Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 799

 1                           Thursday, 12 July 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case

 9     IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

12             And meanwhile I'll deal with, to start with, two matters.  The

13     first, scheduling.

14             Mr. Groome, you have made a suggestion by e-mail, that is, that

15     Mr. Harland returns before he finishes his examination -- concludes his

16     examination -- concludes now, in view of a possible re-call in the

17     future.  The Chamber does not agree with you and the Chamber would like

18     to -- most likely will not be able to conclude Mr. Harland's testimony

19     today.  It would be preferred by the Chamber then to finish it tomorrow

20     morning.  We may even have some time between 9.00 and 10.30 before the

21     next witness arrives and that might be the time we need.  And that brings

22     me to my -- of course we have to check, but we expect Mr. Harland to be

23     available until he concludes his testimony.

24             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Lukic, the Chamber has carefully

Page 800

 1     considered the way in which you conducted your cross-examination and the

 2     Chamber has considered what was in dispute, what was most likely not in

 3     dispute, that could be reasonably expected to be in dispute.  The Chamber

 4     has considered relevance.  The Chamber has considered the way in which

 5     you sometimes elicited opinion evidence without focusing on the facts

 6     first.  Taken all together, the Chamber considers that you have -- has

 7     decided that you have today to conclude your cross-examination, so you

 8     should finish your cross-examination today.  That is our ruling.

 9             I see Mr. Harland has arrived in the courtroom.

10                           [The witness takes the stand]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Harland.  Please be seated.

12             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I would like to remind you that you're still bound

14     by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your

15     testimony.

16                           WITNESS:  DAVID HARLAND [Resumed]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  And I'd further like to inform you that a suggestion

18     which was raised by Mr. Groome, that is, that you could conclude today

19     and then perhaps later return, that the Chamber does not agree with that

20     and that the Chamber would prefer you to conclude your examination, most

21     likely not today but then tomorrow morning most likely.  We even had

22     considered to make an extended session today, but unfortunately due to

23     the agendas of the Judges that's not impossible.  Just to let you know we

24     would like to accommodate you to returning to your place of origin today.

25     But I don't know what you have discussed with Mr. Groome in this respect

Page 801

 1     about availability.

 2             Mr. Groome, I see you're on your feet.

 3             MR. GROOME:  I think the Chamber misapprehends my application.

 4     Mr. Harland hasn't asked for anything.  It was simply to ensure that

 5     General Dannatt was able to commence his testimony tomorrow.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Apparently you are playing an unknown role in a

 7     discussion about scheduling, but we expect that your examination and

 8     re-examination can be concluded tomorrow morning.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Lukic, if you're ready please proceed.

11             Mr. Lukic will now continue his cross-examination.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13                           Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

14        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Harland.

15        A.   Good morning.

16        Q.   We can continue.

17        A.   Sure.

18        Q.   Can you open paragraph 102 in your statement.

19             MR. LUKIC:  Can somebody provide the statement to Mr. Harland,

20     please?

21             THE WITNESS:  Sure.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   We're in April 1994 as we deal with paragraph 102 of your

24     statement, and you say the year before Gorazde, together with Srebrenica,

25     Zepa, and other areas, had been declared a safe area.  By April the

Page 802

 1     attack was underway.  UNPROFOR was intensely involved in related

 2     cease-fire negotiations.  You, yourself, mentioned the demilitarisation

 3     agreement from the 8th of May, 1993, in relation to Srebrenica and Zepa.

 4     Let me just ask you this:  Yesterday you expressed some doubts in terms

 5     of whether UNPROFOR was supposed to deal with disarmament or not.  In

 6     Article 3 of this agreement that was signed by General Ratko Mladic and

 7     Sefer Halilovic, his counterpart, in Article 3 it says:

 8             [In English] "Every military or paramilitary unit will have

 9     either to withdraw from the demilitarised zone or submit over their

10     weapons, ammunitions, mines, explosives, and combat supplies in the

11     demilitarised zones and will be handed over to UNPROFOR."

12             [Interpretation] Article 5 says:

13             [In English] "Non-combatants who are in or who are willing to

14     enter the demilitarised zone except members of UNPROFOR are not permitted

15     to have in their possession any weapon, ammunition, or explosives.

