- in coming by the document of the
3 13th of July, 1994, as well as the oral agreements and the subject of the
4 requests, and, in fact, the Defence agrees. The Defence is in agreement
5 with the findings of the expert witness with respect to the authenticity
6 of the stamp that was the subject of testimony and expertise and with
7 respect to the signature and signatory of that document, that is to say,
8 Colonel Jovicic. That is the subject which we, in the past, after the
9 4th of May motion -- 4th of -- that is the point we have arrived at
10 through our research, and we stated our views to the Prosecutor on
11 Thursday and also yesterday, at a meeting we had yesterday. So we have
12 apprised them of the results of our research and the agreement we have
13 reached with the Prosecution.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Harmon, what do
15 you suggest at this point?
16 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, we have one witness we'd like to
17 call. I would -- this witness will be a protected witness, and we can go
18 into private session, I can explain why we have sought protection of this
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Let us move into private
21 session. Not yet. Just a minute, please. Judge Wald.
22 JUDGE WALD: One question. It's a public question. In your view,
23 and in Mr. Petrusic's view, is there any area of dispute left now about --
24 and if so, how do you perceive it and how does he perceive it? Because
25 I'm not clear, having covered the authenticity and the diligence, whether
1 there is any area left to dispute other than weight maybe, I don't know.
2 MR. HARMON: Well, the Defence will be presenting its witness to
3 put this document into context and particularly to characterise this
4 document, whether it's genuine or not genuine, and they will be doing so
5 in the context of rules and regulations of the former JNA, as I understand
7 JUDGE WALD: So your understanding is there's still some area of
9 MR. HARMON: Yes. That's correct, Judge Wald.
10 JUDGE WALD: And that's the Defence's understanding, too?
11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, Judge Wald. That is
12 right. The Defence will do its best, when it comes to its turn and
13 presentation of evidence before the Trial Chamber, to explain the possible
14 procedure; that is to say, how such a document came to be issued. That is
15 the first point. And secondly, it would like to demonstrate its weight to
16 the Trial Chamber, what weight it has or probative value.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Let us now go into
18 private session.
19 [Private session]
13 page 9678 – redacted – private session.
2 [Open session]
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We are in open session, I see,
4 Mr. Harmon.
5 MR. HARMON: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may call Witness JJ now.
7 MR. HARMON: Yes. Thank you. I'm waiting for Witness JJ's
8 arrival and then I'll commence.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness JJ. Can
11 you hear me?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You have been assigned this
14 pseudonym as a protective measure. Would you now please read the solemn
15 declaration handed to you by the usher.
16 WITNESS: WITNESS JJ
17 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
18 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated. I think that
20 you are familiar with procedure in the courtroom. Let me start off by
21 thanking you for coming. You're going to start off by answering questions
22 put to you by Mr. Harmon, whom you know very well. But before we proceed,
23 could you take a look at a piece of paper that we're going to show you and
24 tell us whether your name is on the piece of paper, thereby making a link
25 between your pseudonym and the name on the piece of paper. Give us a yes
1 or no answer, please.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
4 Mr. Harmon, I think we're in open session, open session with
5 regard to the public; public, for the public. So please proceed,
6 Mr. Harmon.
7 MR. HARMON: Thank you.
8 Examined by Mr. Harmon:
9 Q. Witness, I'm going to be referring to you as Witness JJ during the
10 course of your testimony today. Let me begin by asking you what is your
12 A. American.
13 MR. HARMON: And that corrects the record. When we made our
14 earlier submission, Your Honour, we indicated that this witness was
15 Canadian, so that should be corrected.
16 Q. Now, where are you presently employed?
17 A. The OTP here at the Tribunal.
18 Q. How long have you been employed?
19 A. Since October 27th, 1999.
20 Q. I'm going to pause between my questions and your answers so the
21 interpretation can catch up.
22 Now, prior to being employed at the Tribunal, where were you
23 employed and for how long?
24 A. I was with the New Jersey State Police for 15 1/2 years.
25 Q. And while you were employed for the New Jersey State Police, what
1 kind of crimes did you investigate?
2 A. Missing persons, homicide, unidentified dead, corruption,
4 Q. Now, did you have occasion to meet with General Milenko Zivanovic?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. When did you first meet him?
7 A. April 12th, 2001.
8 Q. Where was it that you met him?
9 A. In his home in Serbia.
10 MR. HARMON: May I go into private session for one question,
11 Mr. President?
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Let us move into private
14 [Private session]
23 [Open session]
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We're in open session. Please
1 MR. HARMON: Could the witness please be shown the Prosecutor's
2 Exhibit 905 and the original of that document, and if the copies of that
3 document could be disseminated as well.
4 Q. Now, Witness JJ, I have presented you with an original document.
5 Do you recognise that document?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. When was the first time you saw that document?
8 A. April 12, 2001.
9 Q. What were the circumstances under which you saw that document?
10 A. I was speaking with General Zivanovic. He showed it to me.
11 MR. HARMON: Now, if the witness could be furnished with a copy of
12 that document, Exhibit 905.
13 Q. And while we're getting a copy of that document for you,
14 Witness JJ, -- well, I see it's arrived.
15 Could you, first of all, compare the copy with the original and
16 tell me whether or not the copy of the document Exhibit 905 is a true copy
17 of the original?
18 A. It appears to be a true copy, sir, yes.
19 MR. HARMON: Could the usher please place the original document on
20 the ELMO.
21 Q. Now, Witness JJ, did you take possession of Prosecutor's
22 Exhibit 905 on your first meeting with General Zivanovic?
23 A. No, I did not.
24 Q. Did you take possession of it later?
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 Q. When was that?
2 A. April 23, 2001.
3 Q. And did you then turn the original over to other investigators in
4 the Office of the Prosecutor?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Now, Witness, when General Zivanovic provided you with that
7 document, did he also inform you of when he was told he was to be relieved
8 of command of the Drina Corps?
9 A. Yes, he did.
10 Q. When did he tell you he was to be -- he was first informed that he
11 would be relieved as Commander of the Drina Corps?
12 A. He said around -- between the 15th to the 20th of June, 1995.
13 General Mladic had told him he would be relieved by Krstic,
14 General Krstic.
15 Q. I'm going to pause there for a minute so the answer can catch up.
16 Did he tell you when he actually turned over command of the Drina
17 Corps to General Krstic?
18 A. According to General Zivanovic, he gave up his duty on the 11th of
19 July, 1995 in Bratunac. On the 12th he -- he was told that the new
20 commander was Krstic, and then on the 13th of July, 1995, General Mladic
21 and General Krstic came to General Zivanovic's corps headquarters in
22 Vlasenica, and the command was lined up so Zivanovic could say goodbye to
24 Q. Now, I'll turn my attention to another area, and that is this
25 original document. Did General Zivanovic tell you that he had shown that
1 document to anyone else?
2 A. Yes, he did.
3 Q. Who did he say he had shown it to?
4 A. He had shown it to General Miletic and General Radinovic.
5 Q. Did he tell you that he knew one or both of those men?
6 A. He said he knew both of them. He knew General Miletic because
7 their children had grown up together in Zadar, and he had served with
8 General Miletic. He knew General Radinovic because he had been a teacher
9 at the academy and was -- now was a professor for military strategic
11 Q. When did General Zivanovic tell you he had shown this document to
12 General Radinovic?
13 A. He could not recall the exact date. He thought it was winter. He
14 knew it was last year, 2000, in the winter because there was snow on the
15 ground, he said, but he wasn't sure if it was January or February.
16 Q. Did he describe the reaction of General Miletic and
17 General Radinovic when he was -- when he showed this document to them?
18 A. Yes, he did.
19 Q. What did he say?
20 A. He had shown it to him in his home, and Miletic looked at the
21 document. As soon as they had heard that he had nothing to do with
22 command after the 11th, according to General Zivanovic, they wanted
23 nothing further to do with him. Radinovic was not interested at all to
24 look at the document further or to take a copy.
25 MR. HARMON: I have no additional questions, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very much,
2 Mr. Harmon.
3 MR. HARMON: Excuse me. The original should not be taken out.
4 May I have one moment, please? May I have just one moment,
5 Mr. President? Thank you.
6 I'm sorry for the interruption.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well.
8 Mr. Petrusic, your witness.
9 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrusic:
10 Q. Witness JJ, good morning. On behalf of the Defence of
11 General Krstic, I will have a number of questions for you.
12 How many times did you meet with General Zivanovic?
13 A. Twice, sir.
14 Q. Since the 12th of April. When was the second occasion?
15 A. April 23, 2001.
16 Q. Did you have any telephone contact with General Zivanovic?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. Could you tell us how many times?
19 A. I think it was four to five times. If I could refer to my notes,
20 I'll be able to give you an exact number, sir.
21 Q. Could you tell us what were the subjects you discussed at your
22 meeting on the 25th of April, did you say?
23 A. 23rd, sir.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Petrusic, perhaps this
25 was part of the private-session discussions.
1 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. In the
2 discussion we had yesterday with the Prosecution, we raised the question
3 in principle, and agreed in principle to a private session on certain
4 topics, and of course I don't object to being reminded of that, on the
5 contrary. I did draw the attention of Mr. Harmon to the fact that it is
6 very difficult for me, when discussing this particular topic, to make a
7 clear -- draw a clear line up to which point we can discuss things in
8 public and when we have to go into private session.
9 So shall we go into private session just for a moment, please?
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Let us go into private
12 [Private session]
13 page 9687 – redacted – private session.
9 [Open session]
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Petrusic, you may
11 continue now.
12 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. You had a meeting with General Zivanovic on the 23rd of April?
14 A. Yes, I did, sir.
15 Q. At that meeting did you discuss the document you have before you?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. You saw the document for the first time on that occasion; is that
19 A. No. That would be incorrect, sir.
20 Q. So you had seen it already before? You had it in your possession?
21 A. No. That would be incorrect.
22 Q. Had you seen the document before that date, just visually? Had
23 you seen it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did General Zivanovic explain to you the contents of that document
1 on that occasion?
2 A. The occasion of the 23rd of April? Yes, he did.
3 Q. Did General Zivanovic tell you at the time that the subordinated
4 units confirmed receiving that document at 2035 on the 13th of July?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. After that meeting, did you contact General Zivanovic by telephone
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. On this document there is the so-called incoming stamp; is that
11 A. There is a stamp where he said -- it showed outgoing and then
12 incoming. Did you want me to point to the part I'm talking about, sir?
13 According to General Zivanovic, this stamp right here, that shows that it
14 went out to all the commands at 2000 hours --
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Witness, excuse me for
16 interrupting you.
17 Mr. Petrusic, I should like this document to be diffused for the
18 public, to be shown to the public, if possible - I'm addressing myself to
19 the technical booth - but in a way that the whole document can be seen on
20 the screen, so to have a global view of it. Yes.
21 Now, Mr. Petrusic, you may continue with your questions, please.
22 Thank you.
23 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. So please continue, Witness, and tell us what General Zivanovic
25 told you with respect to this stamp.
1 A. Yes, I will. The stamp that's right here where I've indicated
2 with the pointer, the General explained that on the 13th of July at 2000
3 hours, that document was sent out to all the command; and then at 2035
4 hours, the command returned back to say they all had received it and
5 confirmed the contents of the document.
6 Q. Did you convey that information to your team, or rather to the
7 Prosecution; that is, the interpretation given by General Zivanovic?
8 A. Yes. I told that to Mark Harmon.
9 Q. This column or line of the incoming stamp is -- the first column
10 says "received," the word "received" [as interpreted]?
11 A. Is there a question, sir?
12 Q. Yes. Yes.
13 A. I'm sorry. I'm not understanding what your question is, sir.
14 Q. On this incoming stamp --
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. -- is the first word on the left "received:"?
17 A. I don't know. I cannot read B/C/S, sir.
18 Q. Do you have a translation of that document, please?
19 A. Yes, I do, and on the translation it does say "received" on the
20 upper left-hand column.
21 Q. Beneath that word, do you see the word "processed"?
22 A. Yes, I do, on the translation, absolutely.
23 Q. And below that do you see the word "delivered"?
24 A. Yes, I do, sir.
25 Q. So let me repeat that General Zivanovic told you that all commands
1 confirmed that they had received this message at 2035 hours; is that
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Did you have any response to his comments?
5 A. No, none.
6 Q. Are you aware that the heading "Received" indicates when the
7 document was received in the room for encoding?
8 A. No, I'm not aware of that. I'm only aware what the general told
9 me, sir.
10 Q. So you conveyed the interpretation of General Zivanovic to
11 Mr. Harmon?
12 A. Absolutely.
13 Q. Regarding the fact as to when, according to General Zivanovic's
14 interpretation, the subordinate commands had confirmed reception of this
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. Were you aware of the fact that General Zivanovic had granted
18 interviews to the media regarding his status in the Drina Corps in July
20 A. I understand he's given quite a few interviews to the press, sir.
21 Q. Did you discuss that with him?
22 A. He had told me he had given one particular interview after I'd met
23 with him on April 23rd.
24 Q. After the 23rd of April, did he tell you anything about his
25 interviews with the press?
1 A. Yes, he did.
2 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] May I ask the usher for his
3 assistance, as we have a document that we should like to tender into
5 For Their Honours and the ELMO, please.
6 THE REGISTRAR: This will be document number 180, D180.
7 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] For the record, this document has
8 been attached to the Defence filing of the 4th of May in attachment D.
9 A. It's my understanding that this document may have to be done in
10 private session.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Petrusic.
12 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] This document, Mr. President, what
13 I should like to quote from this document relates exclusively to the
14 document of the 13th of July and the conversation that the investigator
15 had with General Zivanovic regarding this topic.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon.
17 MR. HARMON: I'm just reading the document now, and perhaps I need
18 a moment to consult with the witness, because if there's a sensitivity
19 identified in this document, she would be more aware of it than I would
20 be. So if I could have a moment to perhaps -- perhaps if we could recess
21 for a moment.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Petrusic.
23 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon, I'm interested in the
24 last paragraph on page 2 of this document, that's all. That is the only
25 area that I should like to analyse with this witness.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon.
2 MR. HARMON: Again, I need to consult with the witness. If
3 there's a sensitivity in the last paragraph or any of this document, we
4 may need to conduct at least this part of the examination in private
5 session. So if I could have one moment to confer with the witness.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] How much time, more or less, do
7 you need, Mr. Harmon?
8 MR. HARMON: Two minutes.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Petrusic, do you have any
10 objection that we give Mr. Harmon two minutes to talk to the witness?
11 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] No, I don't object. I have no
12 objection, but I wish to underline once again that what I intend to quote
13 from this article is absolutely appropriate for public session.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon, you may speak with
15 the witness now for two minutes, more or less.
16 [Prosecution counsel and the witness confer]
17 MR. HARMON: May we go into private session for just -- to address
18 this document?
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Let's go into private
20 session for a few minutes.
21 [Private session]
13 page 9695 – redacted – private session.
13 page 9696 – redacted – private session.
13 page 9697 – redacted – private session.
13 page 9698 – redacted – private session.
13 pages 9699 – redacted – private session.
20 [Open session]
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Petrusic, please
23 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Did General Zivanovic, at your meetings, mention the name of --
25 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I do apologise, but
1 we will have to go back into private session for other reasons this time.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Can you wait with that question
3 for later on so that we don't have to switch back and forth? Can you ask
4 it a little later?
5 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Very well.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Petrusic.
7 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. You worked in the police. You have a great deal of experience in
9 the work you do, in working with people. So my question -- next question
10 would be a general one.
11 If from a number of articles or from what appears in the media,
12 statements to the media which General Zivanovic made in -- during the
13 period this trial went on, this trial was in process and which, in the
14 opinion of the Defence, were different, that is to say, they differed to
15 one interview to the next the statements made, did you, in talking to
16 General Zivanovic, in the discussions you had with him in view of the
17 specific nature of the job you do, did you gain the impression that he was
18 defending himself from something?
19 A. I got the impression that he gave a lot of credibility and weight
20 to articles in the media that attacked him and didn't say very nice things
21 about him. So he felt he needed to -- to speak out to that. But as a
22 trained investigator, I don't know that I would put as much weight on the
23 media that he seemed to do.
24 Q. Did he show you any article from the media, from the newspapers
25 which attacked his credibility, the credibility of him as
1 General Zivanovic?
2 A. He did. Actually, it said that he had been -- I did see an
3 article. It was dated August the 24th. I want to say 2000 or 2000 --
4 August 24th, 2000, I believe. That was person from The Hague, a
5 spokesperson. Rick Butler was quoted as saying the general was in
6 Potocari on the 12th of July. The General was adamant that he was
7 physically not there. And that is the article that he did refer to while
8 I spoke to him.
9 Q. That means that in your opinion, he contested the statement made
10 by Mr. Butler, he challenged it?
11 A. Oh, he absolutely challenged it. He said he wasn't there, and the
12 article -- he was in disagreement with the article. Now, whether the
13 article was a true account of what Mr. Butler said, I have no idea.
14 Q. Did you ask General Zivanovic how the handover and takeover of
15 duty is conducted in the army at the level -- at the commanding level at
16 which General Zivanovic himself was, how this actual procedure was done?
17 A. Actually, I didn't have to ask him. He told me. He told me that
18 Mladic had come to him between the 15th to the 20th of June, 1995, and
19 then on the 11th, he stopped his duty in Bratunac, and on the 12th Krstic
20 was then put in command, and on the 13th, the general was then put in
21 front of the troops to say goodbye at his headquarters in Vlasenica with
22 Mladic and Krstic both there.
23 Q. Therefore, General Zivanovic told you that the soldiers were lined
24 up in Vlasenica when he was taking leave of them; is that right?
25 A. Yes. He was saying goodbye to them.
1 Q. When you had your conversations with General Zivanovic, did he
2 offer himself -- offer this information about the 13th of July himself?
3 A. Yes, he did.
4 Q. And after that, you informed the Prosecutor with that document,
5 you apprised the Prosecution with the document, did you?
6 A. I apprised them at first that I had seen it, and then I went back
7 and I turned it over to them when I retrieved it on the 23rd, sir.
