140519ED

Page 21035

1 Monday, 19 May 2014

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.31 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 We are at the beginning of the Defence case at this moment.

12 Nevertheless, I'd like to deal with a few matters which are still

13 outstanding. I do understand that the Prosecution would like to raise a

14 preliminary matter, but I would not be surprised, Mr. Groome, if it shows

15 up somewhere in the agenda I have before me at this moment. If not, of

16 course you have an opportunity to address whatever.

17 I would like to start with some follow-up from the last week's

18 pre-Defence conference. The Chamber has not yet analysed a newly

19 submitted witness list which is filed by the Defence. I'm saying this

20 because the Chamber was informed that there had been a filing, although

21 it has not been distributed yet. So we expect that this would be the

22 witness list. We have not -- certainly not analysed what was filed, so

23 if there will be any problems, the Chamber will let the Defence know.

24 Second item, Rule 67 disclosure. The Chamber takes note of an

25 agreement which was filed by the parties setting out a plan for further

Page 21036

1 disclosure. There's thus no further need for the Chamber to become

2 involved in this respect at this time, and the Chamber appreciates that

3 the parties were able to find a practical solution and reach an agreement

4 in that respect.

5 The next item is on my agenda Defence preparations.

6 Mr. Lukic, is there any update on any possible further matters

7 which may negatively impact preparations for the Defence case, including

8 technical matters as we have seen them in the recent past several times?

9 Any problems to be reported there?

10 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, I was just reminded that I should remind

11 Your Honours that there might be some delays in collecting the signatures

12 due to these floodings in Balkans, but that's the only technical issue I

13 can think of right now. For the technical issues inside the Tribunal, we

14 have to check all our passwords and the log-ins if they work, since

15 Mr. Ivetic was not able to check mine or Mr. Stojanovic's. But if there

16 is any problem, we will inform you.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, as matters stand now, at least no problems, no

18 specific problems are reported.

19 Then of course the Chamber is totally unable to do anything about

20 the flooding and of course we are full of sympathy with those suffering

21 from these extraordinary circumstances in the former Yugoslavia.

22 If there's nothing else, I'll proceed. Yes, the next item on my

23 agenda reads: Rule 92 ter statements and tendering of prior testimony in

24 cross-examination. First, in relation to Rule 92 ter statements taken

25 for other cases, the Chamber notes that these statements sometimes

Page 21037

1 contain references to Rule 65 ter numbers or exhibit numbers of these

2 other cases. The Defence is invited to tender tables of concordance in

3 this respect should it want to rely on such references in its statements,

4 otherwise of course the Chamber will be unable to trace these exhibits.

5 Secondly, at the pre-Defence conference there was a short

6 discussion about the Prosecution's intention to, first, tender parts of a

7 witness's previous testimony in cross-examination and, two, receive clear

8 guide-lines from the Chamber on the procedure to be used when contacting

9 Defence witnesses in order to review such prior testimony.

10 Is there anything you'd like to bring to our attention,

11 Mr. Groome, in respect of these issues?

12 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. And as I said at the pre-Defence

13 conference that we were still -- our thinking on the subject was

14 evolving. So we've now spent several days looking at the issue very

15 carefully and we'd like to make a submission to the Chamber.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.

17 MR. GROOME: So now I would like to thank the Chamber for

18 allowing me to address it in greater detail about our proposal for a way

19 in which we might save some time cross-examining Defence witnesses, by

20 relying on the Prosecution's cross-examination of these witnesses before

21 the Karadzic Chamber.

22 Given the fact that 122 witnesses on Mr. Mladic's list have

23 recently testified in the Karadzic trial, such reliance may result in a

24 significant savings of time. This opportunity for greater efficiency

25 arises because Mr. Mladic and Karadzic were originally charged on the

Page 21038

1 same indictment and the evidence of the common Defence witnesses is often

2 identical. This Chamber should be able to consider the examinations of

3 common witnesses conducted before the Karadzic Chamber.

4 In essence, the Prosecution's proposal and proposed procedure

5 would be as follows:

6 When the Prosecution receives a 92 ter application it will

7 evaluate whether some or all of the cross-examination in the Karadzic

8 case is relevant in this trial. If the Prosecution determines that there

9 would be a significant savings of time in relying on the examinations

10 conducted by our colleagues in the Karadzic case in lieu of asking the

11 same questions before this Chamber we will make an application to admit

12 the prior cross-examination under Rule 92 bis or in the alternative under

13 Rule 89(c) and (f). We will make this motion in our response to the

14 Defence's 92 ter motion and will attach those portions of the

15 cross-examination we seek admission of.

