121008ED

Page 3751

1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Good

2 morning to you, Your Honours. Good morning to everyone.

3 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:

4 Q. And good morning to you, Mr. Tucker. Mr. Tucker, first would you

5 prefer to be addressed as Mr. Tucker or Colonel Tucker?

6 A. Mr. Tucker will be fine, thank you.

7 Q. Very well. As you know my name is Kweku Vanderpuye, and before

8 we get started I just wanted to remind to try to keep your voice up,

9 speak a little bit more slowly than you would otherwise so that it'll

10 give the interpreters a chance to keep up with us as we speak the same

11 language.

12 For the sake of the record, would you please state your full

13 name?

14 A. My name is Pyers William Tucker.

15 Q. I'd like to show you 65 ter 28446, and while that's coming up let

16 me ask you: Do you recall having provided the Office of the Prosecutor a

17 witness statement on 10 May 2010 -- or, rather, dated 10 May, 2010?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. Do you recognise the document that's in -- on the screen in front

20 of you now?

21 A. Yes, I do.

22 Q. And what do you recognise it to be?

23 A. It's the statement of which I compiled and then eventually signed

24 on the 10th of May, 2010.

25 Q. If we could go to the last page of this document, page 75. Do

Page 3752

1 you recognise the signature there? Is it yours?

2 A. That is my signature.

3 Q. Okay. And you undertook the acknowledgement that is indicated on

4 this page as to the truth of the statement in question; is that right?

5 A. That is correct.

6 Q. Do you recall providing certain corrections to that statement

7 during the course of your testimony in the trial of Radovan Karadzic on

8 17 January 2012?

9 A. I do.

10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Your Honours, for the record, that is at

11 transcript pages 23192 through 23194. I have a summary of those

12 corrections which we have marked as 65 ter 28452, which I would like to

13 tender in addition to the statement, but first let me finish the

14 qualifications for 92 ter purposes.

15 Q. Mr. Tucker, have you had an opportunity to review your testimony

16 in the Karadzic case and in particular the corrections of which I'm

17 discussing just now?

18 A. I have.

19 Q. And can you confirm that your statement, subject to the

20 corrections to which you testified in the Karadzic case, is accurate and

21 truthful to your recollection?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. And let me just ask, does your statement as corrected therefore

24 fairly and accurately reflect what you would say if you were to be

25 examined today on the same issues?

Page 3753

1 A. That is correct.

2 Q. Thank you.

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, at this time I would tender both

4 the statement as well as the corrections, and in view of the Court's

5 position concerning the associated exhibits, I expect we can deal with

6 that later.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. First, Mr. Ivetic.

8 MR. IVETIC: No objection to the statement and the corrections

9 that have been marked a separate 65 ter number.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

11 THE REGISTRAR: The statement document 28446 becomes

12 Exhibit P317, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE ORIE: P317 is admitted into evidence.

14 THE REGISTRAR: And correction [indiscernible] 28452 becomes

15 Exhibit P318, Your Honours.

16 JUDGE ORIE: P318 is admitted into evidence.

17 Mr. Vanderpuye, you may proceed.

18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a brief

19 summary.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MR. VANDERPUYE: From October 1992 until March 1993,

22 Colonel Pyers Tucker, a British Army officer, served with UNPROFOR as

23 military assistant to General Philippe Morillon, the commander of

24 UNPROFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Colonel Tucker's evidence concerns

25 the siege of Sarajevo and the ethnic cleansing of Eastern Bosnia by the

Page 3754

1 Bosnian Serb Army during his tour. He witnessed shelling and sniping in

2 Sarajevo, which he describes as terroristic and intimidatory and

3 requiring co-ordinated military operations achievable only with the

4 approval of the VRS chain of command. His evidence also discusses the

5 extreme humanitarian toll borne by Sarajevo's civilian population.

6 In March 1993, Colonel Tucker travelled with General Morillon to

7 Eastern Bosnia, including Cerska, Konjevic Polje, and Srebrenica. VRS

8 operations against these Muslim-held areas were underway and forcing

9 civilians from their homes. Colonel Tucker witnessed the desperate

10 humanitarian situation of thousands of refugees as they fled their

11 villages and streamed into Srebrenica. He describes the VRS' shelling of

12 columns of Muslim refugees making their way to safety, their shelling of

13 UN forces as they distributed aid in Konjevic Polje, and their shelling

14 of a humanitarian air-lift during an evacuation of the wounded.

15 Colonel Tucker accompanied General Morillon to Srebrenica where Muslim

16 refugees blocked them from leaving, fearing that upon their departure the

17 VRS would shell them as they had recently done in Konjevic Polje.

18 Colonel Tucker personally accompanied General Morillon to

19 meetings with General Mladic, President Karadzic, and other senior

20 political and military leaders of the warring factions in Bosnia and

21 Herzegovina. He kept notes of these meetings and drafted reports for

22 General Morillon, for UNPROFOR headquarters, and others. His evidence

23 describes these meetings and the issues consistently raised by

24 General Morillon with Bosnian Serb leaders in relation to the siege of

25 Sarajevo, freedom of movement of UN forces, and the delivery of

Page 3755

1 humanitarian aid convoys and resources, which were repeatedly and

2 deliberately obstructed by Bosnian Serb forces.

3 That concludes my summary, Mr. President, and I do have a number

4 of questions for Mr. Tucker.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.

6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.

7 Q. Mr. Tucker, in your statement you noted that the repair of

8 utilities in and around Sarajevo featured prominently on

9 General Morillon's agenda. You mentioned that in a number of different

10 areas in your statement, in particular paragraphs 26, 116, and 286.

11 What I'd like to know is how often were these issues raised with

12 the Bosnian Serb leadership to your recollection?

13 A. They were raised in virtually every meeting that will the Mixed

14 Military Working Group had with the Bosnian Serbs, and they were raised

15 in most meetings that General Morillon had with members of the Bosnian

16 Serb leadership. If you look at my testimony in this case and others,

17 you will see multiple references to that.

18 Q. What was your perception of the attitude shown by the Bosnian

19 Serb leadership with respect to the repair of utilities affecting

20 Sarajevo?

21 A. The attitude was one of controlling a tap and drip feeding

22 repairs so that they could not accused of blocking them completely, but

23 equally never fully addressing the situation of very limited utilities

24 being available to the population of the Sarajevo; that is, gas for

25 heating, electricity for heating and lighting and cooking, and water.

Page 3756

1 Q. Were these matters raised separately with the political and

2 military leadership, or were they raised simultaneously with both, and

3 did you observe any difference in the results on the ground as a result

4 of either?

5 A. These matters were raised with both political leadership in order

6 to get agreement in principle and with military leadership in order to

7 execute specific repairs at a time, place, location, and to arrange a

8 necessary cease-fire for the engineers to get access to whatever it was

9 that needed repair.