16     Weapons, ammunition, and explosives in their possession shall be seized

17     by UNPROFOR."

18             [Interpretation] Can you tell me today how much was done on the

19     basis of this agreement?

20        A.   I think there's a confusion.  I think - I'm not sure 20 years

21     later - but I think you are quoting from the Srebrenica demilitarisation

22     agreement.

23        Q.   [In English] Yes.

24        A.   But here we raised the subject of Gorazde.  I think Gorazde was

25     not at that time covered by an agreement like that.  So in Gorazde no

Page 803

 1     action, not even a protest, would take place by UNPROFOR.

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] In Srebrenica at the time?

 3        A.   Yes, in Srebrenica the presence of forces would be protested and

 4     the Bosnians had given a small amount of weapons, about 300 I think,

 5     which were generally very poor weapons and they had held onto the

 6     majority of weapons and they kept them deployed on the confrontation

 7     lines.  But that was separate from different legal regime from Gorazde.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Now, since Gorazde had a different legal regime, as

 9     you said, nevertheless, it still had been declared a safe area.  Was it

10     believed that international instruments for safe areas were supposed to

11     be applied in relation to Gorazde as well as far as demilitarisation was

12     concerned?

13        A.   No.  It was not -- it's not my recollection that the

14     Security Council required a demilitarisation of any of the safe areas.

15     The only reason the subject came up with Srebrenica and Zepa is because

16     there was -- independent of the Security Council Resolution, there was an

17     agreement between the parties, between Mladic and Halilovic witnessed by

18     Valgren, I think the same one that you quoted, sir.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Is it also correct that as far as the defence of

20     Gorazde was concerned in April of 1994, NATO air force was used against

21     Serb positions?

22        A.   Yes, not very successfully.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Was there any dispute, Mr. Groome, about whether

24     NATO air force was used against Serb positions in that period of time?

25             MR. GROOME:  No, Your Honour.

Page 804

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Who asked for the use of NATO air force?

 4        A.   There were two separate ways of using NATO air attacks by

 5     UNPROFOR, the so-called close air support and the so-called air-strikes.

 6     If I remember correctly, these very minor air attacks in 1994 were under

 7     the close air support regime.  So that would have meant that there was a

 8     request from a unit, an UNPROFOR unit, under attack, which would have

 9     sought authority from General Rose, who would have needed Mr. Akashi, the

10     SRSG, and then it would have been authorised.  It was a simpler, shorter

11     mechanism for the close air support.

12        Q.   Is it also correct that General Rose had asked on three other

13     occasions to have NATO air force used again, but that Mr. Akashi refused

14     that?

15        A.   General Rose was, in general, not in favour of the use of air

16     power against the Bosnian Serb forces, and he in fact raised the

17     possibility of the use of NATO air attacks against the other parties.

18     But it's possible that if there had been some particularly direct

19     incident where he needed to extract his forces that he might have

20     requested and it might have been rejected by Akashi.  I have to say I

21     can't remember at this distance.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we have document 65 ter -- [In

23     English] It's actually 1D59.

24        Q.   [Interpretation] This is your report dated the

25     16th of April, 1994; right?

Page 805

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 2, paragraph 3 from the

 3     top of that page.

 4        Q.   This is what it says:

 5             "BH Commander Rose made three requests for close air support but

 6     these were rejected by the special representative of the

 7     Secretary-General, Akashi, who was in Pale at the time negotiating with

 8     the Serb leadership when the big Serb advance or offensive occurred."

 9             Do you remember now that this is what you had reported.

10        A.   Yes, I was at this meeting.  I believe that what happened is we

11     were coming up as a delegation together from Sarajevo when the

12     incident -- an incident took place in -- or near Gorazde, which in fact I

13     think involved some of General Rose's special forces, the so-called joint

14     commission officers, near Gorazde.  He thought that air attacks might be

15     necessary, so he returned to Sarajevo and I continued with Akashi to

16     Pale.  And I know that, in general, Mr. Akashi was reluctant to authorise

17     the air attacks, and in this particular case felt that a cease-fire was

18     within reach.  Exactly what requests were made by whom, where, I don't

19     know.  But I do recall I think that the result was a NATO airplane got

20     shot down.