8 Q. Did the Prosecutor, after receiving the document, ask you to
9 establish links with General Zivanovic and to ask you for the records or
10 minutes of this handover and takeover of duty?
11 A. No. He did not ask me to get any minutes or anything of that
12 nature. The first I'm hearing of minutes is from you today, sir.
13 Q. So you never heard of the minutes that were signed or did anybody
14 tell you to ask for the record or minutes signed by Krstic, Zivanovic, and
16 A. No. As I stated earlier, the first time I'm hearing about any
17 minutes being signed by anyone is today from you, sir.
18 Q. Did you ask, in addition to the document you received, for any
19 other documents which would indicate the status of General Zivanovic or,
20 rather, a document concerning the handover and takeover of duty?
21 A. No, I did not.
22 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence has no
23 further questions.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you,
25 Mr. Petrusic.
1 Mr. Harmon, any redirect? If so, please go ahead.
2 MR. HARMON: I have one question I'd like to ask in private
3 session and then some in public.
4 Re-examined by Mr. Harmon:
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. So you wish to
6 proceed in private session. Let us move into private session, please.
7 [Private session]
13 page 9705 – redacted – private session.
14 [Open session]
15 JUDGE WALD: Witness JJ, did the General say anything at all about
16 what he did immediately after this goodbye ceremony that he spoke about on
17 the 13th? Did he say whether or not he continued to clean up any affairs
18 he had in the army or whether he immediately went into private life or
20 A. He had stayed, I think, around until about the 15th in the area of
21 Vlasenica, but he was no longer in command. He mentioned he had stayed at
22 his brother's home a few nights in the area.
23 JUDGE WALD: Did you get the impression from that that although he
24 may have been in the area, he packed up and left, he had nothing more to
25 do with the army, or, as can happen, he was, you know, cleaning up loose
2 A. He may have been cleaning up some loose ends, because he did
3 mention that somebody asked him about vehicles, and he decided after that
4 he wouldn't show up at his command headquarters any longer, because they
5 would expect that he was still in command or treat him that way. So he
6 did say he was in the area, but we didn't go into specifics as to what he
7 did or didn't do.
8 JUDGE WALD: Did he mention there being any later ceremony, even
9 of ceremonial -- symbolic, ceremonial significance after the 13th, saying
10 of goodbye, or not?
11 A. There was some sort of dinner or something, I believe he said, on
12 the 20th of July. It was just a luncheon or a dinner.
13 JUDGE WALD: Did he describe what its purpose was or what kind of
14 a --
15 A. It kind of made it sound as -- there was just a goodbye dinner
16 that you give the outgoing people.
17 JUDGE WALD: Did he say who was there?
18 A. Just a group of people. I didn't really go into it.
19 JUDGE WALD: You don't know whether or not either General Krstic
20 or General Mladic were there? You don't know whether he said they were
21 there or not?
22 A. Well, no. He said it was mostly all the command. I mean, there
23 were lots of different soldiers and people like that, but it was -- I
24 believe he said Krstic, Mladic, probably Andric. I'm not sure. He named
25 a few people.
1 JUDGE WALD: Okay. And did he, in any of these conversations,
2 ever mention the actual decree of President Karadzic that effectively, you
3 know, was necessary to put the whole change of command into operation?
4 Did he ever mention that decree?
5 A. No. The way he described this document to me was this was the
6 end-all, be-all. He says the command changeover is completed, and that's
7 the only -- the way I understood it, that this was all -- this was the
8 end-all, be-all document for him.
9 JUDGE WALD: Although, as you know from looking at the document
10 itself, it says "pursuant," I think, someplace, "pursuant to the decree of
11 the President." Let me find it. But anyway --
12 A. Yes, it's right on the front, I know, but he never mentioned that
13 to me.
14 JUDGE WALD: He never talked about what was in that decree that
15 this was pursuant to?
16 A. Right. Absolutely not.
17 JUDGE WALD: Thank you.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Madam Judge
20 Witness JJ, in your conversations, did you talk about the reasons
21 for the changeover of power, for why the people were being replaced, one
22 commander replacing another?
23 A. General Zivanovic just told me that Mladic had told him it would
24 occur and that he -- General Zivanovic felt that Krstic was anxious to be
25 in command, but he didn't give a reason as to why that changeover was
1 going to happen. General Zivanovic had been wounded and needed to get
2 medical treatment, better medical treatment than he had, was one of the
3 other issues that he said was a concern, both for him and I think for the
4 army at that time.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Would I be correct in saying
6 that Zivanovic presented the reasons and understood the reasons for the
7 change being health reasons? Would I be correct in saying that?
8 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well. An article
10 was mentioned of the 24th of August. I would just like to ask you: There
11 was a date that was mentioned, the 4th of July, and Zivanovic disagreed
12 and said he wasn't at Potocari on the 4th of July. Is that a correct date
13 or not?
14 A. No. It would have been the 12th of July, sir, 1995. That is what
15 appeared in the article. And the General contends that he was not in
16 Potocari on the 12th of July, 1995.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but I'm asking the question
18 because the transcript, on page 26, line 19, mentions the 4th of July. So
19 you're saying that the date in question is the 12th of July; is that
21 A. Right. If I misspoke earlier, I'd like to correct that. It
22 should be the 12th of July, 1995, sir. Thank you.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well. Another
24 question. You said that the document was shown by General Zivanovic to
25 General Radinovic in January or February. Do you have any idea of the
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 year, what year that was?
2 A. 2000.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Thank you. I don't think
4 we have any more questions for you, Witness JJ. We thank you very much
5 for having come and for cooperating with us and we wish you every success
6 in your work to come. Thank you.
7 Yes, Mr. Harmon.
8 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, I would move for admission into
9 evidence Prosecutor's Exhibit 905.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Petrusic, perhaps you would
11 like to state your views on the document. Any objections?
12 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] The Defence would like to tender
13 into evidence Exhibit 180, and as far as Exhibit 905 is concerned, I think
14 it would be better to present our views after we hear the evidence put
15 forward by the Defence in the proceedings in the course of the day.
16 [The witness withdrew]
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon.
18 MR. HARMON: It is my understanding, Mr. President, that the
19 Defence evidence will go to the weight of the document, not to its
20 admission, and therefore we would be seeking its admission into evidence
21 now, and we have no objection to the Defence Exhibit 180 being admitted
22 under seal.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Petrusic, would you like to
24 add anything with respect to the explanation made by Mr. Harmon just now
25 with respect to document 905, Exhibit 905?
1 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] The Defence objects to the
2 admission of this document.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just a moment. Let me confer
4 with my colleagues.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The Chamber admits Exhibit 180
7 and reserves the right to decide with respect to the admission of document
8 905 until the end of today's proceedings.
9 I think that the time has come to take a break. We're going to
10 adjourn for half an hour.
11 --- Recess taken at 10.50 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 11.26 a.m.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I see two people on their feet.
14 Mr. Harmon.
15 MR. HARMON: Mr. President. We have no additional witnesses to
16 call. We are going to now tender three expert reports, and what I would
17 like to do is describe for Your Honours' benefit, and for the benefit of
18 the public, summarise what's contained in those expert reports.
19 Two of the expert reports, the expert report prepared by
20 C.H.W. ten Camp from the Ministry of Justice, Netherlands Forensic
21 Institute and the expert report from Dr. J.A. de Koeijer, from the same
22 institute, were filed by the Office of the Prosecutor on the 11th of May,
23 and the Defence informed us in writing that they had no objection to those
24 reports. They informed us in writing on the 28th of May.
25 The third expert report, a report prepared by Dr. W.P.F. Fagel
1 from the Ministry of Justice, Netherlands Forensic Institute was a report
2 that we received only on Friday, this Friday. We've had a chance to give
3 a copy of that report to the Defence. They have reviewed it, and they
4 have no objection to its admission and, therefore, though it has not been
5 filed under Rule 94 ter, we will be tendering that document as well.
6 So what I propose to do, after hearing from the Defence briefly,
7 is to summarise the contents of those expert reports.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Petrusic, do you have any
9 objections to the admission of these reports or any other commentary.
10 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence has no
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, can we have the
13 number for the document, please?
14 THE REGISTRAR: The first report will be marked 906, the second
15 report 907, and the Fagel report 908.
16 MR. HARMON: We believe the Fagel report should be 909.
17 THE REGISTRAR: 909.
18 MR. HARMON: Yes.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I want to be sure. I see three
20 reports. Is -- the first report is 906, the second 907. Why is the third
21 909 and not 908?
22 MR. HARMON: There are three exemplars. We're more than happy to
23 submit copies of comparison documents. Those comparison documents were
24 initially marked as 908/1, 2, and 3. I'm prepared to submit those to Your
25 Honours as well for examination. I have the original comparison documents
1 here, so we're equally prepared to submit those as well, but I was trying
2 to expedite the proceedings.
3 But we can offer those as well, Madam Registrar.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, we will
5 therefore have the first report marked 906, the second 907, and the third
6 909; is that right?
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Mr. President, that is correct.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In order to be able to
9 understand, why have you left out 908?
10 THE REGISTRAR: Because the Prosecution already premarked it.
11 It's, as Mr. Harmon explained, some exemplars, so we just skipped that
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, then. Finally I'm
14 happy, because I think I understand.
15 Mr. Harmon.
16 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, the three expert reports relate to
17 Prosecutor's Exhibit 905, a copy of which is on the ELMO.
18 So the Court understands why these expert reports have been
19 prepared, the Office of the Prosecutor, upon receiving Prosecutor's
20 Exhibit 905, submitted that document for forensic examination to the
21 Ministry of Justice, Netherlands Forensic Institute to do a number of
22 tests on it and comparisons on it.
23 As Your Honours can see from Prosecutor's Exhibit 905, the
24 document is a document which is a handover of Corps Commander's duties
25 information dated the 13th of July, issued from the Command of the Drina
1 Corps and signed by Lieutenant Colonel Radenko Jovicic who is the Chief of
2 Personnel and Legal Affairs.
3 Having the original of that document, the Prosecutor's office then
4 went through its archives and obtained three comparison documents, all
5 original documents and all documents bearing the signature of Radenko
6 Jovicic. The first of those exemplars is dated March 18th, 1995; the
7 second, March 20th, 1995; and the third, September 20th, 1995. These
8 three comparison documents were documents that were seized by the Office
9 of the Prosecutor from the Zvornik Brigade headquarters when we executed a
10 search warrant on that location.
11 So having submitted the three comparison documents and the
12 original document for forensic examination, let me describe what it was
13 that the examiners were asked to do, and I'll refer first of all
14 to - a little bit out of number sequence - Prosecutor's Exhibit 907. Now,
15 we asked the forensic institute first of all to compare the signatures of
16 Radenko Jovicic on Prosecutor's Exhibit 905 with the signatures from the
17 three comparison documents in order to see if there was a match on those
18 signatures. The conclusion of the forensic examiner, whose name is C.H.W.
19 ten Camp, was, and I will read:
20 "On the basis of the results of the comparative examination of
21 handwriting, it can be stated with a degree of probability, bordering on
22 certainty, that the questioned signature on the 13th July 1995 document at
23 issue," which is at issue in this case, "and the signatures on the three
24 comparison documents were created by one and the same person."
25 So that was the first examination, and that is -- the examination,
1 the methods, and the results are found in Prosecutor's Exhibit 907.
2 Also found in Prosecutor's 907 is an analysis wherein we asked the
3 examiners to compare Prosecutor's Exhibit 905, again, the original
4 document, and compare the typescript of the text on the original 13 July
5 1995 document with the typescript of the texts of the other three original
6 documents that we had seized pursuant to a search warrant to see if these
7 documents were created by the same typewriter. The conclusion of the
8 expert was that it is possible that the typescript on the 13 July 1995
9 document and the typescript on the three comparison documents were created
10 by the same typewriter.
11 Next, turning to Prosecutor's Exhibit 906, we asked that the
12 Ministry of Justice, Netherlands Forensic Institute determine if the round
13 stamp impression that can be seen in the lower left-hand side of
14 Prosecutor's Exhibit 905 on the ELMO, if that stamp impression was made by
15 the same stamp as the stamp impressions on the three comparison
16 documents. The Netherlands Forensic Institute then compared the stamp.
17 They examined the general shape and size of the contested document and the
18 comparison documents; they compared the stamps on all of the documents for
19 details, using microscopic analysis; and lastly, they compared the inks
20 from all of the stamps using thin-layer chromatography.
21 Now, in the expert report prepared by Dr. J.A. De Koeijer, his
22 conclusion was that in respect of the ink comparisons, the ink from the
23 original document and one of the comparison documents were the same. The
24 others had different characteristics. His ultimate conclusion was that
25 there was moderate support for the hypothesis that the round stamp
1 impressions on the 13 July 1995 was made with the same stamp as the
2 similar stamp impresses on the comparison documents.
3 Now, turning to Prosecutor's Exhibit 909 - and this is an expert
4 report again prepared by the Ministry of Justice, Netherlands Forensic
5 Institute, prepared by Dr. W.P.F. Fagel - what we asked the Netherlands
6 Forensic Institute to do on this occasion was to take the handwriting that
7 is found in the transmission stamp at the bottom of this document, 905,
8 and the transmission stamp can be seen at the bottom of the document, and
9 compare the handwriting in the transmission stamp with the handwriting
10 that is found in a copy, a copied document, Prosecutor's Exhibit 463.
11 Prosecutor's Exhibit 463 is General Krstic's first order as commander,
12 dated the 13th of July.
13 So we asked the Netherlands Forensic Institute to make a
14 comparison between again the handwriting that's in the original 905 with
15 the handwriting that's in the copy that's found in Prosecutor's Exhibit
16 463. And the conclusion of the expert, after comparing the two documents,
17 was that it is possible that the entries contained in both documents were
18 written by the same person.
19 So we would -- that is, Mr. President, a summary of the expert
20 reports that we will be tendering. If Your Honours are interested, I have
21 the original comparison documents, the three documents that were used.
22 They're here; they're available for Your Honours to examine and inspect.
23 If Your Honours wish, I can also submit copies of those. Those would be
24 the Prosecutor's Exhibit 908. I'm at your disposal on the exemplars, but
25 we would at this point in time, Mr. President, absent a desire to see the
1 comparison documents, we would tender into evidence Prosecutor's Exhibit
2 906, 907, and 909.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
4 Mr. Harmon. We do not need to see the documents for the moment.
5 I would like to ask Mr. Petrusic whether he has any objection to
6 the admission of those reports into evidence or not. Mr. Petrusic or
7 Mr. Visnjic?
8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. As
9 Mr. Petrusic has already said, the Defence has no objection to the
10 admission of these documents.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, then. The Chamber
12 admits and orders the admission into evidence of Prosecution Exhibits 906,
13 907, and 909.
14 Very well. Mr. Harmon.
15 MR. HARMON: We have no additional evidence to present to Your
16 Honours. We will reserve our application for admission of Prosecutor's
17 Exhibit 905 after the conclusion of the Defence submissions.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. So I now give the floor to
19 Mr. Visnjic, I think it is, to present your arguments.
20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I should
21 briefly like to refer to the expert reports that Mr. Harmon has just
22 tendered into evidence and which have been admitted by the Trial Chamber.
23 At the time that the Defence was supplied with Exhibit 905, it was
24 an entirely new document for us, and at that point in time, we denied it
25 on all grounds. Later on, as the Prosecution conducted its investigation,
1 so did the Defence, and we informed our learned friends of the results of
2 our own investigations four days ago by Mr. Petrusic and at yesterday's
3 meeting once again.
4 So I should like to explain to Your Honours what it is we are
5 denying in those reports and what it is we are not denying or contesting;
6 namely, as has already been confirmed by these expert reports and probably
7 with a higher degree of probability, we are not contesting that the
8 document 905 was indeed signed by the person named, that is, Radenko
9 Jovicic. We are not contesting that it bears the stamp of the Drina
10 Corps. We are not contesting that it was typed on a typewriter that
11 probably belongs to the Drina Corps. We're also not contesting the stamp
12 or signature of the person who registered the document in the delivery
14 What we are contesting is the reason for which this document was
15 compiled and the circumstances under which it was compiled, including the
16 possible date when that document was compiled. And it is with those
17 points in mind that the Defence will call evidence to corroborate those
19 So the Defence would now suggest that the Chamber call the first
20 Defence witness, that is our military expert, Professor Radinovic.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Usher, will you please
22 bring in the witness.
23 [The witness entered court]
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning,
25 Professor Radinovic. Can you hear me?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In French, there is a
3 saying, "We never say adieu but au revoir." So obviously there is an
4 example, and we thank you very much for coming again. We will consider
5 this a continuation of your testimony, so you don't need to make the
6 solemn declaration again. I just wish to remind you that you are
7 continuing under oath. Do you accept that formulation?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Then please take a seat.
10 WITNESS: RADOVAN RADINOVIC [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Professor Radinovic, do you
13 prefer to be called Professor or General? Which is your preference? Or
14 Professor-General, General-Professor?
15 THE WITNESS: You can call me by whatever name you like, just
16 don't break me.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No. No. Don't worry. If you
18 don't behave, we will caution you. So we can call you Professor or
20 So, Professor, you will now be answering questions put to you by
21 Mr. Visnjic.
22 Examined by Mr. Visnjic:
23 Q. Good morning, General Radinovic.
24 A. Good morning.
25 Q. General Radinovic, before we try to explain the document dated the
1 13th of July, 1995, I have a few questions for you linked to your
2 encounter with General Zivanovic. Though you have testified several times
3 already, I should briefly go through those questions again and ask some
4 additional ones.
5 General Radinovic, when did you see General Zivanovic in
6 connection with the investigations surrounding the events in Srebrenica?
7 A. It was on the 14th of February, 2000.
8 Q. Where did you see General Zivanovic?
9 A. I saw General Zivanovic in Valjevo, which is a town about 100
10 kilometres from Belgrade.
11 Q. Was that your only encounter with him related to this topic?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you perhaps meet again with General Zivanovic in connection
14 with some other topics?