10 Q. And when it was raised as between one or the other, that is the

11 military leadership or the political leadership, did you observe any

12 difference in the results that were realised on the ground?

13 A. No. Very limited progress was made.

14 Q. You mentioned at paragraph 116 in your statement that the Bosnian

15 Serbs, that is the participants of the Mixed Military Working Group, in

16 meetings with Mladic, Gvero, and sometimes Tolimir, invariably wanted a

17 quid pro quo before allowing any repairs to utilities. I just wanted to

18 clarify what do you mean in the context of a quid pro quo?

19 A. What I meant was that in these negotiations, the Bosnian Serb

20 side would want agreement or acceptance of some other issue before they

21 were willing to approve or agree to a particular repair being made.

22 Q. And do you believe that in your dealings or General Morillon's

23 dealings with the Serb leadership that they undertook a genuine interest

24 in working to resolve the problems surrounding the repair or maintenance

25 of utility services to Sarajevo?

Page 3757

1 A. We believed that they, when it suited them, would address the

2 issues, but most of the time that despite saying that they were trying

3 their best, that they were firmly keeping the tap closed, to use my

4 previous analogy.

5 Q. I'd like to show you 65 ter 2353. And what we should see are the

6 minutes from the 16th National Assembly session, dated 12 May 1992. And

7 what I'd like to do is to go first to page 31 in the English. And I

8 think it should also be 31 in the B/C/S. And just for the record, before

9 we move on to the substance of what I'm getting at, we can see here at

10 the top of the page that General Mladic is present and is recorded

11 speaking. Do you see that, Mr. Tucker?

12 A. Yes, I do.

13 Q. Okay.

14 A. Yes, I do.

15 Q. What I'd like to do now is to go to page 38 in the English and 36

16 in the B/C/S. It is rather small, but if we go to the bottom quarter of

17 the page in the English, we can see General Mladic saying the

18 following --

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could it be, please, enlarged.

20 JUDGE ORIE: You should seek confirmation with the witness

21 whether he's able to read it or not or whether it would be more

22 comfortable for him to have it enlarged.

23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.

24 Q. Mr. Tucker, I'm going to refer you to about ten lines up from the

25 bottom of the page where it says, "We should not say," and there's a

Page 3758

1 semicolon, and it says, "We should not say we will destroy Sarajevo."

2 A. Yes, I can see it now.

3 Q. Okay. It reads that:

4 "We should not say we will destroy Sarajevo. We need Sarajevo.

5 We're not going to say that we're going to destroy the power supply

6 pylons or turn off the water supply. No, because that would get America

7 out of its seat. But, gentlemen, please find, well, one day there is no

8 water at all in Sarajevo. What is it? We do not know. Damage? We

9 should fix it. No, we will fix it slowly. And the same with the

10 electrical power, Zadar, Sibenik, and Split. They disconnected the

11 army's power supply. The army had none for six months, but I told them

12 while I am here you will not get it and they didn't, apart from when I

13 felt like letting them have some or when that president, the one for

14 political affairs, that Viktor Andreev. Therefore, we have to wisely

15 tell the world it was they who were shooting, hit the transmission line,

16 and the power went off. They were shooting at the water supply

17 facilities. There was a power cut" -- if we can go to the next page. In

18 both. In both languages, please. "There was a power cut at such and

19 such a place. We're doing our best --"

20 A. I'm sorry.

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. I'm no longer looking at the text that you're reading out.

23 Q. I'm sorry, we should be on the next page at the top of the page.

24 JUDGE ORIE: It takes a second to move to the next page.

25 MR. VANDERPUYE: We have to go to the top of the page, please.

Page 3759

1 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that we are on -- we should be --

2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Page 39 in English, please.

3 JUDGE ORIE: 39 e-court page in English, starting with "... cut

4 at such and such a place." There we are.

5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.

6 Q. It reads:

7 "There was a power cut at such and such a place. We're doing our

8 best repairing this. That is what diplomacy is. And not like yesterday

9 when this smart man in Nevesinje, I do not want to offend him, when he

10 said, when I have exposed their goals, what's the point in exposing their

11 goals when it is the Vatican setting their goals for them."

12 In terms of what General Mladic says at this Assembly session

13 concerning the utilities, in particular asserting that the other side was

14 shooting at them, severed the transmission line and so on and so forth,

15 does that -- is that consistent with your experience in Sarajevo?

16 A. That is exactly what was happening in Sarajevo and is exactly

17 what I meant when I described controlling the tap and letting a little

18 bit out every now and then but never opening the tap.

19 Q. Did you believe at the time that you were in Sarajevo with

20 General Morillon -- or, rather, in Bosnia-Herzegovina with

21 General Morillon, that you were dealing fairly and honestly with the

22 Serb -- Bosnian Serb leadership?

23 A. We believed we were dealing with them in a very difficult

24 situation. What exactly their motives and how truthful they were being

25 to us was always something we were never entirely sure about.

Page 3760

1 Q. What do you make of that now that you see what General Mladic

2 said on the 12th of May, 1992?

3 A. It confirms the most negative assumptions that we considered at

4 the time in Bosnia.

5 Q. In your statement at paragraph 90 through 91, you refer to a few

6 different concepts with respect to the use of artillery in Sarajevo, in

7 particular, terrorism, random shelling, punitive shelling. And what I'd

8 like for you to do if you could is just explain what you mean by those

9 terms.

10 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, is counsel going to be tendering the

11 exhibit that we just discussed? Because I have a submission that I have

12 just been confirmed to make on that document on the evidence that was

13 led.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was looking at the document, and I wondered,

15 but perhaps I've missed it, where exactly it says that Mr. Mladic is

16 speaking, because I see on other pages clearly indicated who is the

17 speaker, whereas here I'm trying to find on page 38 or the previous pages

18 where it is Mr. Mladic that is --

19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, the -- it begins at page 31 in

20 English, 31 in B/C/S.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Let me have a look. Thirty-one, you are referring

22 to -- let me see. We have -- I have on page 30, that's the previous

23 page, Mr. Krajisnik speaking, then Mr. Mijatovic, then again

24 Mr. Krajisnik at the end of page 30. Now -- yes. I see it's slightly

25 different indicated compared to the others. Yes, it's clear to me.

Page 3761

1 Mr. Ivetic, do I understand you well that you wanted to object,

2 perhaps, to this document being tendered, but it has not been tendered

3 yet?

4 MR. IVETIC: I know, Your Honours, but it has not been identified

5 as a document for this document until -- well, yesterday, at 5.00, and

6 the e-mail that we sent -- received this morning at 8.45.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Van --

8 MR. IVETIC: I've raised this before with Your Honours. Seven

9 days is what your guidance is. I don't know what that guidance means

10 since it is not being followed by the Prosecution.

11 JUDGE ORIE: The guidance means guidance.

12 Mr. Vanderpuye --

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

14 JUDGE ORIE: -- do you want to tender this document and to tender

15 the document in its entirety, and when was that you indicated to the

16 Defence that you would use it, this document, which is far prior to the

17 arrival of the witness in the former Yugoslavia?