21        Q.   Your memory serves you well.  Would you agree with me that

22     members of UNPROFOR provided information for NATO air-strikes, attacks?

23        A.   Oh, yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, there's no need to tell the witness that

25     what he said is correct or not; that is giving evidence rather than

Page 806

 1     asking questions.  Please proceed.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] Did you think that because of providing

 4     information for NATO air-strikes, members of UNPROFOR sided with one

 5     side, thereby becoming a legitimate target themselves?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, that seems to ask for a legal

 8     conclusion about the status of UNPROFOR that I'm not sure Mr. Harland is

 9     qualified to make.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

11             MR. LUKIC:  The gentleman already explained that they were

12     concerned about it, had it in mind every time when they called for air

13     support.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, when they were concerned at the time, that is a

15     fact, you are concerned or you are not.  You can tell someone whether you

16     are concerned or not.  Whether now his opinion today is whether they --

17     from a legal point of view they were at risk by siding to become targets,

18     that is a legal opinion you are seeking.  If you would like to know of

19     course you could ask the witness whether they considered at that time

20     whether this would result in being targeted.  There are other ways of

21     finding the same information, but Mr. Groome is right, at this moment --

22             MR. LUKIC:  I will --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  -- you are eliciting legal opinion.  So please --

24             MR. LUKIC:  I will withdraw that question.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  -- rephrase your question.  Please proceed.

Page 807

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Thanks [Interpretation] Could we now have document

 2     1D61 in e-court, please.

 3        Q.   As you can see, this was sent as an order of the president of

 4     Republika Srpska, and it says in the first paragraph:

 5             [In English] "... will be received, an order from the president

 6     of Republika Srpska, highly confidential, number ...

 7     April the 20th, 1994, the title -- content of which is as follows ..."

 8             [Interpretation] And now we see that the president of the

 9     republic is issuing an order:

10             [In English] "With reference to the complexity of the

11     military/political situation and the urgency of achieving certain

12     objectives and establishing an immediate influence" --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Can we move on to the --

14             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers] "... of the front line.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  -- a little further down on the English version on

16     the second page, yes.

17             MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  My apologies to interrupt, Mr. Lukic --

19             MR. LUKIC:  [Overlapping speakers]

20             JUDGE ORIE:  -- but we didn't have the right page --

21             MR. LUKIC:  We need the first page first.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We need the first page, but I think we asked for the

23     first page but a little bit further down.

24             MR. LUKIC:  From number 1 [overlapping speakers]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, then that was not visible on our screens a

Page 808

 1     second ago.  Please proceed.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  And further, the president said:

 3             "...  I have decided that, until further notice, the decision on

 4     the use of the Corps and other formations in combat can only be approved

 5     after I gave my approval to it."

 6             And then the paragraph number 2 on the second page:

 7             "I hereby forbid all levels of command to change the approved

 8     decisions on the use of units in combat activities without my approval."

 9             And under number 4:

10             "I hereby forbid all levels of command to implement any

11     amendments that approved decisions and issued orders without my

12     approval."

13        Q.   [Interpretation] When you were out in the field, did you see in

14     practice that President Karadzic had operative command over the units of

15     the Army of Republika Srpska?

16        A.   Not really.  When we were in the field, the subordinate military

17     officers would refer to the command of General Mladic.  But when we were

18     in Pale -- I think this was written, actually, on the 20th of April when

19     we were also in Pale with Dr. Karadzic, I think our assessment was that

20     there might have been some difference of view between Dr. Karadzic and

21     General Mladic on this subject.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Now I'd like to move on to paragraph 129.  We need,

23     in e-court that is, 65 ter number 10030.

24             [Microphone not activated]

25             This is an agreement on the elimination of sniper shooters in the

Page 809

 1     Sarajevo area; right?

 2             [In English] "Recognising that civilians from all communities as

 3     well as UN personnel continue to be targets of sniper attacks in Sarajevo

 4     region."