15 A. No. I never met with General Zivanovic again for any other reason
16 except on the 14th of February, 2000, in Valjevo.
17 Q. General, where did that meeting take place?
18 A. We met in the army club in Valjevo.
19 Q. Who was present during that meeting?
20 A. There were the two of us present at the meeting, General Miletic
21 and a gentleman whose name I cannot recall, but I think he was the
22 president of the association of officers in reserve of Valjevo, but I'm
23 not quite sure of that. In any event, there was a person who was in
24 contact with the army club, and we met in his office.
25 Q. What did you discuss during that meeting? Briefly.
1 A. So this was in the month of February, which means about nine
2 months prior to my completing my expert report for this Tribunal. So this
3 was the time when I was just beginning my investigation or, rather, my
4 research. Before that, I had managed to review and read quite a bit from
5 the media and from studies published about those events. I knew quite a
6 bit from my own personal knowledge. And I can also say that this was the
7 actual start of a direct empirical study of the documents linked to
9 And during my examination-in-chief in this Tribunal, I stated that
10 I was primarily concerned and interested in the military situation
11 surrounding Srebrenica, the conditions that led up to the operation
12 Krivaja 95, how it was planned, how its planning and execution and
13 consequences can be seen from the viewpoint of the Drina Corps Commander,
14 and I thought that for the first occasion, that would be quite
15 sufficient. And my previous conversation with General Zivanovic, or
16 rather my opening statement to General Zivanovic, was a request to him to
17 tell me about those things.
18 So our conversation had two parts. The first had to do with the
19 political and historical interethnic, interreligious, and other
20 developments that preceded the war of 1992 to 1995, and I must admit that
21 we spent most of our time on that topic. These were things that I was
22 mostly familiar with, but I couldn't insist that he not talk about them.
23 The second part of our conversation related directly to
24 Srebrenica, that is, the conditions that led up to the formation of the
25 safe area, the behaviour of the warring parties within and around the safe
1 area, and he only touched upon the planning of the Srebrenica operation
2 and then it was time for lunch. We continued our conversation, but it did
3 not relate to Srebrenica, and I had counted on having more contacts with
4 him later. Unfortunately, those contacts never took place, for reasons
5 unknown to me.
6 That would be a brief summary. I could explain in greater
7 detail. I kept notes, and if that is of any interest, I could elaborate.
8 Q. General, you have brought your notes with you, haven't you?
9 A. Yes. It's in a block. I encoded it Milenko, the 14th of
10 February, 2000. My handwriting is rather bad, but if necessary, I can
11 assist in deciphering it. As I have some other personal notes in this
12 block, if this needs to be tendered, I would request that those pages be
13 torn out; if necessary, of course.
14 Q. General, at the meeting, were you shown a document dated the 13th
15 of July, 1995, an information on the handover of duties?
16 A. No, sir, that document was not shown to me. I saw it for the
17 first time when you gave it to me to take a look at.
18 Q. General, at that meeting, for which you kept notes, was any
19 mention made of the handover of duty between General Zivanovic and General
21 A. No. That event, that act, was not mentioned at all at the
22 meeting. As I said, this was the first meeting, and I had counted on
23 having several and that the time would come when that would be discussed.
24 At that point in time and at that stage, this was not for me of the
25 greatest importance because I felt that I knew the basic facts about it.
1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, regarding the
2 notebook that the General has offered, I have discussed the matter with
3 him and we are ready to tender the parts from the notebook relating to the
4 conversation that the General had with General Zivanovic and to offer
5 those notes to the Prosecution and the Trial Chamber for further review,
6 if that is necessary and the General has no objection.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Perhaps it would be best for you
8 to continue with your examination, and then later, at the end, we can
9 address that particular issue. So please continue now.
10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. General, how long did the meeting last before you went for lunch,
13 A. I'm not quite sure, but I guess it was about two, two and a half,
14 maybe three hours, not longer than that. We arrived around 10.00, we went
15 for lunch between 1.00 and 2.00, so that would approximately be the time
16 we spent together.
17 Q. You said that the second part of the meeting took place during
19 A. That was a conversation at lunch. It wasn't a meeting.
20 Q. Where did you have lunch?
21 A. We had lunch in a restaurant which was not a very impressive one
22 in appearance or name for me to remember it. I simply have not remembered
23 the name of the restaurant.
24 Q. Who was present at the luncheon?
25 A. Apart from the two of us, there was General Miletic and this
1 gentleman who was present during the conversations we had, and also a
2 gentleman who had brought us to Valjevo.
3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I should like to ask the registrar
4 to provide the Chamber and the Prosecution with the witness statement.
5 Q. General, sir, did you ever go to General Zivanovic's house in
7 A. No, sir, I was never in his house.
8 Q. Do you know, General, that General Zivanovic said that the meeting
9 with you was held in his home in Valjevo?
10 A. I know that as of a few days ago. You yourself told me that.
11 Q. General, during the luncheon, did General Zivanovic show you any
12 documents, and did you take down any notes during the lunch?
13 A. General Zivanovic did not show me any documents at all during the
14 lunch. The documents stayed in the office we had our talk in. And during
15 lunchtime I made no notes, because it was a leisurely conversation at
16 lunch and didn't have anything to do with any official business. It
17 wasn't of an official nature at all.
18 Q. General, the individual who had lunch with you and who brought you
19 to Valjevo, was his name Svetozar Perunicic?
20 A. Yes. I knew him by his nickname, who was Toza. I didn't know
21 that his actual first name was Svetozar, but Toza was probably a nickname
22 from the full name Svetozar.
23 Q. General, did I show you his statement a few days ago with respect
24 to that meeting and the talk you had with General Zivanovic?
25 A. Yes, you did, sir. You showed me it.
1 Q. General, in his statement was anything left out which you should
2 like to add?
3 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I'm sorry, I'm back here. I will be
4 cross-examining General Radinovic. This is a statement of the driver who
5 drove General Radinovic and General Miletic to Valjevo. I've already
6 expressed to Mr. Visnjic that I object to this witness' statement being
7 admitted through General Radinovic. This is a man who purely gives
8 evidence of the trip down to Valjevo and what he knows about what
9 happened. He's a pure fact witness, and he should be here to give this
10 evidence. Apparently, it's Mr. Visnjic's cousin, this witness. Why he's
11 not here, I don't know, but I really do think it is inappropriate for this
12 witness to be commenting on the factual evidence of a witness who is not
13 even here.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, your response to
15 the objection, please.
16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Certainly, Mr. President. The
17 Defence, only on the 28th of May, was informed through the Prosecution and
18 the Prosecution motion as to which witnesses would be called in the part
19 relative to the summary of the investigator of the Tribunal. So we were
20 only informed on the 28th of May that General Zivanovic had stated that
21 he, to General Radinovic and Miletic at a meeting held in his own home, in
22 his own house, showed documents. The witness was testifying to that. We
23 heard him a moment previously.
24 Unfortunately, between the 28th and the present day,
25 Mr. President, we have been unable to do anything for technical reasons,
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 apart from getting the witness statement. And the witness simply states
2 that it wasn't in that particular place and during his presence at the
3 meeting, this did not occur.
4 What we wanted to utilise here is what the Prosecution did, and
5 using witness statements like they did in the various stages of their
6 proceedings, we wish to ask General Radinovic a number of questions and
7 possibly -- and I say for technical reasons because we didn't have the
8 opportunity of bringing the witness here to the Tribunal, to make use of
9 his statement. But if Mr. Cayley has an objection, I leave it to the
10 Trial Chamber to decide, to rule on the matter. But I think that I have
11 presented the reasons why we were not more -- able to react more
12 effectively, and that was that we received this only on the 28th of May,
13 as I have just said.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, if I understand you
15 correctly, the Prosecutor is not objecting to you asking questions.
16 They're going to object to having the witness statement admitted --
17 tendered and admitted into evidence. Is that right? I'm going to give
18 the floor to Mr. Cayley in a moment. But I think you can go ahead and ask
19 your questions and use the statement other than in the sense of
20 subsequently asking to have it tendered. Is that right, before I give
21 Mr. Cayley the floor?
22 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, my sense is this witness should be
23 here. If he's talking -- one of the essential elements of this hearing is
24 to deal with whether or not this trip took place, as to what documents
25 were shown to General Radinovic, as well as offering his expert
1 testimony. He's coming to testify about the facts of that particular
2 meeting. And this is a witness, Mr. Perunicic, who deals directly with
3 those matters.
4 Interestingly, this man wasn't even present during the meeting,
5 the first meeting between Mr. Radinovic and General Zivanovic, so he can
6 actually make no comment on that whatsoever, but he does speak about the
7 location of that meeting.
8 I don't want to delay the proceedings unnecessarily. I don't
9 think this witness, frankly, should be commenting on what the driver can
10 say. This witness should be here. Apparently it's one of Mr. Visnjic's
11 relatives. Why he's not here, I don't know. Certainly I would object to
12 it being admitted into evidence if the witness isn't here.
13 If there are questions, they should be very limited and not sort
14 of utilised to back-up what General Radinovic is saying based on somebody
15 who's not even here. We just have a piece of paper. We don't know who
16 this person is.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, why isn't the
18 witness here? Why didn't you think of that?
19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the information about
20 the fact that is now the subject of a discussion here, although it is
21 another matter whether that fact should be the subject of discussion - we
22 took it to be an attack on the credibility of our witness - we received
23 that only on the 28th. Now, I wasn't able to reach the witness before the
24 31st of May. I took the statement on the 1st of June. All the business
25 with respect to getting visas and everything else we needed, we didn't
1 have enough time to do and bring the witness here. We didn't have enough
2 time to organise his arrival in The Hague.
3 Had we received this information from the Prosecutor earlier, and
4 according to another document that we were given this morning by the
5 Prosecution, which is notes by their investigator, I see that they were
6 aware of that piece of information. The first time they became apprised
7 of that information was on the 10th of May, which is when the investigator
8 of the Tribunal wrote down in his notes that he received information of
9 this kind from Zivanovic.
10 So that is the only reason why we were not able to organise this
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Cayley, would you like to
13 add anything at this point? No?
14 MR. CAYLEY: Very briefly, to make things absolutely clear, Your
15 Honour. This is a statement which they took on the 1st of June. So they
16 took this statement, this is the statement of Perunicic, the man who is
17 not here. They took it on the 1st of June, for whatever reason. So they
18 were aware of this fact which is in dispute, which is the subject of this
19 hearing today when they took this statement on the 1st of June.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well. Just a
21 moment. The Judges will confer.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The Chamber is of the opinion
24 that you, Mr. Visnjic, may ask questions of this witness, may put your
25 questions to this witness with respect to the facts, the facts that
1 occurred, the incidents. You may use the statement, but the statement is
2 not going to be admitted. That is to say, you may utilise that
3 information to put your questions to the witness, just that.
4 The Prosecutor, for their part, will have the opportunity of
5 cross-examining on the same questions that you are asking the witnesses.
6 And we are not going to consider the admission of the statement. But as
7 both parties are well aware of the contents of the statement, you can make
8 use of it as an instrument for your examination and cross-examination as
9 to the facts that the witness spoke about.
10 So it is quite legitimate to ask the witness, "Who drove you to
11 the restaurant?" for example. "Who was that person?" You can go ahead in
12 that way and then the Prosecutor will be able to ask his own questions
13 during the cross-examination.
14 Please proceed, Mr. Visnjic.
15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. General, the driver who took you to the army building, the
17 Yugoslav army club in Valjevo, did he stay to wait for you in front of
18 that building?
19 A. The car was parked in front of the building. When I went into the
20 building, he stayed there. Whether he was there throughout the time I was
21 in the building, I cannot say, but when we left the building, when we came
22 out of the building, the car was parked in front. Now, whether the driver
23 had moved away in the meantime and come back, I can't say. I didn't
24 consider that to be important, so I didn't pay attention to details of
25 that kind.
1 Q. General, sir, when you were coming out of the Yugoslav army club
2 building and when you were going to the restaurant -- let me ask you, how
3 far is the restaurant from the army club?
4 A. Well, it's very close by. Valjevo isn't a big town. Even if it
5 was right the other side of town, it wouldn't have been too far away.
6 Q. General, did you perhaps go to some other place in between those
7 two locations. From the point you left the army club building to the
8 restaurant for lunch, did you go anywhere else in the meantime?
9 A. No, sir. We went to the restaurant directly.
10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no further
11 questions on that area.
12 Q. General, may we now move on to another area? The Defence
13 considers this area to be a key one with respect to the decision in this
15 The document that we're discussing is titled "Information on the
16 Handover of Duty," and it is dated the 13th of July, 1995, signed by
17 Lieutenant Colonel Radenko Jovicic.
18 Did the Defence ask you to present your views on this document,
19 General, which the -- General Zivanovic handed to the Prosecution?
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just a minute, General, please.
21 Mr. Visnjic, the document has a number, and that number is 905,
22 just to identify it.
23 I apologise for interrupting you, General.
24 A. May I continue?
25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Yes, please do.
2 A. Yes, the Defence did provide me with the document for me to study
3 and to comment on it and that is what I did in written form. I did so in
4 writing. My appraisal of the document, I handed it to you and I assume
5 you have it as one of your documents, as a piece of evidence.
6 Q. General, is that your statement of the 26th of May, 2001?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. General, is this document which has been marked Prosecution
9 Exhibit 905, can that document be relevant as to determining the date when
10 General Krstic took over the command of the Drina Corps? What is your
11 opinion on that point?
12 A. My opinion is that this document cannot be relevant in order to
13 establish the date when General Krstic took over his duties as Commander
14 of the Drina Corps.
15 Q. What would an official document look like on the handover and
16 takeover of duty at the level of corps command, General? That is my
17 question to you. And I should also at the same time like to ask you
18 when --
19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] That is to say, I would like to ask
20 the usher to place on the ELMO a document which represents Exhibit 1,
21 within the framework of the statement of Professor Radinovic, and that has
22 been marked as Exhibit 181.
23 Mr. President, may I just give a technical explanation. The
24 Defence took General Radinovic's statement, and it has been presented as
25 one sole exhibit, with several parts to it, so that when I present and
1 tender each of these parts, I shall be saying which part it is, which part
2 of Exhibit 181 it is. So Exhibit 181 has several parts to it.
3 Mr. President, I should also like to ask, if possible, that the
4 exhibit not be placed on the ELMO, or rather to restrict its viewing and
5 to ensure that it is not seen in the public gallery.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I was going to ask you the
7 reasons for this. Would you like to go into private session to explain?
8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, briefly, please.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Let us move into
10 private session for a brief moment.
11 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We are in open session. Please
24 continue, Mr. Visnjic.
25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. General, what does an official document look like dealing with the
2 handover of duty and takeover of duty?
3 A. I have an example of an official record on the transfer of duty in
4 the army of Republika Srpska, between the representatives of the Main
5 Staff of the VRS and the chief of the General Staff, which was compiled on
6 the 24th of December, 1996. In that document -- the document, in fact,
7 describes what takes place during the transfer of duty, which proceeds on
8 the basis of a plan, plan on the transfer of duty, which is compiled and
9 which contains the basic elements, the participants, and the deadlines of
10 this process which is referred to as the transfer of duty. So there are
11 different points which describe the different activities involved in the
12 transfer of duty, and it stipulates the activities which have not been
13 implemented and the reasons for which they have not been implemented. At
14 the end of the document we have the signatures of the person handing over
15 duty, the person taking over duty, and the person who has appointed the
16 individual and who states and verifies that the transfer of duty has in
17 fact taken place. So this is an example of the official document, and its
18 official title is "Official Record of the Transfer of Duty," and all
19 transfers of duty must be conducted in that fashion.
20 Q. In that sense, what is the 13th of July document lacking?
21 A. The 13th of July document is not an official record on the
22 transfer of duty, which would be the sole relevant document to establish
23 the date when the transfer of duty took place between General Krstic and
24 General Zivanovic. That document is only an information. It is
25 information about the fact that the transfer of duty had allegedly taken
1 place, and as such, that document is not one which can be ranked in the
2 usual standard documents which belong to that group of documents; that is
3 to say, belong to the transference of duty. According to the rules, in
4 the rules and regulations of official correspondence in the army, there is
5 no document which is entitled "Handover Information." The only relevant
6 document is an official record, as it is titled, on the transfer of duty.
7 So the other one is not a binding one at all, or official.
8 Q. General, when we take a look at the first paragraph of the 13th of
9 July document, Exhibit 905, we see that mention is made of the decree of
10 the president of Republika Srpska. How can you comment? What are your
11 comments to that?
12 A. My comments are as follows: The person who processed the document
13 endeavoured to refer to the decree and say "pursuant to the decree," which
14 it was in official force, attempted to base it on the relevant document.
15 Q. General, was there indeed a decree of the president of Republika
16 Srpska? Did it exist on the appointment of General Krstic, Radoslav, on
17 the 13th of July, 1995?
18 A. As is common knowledge and has been ascertained during this trial,
19 the document on the appointment of General Krstic to the post of Drina
20 Corps Commander and the document on relieving of duty, General Zivanovic
21 as Commander of the Drina Corps, on the 13th of July, when the document
22 was processed, the document we're discussing did not exist. The decree of
23 the president of Republika Srpska, on the appointment of Krstic and the
24 relieving of duty of Zivanovic, was compiled on the 14th of July, and it
25 came into force on the 15th of July. That is to say, at the time when
1 this document was processed, the decree that it refers to and which should
2 make it come into force was not in existence.
3 Q. General, General Zivanovic told the investigator of the OTP that
4 he possessed this document because on the basis of that document, certain
5 rights are derived.
6 A. That was my understanding.
7 Q. My first question is: Which are the rights that can be obtained
8 upon the transfer of duty? What rights does that transfer effect?