18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. I told the Defence about the use of the

19 document yesterday as Mr. Ivetic has indicated --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- following my proofing of the witness which

22 occurred yesterday afternoon.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's number one. Number two is I don't need

25 to tender it through the witness. I notified the Defence that I intended

Page 3762

1 to use it with the witness. It is referred to in an expert report and

2 then there is other evidence that will come in with respect to it, so I

3 don't need to tender it through the witness although it is my intention

4 to use it with him.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, there is no intention to tender this

6 document only apparently to read small portions.

7 MR. IVETIC: Agreed, Your Honour. And I thought the guidance was

8 with documents that were going to be used with the witness. That was my

9 understanding of it. That's what we've been doing with all of our lists.

10 Any document that we want to use with the witness is on our list.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber wants to consider this objection against

13 the use of the document because that's, Mr. Ivetic, I understand what is

14 your objection, but to first take a break, and then we have 20 minutes to

15 discuss it, and you have 20 minutes to prepare for what -- for the

16 remainder of the morning.

17 We take a break, and we resume at 12.30.

18 [The witness stands down]

19 --- Recess taken at 12.11 a.m.

20 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.

21 [The accused entered court]

22 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, if I -- if I may.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

25 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do see that General Mladic is now in the

Page 3763

1 courtroom.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I wanted to establish that. Mr. Mladic

3 returned to the courtroom. The Chamber was informed that Mr. Mladic's

4 blood pressure was measured by security and by the ICTY medical unit

5 nurse and that it was found to be acceptable according to the ICTY nurse

6 to follow the proceedings.

7 MR. VANDERPUYE: I wonder, Mr. President, whether or not the

8 Defence has an application or whether the Chamber --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Vanderpuye --

10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.

11 JUDGE ORIE: -- if the Defence has an application we'll hear from

12 them.

13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Very well.

14 JUDGE ORIE: And we leave it at the time being as it is.

15 MR. VANDERPUYE: One last thing, Mr. President, I was wondering

16 if the Chamber is prepared to dispose of the issue raised by Mr. Ivetic

17 at this time or whether or not --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber has considered it. The Chamber

19 has established that the document is -- may be have been put to the

20 witness during proofing, that's fine, but it's -- first of all, it's a

21 document dealing with what happened in May when the witness has not --

22 had not yet arrived. Second, the only thing you asked him, whether it

23 was consistent with what he experienced.

24 Now, what we read from the statement and whether that is

25 consistent what we find here, we don't even need the witness for that.

Page 3764

1 It's not a novelty coming up in proofing, because I take it that the

2 Prosecution has put this to the witness, and therefore the Prosecution

3 now creates the novelties by putting documents to the witness apparently,

4 and that is not how the guidance should be understood as any new thing

5 coming up during proofing.

6 Is that clear Mr. Vanderpuye?

7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Not exactly, Mr. President.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, what we have -- we'll later explain it to you

9 in detail.

10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.

11 JUDGE ORIE: But you're supposed not to use it any further. I

12 don't know whether you had any further questions. And it is without

13 prejudice as to the tendering of this document under different

14 circumstances when using it under different circumstances, but you're

15 supposed not to use this document any further with the witness and the

16 ruling of the Chamber is also that you shouldn't have used it as a matter

17 of fact.

18 Please proceed.

19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. With your permission,

20 I would like to address this matter following my examination of the

21 witness, because I think it goes to a very important point with respect

22 to the use of exhibits and the proofing process that we follow.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber certainly will consider whether to

24 hear any further submissions on the matter both from the Defence and the

25 Prosecution and in which format to do that and whether it should be done

Page 3765

1 orally or in writing is a matter we'll further consider.

2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

4 [The witness takes the stand]

5 MR. VANDERPUYE:

6 Q. Mr. Tucker, in your statement at paragraphs 90 through 91, you

7 refer to a few different concepts with respect to the use of artillery.

8 As concerns punitive shelling, can you tell the Chamber what you mean by

9 that?

10 A. By punitive shelling, what I mean is the shelling of a suburb of

11 the town from which previously an attack had been made against Bosnian

12 Serb lines.

13 Q. And would that shelling be considered defensive in the

14 circumstances under which you observed it?

15 A. That shelling would not be considered defensive as it was not

16 necessary. It was shelling which was carried out after the attack and

17 after the military operations in order to defend against that attack.

18 Q. You also characterize some of the shelling that you observed as

19 terrorism or terroristic. Could you describe what is meant by that?

20 A. What I mean by that is single shells being fired somewhere into

21 the city of Sarajevo to no observable or obvious military intent. The

22 only observable consequence of the shells are to make the civilian

23 population very anxious and concerned about the possibility of high

24 explosives raining out of the sky at complete random. And the Bosnian

25 Serbs must have known that this was the case, and as I said, there was no

Page 3766

1 observable military intent with these individual, single shells coming

2 in, so therefore the inference was that it was done primarily to

3 terrorise and cow the population, the civilians living in Sarajevo.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.

5 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I waited to see if this was going to be

6 linked somehow to the witness's own personal observations of specific

7 incidents. It has not. I submit that this is improper expert testimony

8 that has not been qualified under Rule 94 bis nor tendered under Rule 94

9 bis and is now giving expert-type testimony of the type that we have

10 objected to in our response to the Rule 92 ter motion for this witness.

11 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, Mr. Vanderpuye, with a 73-page

12 statement, where is the terroristic? Could you guide me, because the

13 punitive shelling you indicated was paragraph 91. By the way, the

14 questions you have put to the witness in respect of the punitive

15 shelling, nothing arose which was not already very clear from the

16 statement itself, but where do we have the terrorist?

17 MR. VANDERPUYE: I believe we have it in paragraph 90 and 91.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Ninety and 91.

19 MR. VANDERPUYE: If you bear with me, I'll give you the reference

20 for it.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think it's in 90. Yes.

22 Then, Mr. Ivetic, in paragraph 90 it's directly linked to the use

23 of artillery in the battles for Otes, which seems to be not just a

24 general statement but -- but perhaps Mr. Vanderpuye could further explore

25 with the witness to what extent there is a basis in his personal

Page 3767

1 experience which led the witness and perhaps others to describe it in the

2 way they did.

3 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Then this paragraph was

4 objected to in our response in the Rule 92 ter as being expert type.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Vanderpuye.

6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'm not exactly how -- sure how

7 to address Mr. Ivetic's objection. I don't see that it has any

8 foundation.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, first of all --

10 MR. VANDERPUYE: I am prepared, however, to proceed on your

11 guidance and to put it to the witness on what basis he drew the inference

12 that is indicated in his statement.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, at least to link the description and the

14 qualifications to his personal experience on specific incidents.

15 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.