 5             [Interpretation] This agreement did not establish whose troops

 6     were carrying out the attacks.  The important thing was simply to stop

 7     the sniping; right?

 8        A.   Correct.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, Mr. Lukic, what was on our screen was the cover

10     page, not the agreement itself.  You quoted from which --

11             MR. LUKIC:  I don't know if we have the same -- now I --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  It's a -- it is a -- what is now on our screen is

13     the cover page of a document which --

14             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, I need the first.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  -- consists of four pages; and second page is a

16     message; third page -- I think that in this document only on page 4 we

17     find the agreement on elimination of sniping activities in Sarajevo

18     region.  There we have it.  You were quoting from there, Mr. Lukic?

19             MR. LUKIC:  I'm quoting from the first page I have.  It's

20     actually -- probably what we have on our screen is the cover page.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, what we have is the cover page of a four-page

22     document where on the fourth page, and perhaps we could look at it at

23     this very moment, that seems to be an agreement.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Agreement.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  And apparently this is -- was this uploaded by you

Page 810

 1     or was it uploaded by the Prosecution?

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Can we have the second page, please.

 3             MR. GROOME:  It is a Prosecution exhibit, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             MR. GROOME:  It's also an associated exhibit to the statement.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Second page on the top most immediate.  Yes,

 7     there we are.

 8             Mr. Lukic, please proceed.  Is this what you needed?

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we take a look at page 2,

10     please.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  We have page 2 on our screen in English.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Then page 3.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Then page 3.  In English page 3 is paragraphs 4 and,

14     surprisingly 6 instead of 5.  Is this what you -- Mr. Lukic --

15             MR. LUKIC:  I will --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  -- I suggest that you find it in the next break --

17             MR. LUKIC:  I will move on.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would now move to paragraph 135,

20     please.

21        Q.   We are in September 1994.  Again, you say:

22             "Karadzic began the meeting with an angry statement about the

23     attack out of Sarajevo."

24             This attack by Muslim forces came after UNPROFOR made the Serbs

25     withdraw their weapons from the environs of Sarajevo; correct?

Page 811

 1        A.   Yes.  The Serbs hadn't withdrawn all of their weapons, but it was

 2     certainly long after the April ultimatum where they cantoned most of

 3     their weapons or moved them to other areas.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Excuse me, Mr. Harland.  I thought I heard you

 5     say, and you are recorded as having said:  The Serbs had not, "hadn't."

 6             THE WITNESS:  That's correct.  They hadn't -- they had not

 7     removed -- they had not removed all of their weapons from the total

 8     exclusion zone.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So you're not agreeing with the proposition put to

10     you?  The proposition put to you is that the Serbs had indeed removed

11     their weapons.

12             THE WITNESS:  I was agreeing with the proposition that it took

13     place after the requirement that they do so, but I was objecting, as a

14     matter of fact, as to whether they had fully done so.  But the question

15     was really about timing, right, and I agreed that it was after the April

16     ultimatum and agreement, when, in theory, the sides were meant to have

17     removed their heavy weapons or put them in collection points.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Then I'm losing you.  Because now you're putting

19     your timing based on agreement; he's putting the timing based on actual

20     activity on the ground.  Did you -- did the attack place after the Serbs

21     had already removed their weapons?  That's the question put to you.

22             THE WITNESS:  And my difficulty is that they partially removed

23     their weapons in April and this event took place after that partial

24     relocation of weapons.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

Page 812

 1             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, sir.

 2             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   This partial removal, was it largely removed?  You say it was not

 4     fully.  Do you have any information whether it was 10 per cent removed,

 5     50 per cent removed, or more?

 6        A.   As I remember, the Serb and Bosnian sides were different because

 7     the Serb side, their heavy weapons were then in three categories.  There

 8     were the category of weapons that were removed from the Sarajevo

 9     20-kilometre zone in full compliance; there were the weapons that were

10     placed into collection points within the 20-kilometre exclusion zone in

11     compliance; and the weapons that were not in compliance that were left in

12     combat positions within them.  And if I remember correctly, the UNMO

13     assessment of the time was that the majority of the heavy weapons were in

14     the first two categories, so the -- they had more than 50 per cent

15     complied.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Did that weaken Serb positions?