9 A. A transfer of duty entails various rights and obligations. Those
10 are the disciplinary rights of control and command over certain units and
11 institutions, then also the right to deploy units in combat, that is,
12 command in combat operations, and certain material and financial rights
13 and entitlements that accompany a certain position, and certain personal
14 financial entitlements, various allowances that are attached to various
16 Q. General, on the basis of a document of this kind, is it possible
17 to realise any such rights? I am referring to OTP Exhibit 905. For
18 instance, is it possible on the basis of this document to realise a
20 A. No. On the basis of such a document, it is not possible to
21 realise any material or financial rights, because there is a certain form
22 that has to be filled in by the person taking over duty and which has to
23 be certified by his superior officer, and that document is called a report
24 on the takeover of duty.
25 Q. General, on the basis of this document, is it possible to obtain
1 any other rights and obligations of an individual?
2 A. No. That document cannot be a basis for any of those rights.
3 Q. And finally, General, on the basis of such a document, is it
4 possible to acquire the right of disciplinary command over units?
5 A. No. That right cannot be realised on the basis of this document
7 Q. Thank you. General, how would you explain the fact that
8 General Zivanovic has -- had in his possession the original document in
9 April 2001 in relation to the rules and regulations governing the handling
10 of documents?
11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could I ask the usher to place on
12 the ELMO Defence Exhibit 181 -- from D181, Exhibit 2.
13 Q. General, how is the handling of documents regulated?
14 A. It is clearly regulated how documents should be handled. The
15 first thing we need to know is that combat documents which came into being
16 in wartime are not destroyed. They are permanently stored because they're
17 part of history. Secondly, combat documents, after being archived, cannot
18 be issued in original form for use outside the archive's premises. Only
19 upon permission may a photocopy be issued or a certified copy. And these
20 things are regulated clearly by the rules.
21 So in view of that, the fact that General Zivanovic had the
22 document in his possession shows that the archives were not handled as
23 they should have been handled in accordance with the rules. So
24 unauthorised use was made of the archives.
25 And a second conclusion that one could make is that this document
1 was being used for unofficial purposes, in a manner that is not envisaged
2 by the rules governing the use of archived materials.
3 Q. Is that regulated by Rule 34 of the rules on the protection and
4 use of archived material?
5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could I ask the usher to place on
6 the ELMO article 34, please.
7 Q. General, do you know whether copies of this document were found in
8 units of the Drina Corps?
9 A. In my preparations for this testimony, I studied the letter, the
10 response of the Commander of the 5th Corps of the army of Republika
11 Srpska, which is the legal successor of the Drina Corps, and at the
12 request of the Defence team, for these documents that we are discussing
13 today, and in this letter of response, the Commander of the 5th Corps
14 informs the Defence team that in the archives of the Drina Corps, that is
15 the 5th Corps today, and its subordinated units, no such document was
17 Q. General, is it customary for such notification or information to
18 be sent to commands of subordinate units?
19 A. No, sir, it is not customary for subordinate commands to be sent
20 such a piece of information.
21 Q. Why?
22 A. Because according to the rules of service, it is clearly regulated
23 how a transfer of duty is carried out at the level of operative
24 formations. And a corps is an operative formation, and it is prescribed
25 that the transfer duty has to be attended by the immediately subordinate
1 commanders. And if the transfer of duty was carried out as this document
2 purports to show, then it is quite nonsensical for those who attended that
3 event to be informed about it.
4 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Could I ask the usher, in the
5 meantime to place on the ELMO Exhibit 4 from D181. It is Article 609 of
6 the Rules of Service of the army of Yugoslavia, regulating the transfer of
8 Q. General, Article 609 of the Rules of Service of the army of
9 Yugoslavia is identical to Article 555 of the Rules of Service of the army
10 of Yugoslavia at the time of the events in Srebrenica, which was taken
11 over by the army of Republika Srpska at the time. Am I right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Could you comment on Article 609 as it applies to the specific
14 situation we are discussing?
15 A. In Article 609, as I have already said, it is clearly stipulated
16 that the person organising and carry out the transfer of duty from the
17 call level upwards, that the immediately subordinated units, commanders,
18 and institutions have to be present at that event, and this is a fact of
19 exception, importance for this discussion.
20 And if the transfer of duty is carried out as claimed by
21 General Zivanovic or as this document of the 13th of July wishes to impose
22 as a conclusion, then there is absolutely no need for the personnel body
23 of the corps to inform subordinate units that a transfer of duty had taken
24 place, because they necessarily would have attended that transfer of duty,
25 so that there is no such obligation to inform them about it.
1 Q. And who should such a notification be addressed to, logically?
2 A. The logical thing would be that such an information or such a
3 notification would be sent to those who may be interested but who were not
4 present, and they would be adjacent corps or those operational units of
5 the army of Republika Srpska which acted together with the Drina Corps.
6 And such a notification would also be sent to the person who appointed the
7 new commander and relieved the old commander of his duty. And the most
8 natural thing would be for the Superior Command, that is the Main Staff of
9 the army of Republika Srpska, to be informed about it in a daily combat
10 report, because this is a fact of very great importance.
11 Q. General, do you know whether anywhere -- in any archives of any of
12 the corps of the president of the republic or of the Main Staff, was such
13 a document found in any of those archives? Or to be more specific and
14 clearer, is there any evidence that this document exists anywhere else
15 except in the hands of General Zivanovic?
16 A. I personally have not managed to trace this document. You, as the
17 Defence team, have not given it to me, so I assume that you did not have
18 it in your possession. The Prosecution, during the time I was working on
19 my expert report, also failed to provide me with it. And on the basis of
20 all that, it is my conclusion that in no archives does that document
21 exist. Therefore, solely in the possession of General Zivanovic.
22 Q. General, the OTP Exhibit 905 says that the hitherto commander,
23 Major General Milenko Zivanovic, has been appointed to new duties in the
24 army of Yugoslavia. That is Republika Srpska army.
25 A. Yes, there is such a statement there.
1 Q. On the other hand, in the decree of President Karadzic, which the
2 Prosecution has tendered as Prosecution Exhibit 469, it says that
3 General Zivanovic is being placed at the disposal of the Main Staff of the
4 army of Republika Srpska.
5 Between these two statements there is a very considerable
6 discrepancy. Can you explain that?
7 A. Yes. I can confirm that there is a major discrepancy between
8 those two statements, but why the person who processed the document
9 decided to say that General Zivanovic had been appointed to a new duty
10 rather than as stated in the decree that he was being placed at the
11 disposal of the army, I don't know why he did it. I just know that he
12 falsified the facts regarding appointment. General Zivanovic, in the
13 decree of the president, is being placed at the disposal of the army and
14 is not being appointed to any new duty in the army of Republika Srpska and
15 still less so in the army of Yugoslavia.
16 Q. Also in the third paragraph of this document, OTP 905, it says
17 that Colonel Svetozar Andric was appointed chief of the staff of the
19 General, did Colonel Andric take over duty on the 13th of July?
21 A. In the document, that is, this piece of information on
22 notification, the processor makes a distinction and says that General
23 Krstic took over the post of Corps Commander and that Colonel Andric was
24 nominated or appointed. These two words are identical in our language.
25 So General Krstic, as the Chief of Staff of the Drina Corps,
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 assumes the duty of Corps Commander, a new duty, without handing over the
2 old one, which is simply impermissible. It is contrary to all the
3 regulations. And the head of the personnel service knows very well that
4 according to the rules of service, there's an explicit requirement that it
5 is not possible to take over a new duty before handing over the old duty,
6 the former duty.
7 According to this document, it appears that General Krstic
8 simultaneously held two posts. According to the personnel rules, one and
9 the same person may, in addition to his regular duties, temporarily
10 perform another function; that is, he may represent someone else, but he
11 cannot take over a new duty before handing over the former duty, and this
12 dualism is not permitted in the personnel regulations.
13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will have another
14 maybe 15 minutes or so for the examination, so I don't know whether the
15 Chamber is inclined to have a break now, or should we continue?
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think perhaps it would be
17 preferable to have a break now for lunch. So we'll now have our 50-minute
19 --- Recess taken at 12.52 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 1.47 p.m.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, let us continue and
22 hopefully finish. Oh, yes. I see. We're always prompted by the wish to
23 finish our work.
24 Mr. Visnjic, I think that now you will not be working in a
25 vacuum. You can really continue your examination.
1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Please will you look at OTP Exhibit 905, the document dated the
3 13th of July. General, in your statement of the 26th of May, 2000, you
4 have referred to the stamp, the registration stamp of the corps' dispatch
5 service to be found on this document. Could you briefly comment on this
7 A. This stamp indicates the date and signature of the person who
8 received the document and the time when it was processed. However, the
9 column headed "delivered" has not been filled in, and this does rouse some
10 suspicion as to the reliability of this document. In view of the fact
11 that it was not found in any of the archives, as can be seen from the
12 letter sent to the Defence counsel by the Commander of the 5th Corps VRS
13 of the Bosnian Serb army, one must doubt whether it was sent to
14 subordinate units, and that would explain why this column is empty. This
15 need not necessarily be so, but one can doubt -- have doubts along those
17 Q. General, there are two time indications: One is 2000 hours and
18 the other is 2035. This second figure, 2035, can it be the time when all
19 units to whom this document was sent confirmed that they had received it?
20 A. No, it can't be that at all. It does not indicate the time that
21 the units confirmed they received it. It is simply the time when it was
23 Q. General, I should now like to ask the usher to give to the Trial
24 Chamber Exhibit 181, section Exhibit 5, and could it be placed on the
25 ELMO, please. The English version, please.
1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is a document of
2 the Drina Corps command with the number 05/2-303, dated the 17th of July,
3 1995, headed "Send-off ceremony for the Corps Commander, announcement," or
5 I should like to ask the usher to show Their Honours and the
6 Prosecution the original of this document, please.
7 Q. General, how do you explain the relationship between the document
8 of the 17th of July given to you by the Defence and the document of the
9 13th of July, OTP Exhibit 905?
10 A. I have already commented at length on the document of the 13th of
11 July, and on the basis of those comments, it is possible to infer what
12 probative value I attach to this document in view of the crucial fact that
13 we are seeking to establish, and that is when General Krstic took over the
14 duties of Drina Corps Commander.
15 As for this document dated the 17th of July, I should like to
16 comment on several of its aspects.
17 First of all, it is underlined in the document that the General
18 Staff plans to give a send-off to the Commander of the Drina Corps.
19 Secondly, and this is particularly important, the document is actually
20 signed by General Zivanovic. According to the rules on official
21 correspondence, Article 65 on page 43, there is an explicit provision
22 saying that documents issued by a command have to be signed by the
23 commander of that command.
24 The document with the heading "Drina Corps Headquarters," number
25 so-and-so, confidential number so-and-so, date 17 July, and a brief
1 heading "Send-off for the Commander of the corps," cannot be signed by
2 anyone, and I repeat, anyone other than the Commander of the Drina Corps.
3 It is not possible to use official correspondence for informal
4 matters. Therefore, had General Zivanovic handed over duty as Commander
5 of the Drina Corps, he would not have been able, in the official
6 correspondence between the Corps Command and others, to organise a
7 send-off ceremony for himself. This can only be done by the official
8 Corps Commander or the person authorised by him.
9 This means that this document could only have been signed by
10 General Krstic had he taken over as Corps Commander. Since he didn't sign
11 it, he had not taken over duty as Corps Commander until this date, that
12 is, the 17th of July, which is quite unequivocal pursuant to Article 65 of
13 the Rules on Official Correspondence.
14 Furthermore, the commander or an unauthorised person cannot sign a
15 command document, and this is a command document whereby a certain person
16 is addressing subordinate units in the chain of command of the Drina
18 Another point that has to be borne in mind when analysing this
19 document is that there is no official obligation to send off a commander.
20 There is a military ceremony that is called the handover and takeover of
21 duty, and only within the framework of that military ceremony of transfer
22 of duty can the commander be sent off.
23 Had General Zivanovic handed over duty as the Corps Commander on
24 the 17th of July at 1510 hours when the document was compiled, he could
25 have addressed the commanders of the Drina Corps brigades by telephone but
1 as a private individual and not through a command document as this
2 document undeniably is.
3 Q. General, you said that the transfer of duty is a formal ceremony.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Is that regulated by any rules?
6 A. Yes. It is regulated by the rules of service.
7 Q. The rules of service?
8 A. Yes, and a provision headed "Military Ceremonies." One of those
9 military ceremonies is the transfer of duty.
10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence has no
11 further questions for this witness.
12 Q. General, thank you.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
14 Mr. Visnjic.
15 Mr. Cayley, your witness for the cross-examination.
16 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Cross-examined by Mr. Cayley:
18 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Radinovic.
19 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Prosecutor.
20 MR. CAYLEY: Could you move the ELMO so that I can see the
21 witness. Just move it forward a little bit.
22 Q. Mr. Radinovic, I want to take you back to December of last year
23 and to the evidence that you first gave to this Court, your first expert
24 opinion, and I just want to quote to you something that you said, and you
25 can just confirm whether or not you said it. It's on page 7793 of the
1 LiveNote transcript.
2 You said, "As a troop officer, I spent the first part of my
3 career, up to the 1970s, working in that area; that is to say, when I
4 found my vocation in scientific research work and in teaching. The
5 highest troop duty that I performed was the Commander of the Engineers
7 Do you recall stating that, Mr. Radinovic? You can answer just
8 yes or no. Do you remember saying that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So I'm right in saying that you have never commanded a brigade?
11 A. Yes, you're right.
12 Q. And you've never commanded a division?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you've never commanded a corps, an army corps?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. Your command experience is limited to the battalion level; is that
18 A. Yes, practical experience, but for three years I worked in the
19 operational group of the General Staff where the army's organised, and I
20 was -- led a project for the build-up and the construction of the army and
21 the command system within it, and the public is well aware of that fact in
22 Yugoslavia, and all the officers know that too, those who are at top posts
23 in the army.
24 Q. General, how many handover/takeover ceremonies have you attended
25 yourself for a corps, a division, or a brigade? The handover/takeover
1 ceremony that you described, how many of those have you yourself
3 A. I attended many transfers of duty from -- of the same rank,
4 because the same way at the command of the operative level, duty is
5 transferred as it is in the General Staff, in the centres of the higher
6 schools of learning and so on. The procedure is identical.
7 Q. [Previous translation continues]... that's not the question I
8 asked you. How many handover/takeover ceremonies at the corps, divisional
9 or brigade level, have you attended? Forget the General Staff. Corps,
10 division, brigade; how many have you attended of those handover/takeover
12 A. I did not attend any of the ceremonies of the transfer of duty of
13 Corps Commanders, but I did -- I was present at many occasions of persons
14 of the same rank. And the methodology is identical in which the transfer
15 of duty takes place, and I myself took over and handed over a number of
16 duties in that same way.
17 MR. CAYLEY: Can we have Prosecutor's Exhibit 905 made available?
18 Q. Do you have your report in front of you, General?
19 A. You mean the latest one?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you turn to paragraph 13 of that report?
23 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President and Your Honours, do you have this
24 report in front -- you do.
25 Q. Now, I'm not going to paraphrase your conclusion, because I'm sure
1 we'll end up arguing about what you meant in paragraph 13, so if you could
2 simply read paragraph 13 to the Court and then I'll ask you some
4 A. Could I please not read it out, because my throat is not in the
5 best condition. So unless I have to read it out loud, I would rather not.
6 Q. It's important that you read it out. Let's not play games with
7 each other. Let's just read out paragraph 13. This cross-examination is
8 going to be relatively short and then I'll ask you a few questions.
9 Please read paragraph 13.
10 A. [As read] "I also note that in the section 'incoming stamp,' while
11 the subsection is indicating that the letter of the 13th of July, 1995 had
12 been processed as well when it had been received, have been completed.
13 The subsection of the form labelled 'submitted' is not filled in. In my
14 opinion, this indicates that the document had never been forwarded from
15 the Drina Corps signal department. One could conclude from this fact
16 either that the document was created by General Zivanovic at the time for
17 some unofficial purpose or was created after the fact."
18 MR. CAYLEY: Could you put 905 on the ELMO.
19 Q. General, if you could just point to the box where there is this
20 omission so that Their Honours can see the box that you're referring to.
21 MR. CAYLEY: Put the B/C/S, because he'll understand that.
22 Q. Can you point to the missing line, General, which
23 supports -- okay. So it's the third line on that document. And
24 essentially, because that line is missing, you conclude that this document
25 was created by General Zivanovic for an unofficial purpose or was created
1 after the fact.
2 General, in coming to that conclusion, did you review any of the
3 documents in the possession of the Defence, from the Prosecution exhibits
4 or from the Defence exhibits? Did you look at any other of the hundreds
5 of documents that have been admitted into evidence in this case when you
6 came to this conclusion?
7 A. On various occasions I looked at various documents. For this
8 concrete subject, I just looked at this document and came to the
9 conclusion that one can conclude; not that it was 100 per cent certain,
10 but that one may conclude that. But that does not mean an assertion. A
11 "maybe" is not a definite certainty.
12 MR. CAYLEY: If Prosecutor's Exhibit 431 could be placed in front
13 of the General, and you can put the English version of this on the ELMO.
14 Ms. Krystal, it would be helpful, actually, if the Judges could
15 be -- do they have copies of these documents, because ... No. Okay.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Cayley, we understand your
17 preoccupations and thank you very much, but if we place the document on
18 the ELMO, we would be able to follow, unless there is some detail which
19 you have the intention of demonstrating.
20 MR. CAYLEY: I think in a sense it's actually also important to
21 see the document in the original language, because even though you can't
22 read it, you'll be able to see specifically what I'm speaking about.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think that we can see it on
24 the ELMO.
25 MR. CAYLEY:
1 Q. Now, General, you can see on this particular document, Exhibit
2 431, that the delivery line is missing on this document. Is your
3 assertion here that General Zivanovic created this document for some
4 unofficial purpose or that this document was created after the fact? Is
5 that what you're suggesting in respect of this document as well?
6 A. I claim that there is that omission in this document too, that the
7 provision I spoke about does not exist here and that that is irregular
8 too. Because if there is a column "delivered," then it should be filled
9 in. I found the same situation in many other documents where this
10 omission exists, and I am just pointing out this degree of irregularity
11 that exists.