16 Q. Mr. Tucker, you've described now what you meant by the

17 terroristic use of artillery. First, can you tell us how it is that you

18 arrived at that specific conclusion with respect to what you observed on

19 the ground?

20 A. During my time in Sarajevo, there was continual shell-fire

21 artillery and mortars into Sarajevo from Bosnian Serb lines. On a few

22 occasions, it was concentrated artillery fire in a specific area, but

23 most of the time it was sporadic and individual shells.

24 As to personal evidence, you could hear this going on if you were

25 in Sarajevo. Secondly is that there was reports from the UNMOs every day

Page 3768

1 reporting the -- the amount of incoming and outgoing artillery fire. So

2 it is a matter of record that that shell-fire was going on. And the

3 deductions that I described a few minutes ago are the basis of

4 consideration of those facts that there were indisputably single sporadic

5 shells being fired continually throughout the five months that I was in

6 Sarajevo.

7 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, could you indicate where exactly you

10 objected against the admission of paragraph 90, which is the very basis

11 of -- in your response? Page and --

12 MR. IVETIC: I have to get the response. I do not have it in

13 front of me, Your Honours. I apologise, since I'm --

14 JUDGE ORIE: We cannot find it at this moment. Apart from that,

15 in paragraph 90 the witness describes the impression they gained at the

16 time. He has linked it now to certain events and reports that were given

17 to him. Under those circumstances, without having found paragraph 90 in

18 your response as objected to, Mr. Vanderpuye is allowed to proceed.

19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I would just note,

20 and I'm sure Mr. Ivetic is well aware of this, that the witness has a

21 rather extensive background in matters concerning military artillery --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, I said that you could proceed, and

23 we were not at this moment triggering submissions on experience and how

24 that worked out.

25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 3769

1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

2 MR. VANDERPUYE:

3 Q. In terms of your experience in Sarajevo, Mr. Tucker, what was the

4 purpose, as best as you could determine, of the type of shelling that you

5 saw, this punitive or random shelling that you saw occurring in Sarajevo?

6 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't that -- the purpose of the shelling was in

7 paragraph 90. Is there anything new or do you want the witness, who has

8 testified to the accuracy of his statement, to say it again?

9 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would like to know if the witness has anything

10 new to add to his statement, Mr. President.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.

12 MR. IVETIC: And, Your Honours, this is in paragraph 23 which we

13 did object to precisely for this military purpose. That's objection A,

14 paragraph 5(a) of our response.

15 JUDGE ORIE: I read in (a):

16 "Paragraph 23, the second type of fire was single shells landing

17 around the city to no military purpose, and they were not fired in

18 support of attacks or to defend."

19 Do you expect on the Chamber to search for the whole of your

20 response to see whether anything is linked to paragraph 23?

21 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honour. I'm saying that the question that

22 was just asked goes paragraph 23 which we have objected to which I have

23 just put forth in front of Your Honours. It is my job to search. I have

24 done so.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Vanderpuye, and any reason to -- of

Page 3770

1 course, Mr. Tucker, as far as the purpose of this shelling is concerned,

2 the punitive or random shelling, would you like to add anything to your

3 statement or is what you say in your statement your -- what you wanted to

4 comment?

5 THE WITNESS: I have no -- nothing further to add, nothing new to

6 add to what I've already said.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Did you in your preparation for this testimony, did

8 you give any suggestion to the Prosecution that you would like to add

9 something as far as the purpose of this random or terrorist shelling is

10 concerned.

11 THE WITNESS: No, sir.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, you may proceed. And I take it that

13 you've carefully listened to both my questions and the answers given by

14 the witness. Please proceed.

15 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have, Mr. President. And I'm not sure if I

16 understand the Court's ruling. Is it that the Prosecution is not allowed

17 to elicit evidence from the witness that is outside the scope or outside

18 the specific words of the 92 ter statement, or is it that -- or is it

19 that the particular question that I'm putting to the witness in terms of

20 its substance is inappropriate?

21 JUDGE ORIE: No. It is because we expect you not to be

22 repetitious in your examination of the witness. What is in the statement

23 doesn't need to be asked again to hear the same answers.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Let me ask it this way then. Thank you,

25 Mr. President.

Page 3771

1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, ask something else I would say.

2 MR. VANDERPUYE:

3 Q. Did the shelling that you observed, Mr. Tucker, appear to follow

4 part of a broader plan in respect of the Bosnian Serb leadership's

5 objectives concerning Sarajevo, Srebrenica, Cerska, and Konjevic Polje?

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.

7 MR. IVETIC: He's asking for the witness to speculate and to give

8 expert testimony for which this witness has not been qualified before

9 this Tribunal.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, this question is too broad. If you

12 want to explore these matters, then please do not ask the witness about

13 whether he has any knowledge of a broader plan and what it was -- what

14 this knowledge is based on and then compare it. But this question as

15 phrased now is too broad. Please proceed.

16 MR. VANDERPUYE:

17 Q. In respect of the shelling and sniping that you observed in

18 Sarajevo, Mr. Tucker, did what you observe appear to follow any plan on

19 the part of the Bosnian Serb leadership?

20 A. I cannot comment on what plans the Bosnian Serb leadership may or

21 may not have had. What I can comment is that it was consistent behaviour

22 across many parts of the conflict area and that similar use of artillery

23 was made in many places.

24 Q. What was the purpose of the use of that artillery in relation to

25 what you've commented on in your statement --

Page 3772

1 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that you want to ask the witness what

2 he perceived to be the purpose of that artillery. What the purpose is

3 depends on the one who -- who fires the artillery. If the witness formed

4 any opinion about what he saw and heard, of course we can ask the

5 witness.

6 Did you -- did you form any opinion as to what may have been the

7 purpose of what you saw happening?

8 THE WITNESS: Our perception of what the reason for using

9 artillery in that way was that it was intended to frighten and terrorise

10 the population and to try and make them -- motivate them to leave the

11 area of where that shelling was taking place.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Vanderpuye, is this the -- the answer or

13 the information that you sought from the witness?

14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Indeed, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I can tell you that this is also in the

16 statement clearly expressed. So we don't want to hear the same evidence

17 as we found already in his statement, which was admitted. That's the

18 whole purpose of 92 ter. Please keep this in the back of your mind, and

19 you may now proceed.

20 MR. VANDERPUYE:

21 Q. You travelled to Eastern Bosnia, as you've indicated. Did you

22 see any evidence of a practice of burning down the houses of the fleeing

23 population by Bosnian Serb -- by the Bosnian Serb forces?

24 A. Yes, I saw some evidence in parts of the enclaves where I

25 travelled.

Page 3773

1 Q. And in respect of those observations, were you able to draw any

2 conclusions as to what the purpose of those actions was?

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.

4 MR. IVETIC: Again, if he's asking for conclusions, I would say

5 this witness has not been properly tendered under Rule 94 bis to render

6 expert-type conclusions.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We could ask the witness whether he formed any

8 opinion about what the purpose of those actions was. That's a factual

9 question, whether the witness did form such an opinion.