17        A.   Well, yes, I believe it probably did.

18        Q.   At that time was the Muslim side asked to commit to anything or

19     was it the case, as it usually was, that they were not required to do

20     anything when that agreement was made?

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, "as it usually was" is comment and

22     testimony rather than question.

23             Could you answer the question, Mr. Harland?

24             THE WITNESS:  Yes, there were obligations that fell to the

25     Bosnian side.  They didn't have the option of removing weapons from the

Page 813

 1     20-kilometre zone because they couldn't get heavy weapons out of the

 2     city, but they were obliged also to put their weapons, heavy weapons, in

 3     a cantonment area and they -- like the Serbs, they partially complied.

 4     And I -- as with the Serb weapons collections points, I visited them.

 5     The main one was in Tito Barracks, I think.

 6             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   In your view what was the purpose of weapon collection?  Could it

 8     have been cessation of hostilities?

 9        A.   It was part of a plan -- actually, I think a flawed plan, but an

10     UNPROFOR plan of General Rose to try to bring about an end to the war by

11     first almost imposing a cease-fire, and then using that cease-fire to

12     allow for peace talks to take place.  So, yes, it was part of a strategy,

13     a campaign plan, but -- and ultimately unsuccessful [Realtime transcript

14     read in error "successful"] one.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I ask you for a clarification.  You said

17     "ultimately unsuccessful" or "successful"?

18             THE WITNESS:  Ultimately unsuccessful.  I think that the view of

19     many was that a sequenced approach, first a cease-fire then talks, would

20     never produce a result because it would leave the Serbs controlling all

21     of the land.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  It was only for the record

23     because it was recorded incorrectly.  Thank you.

24             THE WITNESS:  Sorry, Your Honour.

25             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to move to paragraph 146.

Page 814

 1        Q.   We're in October 1994.  You say UNPROFOR had made plans to supply

 2     enclaves by force.  What did that entail, briefly, if you can?

 3        A.   The plan was first to seek the agreement of the Serbs to allow

 4     humanitarian aid through.  If that did not succeed, to escalate one step

 5     which would be to force road convoys through or to drop humanitarian

 6     assistance from the air.  And in a final stage, if those measures did not

 7     succeed, to use a major package of force, including helicopters, to

 8     attempt to resupply the three isolated eastern enclaves.

 9        Q.   Although Gorazde, too, had been proclaimed a protected area, do

10     you know that in the area surrounding Gorazde in the attacks launched by

11     the fighters of the BH army, 60 villages were destroyed, Serb villages?

12        A.   I know that there was fighting in the vicinity of Gorazde at

13     various points, but how many villages and at which points I can no longer

14     precisely recall.

15        Q.   At the time did you deal with that?  Did you write that in any of

16     your reports?

17        A.   I can't recall.

18        Q.   Thank you.  In paragraph 147, the next one, you again emphasise

19     that there were restrictions on access to the enclaves for the UNPROFOR,

20     and you say it was the policy of the Serbian military and political

21     leadership.  However, at the time, this same time, October 1994, NATO

22     regularly struck Serb positions, both around Sarajevo and in other parts

23     of Bosnia, such as Bihac and Gorazde.  First of all, is this true?  Do

24     you remember?

25        A.    "Regularly" is a big word.  Maybe -- but on less than -- between

Page 815

 1     maybe five and ten occasions there were air attacks.

 2        Q.   Do you believe today that those air-strikes, among other things,

 3     made the movement of convoys impossible?  In other words, were convoys

 4     sent to areas that were subject to air-strikes?

 5        A.   In general the air attacks -- strictly speaking in UN terminology

 6     they were not air-strikes, they were close air support.  Those air

 7     attacks would normally take place when a convoy was blocked or it was

 8     attacked.  So the cause and effect are the other way around.  UNPROFOR

 9     simply wanted to allow humanitarian assistance to reach the eastern

10     enclaves and to fulfil its mandate to deter attacks on them.  When the

11     Serbs would either block the convoys or would attack the enclaves, then

12     sometimes air power would be used against them, but it was that way

13     round.