12 Q. General, you stated in your report that that omission indicated
13 that the document was created for some unofficial purpose or after the
14 fact. This is a document dated 8th of July, signed by General Zivanovic,
15 concerning events in and around Srebrenica on the 8th of July. Are you
16 stating that this particular document, based on your reasoning, was also
17 created for some unofficial purpose or after the fact? Is that what
18 you're suggesting?
19 A. No, that is not what I'm suggesting, because the document has all
20 the other features making it a relevant document for the events it refers
21 to, whereas the 13th of July one indicates the facts, and many of its
22 contents -- many of the contents can be challenged, and that is just one
23 more reason for me to contest that document and to challenge it.
24 MR. CAYLEY: If we could have Prosecutor's Exhibit 462. And
25 again, Mr. Usher, the final page in English of that document with the
2 Q. General, this is a document dated the 13th of July of 1995, again
3 signed by General Zivanovic, and again you can see the final line of the
4 signals department stamp has not been completed. And again, I ask you the
5 same question: Can you conclude from this fact - and I'm quoting directly
6 from your report - do you conclude from this fact that this particular
7 order was created by General Zivanovic at the time for some unofficial
8 purpose or was created after the fact? And this is a document to which
9 you've already referred, and you never stated anything in your evidence at
10 the time about that particular stamp, just to remind you of your previous
12 A. In answer to your previous question, Mr. Prosecutor, I already
13 said that there are quite a number of documents which I personally came
14 across where this column, "delivered," was empty, so I'm sure you would be
15 able to find a lot more documents if we were to delve into them. But what
16 I said was that many elements of the 13th of July document are such that
17 they indicate that it is an irregular document, and this is just one more
18 reason which points to that fact. This document, the one you've just
19 mentioned and shown, does not have all those additional other elements,
20 and so that column was not sufficient reason for me to reject it as
21 irrelevant. But there is a certain degree of irregularity, the fact that
22 this column was not been filled in. That stands.
23 Q. If we could now move to Prosecutor's Exhibit 830. Now, General,
24 this is an order dated the 11th of July of 1995, again signed by Major
25 General Zivanovic, and it's another conclusion that you reached which
1 actually interests me in respect of this document, because you stated in
2 respect to Exhibit 905, because the delivery section on that document was
3 incomplete, you stated that this indicated that the document had never
4 been forwarded from the Drina Corps' signal department. Do you recall
5 stating that in your report? I've just read directly from your report.
6 A. You needn't read it. I remember very well what I said. I just
7 said that this particular fact, when it is borne in mind, and the fact
8 that the document was not uncovered in any of the archives either of
9 subordinate or superior units of the Drina Corps, then we can conclude or
10 one can have suspicions that this was sent out at all. One can doubt
11 whether this was sent out at all.
12 So what I stated, I stated within the context of the letter, the
13 response of the Commander of the VRS, 5th Corps, at the request of the
15 MR. CAYLEY: Can we just go into closed session for a moment,
16 please, Mr. President. I want to refer to the evidence of a witness, and
17 if I say what I'm going to say, it will identify him, so ...
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Let us move into private
20 [Private session]
13 page 9757 – redacted – private session.
13 page 9758 – redacted – private session.
13 page 9759 – redacted – private session.
13 page 9760 – redacted – private session.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 [Open session]
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Cayley, we're in open
3 session. Please proceed.
4 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness can be shown Prosecutor's Exhibit
5 463. Could you move it up, please, a bit, Mr. Usher. No, sorry, up so
6 the writing at the bottom of the order can be seen. That's the important
8 Your Honours, just for a reference point, this is the first order
9 from General Krstic of the 13th of July, 1995. It's the first one that we
10 know about.
11 Q. Now, General, at the bottom of that document you will see --
12 although the stamp is illegible, you will see the marks of the signals
13 encryptor from the Drina Corps signals department, and again, you can see
14 that the third line of that particular stamp is missing, the delivery
16 Now, General Krstic --
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Cayley, I do apologise, but
18 may we have the B/C/S placed on the ELMO for us to be able to have a look
19 at that too?
20 MR. CAYLEY: And if you -- Your Honours, it's actually, I know,
21 quite hard to orient yourself here, but if you were to have a document
22 with a stamp, which had a stamp on it where you could see the stamp marks,
23 you will see that this actually accords exactly. It's just a stamp -- the
24 ink from the stamp is not legible because we only ever received this
25 document as a photographic copy.
1 Q. General, this is an order from General Krstic, and again based on
2 your reasoning, the fact that the delivery section of this document is
3 incomplete, are you suggesting --
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, I see you rising.
5 Are you on your feet? Do you wish to make an objection?
6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, Mr. President. If
7 this is Exhibit 463, so far we have not received this. Any of the copies
8 of the document with a stamp. Now, it is up to us to imagine whether that
9 is a stamp or there isn't, but I'm quite sure that the copies that we
10 received and the copies that are in the court files do not have a stamp.
11 So the question is: Are we to imagine that the stamp was placed on the
12 document at one point? But I'm quite sure what we received as the Defence
13 team, that none of our copies have a visible stamp. This looks as if
14 there might be a stamp, but what we received contains absolutely no
15 visible stamp. Otherwise, we did examine this document.
16 I don't want to challenge something that Mr. Cayley is saying, but
17 I just want to make matters clear. On none of the copies that we have in
18 our possession, that we received, do we have a visible stamp, is the stamp
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but I think that was what
21 Mr. Cayley was saying, that they had a copy and not the original and that
22 we can imagine the ink of the stamp being there, because they received a
23 copy. But there are always these three lines - received, processed, and
24 delivered - with the three columns. And as the photocopy lost the ink
25 part of the stamp, we only see the lines, the two lines. I think that
1 that's what you were saying, Mr. Cayley, is it not?
2 MR. CAYLEY: That's exactly ... I'm sorry, I've obviously created
3 some confusion. We received this document in its current state. We have
4 never seen this document with visible stamp lines on it, and exactly as
5 you said, I was asking the Court to imagine that at some stage there was a
6 stamp around it, because the lines on here are identical to the lines of
7 script writing that you see in stamps on other documents.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So, Mr. Visnjic, is that what
9 you wish to remark for the record, Mr. Visnjic?
10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I know that
11 there is no copy with a visible stamp. It is up to us to imagine it. I'm
12 just saying that we don't have any such copy.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, then.
14 Mr. Cayley, you may proceed.
15 MR. CAYLEY:
16 Q. Now, General, you can see from this document that the third line,
17 the delivery section, is missing. And before I ask you a question, I just
18 want to tell you what General Krstic said about this document. He was
19 asked the following question:
20 Q. If we could go to Exhibit 463. This is an order
21 dated 13 July, time stamped 2030 hours by
22 Major General Radoslav Krstic, commander, entitled
23 Command of the Drina Corps. General, where -- first
24 of all, is this a genuine order that you signed?
25 A. Yes.
1 General, are you suggesting in respect of this document, signed by
2 General Krstic, that the fact that the line -- the delivery line is
3 missing, that again this document was never forwarded from the Drina Corps
4 to its subordinate commands? Is that what you're suggesting?
5 A. You can go on for three days asking me the same question, but
6 there are several elements.
7 Q. General, I'm asking you: In respect of this document, based on
8 your reasoning, are you saying that this document that General Krstic has
9 said is genuine was never sent out from the Drina Corps? It's your
10 reasoning, sir.
11 A. All the other elements of this document, except for the omission
12 of the third column, speak in favour of its authenticity, and there's no
13 reason to doubt it, the more so as this document was found in the archives
14 of the Drina Corps, the subordinate and superior units.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Cayley, I'm sorry for
16 interrupting you.
17 General Radinovic, was there a rule saying that the three lines of
18 the stamp - that is, received, processed, and delivered - needed to be
19 filled, filled in?
20 A. In the rules on official correspondence, it says that all the
21 columns have to be filled in, if not on the telegram, then in the delivery
22 book, and probably for telegrams in which the third column was not filled
23 in. In the delivery book there must be a record of when it was
24 delivered. This is an indication that doesn't have great specific weight,
25 but it does lead me to doubt the authenticity of the document, but
1 particularly so as it was not found in any of the archives of the Drina
2 Corps or the subordinate or superior units.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but General, do you see any
4 difference between the established rules, the rules in the regulations,
5 and the practice that you are witnessing? Take an example: You say that
6 in general, according to the rules, all three lines have to be filled in,
7 but you are just about to observe that there are many documents in which
8 all the lines were not filled in. What does this difference mean for
9 you? First of all, is there a difference between what should have been
10 done and what was done; and if so, then what does this mean for you? What
11 does it signify?
12 A. Obviously there is a difference. Both of us can see that,
13 Mr. President. But I cannot be happy because of these irregularities in
14 official correspondence. It is my duty to draw attention to those
15 irregularities. How important these are in each individual case, it is up
16 to our judgement, but this is one of the elements that prompted me to say
17 that I had certain doubts regarding the authenticity of the document, as
18 it is not possible to find it in any of the archives of the Drina Corps or
19 any other units.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, General. You said that you
21 are not satisfied in seeing that all the columns were not filled, but
22 you're not satisfied as a professor. Would it be right to put it that
23 way? Yes or no.
24 A. Not quite, but yes, as a professor as well.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] As you can see, General
1 Zivanovic signed many documents, General Krstic himself signed documents,
2 other people have signed documents where the third line was not filled
3 in. It's not you, but if I were to ask those persons whether they were
4 satisfied with the work done in view of the conditions, would you concede
5 that their answer might be yes, that these people were satisfied?
6 A. Yes.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Can we agree, then, that there
8 is always a discrepancy between theory and practice, or between the law,
9 the rule, and the application of the law?
10 A. Not always, but there is a difference.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] It's possible to have such a
13 A. Yes, quite possible, but that difference should always -- one
14 should always seek to eliminate it, to make practice correspond to theory
15 as much as possible.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for your
17 assistance, Professor and General.
18 Continue, Mr. Cayley, please.
19 MR. CAYLEY: I'll move on from this direction.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Mike, please.
21 MR. CAYLEY: I'll move on from this missing portion of the stamp
22 now, Mr. President. I think I've probably exhausted the point. But there
23 is one more question I want to ask you about the stamps, and if the
24 witness could be shown Prosecutor's Exhibit 910.
25 Prosecutor's Exhibit 910, Mr. President, Your Honours, are two
1 documents alongside each other. One is the document Prosecutor's Exhibit
2 905 that we've just recently received from General Zivanovic, and the
3 other document is Prosecutor's Exhibit 463, which is the document we've
4 just been referring to, Krstic's first order on the 13th of July.
5 Madam Krystal, could you give those to the Judges, because I think
6 they will see better on hard copies the point.
7 Q. General, do you have the Serbian version of this in front of you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, General, what I want you to concentrate on on this document
10 are the stamps at the bottom.
11 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. Usher, could you move the document across.
12 If we could have -- if you could pan the camera out, technical
13 booth, please, so that both documents can be seen by the public, so that
14 essentially both stamps are in view. That's perfect, perfect. Thank
16 Q. Now, General, we have had these two documents forensically
17 examined and the handwriting expert has concluded that the manuscript
18 writing in the two stamps is possibly written by the same person. That's
19 Prosecutor's Exhibit 909. The only reason that they came to the
20 conclusion of possible is because document 463 is a photographic copy and
21 it's very difficult to carry out forensic examination on a photographic
22 copy as opposed to an original. But they did, within the body of their
23 results, state that one of the conclusions that could be reached was that
24 the relevant entries and signatures on both documents have been written by
25 the same person.
1 Now, General, can you tell me at what time the document signed by
2 Colonel Jovicic was received by the communication centre? What time was
3 it received? That's the document on the left.
4 A. Yes. At 2000 hours on the 13th of July.
5 Q. Can you tell me what time the document on the right was received
6 by the communication centre, if you can read it? It's very faint.
7 A. I think it is the same. I think it is the same time, 2000 hours.
8 Q. So Krstic's first order was received by the communication centre
9 at 2000 hours on the 13th of July. And I won't make you read this, but
10 the document on the left, the Jovicic document, was processed at 2035
11 hours and the Krstic order was processed at 2030 hours.
12 Now, General, you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that it's
13 entirely logical that the document notifying the command of Zivanovic's
14 retirement and Krstic's first order as the Corps Commander would be
15 received at the same time in the Drina Corps signals department, wouldn't
17 A. I don't see any absolute complementarity between these two
18 documents, the more so as this is done by the personnel officer; and this
19 one to the right is signed by the deputy commander, or rather the Chief of
20 Staff of the Drina Corps at the time. So I see no link why the two should
21 complement one another, except for the fact that they arrived at the same
23 Q. Can you read out to the Judges the signature box on Prosecutor's
24 Exhibit 463, what it says? Can you read from "commandant" downwards?
25 A. "Commander, Major General Radoslav Krstic."
1 MR. CAYLEY: Let's move on.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Before moving on, I have a
3 question. General Radinovic, you see on the right this order from General
4 Krstic which has a stamp without a stamp. On your left you have the same
5 stamp, which has been filled in. Would it be possible for you to imagine
6 what was written in hand and forget the lines of the stamp for a moment;
7 and if so, what would be the result? Imagine if there were no lines on
8 the stamp on the left-hand document.
9 A. I did not understand the question, Mr. President. On the
10 left-hand side we have a document --
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm sure it must be my fault.
12 I'll be more direct. If you were to delete the lines of the stamp on the
13 left-hand document, would what you obtain be the same, more or less the
14 same, or quite different from what you see on the right-hand document,
15 where you have elements that were filled in, framed, that we don't see?
16 Do you understand now?
17 A. Yes, I understand. If the lines were to be deleted and if we were
18 to compare the two, perhaps they would be more or less identical, but all
19 the other elements of these two documents are quite different. The
20 elements of the left-hand document point to very serious irrelevance, and
21 on the right-hand side there's no reason to have such doubts.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. But if we reason in
23 that way, to say that it is quite possible to imagine on the right the
24 lines of a stamp which were deleted, could it be said that yes, indeed,
25 there was a stamp that was deleted through repeated photocopying or
1 something like that?
2 A. I'm not an expert for that kind of an opinion, but -- so I can't
3 be very precise in my answer.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But nevertheless, it is quite
5 possible to see this with our own eyes.
6 A. Yes. The signatures are the same on the right- and left-hand
7 document, so as far as that is concerned, one could indeed say what you
8 are saying. But something else is also possible.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very much
10 for your clarification.
11 Mr. Cayley, please continue.
12 MR. CAYLEY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll move on.
13 Q. General, paragraph 6 of your report, which I'll read out to the
14 Court --
15 A. I'm afraid I'm not hearing very well. I didn't hear the beginning
16 of your question.
17 Q. Do you hear me now?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Paragraph 6 of your report, where you state:
20 "The fact that General Zivanovic had the original document rather
21 than a verified transcript or photocopy indicates, at best, that the
22 document was handled in an irregular manner, and, at worst, that the
23 document may have been created at or after the fact for an unofficial
25 Now, General, what I'm particularly interested in is the second
1 conclusion that you've reached, that the document may have been created at
2 or after the fact for an unofficial purpose.
3 General, what unofficial purpose are you referring to?
4 A. I cannot answer that question. All I said here was in the context
5 of the handover and takeover of duty and the takeover of duties as Corps
6 Commander. For that purpose, this document cannot be considered
7 relevant. So it may have been prepared for some other purpose. Now, for
8 what purpose, that is something I really cannot tell you. But that
9 document cannot be used for this purpose, because in my prior testimony, I
10 have given the reasons for this assertion, and I can repeat them if you
12 Q. General, might that unofficial purpose be for Zivanovic to exclude
13 himself from criminal responsibility for the acts that are the subject of
14 the indictment in this case?
15 A. I cannot answer that question. I'm sorry, I really can't.
16 Q. General, look at it from the point of view of common sense. Just
17 look at it logically. Would it be logical to assert that Zivanovic, by
18 stating -- by saying that he was relieved of command on the 11th, and this
19 document was produced on the 13th, was attempting to state that he was not
20 in command when all of these criminal acts took place? Would that be
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic.
23 MR. CAYLEY:
24 Q. Is that an unofficial purpose that you're referring to?
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Cayley.
1 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, before Mr. Visnjic interrupts me, this
2 is what the witness said in his report. He's stating that this document
3 was created for an unofficial purpose. If he makes that kind of
4 statement, he's got to say what kind of unofficial purpose he's referring
5 to; otherwise, it's simply a comment that's pulled out of the sky. It
6 doesn't mean a thing.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In any event, we're going to
8 hear Mr. Visnjic's objection and then you can continue.
9 Mr. Visnjic.
10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President --
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Do not forget that we have an
12 expert witness here. So testimony about hypotheses is quite possible.
13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely so, Mr. President. But I
14 think the witness was quite clear. If it was not for an official purpose,
15 it was for an unofficial purpose. We are now entering into speculation,
16 which the Prosecutor could lead questions to if someone else was being
17 tried. But I would not like this case or this examination to seek out
18 something else that might be used in another case or another trial.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In any event, the General is
20 going to answer the question.
21 Mr. Cayley, continue, please. Perhaps you could remind the
22 witness of your question.
23 MR. CAYLEY:
24 Q. The unofficial purpose to which you refer in your report, that
25 could be essentially Zivanovic producing this document to exculpate
1 himself from responsibility for the criminal acts that are the subject of
2 this indictment, could it not?
3 A. I cannot judge that. I just don't know that.
4 Q. General, are you aware that there were a significant number of
5 murders in this case which took place on both the 12th and the 13th of
6 July of 1995?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So you'd agree with me that even if Zivanovic had created this
9 document to exculpate himself from criminal events, he would not have
10 prevented himself from being responsible for what happened on the 12th and
11 up until the 13th when he was relieved of command, would he?
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic.
13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the same question and
14 the same objection.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The same ruling of the Chamber,
16 but let me say something else. Mr. Visnjic, I am quite content now,
17 because you will always have the opportunity to make some additional
19 So please continue, Mr. Cayley.
20 MR. CAYLEY:
21 Q. General, let me repeat the question. If the unofficial purpose
22 for which this document was created was to relieve himself of criminal
23 responsibility for events that are the subject of this indictment, by
24 virtue of this document, Zivanovic would not have exculpated himself from
25 events that happened on the 12th and on the 13th, up until when he was
1 relieved of command, would it, General?