10 Did you?

11 THE WITNESS: I saw facts on the ground. In other words, houses

12 whose roofs had been burnt, where the furniture had been destroyed, where

13 the ovens and the fridges had been thrown out into the -- into the

14 garden, and where cattle, sheep, pigs had been locked in the buildings in

15 order to defecate in the buildings. That I saw in a number of areas.

16 Now, what the purpose and reason for doing that was, we surmised

17 that the reason was to frighten people who were living in those houses

18 previously into leaving and not coming -- and make it difficult for them

19 to consider coming back.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did it ever come to your mind that it would

21 serve a military purpose?

22 THE WITNESS: Unless you consider the military purpose to be the

23 clearance of people out of an area that you wanted to control.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but no other -- you could not detect any other

25 military purpose when you formed your opinion --

Page 3774

1 THE WITNESS: Yes.

2 JUDGE ORIE: -- about what you saw?

3 THE WITNESS: There were two types of damages that you could

4 observe to houses. You could see houses that had no roofs, because all

5 the roofs in Bosnia were wood, and which were in the condition I just

6 described to you. Those houses did not have damage, bullet holes, to the

7 side of houses. You then had other houses which were damaged with bullet

8 holes and shell holes in the side of the houses. Those were houses where

9 military fighting and military combat had taken place, and you could

10 always tell immediately, ah, that house has been ethnically cleansed,

11 whereas the other house with the holes in the side, that one is where

12 military combat and fighting had actually taken place.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.

14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to show the

15 witness 65 ter 3402.

16 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, again this document was given to us

17 notice for this witness at 5.00 in the afternoon yesterday and was not

18 within the seven-day guidance of Your Honours.

19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Your Honour, I don't know what Mr. Ivetic is

20 talking about. There is very clear, very clear guidance on the record of

21 these proceedings. At transcript page 2160, the Court gave very specific

22 guidance which says as follows:

23 "The parties are encouraged to send lists of documents to be used

24 during examination-in-chief as early as possible."

25 In this case Mr. Ivetic received it in excess of 30 days before

Page 3775

1 this witness testified.

2 "The Chamber would expect that a first list of documents be sent

3 not later than seven days prior to the witness's testimony," which

4 Mr. Ivetic received.

5 "Such a list could then be complemented," and I quote,

6 "complemented at a later stage following any proofing of the witness,"

7 which is precisely the circumstances under which Mr. Ivetic received the

8 documents in this case.

9 Furthermore, in relation to the witness's testimony, the document

10 I propose to put to the witness relates specifically to his direct and

11 personal observations during his time in Bosnia. Moreover, as Mr. Ivetic

12 is fully aware, this witness has specific training and expertise, I might

13 add, in artillery matters which are the direct subject matter of his

14 testimony and which the Chamber has previously given guidance is an

15 appropriate basis upon which to put questions to the witness concerning

16 his opinions.

17 I don't know what Mr. Ivetic is objecting to, and I don't know on

18 what basis he's making these objections.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Could I -- before I give an opportunity to

20 Mr. Ivetic to respond, would that mean that any document you would have

21 used in proofing where you would normally expect it to be considered for

22 the use with the witness well in advance that -- so there is an unlimited

23 realm of new documents in the complement -- the complementary part of the

24 list?

25 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, Mr. President. You can see me shaking my

Page 3776

1 head. The number of documents that I sent to Mr. Ivetic are probably not

2 more than six. Number one.

3 Number two, with respect to the document that is the

4 16th Assembly minutes, 16th Session Assembly minutes concerning

5 General Mladic's speech, I sent them specifically the pages references

6 that I would use. It's an enormous document. I think it's 50 or 60

7 pages. I gave them the specific page references concerning that. And I

8 do understand the Court's concern about flooding the Defence at the last

9 minute, but this is a far cry from that. In fact, of the documents that

10 Mr. Ivetic has received, they probably don't total, with the exception

11 of -- there is one UN document that is just coming up on the screen, with

12 the exception of that document they probably don't total more than 20

13 pages all put together.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.

15 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, my objection is very clear. It's based

16 on the guidance and the ruling that Your Honours have given on the prior

17 document. It is correct that six documents were disclosed to us for this

18 witness at 5.00 p.m. yesterday. I'm stating facts. I'm not stating

19 anything that's inaccurate. The witness list for this witness that Your

20 Honours identified as being rather lengthy has approximately 58 documents

21 on it, and in addition to those 58 documents we received 6 documents

22 yesterday at 5.00. I am objecting to it and I will abide by whatever

23 Your Honours' order is on this regard.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Just so the record --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, any response to Mr. Vanderpuye's

Page 3777

1 observation about to complement the list with documents which arose

2 during proofing?

3 MR. IVETIC: And Your Honour, that's why I said I don't know what

4 the guidance is. I'm asking Your Honours, if I'm wrong in understanding

5 your guidance, please tell me that I'm wrong and I will then tailor my

6 approach differently to this witness and other witnesses. I'm trying to

7 find out how we're supposed to be acting in this courtroom, what rules

8 we're supposed to be following, and I'm trying to adhere to them, and I

9 would also like to -- I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that since now

10 the Prosecution has indicated they are relying upon the expertise of this

11 witness, I would ask the testimony to be barred because Rule 94 bis has

12 not been adhered to for this witness to provide expert testimony.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you're mixing up two different matters,

14 isn't it. Let me just consult with my colleagues.

15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I just wanted to add one thing

16 and just to clarify one thing: Mr. Ivetic --

17 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers].

18 MR. VANDERPUYE: And I apologise interrupting you. Mr. Ivetic

19 indicated these documents were disclosed to him yesterday. In fact,

20 these documents were disclosed --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Now, now there's no --

22 MR. VANDERPUYE: A long time ago --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: They were indicated --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, Mr. Vanderpuye, I think there's no

Page 3778

1 issue about when they were disclosed. There's an issue about when notice

2 was given that you would use them with this witness.

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Correct. Correct.

4 JUDGE ORIE: That is the issue - that's -- that became clear.

5 Whatever language was used by Mr. Ivetic, I have not checked that. One

6 second, please.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, the Chamber considers that what

9 comes new in proofing, that is documents of which the Prosecution --

10 Prosecution -- documents the Prosecution could not link to that witness

11 any earlier than during proofing.

12 Now, therefore, we wonder when we have a statement of the

13 witness, and let's return to the one we have ruled on already, that if

14 the witness statement is clear and if that other document contains, as

15 you suggest, information which is fully consistent with the witness's

16 statement, why is it that you could not link that information any earlier

17 to the witness than one day before his examination?

18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Your Honour, the most clear reason is that the

19 documents that I'm using with the witness, first of all, do not directly

20 implicate the witness. They bear upon matters that the witness observed

21 which are directly relevant, and they are directly relevant to those

22 observations.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the question was why could you not link it,

24 because you're now clearly explained what the link to the witness is, why

25 couldn't you have done that before proofing?