14        Q.   Is it true that NATO aircraft automatically fired rockets if

15     Serbs turned on radars or fired at planes?

16        A.   Yes, that was considered a hostile act under the terms of the

17     Security Council Resolution declaring a no-fly zone over

18     Bosnia and Herzegovina, over the ...

19        Q.   Did that also lead to the increased number of air attacks, NATO

20     air attacks, on Serb positions?

21        A.   No, I don't think so.  And, in general, I can say that the policy

22     of General Rose and Mr. Akashi were of maximum restraint in the use of

23     air attacks.  In my view at the time, in fact, they used them much less

24     than the mandate of UNPROFOR might have indicated, and it was only during

25     the later period under General Smith that a fuller [Realtime transcript

Page 816

 1     read in error "full"] use of air attacks was used.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Now please could we move to paragraph 156 --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, Mr. Lukic.

 4             Did you say:

 5             "It was only in the later period under General Smith that a full"

 6     or "a fuller use of air attacks was used"?

 7             THE WITNESS:  Fuller, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Fuller with e-r.

 9             Yes, please proceed.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

11        Q.   [Interpretation] Here you say that the deputy commander of the

12     Serb army, Milan Gvero, told General Rose that the Sarajevo airport

13     cannot be reopened until Serbs receive written guarantees from the

14     United Nations that NATO aircraft would not strike Serb targets without

15     the approval of the Security Council.  Is it true that at that time NATO

16     aircraft were already attacking Serb positions without the approval of

17     the Security Council?

18        A.   The limited number of air attacks that took place did not require

19     the authorisation of the Security Council, that's correct.

20        Q.   Who made that decision, the Security Council or NATO itself, if

21     you know?

22        A.   The United Nations Secretariat made an agreement with the

23     NATO Secretariat on the arrangements that would govern it.  So if I

24     remember correctly, it -- Security Council Resolution 836 from 1993

25     authorises the use of all necessary means, including NATO air power,

Page 817

 1     to -- in defence of the UNPROFOR mandate.  And after that, the

 2     UN Secretariat and NATO Secretariat agreed on the so-called Blue Sword

 3     arrangement.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now call up in e-court

 6     08163.

 7        Q.   You see the document.  You mention it in this paragraph of your

 8     statement.  You have reviewed the document, haven't you?  It's your

 9     report dated 10 December 1994.

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   On page 2, paragraph 2 -- sorry, page 3 reads:

12             [In English] "By Saturday morning, all of the UNPROFOR detainees

13     had been released, and some convoys were moving again, though there were

14     still no fuel convoys.  The airport remained closed."

15             [Interpretation] We see that all members of the UNPROFOR were

16     released.  Is it the case that none of them had been hurt or killed?

17        A.   I believe so.

18        Q.   Thank you.  The next paragraph of your report, the last

19     sentence --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Was there any dispute, Mr. Groome, about whether

21     anyone was killed?

22             MR. GROOME:  No, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, it seems -- well, if I can point at many

24     issues where it could be clearly expected that the matter is not in

25     dispute, then I'm almost certain that you would be even better able to

Page 818

 1     assess that.  And I think if on a few of these items you've asked

 2     Mr. Groome:  Is there any dispute about that that no one was killed, you

 3     would have -- I mean, if Mr. Groome does not present such facts, then

 4     they are non-existent for the Chamber.  If Mr. Groome doesn't say:  And

 5     people were killed, then of course you would have to counter that if you

 6     disagree with him.  But if Mr. Groome says people were detained and were

 7     released, then on the basis of such a presentation of facts this

 8     Chamber - and I think I'm speaking on behalf of my colleagues - would not

 9     out of the blue start to imagine that they may have been killed.  So,

10     please, could you keep this in the back of your mind as guidance for your

11     cross-examination.  Please proceed.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you for your guidance, Your Honour, but this

13     witness is one of a kind, so we have to elicit this information from him.