2 A. If it is not possible to establish on the basis of this document
3 when he handed over duty, then your submission would be correct, but
4 clearly it cannot be established on the basis of this document.
5 Q. You'd agree with me, Mr. Radinovic, that if Mr. Zivanovic had any
6 sense at all, he would have dated this document --
7 A. I can't hear the translation. I'm sorry, I can't hear the
9 Q. General, you'd agree with me that if General Zivanovic had any
10 sense at all, he would have dated this document the 10th or 11th of July,
11 1995, if indeed this document is contrived, as you suggest?
12 A. First of all, I did not say that the document was contrived or
13 falsified, but I said that there were certain grounds to suspect its
14 authenticity, but I did not allege --
15 Q. General --
16 A. -- that it was a forgery because that is not something I cannot
18 Q. General, you state that this document may have been created at or
19 after the fact for an unofficial purpose. That is what you said.
20 A. Yes, but that doesn't mean that it is a falsification. If it was
21 compiled for an unofficial purpose, it doesn't mean that it is a
22 falsification that -- for which somebody is liable. It could have been
23 compiled for many unofficial purposes and those could be many more than
24 those that you have mentioned, but it is not up to me to say why it was
1 Q. All right, General. Let me use your exact wording so there is no
2 misunderstanding. If General Zivanovic had created this document after
3 the fact for an unofficial purpose, would he not have dated this document
4 the 10th or the 11th of July of 1995 if he sought to avoid responsibility
5 for the events which are the subject of this indictment?
6 A. Simply that would be impossible, because on the 11th he entered
7 Srebrenica together with the other officers of the Main Staff and the
8 Drina Corps, and such an allegation would have been nonsense.
9 Q. You're not answering the question, General, and --
10 A. I cannot answer a question that implies an erroneous answer. Your
11 question is simply leading me to give the wrong answer.
12 Q. General, you have stated that this document potentially was
13 created for an unofficial purpose, have you not?
14 A. Possibly. I said possibly. I didn't say it was. I said it may
15 have been.
16 Q. And you'd agree with me that one of those unofficial purposes
17 could be for Zivanovic to exculpate himself from criminal responsibility?
18 A. I simply would not agree with you, because this document doesn't
19 have that probative value to be able to relieve him of responsibility. So
20 I don't believe that he had that motive in mind.
21 Q. Let's move on, General, to paragraph 7.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Cayley, before you go on to
23 your next question:
24 General, when you say that this document could have been created
25 for official purposes, when you wrote that down for -- when you said it
1 may have been created for an unofficial purpose, did you say that in the
2 vacuum or did you have something in mind, an example of one such
3 unofficial purpose, and if so, could you give us an example of such an
4 unofficial purpose?
5 A. An unofficial purpose can be many. Possibly he wanted to show --
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me, General. I'm not
7 asking you whether it's possible. I'm asking you, when you wrote this
8 expression, when you wrote this down, did you have any content in your
9 mind, or not, as an example of an unofficial purpose? And if you had such
10 an example in mind, what was it?
11 A. No. No. There was no assumption or suspicion as to a certain
12 type of unofficial purpose. The point is that the intention of the
13 document was to show how the handover of duty was carried out for official
14 purposes. And whoever created it knows that it cannot play that role. It
15 can only be used for an unofficial purpose.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In any event, in your --
17 according to you, this expression "unofficial purposes" -- so you have
18 absolutely no example -- you had no example in mind when you wrote that
19 down? It's an empty expression?
20 A. It's simply the opposite to what the aspiration was. The
21 intention of the document was to show how a transfer of duty was carried
22 out, and the document in its present form cannot be used for that official
23 purpose. So the opposite to that is an unofficial purpose, and I didn't
24 enter into any further deliberation as to that unofficial purpose.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Cayley, please
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
2 MR. CAYLEY: I'll move on, Mr. President.
3 Q. Paragraph 7 of your report. Do you hear me, General? Do you hear
4 me, General?
5 A. Yes. Yes, I hear you.
6 Q. And that particular conclusion which raises questions about the
7 document is that copies of the document could not be located in the
8 archives of the Drina Corps or any of the 12 inferior commands to which it
9 was allegedly sent.
10 MR. CAYLEY: And if we could place, please, I think it's Defence
11 Exhibit 181/3 -- it's part of Mr. Radinovic's report. If you wish, in
12 order to save time ...
13 Does the witness have a copy in front of him? Because I'd like
14 this to be on the ELMO, if possible. It's attachment 3. I think
15 Prosecutor's -- Defence Exhibit 181/3.
16 Mr. Visnjic is going to assist me. Thank you.
17 A. I found it, yes.
18 MR. CAYLEY: Could the documents be placed on the ELMO so that the
19 Judges can see it.
20 This, Your Honours, is the letter from the successor corps to the
21 Drina Corps, indicating that they couldn't find Prosecutor's Exhibit 905
22 in the archive.
23 Q. General, who is this letter signed by?
24 A. I'm not an expert, but it says "Svetozar Andric, General Major,"
25 and the signature.
1 Q. And, General, who was the individual who was made chief of staff
2 of the Drina Corps by virtue of the document which we're discussing today,
3 905, Radenko Jovicic, the document signed by the chief of personnel and
4 legal affairs? Who was made chief of staff of the Drina Corps by virtue
5 of this document on the 13th of July?
6 A. He was appointed afterwards but by decree of the 14th of July.
7 The letter just informs that he has been assigned to the post, nominated.
8 Colonel Svetozar Andric was now General Major of the 5th Corps of the army
9 of Republika Srpska.
10 Q. So the man who was allegedly - I use the word "allegedly." It's
11 your word - was appointed chief of staff of the Drina Corps on the 13th of
12 July, 1995, was the same man who was responsible for the search for this
13 document in the Drina Corps and 5th Corps archives?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. We can move on now to paragraph 15 of your report.
16 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, what time do you wish to go on until
17 today, because I haven't --
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We would like to finish today,
19 get through it today. Now, how much more time do you need?
20 MR. CAYLEY: I'm looking at the Judges and trying to read the
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] If necessary, we'll take a
24 MR. CAYLEY: I think I have awhile longer yet. I'm not going to
25 draw this out too long, but I think there are a number of questions that I
1 have to ask. I'm not going to finish within half an hour. That's my
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. As you can see that
4 regardless of their ages, the Judges are very fresh. So we're going to
5 take a break, and it is our proposal that we complete the testimony
6 today. We are going to undertake to organise our work in that fashion.
7 Mr. Visnjic, do you have any idea at this point in time how much
8 more time you will need for your additional questions?
9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] A very short space of time. I'll do
10 my best to reduce it to a minimum. Five to ten minutes at the most.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Can I then ask you
12 to ask General Krstic how he feels about continuing after a break, a
13 half-hour break, and then to resume the hearing for another one hour at
14 the latest?
15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I think the General agrees,
16 Mr. President.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. I think that we can
18 draw the conclusion that if we finish today, we won't be back tomorrow.
19 So there is always compensation. There's a good side to everything.
20 So let us take a half-hour break, and we'll try and organise our
21 work, to be efficient and effective, and if necessary, we'll go on for an
22 hour and a half, but we will try and finish within the space of one hour.
23 Having said that, we adjourn for 30 minutes.
24 --- Recess taken at 3.08 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 3.40 p.m.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Cayley, you may proceed.
2 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Mr. Usher, if the witness could be given 181/5.
4 Q. Now, General, you recall this is the announcement of the send-off
5 ceremony for the Corps Commander, and I'll read to you paragraph 15 of
6 your report, where you state:
7 "I find it significant that in the letter of 17 July 1995, General
8 Zivanovic refers to himself as the Corps Commander, not the former or
9 ex-Corps Commander. In addition, the fact he authored this letter rather
10 than General Krstic further indicates that as of 17 July 1995, he remained
11 the Commander of the Drina Corps. Otherwise one would not be announcing
12 one's own send-off party. Such an announcement would be made by the new
14 Now, General, I'd just like you to read on this document from
15 where it says, "Thank you for coming" until where it says "Zivanovic."
16 Could you just read that to the Judges, please.
17 A. I've lost it. Just give me a moment to find it again.
18 Q. Could you read it from where it says, "Thank you for coming,"
19 ending "Zivanovic," three lines, three very short lines.
20 A. "Thank you for coming, General Major Milenko Zivanovic."
21 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could now be shown D96. If that
22 exhibit could just be briefly placed on the ELMO.
23 Your Honours, this is a teletype order, so it's an order that had
24 actually been encrypted in the signals room, and I just want you to see
25 that order. And you can see the three lines where it says, "Hvala na
1 odzivu. Thank you for coming, General Major Milenko Zivanovic," which is
2 what General Radinovic just read out. And that's the document of the 17th
3 of July.
4 If the witness could now be shown D96.
5 Q. Now, General, I've chosen this particular order - it's the Defence
6 Exhibit - because again it's a teletype order. And do you see that this
7 order says within it -- it's an order from Zivanovic. Does this
8 particular order state explicitly, "I hereby order"?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And could you read out the last three lines from "commander"
12 A. "Commander Major General Milenko Zivanovic."
13 MR. CAYLEY: And very briefly, if Their Honours could be shown the
14 format of that order, the original version, on the ELMO, the last three
15 lines. If you could bring it down a bit. Yes. That's fine.
16 If we could now move on to the next exhibit in this series, which
17 is 831.
18 Q. Now, General, does this particular document explicitly state the
19 word "order" within it?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. CAYLEY: And if, perhaps, Mr. Usher, you could move it up. We
22 see the word there. And if we go over to the next page.
23 Q. And what is the form of the signature of Milenko Zivanovic? How
24 does he describe himself in this order?
25 A. "Commander, Major General Milenko Zivanovic."
1 Q. Let's go back to 815, which was the original document that we
2 looked at.
3 MR. CAYLEY: Do we have 1815? Put my version on the ELMO if it's
4 been mislaid. As long as the General has the original version. Yes.
5 Q. General, how does Zivanovic describe himself in this document?
6 What does it say after "Thank you for coming"?
7 A. "General Major Milenko Zivanovic."
8 Q. It doesn't say "commander," does it, General?
9 A. But I commented previously on this document, and there are many
10 elements which testify to the fact that he was still the commander.
11 Q. This is a telegraph order in exactly the same form as the two
12 previous documents you've looked at. In this document, does Zivanovic
13 describe himself as the Commander of the Drina Corps? Does he sign off on
14 this document as the commander?
15 A. Here he wishes to leave the impression that he's not Commander of
16 the Drina Corps. That's his intention, to leave this impression, whereas
17 he uses all the prerogatives as Corps Commander in order to communicate in
18 the chain of command. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been able to
20 Q. General, this order was typed out in the communication centre of
21 the Drina Corps. Don't you think that the signalman who typed this out
22 knew at the time who the Commander of the Drina Corps was?
23 A. The signalman perhaps did not know, but his chief had to know who
24 the Commander of the Drina Corps was. He must have known.
25 Q. General, do you see the word "Order" in this document as you've
1 seen in the two previous documents?
2 A. A large number of combat documents do not have the word "order,"
3 written with the word "order," just the combat directives for combat
5 Q. General, do you see that this order says, "Thank you for coming"?
6 Do you see that?
7 A. Yes. Yes, I see it.
8 Q. You're a military man. You're an expert. Are you suggesting to
9 this courtroom that a military order, an order given by a general thanks
10 people for coming? Is that what you're suggesting to the Court?
11 A. He's expressing his thanks for coming, because that's what he says
12 explicitly. "Thank you for coming." That is the term used, the phrase
14 Q. General, can you show me any other order which Zivanovic signed,
15 any order, where he thanked the people to whom the order was addressed,
16 where he thanked them for carrying out an order in a written combat
17 order? Can you show me anywhere in any other document where
18 General Zivanovic has offered thanks to a particular unit for carrying out
19 an order in this fashion?
20 A. There are no such documents, and with this document, he wishes to
21 leave the impression of not being the commander. Why, I don't know. And
22 everything that goes before that testifies to the fact that he is the
23 commander on the 17th.
24 Q. Read the first line of this document underneath "July 17, 1995."
25 A. "Command of the Main Staff of VRS plans to send off General
1 Milenko Zivanovic in an organised manner on the -- July 1995, on the 20th
2 of July, 1995."
3 Q. Let me read out the English version, General:
4 "The Bosnian Serb army General Staff plans to give a send-off to
5 the hitherto Corps Commander Major General Milenko Zivanovic at noon on
6 July 20, 1995, in motel 'Jela' located in Han Kram."
7 This, General, is an announcement for a party, isn't it? That's
8 what this document is. It's not an order, it's not an instruction, it's
9 an invitation, isn't it, General?
10 A. No, this is not an invitation, because the transfer of duty is a
11 military ceremony, a military ceremony, an official ceremony, therefore,
12 at which the handover and takeover of duty between two commanders is
13 conducted, and this is an invitation to that ceremony. And it is signed
14 in such a way as to gain the impression that it is a mere send-off.
15 In military correspondence, this form of communication does not
16 exist with the use of a stamp, a heading, the command corps. Only the
17 Commander of the corps is entitled to use that, nobody else. If Zivanovic
18 were not commander at that time, then the person who was the commander
19 would have signed it.
20 MR. CAYLEY: Bearing in mind the time, Mr. President, I'm going to
21 move on quickly.
22 Q. General, have you reviewed any of the oral testimony that has
23 taken place in this courtroom since you were last here? Have you reviewed
24 any of it?
25 A. Since my last testimony, no. Since April. I was here on the 2nd
1 of April.
2 Q. Now, General, you're aware, are you not, that General Krstic has
3 already stated that on the 13th of July of 1995, in the afternoon, early
4 evening, he went to the Vlasenica command post? And let me very briefly
5 read to you what he said about that particular meeting. And these are
6 questions I believe were put by Mr. Petrusic. It's at 6225.
7 Q. Who do you find there at the Vlasenica command
9 And this is on the 13th of July.
10 A. At the Vlasenica command post, like on the previous
11 day, I found the duty officers, the operations
12 duty officer, a number of other officers, and a
13 number of civilians who were there as part of their
14 military obligation. After awhile, General Mladic
15 arrived together with General Zivanovic from the
16 direction of Bratunac and Milici, and upon their
17 arrival, General Mladic orders that all of the
18 officers and civilian employees who were there
19 should assemble. The people who were there in the
20 corridor of the Corps Command.
21 Do you recall reading that testimony, General?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you know who Major Pavle Golic is, General?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. Who is he?
1 A. He's one of the intelligence officers in the Drina Corps
3 Q. General, this is what he said about that meeting on the 13th or
4 14th of July:
5 "General Mladic, he assembled all people present at the Drina
6 Corps headquarters in Vlasenica in a sort of conference hall, and there he
7 announced that from that day, General Krstic was the Commander of the
8 Drina Corps and General Zivanovic was to retire. He also appointed
9 Colonel Andric as the Chief of Staff."
10 Now, this is a man who was a officer in the JNA, an officer in the
11 VRS. He was an eyewitness to these events. Do you not think that he
12 would know better than you when General Krstic became Commander of the
13 Drina Corps and when General Zivanovic retired?
14 A. Mr. Prosecutor, even a squad leader knows that the Commander of
15 the Main Staff of Republika Srpska cannot change the degree -- the decree
16 of the President of Republika Srpska as a Supreme Commander. And we need
17 nobody's testimony. That is inadmissible. And General Mladic would
18 certainly not have done that, and he did not do that.
19 General Mladic lined up part of the staff, only that part which
20 was located at the command post at Vlasenica. As General Krstic went to
21 command the Operative Group at Zepa, he told them that he -- he intimated
22 that he would be the future commander, but neither Mladic nor anybody else
23 has the right to change the decree by the president of the republic.
24 Mladic could not have said, "He is the commander as of today," as the
25 decree had not been published. And we have already become convinced
1 here. I think that the decree was compiled on the 14th and that the first
2 day, when it came into force, was the 15th. When he could take over
3 command was the 15th.
4 Q. So when you say that Mladic intimated that Krstic would be the
5 future commander, you acknowledged that in fact the announcement that
6 Krstic was the new Drina Corps Commander was made at that meeting in
7 Vlasenica on the 13th of July, 1995?
8 A. Yes, so this was known even before that, that personnel changes at
9 such a high level are made according to plan. These are not things that
10 are done overnight. There is no dispute over that. General Krstic, as a
11 Chief of Staff, was a candidate for the commander position. He was
12 successful in his work and it was quite logical for him to be the future
13 Corps Commander.
14 Q. General, I want to now talk to you a little bit about some facts
15 which you address, and not your expert opinion; simply factual evidence
16 concerning your visit to Zivanovic. Now, you recall that you stated that
17 when you went to see General Zivanovic, you went with General Miletic, and
18 at the time there was snow on the ground. Do you recall stating that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And just for your information, that accords exactly with what
21 General Zivanovic told us. Now, can you tell the Court once again the
22 town where you met with General Zivanovic in February of the year 2000?
23 A. In Valjevo.
24 Q. Are you aware that officers from the Office of the Prosecutor met
25 with General Zivanovic in exactly the same location in Valjevo?
1 A. I read that in General Zivanovic's interview in several newspapers
2 which are published in Yugoslavia, and I was also told that by the Defence
4 Q. Now, General, you stated to this courtroom today that you had
5 counted on more contacts with General Zivanovic, contacts that never took
6 place, for reasons that were unknown to you. Do you recall saying that
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, if Zivanovic was in Valjevo in February of 2000 and he's
10 still in Valjevo, a small town, as you describe it now, how is it possible
11 that you were unable to contact him after that initial contact in February
13 A. I did not have any direct contact with him. I contacted him
14 through General Miletic, and General Zivanovic did not show any interest
15 in seeing me again. I did not insist on further encounters, because I
16 left it up to him, his own free will. He didn't want to have any contact
17 with me. Now, why, I really don't know, because there was absolutely no
18 reason for it. I wasn't inflexible about anything talking to him; I just
19 asked him to explain to me everything linked to Srebrenica and his
20 understanding of it. Unfortunately, most of the job was left undone.