Page 3779

1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Your Honour, if I were to do that, the exhibit

2 list -- or the proposed exhibit list for any given witness could number

3 in the thousands, because if this witness testifies that he -- or,

4 rather, his statement bears upon ethnic cleansing in Eastern Bosnia, that

5 would put a million documents on Mr. Ivetic's exhibit list which could

6 potentially be used with this witness. What we're talking about is

7 something that's far more narrow and far more precise than that, and it

8 has to do with specific observations that he made which did not -- which

9 were not put to him in his prior testimony, which were not put to him at

10 any point prior to the -- prior to the statement that was -- his

11 amalgamated statement, and which were only put to him in proofing.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 MR. VANDERPUYE: This on Sunday.

14 JUDGE ORIE: If you're able to make a selection of, as you said,

15 six documents, I found a few more but perhaps they had been on the

16 previous list, if you are able to select those for the proofing of the

17 witness, you should have been able to give notice of that a week ago --

18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President --

19 JUDGE ORIE: -- to the Defence, and I take it that you never

20 intended to use a million documents. I take it a bit of an exaggeration.

21 MR. VANDERPUYE: It is.

22 JUDGE ORIE: But --

23 MR. VANDERPUYE: But it underscores the point which is that the

24 documents that I disclosed or indicated to Mr. Ivetic that I was going to

25 use are -- they're very limited in number and they're very limited in

Page 3780

1 scope.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: And that's to avoid precisely the situation

4 where the Defence would be unable, wholly unable, to prepare for the

5 cross-examination of a witness based upon those documents.

6 They are six, that's it.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you made that selection to deal with those

8 documents during proofing, and the question of the Chamber is why you

9 didn't make that selection a week ago, because I take it that you have

10 not put all million documents to the witness and then it suddenly emerged

11 that these six were relevant. You have made your own selection and I

12 think the message of the Chamber is that you should have done that before

13 yesterday in the afternoon. I take it that you have a limited number of

14 documents you want to put to the witness during proofing.

15 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have a limited number of documents I want to

16 put to the witness in proofing.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 MR. VANDERPUYE: I don't know what the witness is going to say

19 about those documents until I put them to him in proofing, and so it

20 would be irresponsible for me to put that on an exhibit list to indicated

21 to the Defence to prepare for 500 documents or a million documents or 20

22 documents or 30 documents without any knowledge whether -- whatsoever

23 whether or not the witness can actually speak to them.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye --

25 MR. VANDERPUYE: This is exactly the problem that arose --

Page 3781

1 JUDGE ORIE: -- one second.

2 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- with respect to the previous witness.

3 JUDGE ORIE: How many documents, not associated exhibits, did you

4 put anew to this witness during proofing?

5 MR. VANDERPUYE: I believe six.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Six.

7 MR. VANDERPUYE: And I believe I've -- actually, no, more than

8 six. I have them on my -- I have indicated that in a proofing note also

9 to Mr. Ivetic.

10 JUDGE ORIE: How many. I asked you. You said not six. How many

11 did you put to the witness, new documents.

12 MR. VANDERPUYE: If you give me a moment, I'll pull up my

13 proofing note and I can take a look and give you an accurate number.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

15 MR. VANDERPUYE: In all, Mr. President, I count nine.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, what the issue is, you said that it would

17 be irresponsible to put all those on the list. Now, you would have nine

18 instead of six. The Defence would have had a week to look at those nine

19 documents. It would not be irresponsible. You are talking about huge

20 amounts. In fact, you're telling us that there were nine that you used

21 with the witness during proofing. What you should have done is to give

22 notice of those nine you intended to deal with during proofing to the

23 Defence so that they could prepare for that.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm afraid that the Chamber has misunderstood

25 me. The nine documents I put to the witness were documents that I --

Page 3782

1 that I vetted before I proofed him. If I were to give the Defence notice

2 of the documents within the potential range of documents I would put to

3 him, it would be utterly ineffective for them.

4 JUDGE ORIE: But if you use nine documents during proofing, well,

5 let's say that at the last minute you have to make up your mind finally

6 whether there would have been 15 or, but that is reality. You use a very

7 limited number of documents with the witness during proofing. At that

8 moment you shouldn't wait until the day before the testimony starts, but

9 you should give notice to the Defence already at that early stage, and

10 that would not be irresponsible. I think that would be very responsible.

11 And I would like to leave it to that at this very moment.

12 Let's now then rule on the document. You wanted to put to the

13 witness which one again, Mr. Vanderpuye?

14 MR. VANDERPUYE: 340 -- I think it's 3402.

15 JUDGE ORIE: 3402. Yes. Yes. Any specific link with this

16 witness?

17 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think so.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from that the subject matter, of course.

19 Everything in the former Yugoslavia has to do with the -- let's --

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, there are some matters that are

22 specifically linked to this witness, Mr. President, and those -- if you'd

23 like, I can give you the paragraphs numbers I intend to show him.

24 JUDGE ORIE: I'm consulting with my colleagues, Mr. Vanderpuye.

25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Sorry, Mr. President.

Page 3783

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, we allow the use of documents only

3 if specific facts are mentioned in that document to which the witness can

4 testify, not about practice of shelling or -- but specific facts. A fact

5 is something that happened on a certain day in a certain area and which

6 is described concretely. If that is the case with 3402, you may proceed.

7 If, however, it's just a report describing the situation in -- human

8 rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, that is too general a

9 subject to link it to this witness.

10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. What I'd like to show

11 the witness in this document in particular is paragraph 105.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then let's -- could I invite the witness not

13 yet to look at paragraph 105 of this document. We'll have a look at it,

14 and then we'll see, Mr. -- do we have it on our screen already? I don't

15 think -- well -- yes, we have it. You said paragraph 105. We'll read

16 it.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, I think the witness testified about

19 burning down of houses. If you think that he would have any specific

20 knowledge about what happened in the village of Bradina or -- this is

21 about, by the way, by Croat forces. I do not know whether you're

22 interested in that. It seems to be a bit outside the scope of -- but if

23 you have, again, any specific village, if the witness would have any

24 specific knowledge about that, ask the witness about it and put the

25 document to him.

Page 3784

1 However, the witness testified about what he saw as far as

2 burning houses are concerned, and at this moment the Chamber is unable to

3 identify any specific factual matter in paragraph 105 to which it

4 expects - but we have not proofed the witness, we have only read his

5 statement - we did not -- we're not able to identify any specific factual

6 matter where we would expect the witness to have any personal knowledge

7 or observation.

8 Unless you find something like that --

9 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do, Mr. President. I do. That's the reason

10 why I've asked the question.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Which one?

12 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's the first sentence in the paragraph.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that is not a specific factual matter, but

14 that is a general statement, and therefore if that's what you want to ask

15 questions about, then you are not allowed to use this document which you

16 have given notice of only yesterday to the Defence.