14     If we miss this [Overlapping speakers] --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  If there's no dispute about a fact, you don't have

16     to elicit it from any witness.  That's what my -- I tried to explain.  If

17     Mr. Groome says:  UN people were detained in February - I just give an

18     example - that if he leaves it to that, you don't have to establish that

19     they were not killed.  If he doesn't say anymore, you don't have to

20     establish that they were malnourished, you don't have to establish that

21     they were -- that their uniforms were taken from them.  If Mr. Groome

22     establishes one fact, the Chamber will rely on that fact and will not

23     start thinking what may have happened beyond of that.  So you are

24     countering matters which are not part of the Prosecution's case, are not

25     in dispute.  And that is if something is not in dispute, then of course

Page 819

 1     the Chamber is not impressed very much by the results of the negotiations

 2     on agreed facts.  But if you would have asked Mr. Groome:  Is it the

 3     Prosecution's case or -- that those detained, that some of them were

 4     killed.  And if he says no, then you could agree that those detained were

 5     released and that none of them were killed.  It is not a matter in

 6     dispute.  This Chamber would like to hear evidence focusing on matters

 7     where the parties disagree on factual issues.

 8             Would you -- you may proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I just have to stress one

10     thing.  You know that we are rushed to this trial.  We haven't seen all

11     the evidence.  We didn't have time to see all the statements, so I don't

12     know what's coming in the future.  If I have the witness which whom I can

13     clarify one thing, I will clarify it.  And as of today's date --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

15             MR. LUKIC:  -- I have the right to elicit the evidence the way I

16     think is the most proper for my client.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, this Chamber will keep in mind that if

18     you are eliciting evidence on matters which could reasonably be expected

19     not to be in dispute, you can verify that.  You can ask Mr. Groome, as I

20     did three, four, five times, no, no dispute about that.  Then the Chamber

21     will certainly consider this in the way in which it allows time for

22     cross-examination.  Please proceed.

23             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Harland, could we now look at the last

25     sentence in the next paragraph which says that US and French officials

Page 820

 1     stressed, or rather, have noted that UNPROFOR's departure --

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Lukic, what are you reading?  What is the next

 3     paragraph?  Next paragraph of what?

 4             MR. LUKIC:  The statement we have already seen.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, the next paragraph is deleted -- is

 6     redacted.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  No, no, not from the statement, from this document we

 8     have on our screens --

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Starting with "many Serbs ..." but I'm interested in

11     the last sentence --

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

13             MR. LUKIC:  It seems that General Mladic is not feeling well,

14     Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we should take a break and I think that the

16     medical services should be called to assist.

17             Can Mr. Mladic leave the courtroom or should he be treated?

18             We adjourn - curtains please down - and the witness, Mr. Harland,

19     could be escorted out of the courtroom.

20                           --- Recess taken at 10.00 a.m.

21                           [The accused not present]

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

23             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume the proceedings at this moment.

24             Mr. Mladic has expressed concerns about his medical condition.

25     He has been preliminarily seen by a nurse.  A determination was made that

Page 821

 1     he be further examined.  The Chamber is unable to determine when

 2     Mr. Mladic will be able to attend court, and therefore the proceedings

 3     are adjourned for today.

 4             We will resume tomorrow, Friday, the 13th of July, and that we'll

 5     then either resume the cross-examination of you, Mr. Harland, or we'll

 6     further review the situation which then exists.  Therefore, I'd like to

 7     instruct you, Mr. Harland, to - and I can imagine that it is a bit

 8     unexpected -- but that you not speak or communicate with anyone about

 9     your testimony either given or still to be given, and that you be back

10     tomorrow at 9.00.

11             The Registry is instructed to file confidentially a report on the

12     results of the further examination, and if that could not be filed today

13     then already sent as soon as it is available a courtesy copy to Chambers

14     staff and to the parties.

15             Mr. Groome, there's no need for the next witness to travel to be

16     here tomorrow because his testimony would not start tomorrow anyhow.

17             MR. GROOME:  Thank you, Your Honour.  He'll appreciate being

18     informed of that and I will do that as soon as we leave court.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

20             If there was any matter to be raised, it can be done now;

21     otherwise, we will adjourn for the day.  Nothing there.  Then we adjourn

22     and we'll resume tomorrow, Friday, the 13th of July, at 9.00 in the

23     morning in this same courtroom, I.

24                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.09 a.m.,

25                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 13th day of

Page 822

 1                           July, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.