21 Q. But, General, that's not what you said to the President of this
22 Court in December of last year, is it, about why you hadn't contacted
23 General Zivanovic? Let me read to you, and this was a question from His
24 Honour, Judge Rodrigues:
25 Q. General, and having learnt that the record was
1 not in the archives, did you try to contact
2 General Zivanovic again to see whether he had a
4 A. No. I lost contact with General Zivanovic. Where I
5 used to contact him, he is no longer there. I
6 really don't know where he is. He may not be in
7 Yugoslavia any more.
8 A. I don't know in what way what I just said differs from that that
9 you have read. I did not explain how I contacted him. I just said that I
10 could no longer contact him at the same location at which we had met. He
11 simply did not wish to have any further contact with me.
12 Q. Through whom did you make efforts to contact General Zivanovic
13 after February 2000?
14 A. Through General Miletic.
15 Q. On how many occasions did you make attempts to speak to General
17 A. I personally did not try to talk to General Zivanovic. I asked
18 General Miletic to arrange a contact. General Miletic told me that he
19 didn't wish to have any contact with me, so I gave up.
20 Q. So General Miletic and General Zivanovic refused to have any more
21 contact with you; is that what you're saying?
22 A. No. It must be an erroneous translation. I didn't say that
23 General Miletic refused contact with me. General Miletic, as a go-between
24 between me and Zivanovic, informed me that General Zivanovic did not wish
25 to have any contact with me.
1 Q. And can you explain to Their Honours the position that General
2 Miletic occupied in the Bosnian Serb army in July of 1995?
3 A. I don't know whether that is of any significance for this
4 testimony, but I can explain.
5 Q. It is significant, General, and if you could explain to Their
6 Honours the position he occupied.
7 A. General Miletic was the chief of the operations body in the Main
8 Staff of the army of Republika Srpska.
9 Q. And this is the same General Miletic that is referred to in
10 Mr. Richard Butler's report, isn't it? This is the same General Miletic
11 who Mr. Butler believed was in an intercept, an intercepted conversation.
12 Do you recall reading that in Mr. Butler's report?
13 A. I really do not recall that detail.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic.
15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, maybe I don't see far
16 enough ahead as the Prosecutor, but I am rather losing touch with what the
17 Prosecutor is asking the witness and what his purpose is, so perhaps we
18 could ask where this is leading to.
19 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President --
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Mr. Cayley.
21 MR. CAYLEY: Here we have the expert witness running around the
22 Serbian countryside with the chief of operations of the Bosnian Serb army,
23 the chief of operations on Mladic's staff. He occupied that position at
24 the time of Srebrenica and I believe that may be of some interest to Your
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, I gathered that already, so
2 I think it is important for you to continue, and please put your question
3 to the witness.
4 MR. CAYLEY:
5 Q. Now, General, I'm not going to go into detail, but it's page 52 of
6 Mr. Butler's report and it is an intercept which, although there's some
7 confusion about the name of General Miletic, shows that General Miletic
8 was in direct communication with the Zvornik Brigade at the time of these
9 activities, talking about prisoners. Did you have any discussions with
10 General Miletic about the execution of Muslim prisoners in Srebrenica and
11 Zvornik in July of 1995?
12 A. With General Miletic, no, because my thoughts about the intercepts
13 were presented here on two occasions. For me, this is not evidence with
14 appropriate probative value, for the reasons that I have explained here.
15 We're not processing the responsibility of General Miletic. It is General
16 Krstic that is on trial here, and I don't see why I should question
17 General Miletic about those things.
18 Q. Here you have before you the most senior operations officer in the
19 Bosnian Serb army in July of 1995, and you don't ask him any questions
20 whatsoever about the allegations presented in the indictment against
21 General Krstic. Is that what you're saying to this Court?
22 A. No. I'm just saying that I did not consider General Miletic the
23 person to be asked about this. The operations organ in the command of the
24 Main Staff does not have that type of information. It plans, rather than
25 controls, the behaviour of units on the battlefield.
1 Q. General --
2 A. This is a staff function.
3 Q. What is the superior organ in the military chain of command
4 directly above the Drina Corps?
5 A. The Commander of the Main Staff of the VRS.
6 Q. And who does the Commander of the Main Staff command?
7 A. General Mladic.
8 Q. And underneath General Mladic was the Main Staff, was it not,
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And General Miletic was the chief of operations within the Main
12 Staff, was he not?
13 A. Yes. But General Miletic had his own superior, that is, the
14 deputy of the Commander of the Main Staff, General Milovanovic, so there
15 was no direct link between him and Mladic.
16 Q. General, do you recall saying to this Court the following, and it
17 was a question from me in April of this year:
18 Q. Do you agree with me that the date upon which
19 General Zivanovic ceased to be the Commander of the
20 Drina Corps is an important fact in this entire
21 case? Do you agree with that?
22 A. Yes, I agree.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And do you also agree with me, General, that the date upon which
25 General Zivanovic ceased to be the commander is a fact that is almost
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 certainly important to General Zivanovic himself?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Referring to the document that we have -- that's been in dispute
4 in this hearing today, 905, don't you think logic absolutely cries out
5 that the moment that you arrived in front of General Zivanovic, that he
6 would have been waving that document at you to say, "Look, I wasn't the
7 commander any more after the 13th of July"?
8 A. But General Zivanovic didn't wave that document in front of your
9 investigator either. Your investigator talked to him. So I'm wondering
10 why he didn't ask for that key document, that is, the report on the
11 handover/takeover of duties. So we are turning around in a circle,
12 discussing a document that does not have that weight. General Zivanovic
13 must have that document, because it was on the basis of that particular
14 document we would know when he actually handed over duty and when it was
15 taken over by Krstic.
16 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I've completed.
17 General, I won't say goodbye; I'll say au revoir, because it's
18 likely we'll see each other again at some stage. Thank you very much
19 indeed for answering my questions.
20 Thank you, Mr. President.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It will be my pleasure to see you
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, your witness for
24 re-examination, and even the questions that you objected to, that you had
25 objections about.
1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Re-examined by Mr. Visnjic:
3 Q. General, let me follow up with a question related to the one put
4 to you by Mr. Cayley. Let me ask you a question that is linked to common
5 sense. General, if you were the Prosecutor and you had the possibility to
6 get in touch with General Zivanovic; and if, on the 4th of May, you
7 received a Defence submission; and again, on the 28th of May, again a
8 Defence filing saying that the basic document, the fundamental document
9 confirming the transfer of duty is the report on the handover/takeover of
10 duty, would you then have asked General Zivanovic whether he has that
11 document in his possession, or some other document linked to that event?
12 This is a theoretical question.
13 A. Of course I would have asked him that. It is the key to the whole
15 Q. General, the fact that in Exhibit 905, the document dated the 13th
16 of July, mention is made of a decree that was issued only on the 14th,
17 does that fact show that Exhibit 905 was compiled on the 13th of July?
18 A. In the preamble of the document of the 13th of July, reference is
19 made to the decree of the president of the republic. This may point to
20 two things. Either he referred to this decree without any authority to do
21 so, not knowing about it but just on the assumption that it would be
22 issued but without the authority to do so, as he doesn't have the decree,
23 or it is a document that was compiled after the decree arrived and then it
24 was antedated. But this is a suspicion that I'm personally unable to
1 Q. The fact that the stamp of the signals officer on Exhibit 905, in
2 which the column "delivered" has not been filled in, does that also point
3 to the fact that the document was compiled on the 13th of July?
4 A. No.
5 Q. General, the fact that the document as not found in any archives,
6 including the archives which are in the possession of the Prosecution,
7 does that indicate that Exhibit 905 was compiled and delivered to units on
8 the 13th of July?
9 A. No.
10 Q. General, the fact that a copy of the document was not found in any
11 of the archives of the VRS corps, including the archives in the possession
12 of the Prosecution, a document sent by the Drina Corps to another corps
13 was not found, does that prove that this document was compiled on the 13th
14 of July and sent to other units?
15 A. No.
16 Q. General, does the conclusion that according to this document
17 General Krstic was simultaneously the Commander and his own Chief of Staff
18 point to the possibility of General Krstic taking over the duty of command
19 on the 13th of July, 1995?
20 A. It does not.
21 Q. General, let us go back for a moment to the document of the 17th
22 of July. My learned friend Mr. Cayley asked you about a certain tone and
23 style in which there is no mention of an order but, rather, an
24 invitation. In view of the fact that in addition to representatives of
25 units of the Drina Corps, that an invitation is addressed also to
1 representatives of the authorities, the civilian authorities and the
2 economy, to attend the send-off on the 20th of July, my question is: Can
3 a Corps Commander give orders to civilian authorities and the business
5 A. No.
6 Q. In your opinion, would one of the ways for him to do so without it
7 being an order be by adding the words, "Thank you for coming"? Would that
8 be one of the ways?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no further
11 questions for the General.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
13 Mr. Visnjic.
14 Judge Fouad Riad, please.
15 Questioned by the Court:
16 JUDGE RIAD: Good afternoon, General or Professor. I prefer
17 Professor, as I told you before, because Professor, it never ends. People
18 will still learn what you have being saying in centuries, I hope.
19 One of the things which I would like to understand more is that
20 when you went to meet the General Zivanovic, as you mentioned, because you
21 wanted him to explain to you everything linked to Srebrenica, and you
22 didn't apparently care to ask him -- even to ask him verbally when he
23 finished his -- his duty as a commander of the Drina Corps. Did he even
24 care to tell you this important point in the whole issue concerning him?
25 Do you remember? Do you recall anything? Not waving a document
1 necessarily, but telling you or you are asking? Would he have immediately
2 given you some kind of directive?
3 A. Your Honour, I wanted to learn from the Corps Commander, that is,
4 the person who is best informed, in other words, to hear from the horse's
5 mouth the whole story about Srebrenica.
6 When I went to that meeting, at the time a prior hypothesis which
7 had not been verified was that he had been the Corps Commander on the 20th
8 of the July. This is something I had no doubt in my mind about from the
9 testimony of General Krstic and talking to people who attended that formal
10 ceremony. I heard and learned that this had happened on the 20th of
11 July. And in that stage, I had no dilemmas as to when he handed over his
12 duty as Corps Commander.
13 In that stage of my research, I did not consider it indispensable
14 to check out that fact. I felt that there would be other occasions for me
15 to verify that. And the most effective way to verify it is to look at the
16 document called the report on the handover/takeover of duty. I was quite
17 confident that such a report was in the possession of General Krstic, of
18 General Zivanovic, the Main Staff, that is, the archive of the Main Staff
19 of the VRS, the archive of the president of Republika Srpska. And I was
20 quite convinced that this was a document that the Prosecution had in its
21 possession, and that in accordance with the regulations and rules of this
22 Tribunal, it would disclose it to the Defence.
23 Unfortunately, now this appears to be a major methodological and
24 professional error, but it was quite an innocent one at the time. It
25 never occurred to me to check out that fact. That is the main reason.
1 JUDGE RIAD: So you were convinced, even before meeting him, that
2 the date of July 20th was a basic one, even before meeting him, and this
3 is why you did not verify it, and you didn't care to verify it?
4 A. Yes.
5 JUDGE RIAD: Now, it was sort of a preconceived idea -- talking to
6 a Professor. You started your research with a preconceived idea?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE RIAD: Now, it was mentioned that there could be some kind
9 of contradiction between the OTP document 905, which mentioned, I think,
10 that Zivanovic was appointed to new duties in the Yugoslav army, and
11 document 469 which says that Zivanovic was at the disposal of the Main
12 Staff of Republika Srpska.
13 Is there really a contradiction? I mean being appointed to new
14 duties in the army at large and saying that he's at the disposal of the
15 army, do you, as a military man, think that's contradictory or they are
16 more or less in the same spirit, just a difference of language?
17 A. It is a very major contradiction, because appointment to a new
18 post means giving new command authority at a different post, and to place
19 someone at the disposal means that for as long as that status continues,
20 that person has absolutely no command authority. He only has personal
21 responsibility. He can organise only what he himself is doing while he
22 has this status of being at the disposal. But once he is appointed to a
23 new post, he's given new command responsibilities and competencies. And
24 the difference is, therefore, considerable, and that is why I considered
25 this to be extremely relevant.
1 JUDGE RIAD: But I mean as long as this new commitment or new duty
2 is not specifically designed as here in OTP 905, the new duties at large,
3 there is no precision in it. It does not give any clarification more than
4 saying he's being at the disposal of the Main Staff. I mean was that --
5 for a layman, I don't see the difference, not a military man, because
6 there is no precision. But you don't see that? When you say "new
7 duties," without precision?
8 A. Your Honour, if we have in mind who processed this document of the
9 13th of July and who signed it, and that is the chief of the personnel
10 service, so the person who is authorised to make records and perform
11 technical administrative duties in personnel affairs, and there's a very
12 major difference between appointment to a new duty and placement at the
13 disposal, because for as long as this latter status lasts, one has no
14 function at all.
15 JUDGE RIAD: I do not perceive that, because when you say "new
16 duties," it is also no function.
17 A. It is a function, a duty. A chief of administration, a commander,
18 a deputy, a head of an educational centre. These are posts which -- to
19 which a -- certain command responsibilities are attached. Without one
20 having an appointment to a new post, a person who has this status of being
21 at the disposal has no function.
22 In order to undertake a new function, he must have a document of
23 appointment to that new post, and that is the decree of the president of
24 the republic who alone has the competence to appoint generals to posts.
25 JUDGE RIAD: My last query, and it was this: Before when they say
1 in -- I think it was in this kind of invitation to the military ceremony
2 of the 20th of July, saying that General Zivanovic, "hitherto Corps
3 Commander." Now, I just want to recall. In your -- the equivalence of
4 "hitherto" would be what, the word "hitherto"? Does it mean the past?
5 Does it mean the present?
6 A. "Hitherto commander" means that he is commander until the handover
7 of duty, the actual act of the handover. From the moment of the
8 handover/takeover, he becomes the former. And the takeover/handover, from
9 all the documents that I had at my disposal, took place on the 20th of
11 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, Professor.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Judge Fouad
14 Madam Judge Wald.
15 JUDGE WALD: Thank you. Professor, during your three- or
16 four-hour meeting with General Zivanovic, did you find him overall - this
17 is an overall question - did you find him overall to be a consistent,
18 credible narrator of the events that you asked him about? I mean were you
19 impressed with his consistency and his credibility when you talked to him
20 about events leading up to Srebrenica and, as you just testified,
21 military -- military events?
22 A. I of course approached the conversation with a great deal of a
23 priori confidence in the expertise and professionalism of General
24 Zivanovic as Corps Commander. And in my testimony, I said that I did not
25 know him personally, but I knew about him and I knew he was the
1 commander. Whether we actually met somewhere I can't say, but I didn't
2 know him personally. So I had no reason not to believe what he was
3 telling me.
4 JUDGE WALD: And there was no -- nothing that occurred during
5 the three- or four-hour discussion on that one interview that disabused
6 you of your prior impression; is that right?
7 A. That's right. No, there wasn't.
8 JUDGE WALD: Okay. You said that you were particularly interested
9 in the military, some kind of history of the military events, both leading
10 up to Srebrenica.
11 Now, my question to you would be: If you are able to recall, what
12 would you say was the last event or the last military event or the last
13 incident in the whole history of Srebrenica chronologically that you
14 discussed with General Zivanovic? In other words, your discussions took
15 you up to what point in the Srebrenica saga or events? How far along in
16 the whole history of Srebrenica did you get in your discussions with
17 General Zivanovic that day?
18 A. I have already said that our conversation was divided into two
19 sections. I asked him to talk about the operation, what led up to it, the
20 manoeuvreing, the grouping of troops, the course of action, combat action,
21 the intensity, the operational plan, all that kind of thing, and his
22 concepts and his understanding of all that. But he thought it was more
23 important to expound on the -- a short history of the conflict in
24 Podrinje. And according to his -- his story went further in-depth into
25 history, especially the post-war period, from 1945 to 1992, with the
1 accent and focusing on the sufferings of the Serbs in his area, because
2 General Zivanovic was from that area in 1992.
3 JUDGE WALD: I understand. But could you tell me whether or not
4 any of your discussion with General Zivanovic involved events that
5 happened after the military takeover of Srebrenica? Once Srebrenica was
6 actually militarily captured, did you and General Zivanovic discuss
7 anything that happened subsequent to that?
8 A. Unfortunately, during that first meeting of ours, he just managed
9 to start on the topic of the operational plan for Srebrenica or Krivaja
10 95. He just touched upon it, was just starting to go into it. So the
11 bulk of the conversation focused on events that went before. So there was
12 no occasion for us to discuss that. We didn't have enough time to discuss
14 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Now, in terms of military rules or even, if
15 you are familiar with it, possibly the Criminal Code of the former
16 Yugoslavia or the Republika Srpska, if a military officer created a
17 document which had false information in the document - I say "if." This
18 is a hypothetical - if a military officer created a document which
19 falsified information about events happening in the army and then used
20 that for whatever purposes, whether it was official or unofficial, but
21 disseminated that document, would that be a grave offence of military
22 regulations and/or an actual crime against the general code of the
23 country? If he created a document which said things happened which did
24 not happen, of some material consequence, and then used it for any
25 purpose - I mean, just showing it to people, et cetera - would that be a
1 grave breach of military law and possibly a civilian crime as well?
2 A. Your Honour, I'm not a legal man, but I assume that it would
3 represent a serious breach of the law, because it is the falsification of
5 JUDGE WALD: So leave the civilian part out. You're a military
6 man. Would you think that that would be the basis for disciplinary court
8 A. Yes, it would.
9 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Now, in terms of the document of the 17th,
10 whatever it is, the invitation, order, dealing with the ceremony, the
11 upcoming ceremony of the 20th, do you see any significance in the fact
12 that General Zivanovic, who is the author of both documents -- well, no.