17 You may proceed.

18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Is it a question of relevance, Mr. President?

19 JUDGE ORIE: I said this is a ruling. You are not allowed. You

20 have given this document yesterday to the Defence, whereas you should

21 have done that a week ago, and you haven't done that, and that's the

22 reason why --

23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Very well, Mr. President. Thank you.

24 JUDGE ORIE: -- the Chamber ruled as it did.

25 MR. VANDERPUYE:

Page 3785

1 Q. Mr. Tucker, you testified a minute ago about having observed

2 evidence that houses were burnt during your period in Bosnia and

3 Herzegovina. Can you tell us what information you had, if any, about how

4 widespread that particular kind of conduct was in the areas that you

5 yourself visited or were aware of?

6 A. I personally saw the evidence after the action of houses having

7 been burnt in the way previously described in the area between Sarajevo

8 and Kiseljak. I saw it in the area around Srebrenica and a number of

9 villages in the Srebrenica pocket. I saw it later in the area of

10 Mrkonjic Grad in the Banja Luka area. That's what I personally saw

11 myself. I also saw it in the areas around the Lasva Valley. In addition

12 to that, there were media reports and television pictures which were

13 taken during the -- at the time when people were actually being evicted

14 from their houses. I also saw journalist reports from journalists who

15 had been present and seen these actions taking place.

16 All of those together built up into a consistent picture of what

17 had been happening in those areas which were ethnically cleansed.

18 Sorry, one more place that I actually saw the consequence myself

19 is in the area to the south-west of Banja Luka where there were

20 previously Muslim civilians who had been displaced.

21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Did you receive any information

22 concerning the shelling or artillery fire directed against hospitals in

23 particular?

24 A. Yes, I did, and in particular around the two hospitals in

25 Sarajevo.

Page 3786

1 Q. Did you have any dealings -- in fact, let me rephrase that. You

2 did have dealings with Vinko Pandurevic as you've indicated in your

3 statement?

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. And are you aware of whether or not Vinko Pandurevic engaged in

6 the practice of burning Muslim houses in the areas in which the VRS -- in

7 which the VRS entered?

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.

9 MR. IVETIC: As phrased I believe that the question asked for the

10 witness to speculate as to matters that are -- as to a third party.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the witness is asked about whether he has any

12 knowledge about Vinko Pandurevic engaged in certain practice. That is

13 not asking for speculation. That is exploring with the witness whether

14 he has any knowledge of it, and of course then the next question would be

15 on what base he gained that knowledge.

16 Do you have any knowledge about Vinko Pandurevic being engaged in

17 the practice of burning Muslim houses?

18 THE WITNESS: I do not know or have any specific knowledge

19 whether Vinko Pandurevic engaged in that. What I do know is that he was

20 the VRS commander in areas where that happened.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, please proceed.

22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to show the

23 witness 65 ter 9059.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

25 MR. VANDERPUYE: For the Chamber's benefit, I would direct -- it

Page 3787

1 is one such document, and I would --

2 JUDGE ORIE: It's one such document. So --

3 MR. VANDERPUYE: And I would direct the Chamber to the last line

4 of this document.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Last line. Yes. So what we'd like to know is

6 whether the witness has any specific knowledge about Konjevic Polje and

7 whether or not houses were burned there. Could we first ask whether the

8 witness has any knowledge about that. That can be done even without

9 using the document at this moment.

10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.

11 Q. Mr. Tucker, do you have any knowledge of houses being burnt in

12 the area of Konjevic Polje during the period of time that you were there,

13 obviously, or if you have any information concerning whether or not

14 houses were burned in that area?

15 A. I do not have specific knowledge of houses being burnt in

16 Konjevic Polje because I was there before the VRS seized that -- that

17 territory. Afterwards I went through that area, but there had been quite

18 heavy fighting and I could not determine because I didn't spend time

19 looking at the houses to see whether it was burnt or whether it was

20 combat damage.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This determines the fate of this document,

22 Mr. Vanderpuye, again without prejudice, but for using it with this

23 witness. Please proceed.

24 MR. VANDERPUYE:

25 Q. In terms of what you observed concerning the burning of houses,

Page 3788

1 given your extensive military experience, is that something that you

2 would expect to have occurred in the absence of a chain of command?

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.

4 MR. IVETIC: This is quintessential expert testimony. It has not

5 been tendered and subjected to Rule 94 bis and I would object.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me re-read the question.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE ORIE: The answer to this question, Mr. Vanderpuye, the

9 Chamber considers not to assist it in whatever ways it go, whether he did

10 expect it or whether he did not expect it. It's not a question to which

11 the answer would assist us in making the determinations we have to.

12 Please proceed.

13 So the witness is not -- doesn't have to answer the question.

14 MR. VANDERPUYE:

15 Q. You were present in the area of Cerska, Konjevic Polje, and

16 Srebrenica around March of 1993, and in respect of your visit there, did

17 you see evidence of a campaign being carried out by the Bosnian Serb

18 military to remove the Muslim population from those areas?

19 A. Yes, I did.

20 Q. What did you see?

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.

22 MR. IVETIC: It's a matter of a legal conclusion that I believe

23 is the purview of the Chamber to determine this. He can testify to what

24 he saw. I don't think he can draw conclusions of this nature.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you can -- whether it's conclusion or not -- a

Page 3789

1 witness can develop a personal opinion on the consistency of what he

2 sees, and that's not a legal conclusion. Now, perhaps the question would

3 have been better phrased slightly different to achieve that purpose.

4 But what Mr. Vanderpuye apparently wanted to ask you is whether

5 you, when observing what happened in the areas covered by the question in

6 March of 1993, whether you saw or whether you formed any opinion about it

7 being a pattern or, rather, loose incidents.

8 THE WITNESS: Sir, what I saw was reports from the UN military

9 observers who were with General Morillon and myself inside the Srebrenica

10 pocket who were sent out into the area around Srebrenica in order to

11 observe what was happening. Those military observers reported back to me

12 what they saw, and it is those observations that I'm reporting. What

13 those military observers reported seeing was continued sporadic

14 shell-fire of villages on the edge of the perimeter, and over a number of

15 days then a military attack on the ground would follow a number of days

16 of sporadic shell-fire, and then the Serb forces would seize that

17 particular village, and this would then proceed to the next village.

18 This behaviour, and this is observable fact that we saw on the

19 ground, the consequence of these actions by the Bosnian Serb Army was to

20 precondition the civilians living in these villages that as soon as they

21 started being shelled, one shell every 40 minutes, one shell every two

22 hours, then suddenly two shells, as soon as that started happening to

23 their village, they then knew that they were within a few days going to

24 be attacked by ground forces, and so those civilians then packed up

25 whatever they could carry and then fled away from the Bosnian Serb

Page 3790

1 forces, which meant basically towards the centre of the pocket, which

2 meant basically towards Srebrenica.

3 That was reported to us by the UN military observers in the

4 Srebrenica pocket, and it was described to us many times by refugees who

5 we talked with in Srebrenica itself.

6 JUDGE ORIE: And on the basis of this information, you considered

7 it to be events according to a pattern.

8 THE WITNESS: It appeared to us to be far too consistent for it

9 to be coincidence and that this had to be in some way, shape, or form a

10 deliberate plan of action which was being conducted by the

11 Bosnian Serb Army.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer. I'm looking at the

13 clock, Mr. Vanderpuye. We need another break. We'll take a break and

14 we'll resume at 13 minutes to 2.00.

15 Could the witness first leave the courtroom.

16 [The witness stands down]

17 --- Recess taken at 1.27 p.m.

18 --- On resuming at 1.47 p.m.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

20 [The witness takes the stand]

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, you may proceed.

22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.

23 Q. Mr. Tucker, in light of what you said just before the break

24 concerning what appeared to you to be a pattern or not to be a

25 coincidence with respect to the -- to what you observed in Eastern

Page 3791

1 Bosnia, in your statement at paragraph 134 you talk about a

2 counter-offensive being carried out by the Bosnian Serb Army. I was

3 wondering how that figures in to your assessment of the pattern that you

4 just described concerning Eastern Bosnia, Cerska, Konjevic Polje,

5 Srebrenica, et cetera?

6 A. General Morillon had been told by Dr. Karadzic and other members

7 of the Bosnian Serb government and leaders that the Bosniak, that is the

8 Muslim forces in Eastern Bosnia, had conducted a series of attacks

9 against Bosnian Serb forces and civilians in Eastern Bosnia and had

10 killed a number of civilians, and I believe the number, from

11 recollection, was -- 1.260 was mentioned quite a few times. And that, as

12 a result, the Bosnian Serb forces were taking steps against the eastern

13 enclaves and that is -- was a declared intent by the -- by Dr. Karadzic

14 and other members of the Bosnian Serb leadership. That intent was

15 confirmed by reports that we were being given by the Bosnian Muslim

16 leadership about the situation and what was happening in the -- the

17 eastern -- eastern enclaves, and that is why General Morillon was asked

18 by Izetbegovic at the beginning of March to go personally himself to the

19 eastern enclaves in order to establish what was actually going on and in

20 order to ameliorate the terrible situation that he was telling us that

21 Muslim civilians were in and experiencing in these enclaves.

22 Q. Based on what you could observe and what you know or testified

23 about the apparent plan that you observed or lack of coincidence

24 concerning Bosnian Serb intentions towards Cerska, Konjevic Polje, and

25 Srebrenica, did you then or do you now find any credit with respect to

Page 3792

1 the so-called counter-offensive as a result of the events on 7 January

2 1993, as a basis for what you ultimately observed when you were in

3 Cerska, Konjevic Polje, and Srebrenica in 1993?

4 A. At the time, given what we knew at the time, we had heard the

5 Bosnian Serb leadership from the middle of December onwards declaring

6 that they wished peace, cease-fires, et cetera. That is what we had

7 heard at the time. We then heard the reports about attacks on the

8 eastern enclaves by the Bosnian Serbs, and we heard reports from the

9 Bosnian Serbs that people in the enclaves had carried out attacks out of

10 the enclaves.

11 Given what we knew at the time, we could see for a fact that a

12 campaign had been initiated by the Bosnian Serbs in order to seize the

13 eastern enclaves. What I know after the fact from documents from the VRS

14 army which have been shown to me by the Office of the Prosecution are

15 documents from the VRS army which show that the attack on the eastern

16 enclaves in order to seize these eastern enclaves had in fact been

17 planned and ordered in November of 1992 that had been -- that they had

18 ordered a tactical halt to the attacks in the middle of December in order

19 to not represent to the international community that they're being

20 aggressive, and that they were ordered to continue the attacks in January

21 and February. Those are documents which I was shown after the event. I

22 obviously did not have -- General Morillon obviously did not have that

23 information at the time.

24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. In relation to your service in Bosnia, I

25 understand that you received a commendation, and I wondered if you might

Page 3793

1 tell the Trial Chamber just a little bit about that.

2 A. I was awarded the military cross for halting or preventing the

3 last Serb military attempt to capture Srebrenica around the 18th or 19th

4 of -- of March when General Morillon had left the enclave in order to go

5 to Zvornik in order to get the UNHCR convoy, humanitarian convoy, which

6 had been blocked in Zvornik for many weeks. He left me at the front

7 line, at the Yellow Bridge between Srebrenica and Bratunac, in order to

8 "keep the front line open." And by that he meant the warring factions,

9 all parties, repeatedly used the excuse oh, there is fighting going on,

10 as a reason for not allowing humanitarian aid convoys to pass, and

11 General Morillon wished me to stay there in order to observe what was

12 going on and be a presence on the ground to try and make sure that that

13 excuse would not be used again.

14 What actually happened in the six hours between General Morillon

15 leaving the Yellow Bridge and returning with the UNHCR convoy six hours

16 or so later was that as soon as General Morillon -- as the vehicle left,

17 about 15 minutes later a column of tanks and armoured vehicles came out

18 of woods and tried to cross the Yellow Bridge towards Srebrenica,

19 brackets, now that General Morillon was out of the way.

20 I had my armoured personnel carrier parked on the Yellow Bridge

21 which was half destroyed and been filled with rubble. So a track vehicle

22 could bump its way across. A tank could have squeezed around my armoured

23 vehicle, but it would have been risky, and I stood in the way of the

24 leading Serb tank and stood in front of it waving and gesticulating at

25 the commander and the driver not to pass, and I refused to get out of the

Page 3794

1 way. After a standoff for about 15 minutes, this was during a fire-fight

2 where Muslim soldiers behind me and Serb soldiers in the front lines in

3 front of me were firing at each other. The Serb tanks backed off and

4 went into reverse and back into -- back behind Serb lines. This happened

5 a second time a few hours later.

6 It was clear to me that the commander of the tank, the Serb tank

7 company, who was reservist, who spoke good English, actually, he was a

8 teacher, he was not keen at all on pressing forward the attack, which is

9 why me standing in front of his tank -- I mean, he could have just driven

10 over me, but the Serb colonel in the -- on the ground dugout behind the

11 Serb front lines screamed and shouted and ranted and raved at the -- the

12 Serb tank company commander about going into the attack, and there was a

13 lot of shooting going on back and forth and a lot of arguing and shouting

14 and -- but that's what happened.

15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. Tucker. I don't have

16 any further questions for you, and I apologise for some of the procedural

17 interruptions to your testimony.

18 Mr. President, that concludes my direct examination.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.

20 Mr. Ivetic, it will be you who will cross-examine the witness.

21 MR. IVETIC: Yes, it is, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tucker, you'll now be cross examined by

23 Mr. Ivetic. Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence team of Mr. Mladic.

24 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

25 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.