13 I should not say it's the -- no, I understand. But let's just say that
14 the earlier document, he's not the author, but it certainly concerns him.
15 Would you say that there was any significance in the fact that the
16 document of the 13th refers to, straight out, to the word which you
17 considered to be so vital and important, "handover" - it talks about the
18 handover of duties - whereas the document of the 17th, which deals with
19 the upcoming ceremony, never uses the word "handover"; it uses only the
20 word "send-off"? If it in fact was an order -- or telling people that
21 there was going to be a handover ceremony, why would it use a much more
22 social word, "send-off"?
23 A. The word is based on the rules of service. It has not been
24 erroneously used, because in the rules of service, the handover/takeover
25 is defined as a military ceremony. Of course, it would have been more
1 acceptable and perhaps a better choice if what was stated was to attend
2 the transfer of duty or handover/takeover ceremony, but it's not wrong, I
3 don't think.
4 JUDGE WALD: All right. My last question: Again back to the July
5 13th document. Now, assume for the moment that the reports of the
6 Prosecution on the authenticity of the stamp and the authenticity of the
7 signature of Lieutenant Colonel Jovicic, assume for the moment,
8 hypothetically, that they are valid, I mean, that they have not been
9 forged, that those were an actual stamp and there was an actual document
10 and there was ... could anybody have been able, in your opinion, to create
11 such a document with those authentic stamps and authentic signatures of
12 the personnel affairs? Could anybody have been able to bring about the
13 creation of that document except the Commander of the Corps?
14 A. No.
15 JUDGE WALD: Thank you.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Judge Wald.
17 General Radinovic, I don't know if you have the two documents in
18 front of you, and I am referring to the document, that is to say, OTP
19 Exhibit 905 and Defence Exhibit 181/5. Do you have those two documents
20 before you, General?
21 A. I have one. I've found one.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You know that the document of
23 the 17th of July, at least in its translation - and I'm looking at the
24 English translation, not the French translation - the translation of
25 document 17 says "classified document" [In English] 05/2- [Interpretation]
1 303, and the document of the 13th of July says "confidential number." And
2 I think that the use of the word in your language is the same. Is there a
3 problem of translation here or is there indeed a difference between
4 classified document and confidential number? Is it really a difference or
5 is it just a problem of translation, the two terms that have been used?
6 A. No. According to the rules of service, it says which documents
7 have which degree of confidentiality. There is the highest degree, which
8 is a state secret, and then strictly confidential; then we have
9 confidential, for internal use, official use, and an ordinary document
10 without any of these. And these documents and the substance they deal
11 with belongs to that degree of confidentiality.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Professor. I
13 apologise, but it's probably my fault. I don't think I made myself
14 understood. I am looking at the July 17th document and the July 13th
15 document, and I have remarked on the difference. On the July 17th
16 document, the term "classified document" is used. On the 13th of July
17 document, the term "confidential number" is used. My question to you is:
18 Is there a difference between these two designations, "classified
19 document" and "confidential number," or is this an error in the
20 translation? Does it mean one and the same thing or not?
21 A. I apologise. I'll have to look at the original document,
22 Mr. President, in my language, and then I'll be able to answer your
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. I already admitted the
25 hypothesis that the documents in the B/C/S version, I think -- I don't
1 know. I can't read B/C/S, but I think that when one looks at it visually,
2 at the documents visually, I see that they have the same term, and that
3 was my question to you, a general question: Is there a difference or is
4 it a translation error?
5 A. In the original versions it is identical. The term used in B/C/S
6 is identical.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We can therefore conclude that
8 there is an error in translation in the documents; is that right? Very
9 well. Thank you.
10 A. Yes.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] That is what I wanted to know.
12 As you see, General, the system of numbering for the two documents is
13 quite similar; it coincides. Now, my question is: Is it possible, if we
14 admit the hypothesis of falsification of a document, forgery of a
15 document, is it possible to look at the number and the sequence in the
16 numbering and to guess? Is it possible to guess in advance the sequence
17 of numbering?
18 A. I didn't understand the question.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The two documents, the 17th of
20 July and 13th of July, have a system of numbering, a numbering system.
21 Are you following me, General?
22 A. Yes.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] There is a series of numbers.
24 If you look at the July 17th number, it is 303, and the other one is 293.
25 A. Yes.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] My question is as follows: If
2 somebody wanted to fabricate a document - let's take, say, the 13th of
3 July document - falsify it, was there a way in which that person would
4 know whether it is within or outside that series of numbering?
5 A. Well, if we're talking about somebody working in the cadre
6 service, he might have known. A commander would not have known. He
7 wouldn't have paid attention to that. But an employee might.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well. Another
9 question for you, General. Do you have an idea - I seem to have an idea
10 like that - that the subordinate units which received a document, on the
11 receiving end of a document, after a certain number of times, would have
12 to destroy the document because it was not possible to have them in all
13 the archives, and only the unit sending the document would retain it,
14 would keep it, store it? Do you know anything about this system, and what
15 are your comments? How did this work?
16 A. Combat documents and documents for command which were compiled
17 during the war are stored for all time. They are not destroyed. They are
18 permanently stored. So no subordinate command of the Drina Corps, or the
19 Command of the Drina Corps itself, or the Superior Command of the Drina
20 Corps, was allowed to destroy a document, because it is a document which
21 belongs to the group of documents respective to command, and they are kept
22 for all times.
23 For other types of documents, ones that are not of value for all
24 times, are stored in the command issuing it for three years and then they
25 are archived, sent to the archives for storage, and the archives have
1 their own procedure as to how they store information of this kind.
2 Documents referring to personal data about the cadres, they are
3 kept for 100 years. The rule is that these documents are kept for a
4 period of 100 years.
5 That is the principle of it. If you want me to go into detail, I
6 shall be happy to do so, but there are set provisions as to how archive
7 material is utilised.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, General. Thank you.
9 So the document dated the 13th of July, what category of documents does
10 that one belong to, the category of documents you mentioned?
11 A. This would be saved for all times, permanently stored.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Imagine that the
13 subordinate units, General, made a mistake and thought that the document
14 was one that could be destroyed and it was destroyed. Let us suppose
15 that. And let us suppose that the only original document in the Drina
16 Corps was the document that General Zivanovic had in his possession. Have
17 you got a comment to make about that? Would that be possible? Is that a
19 A. That is quite impossible, because nobody from the Drina Corps
20 would issue an original document to General Zivanovic, because that is
21 expressly forbidden on the basis of the law. You can only issue a copy or
22 a recopied, certified copy.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but let us suppose,
24 Professor, let us imagine the following: That unofficially, General
25 Zivanovic, for unofficial purposes, General Zivanovic obtained the
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 original that was in the Drina Corps. And we don't know. Let us assume
2 that, a hypothetical. Would that be possible?
3 A. Well, only if General Zivanovic were to come into contact with the
4 archive itself and to take out the document without informing anybody of
5 that, but that kind of solution, that kind of assumption, seems to be
6 quite impossible.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well. And now
8 another question, Professor. You said that you contacted General
9 Zivanovic through General Miletic. Did I understand you correctly to say
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Why did you do this through the
13 mediation of General Miletic and not contact him directly? Why? What was
14 the reason for going about it in a roundabout manner?
15 A. General Miletic is a comrade in arms of General Zivanovic, a
16 wartime comrade, and the two of them are artillery men. They belong to
17 the same branch of the army and were educated and trained in the same
18 artillery centre in Zadar, so they have been friends many years back. I
19 did not know the man myself, and I thought that I would be able to get
20 into contact with him more easily through somebody whom he had confidence
21 in, who was a combatant, a co-fighter, rather than doing it myself
22 directly, and that is why I went through the mediation of General
23 Miletic. And General Miletic, for a time, was an officer who was
24 subordinate to me at one time.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but did you think that if
1 you tried to contact General Zivanovic directly, it would be more
2 difficult or impossible for you? Is that what you're saying?
3 A. I assume that for that type of contact, you would have to have
4 trust and confidence, a certain degree of trust and confidence, and as I
5 didn't know the man himself, I didn't know his temperament, what kind of
6 person he was, I was a little afraid of his refusing and then that would
7 be the end of it. I couldn't ask again. So this seemed to me to be a
8 better way of going about it, and I thought I'd have less problems like
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So the way in which you
11 contacted him was on the basis of your own initiative and not because of
12 any difficulties raised by General Zivanovic himself; is that right?
13 A. Yes, at my own initiative. Yes.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well. When General
15 Miletic informed you that Zivanovic did not wish to have any more contacts
16 with you, what was your reaction, if I can put it in general terms? A
17 general question. What were your reactions when you were told that by
18 General Miletic?
19 A. Well, of course I didn't like it, but I accepted it as a fact and
20 didn't insist upon the contact. I probably caused some form of mistrust,
21 but that is a personal thing, and I didn't want to go into it any
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. So you didn't like it.
24 Now, did you ask General Miletic why General Zivanovic did not wish to
25 continue to have any more contact with you?
1 A. No, I didn't ask him that.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Why not? Why didn't you ask
4 A. Well, I thought it was his own personal affair. It was up to him
5 whether he wanted to see me again or not.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But you felt at ease with
7 General Miletic, and you felt at ease to ask him the question; is that
8 right? You could have asked General Miletic?
9 A. Yes, I could have, but I just didn't. You would have to know me
10 better as a person myself to understand my answer. If somebody seems a
11 little mistrustful, then I don't like to take it further.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, but
13 Professor Radinovic, when you started your work, in your own mind was it
14 important for you or not to have this contact with General Zivanovic in
15 order to do your work, to accomplish your task?
16 A. Of course it was important. Otherwise, I would not have taken
17 steps to contact him.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. So when you were told
19 what you were told by General Miletic, that he didn't want to have
20 anything -- didn't want to see you again, you left behind that initial
21 idea you had that you thought was important. So it would have been
22 logical for you to see the reasons, to surmount that problem and to find
23 another alternative, to try and contact General Zivanovic in another way.
24 So the idea of the importance of this that you had at the beginning, did
25 it change as time went by? Did your idea of it being important change?
1 A. No. My initial idea didn't change. All I did was to take note of
2 the fact that he didn't want to see me again and that I would take the
3 more difficult road, but that I would arrive at the knowledge I was
4 interested in taking a different route.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Professor Radinovic,
6 I don't think I have any more questions for you. We have been asking you
7 many questions. Perhaps I'll end like I began. I don't wish to say
8 goodbye to you at this point, adieu, and as Mr. Cayley said, we may never
9 know. Perhaps we should just say au revoir. We might meet again. I hope
10 not, because this -- if not, then it would mean that we have not come to
11 the end of our deliberations. But thank you for coming again, and I hope
12 that we don't see each other again for the reasons that I have stated.
13 But anyway, thank you for contributing and for throwing more light on all
14 these issues. We wish you every success in your work in future, in your
15 research work and your investigations. Thank you.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much as well.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, are there any
19 documents to be tendered into evidence?
20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence would
21 first of all like to tender Exhibit D181, which consists of
22 General Radinovic's statement of the 26th of May this year and to which
23 five other documents are attached, and we would like to tender them as a
24 whole as Defence Exhibit 181. Could we, Mr. President, go into private
25 session very briefly in connection with some other suggestions that I
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, to organise our
3 time, the other subjects you wish to address in private session have
4 nothing to do with the documents or can we deal with this question first
5 and then go into private session?
6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] They are -- it is related to the
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well then. Let's go into
9 private session.
10 [Private session]
13 page 9818 – redacted – private session.
13 page 9819 – redacted – private session.
13 page 9820 – redacted – private session.
13 page 9821 – redacted – private session.
8 [Open session]
9 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, you've just actually stated that you
10 have admitted it into evidence. So can we please move back into private
11 session? I'm sorry.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. We'll have to go
13 back into private session.
14 [Private session]
7 [Open session]
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We are in public session now to
9 rule with respect to document 181. The Chamber rules to admit into
10 evidence this exhibit with its five appendixes, and the registrar will
11 deal with that document appropriately.
12 I think that we yet have to decide on document 905, I believe. I
13 see Mr. Harmon on his feet, or Mr. Cayley, whichever.
14 MR. HARMON: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. President, Your
15 Honours, and counsel. We would like to tender two documents into
16 evidence: Prosecutor's Exhibit 910 that was offered by my colleague,
17 Mr. Cayley, during the cross-examination of General Radinovic, and we
18 would like to renew our application for admission of Prosecutor's Exhibit
20 In respect of Prosecutor's Exhibit 905, as Mr. Visnjic said, there
21 is no contest in respect of whether this document was signed by Radenko
22 Jovicic, who was the Drina Corps chief of personnel and legal affairs.
23 The Defence is not contesting that Exhibit 905 bears a Drina Corps stamp,
24 that it was typed by a Drina Corps typewriter, and that the signature of
25 the person who was the encryptor and the signature that is on another
1 document, the order issued by General Krstic on the 13th of July, were
2 signed by one and the same person. As I understood my colleague to say,
3 what is being contested are two points: the reasons why the document was
4 compiled and the circumstances in which it was compiled.
5 The contest then comes to -- on the issue of the reasons why it
6 was compiled, it turns on the issue and the statements and facts presented
7 by General Radinovic as to the reasons. And in that regard, when pressed
8 by my colleague, Mr. Cayley, as to why this document was compiled, General
9 Radinovic could give no answer. He testified on LiveNote at 14:55:24, and
10 I quote, "I did not say the document was contrived or falsified." When
11 Mr. Cayley put to General Radinovic whether or not an unofficial purpose
12 could have been for General Zivanovic to exculpate himself from criminal
13 responsibility, General Radinovic answered, "I don't believe he had that
14 motive in mind." So insofar as the reasons why it was compiled, we've had
15 no evidence tendered by General Radinovic other than a vague reason that
16 he couldn't articulate and couldn't specify.
17 Now, the circumstances under which it was compiled, General
18 Radinovic pointed to a number of factors that go to its weight and not to
19 its authenticity, nor, it is our submission, to its admissibility.
20 General Radinovic said, for example, that it wasn't -- a similar document
21 wasn't found in the archives, and that goes to the issue of its weight and
22 not to its admissibility. He indicated that the decree appointing General
23 Krstic as the commander, which was dated the 14th of July, to be effective
24 the 15th of July, there is a reference in Prosecutor's Exhibit 905 to a
25 decree. Again, Your Honours, I would point Your Honours to previous
1 testimony that has been heard in this case by Witness -- tendered by
2 Witness DB, when Witness DB allowed for the possibility that an oral order
3 could be given, to be followed by the appropriate paperwork. So the fact
4 that there is a reference to a decree in this paper again goes to the
5 weight of the document, not to its admissibility or authenticity.
6 Another circumstance pointed to by General Radinovic was this
7 document, Prosecutor's Exhibit 905, created, in effect, a duality where
8 General Krstic was both the commander and the Chief of Staff. Again,
9 Mr. President and Your Honours, that goes to the weight of this document
10 and not to its authenticity. So it is our submission, Mr. President, that
11 this document, one, has been established to be a genuine document. There
12 have been no reasons articulated as to why it was compiled that are before
13 Your Honours, and the circumstances and the irregularities by
14 regulation - and General Radinovic seems to be wedded to regulations
15 exclusively in his analysis - that that should not -- any deviations or
16 irregularities in the regulations in the compilation of this document
17 should not exclude it from your consideration.
18 So we again, Mr. President, submit that this document is an
19 authentic document and we would move its admission into evidence.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And from the Defence, do you
21 have a different position or do you accept the objection?
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Prosecution
23 offered a document to us which I would paraphrase as follows: A document
24 on which it says that it is snowing today, though we know it is sunny
25 outside. Why somebody wrote that it was snowing, in our opinion, there
1 can only be two reasons: either the date indicated on the document is not
2 correct, but it is a date when it was indeed snowing, or there may be some
3 other reason why that was written. The question, as the Defence sees it,
4 is who should prove why this document of the 13th says things which are
5 obviously in contradiction with some other evidence.
6 We continue to maintain, Mr. President, all our objections
7 presented in our submissions of the 4th and 28th of May and which we tried
8 to narrow down today and to verbalise, and mainly for the reasons
9 presented by General Radinovic, reasons why we consider this document
10 either not being authentic in terms of date or having such probative value
11 that it is absolutely unacceptable as evidence of General Krstic's command
12 responsibility, in accordance with the regulations governing the
13 handover/takeover of duties. Therefore, our objections, Mr. President,
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
16 Mr. Visnjic.
17 Mr. Harmon, do you have anything to add, as your right to respond,
18 or do you have nothing to add?
19 MR. HARMON: I have nothing to add, Mr. President and Your
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. Just a
22 moment, please.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So the Chamber renders the
25 following decision: The Prosecution requested the admission into evidence
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 of Exhibit 905, for reasons which were well documented during the hearing
2 today. The Defence objected also on grounds documented in the LiveNote
3 and in the filings filed earlier. The Chamber is of the opinion that the
4 document is relevant and the Chamber decides to admit the document,
5 reserving the right to attach to it the weight it considers appropriate on
6 the basis of its deliberations. Therefore, the document is admitted into
7 evidence. So that is the ruling of the Chamber.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I was talking about document
10 905, but we also have to address document 910. The Chamber decides also
11 to admit that document too, to admit it into evidence.
12 So I think that is all now. I saw Mr. Harmon about to get up. I
13 don't know whether there were any other reasons or whether it was simply
14 because I omitted to mention 910.
15 MR. HARMON: I was going to address 910, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
17 Mr. Visnjic, there are no other matters to address today?
18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President, we have none.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In that case, I think we have
20 completed our work for today. I think there is a schedule that the
21 parties are familiar with and which we will observe. I do not have here
22 with me the schedule, so I can't tell you offhand the date, but you know
23 the date, and it is on that date that we will meet again in this courtroom
24 to continue our work and to complete it. So until that date, success in
25 your work, and we will meet again here then. The hearing is adjourned.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.35 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Monday, the 25th day of
3 June, 2001, at 9.20 a.m.