16 The motion would be conditional, that is, it would be conditioned

17 on the Chamber's decision to admit the witness' 92 ter statement. As a

18 general practice, we would not tender the entire cross-examination but

19 only those portions which remain relevant to this case. For example,

20 there may be some cross-examination that relates to specific crimes that

21 are no longer part of the indictment against Mr. Mladic; these would be

22 redacted.

23 The Prosecution would include in its response the amount of time

24 the cross-examination in Karadzic took. This will enable the Chamber to

25 consider how to adjust its guidance regarding the time allotted for

Page 21039

1 cross-examination and ensure that this procedure yields tangible savings

2 of court time.

3 Given the unique relationship between the Mladic and the Karadzic

4 cases, there is no jurisprudence directly on point. There is also no

5 jurisprudence that I am aware of which would prohibit such an approach.

6 There is some jurisprudence from the Appeals Chamber which is

7 informative. In the Aleksovski case the Appeals Chamber dealt with a

8 somewhat analogous situation in their decision of the 16th of February,

9 1999, entitled: "Decision on the Prosecutor's Appeal on Admissibility of

10 Evidence." In that case, the Trial Chamber admitted the direct and

11 cross-examination of Defence Witness Admiral Domazet from the Blaskic

12 trial pursuant to 89(C) over the Prosecution's objection.

13 The Prosecution appealed the Trial Chamber's decision and it

14 asserted as one of its grounds that the Trial Chamber erred in ruling

15 that the Prosecution's cross-examination in Blaskic satisfied the right

16 to cross-examine the witness before the Aleksovski Chamber. The Appeals

17 Chamber rejected this ground and stated:

18 "It is common ground that the alleged events out of which both

19 men were charged took place in the same area, the Lasva Valley area, and

20 that two proceedings (which arose out of the same indictment) had much in

21 common in both their legal and factual aspects."

22 If the Appeals Chamber affirmed the admission of the

23 cross-examination of a Defence witness from another trial over the

24 Prosecution's objection, surely it can only be proper to do so upon the

25 Prosecution's motion.

Page 21040

1 Your Honour, I have prepared an example of what the package would

2 look like as well as a copy of that decision if that's helpful to the

3 Chamber. I'll ask the usher to assist me to distribute this to the

4 Defence and to the Chamber.

5 Your Honours, I'm ready to answer any questions you may have

6 regarding this. I conclude by saying that this procedure has the

7 potential to save a significant amount of time, alleviate the need for

8 witnesses to repeat testimony they have given to this Tribunal recently.

9 Obviously, a more expeditious trial is something that is in the interests

10 of everyone. And as the Aleksovski Appeals Chamber stated in its

11 decision:

12 "The purpose of the Rules is to promote a fair and expeditious

13 trial and Trial Chambers must have flexibility to achieve this goal."

14 The Prosecution submits that this procedure is fair and will

15 achieve a more expeditious trial.

16 Thank you.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.

18 Judge Moloto has a question for you. Of course the Defence will

19 have an opportunity to respond but let's first listen to the question.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Groome, where you say the Appeals Chamber

21 ruled that if a Trial Chamber wants to use evidence from another trial,

22 it must do so over the motion of the Prosecution. I'm not quite sure how

23 this resolved the matter that was on appeal because my impression is that

24 the Prosecution was appealing the very ruling by the Trial Chamber. How

25 is one to understand the meaning of that Appeals Chamber ruling? Did

Page 21041

1 they rule in favour of the Prosecution or did they rule against the

2 Prosecution?

3 MR. GROOME: It ruled against the Prosecution's position. The

4 Prosecution opposed the admission of the witness's testimony in one

5 Chamber to the Aleksovski Trial Chamber, but the principle that it used

6 in overruling or dismissing the Prosecution's appeal I think is

7 informative here, and that is that the right to cross-examination was

8 satisfied in another case when the case arose from the same indictment

9 and dealt with the same factual and legal questions. And I think that's

10 the situation that we essentially have here.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Even if the Prosecution in the current case would

12 like to add to the cross-examination of the previous case, would they --

13 would the Prosecution be precluded from doing so?

14 MR. GROOME: I'm not suggesting that we would be precluded. In

15 fact, Your Honour, as the Karadzic cross-examination in some ways focused

16 very much on Mr. Karadzic, we would not be asking that that be before

17 you, but we would be asking to have some supplement to our

18 cross-examination so that all of the issues can be brought before

19 Your Honours. And again to ensure that it really does yield in a

20 savings of time, the Prosecution would provide this Chamber with the time

21 that was used in the Karadzic. So I could imagine the Chamber would say

22 that in a case where the Prosecution introduced the entire

23 cross-examination and that took an hour before the Karadzic Chamber, that

24 the Chamber may say that the guidance which ordinarily gives two and a

25 half hours for cross-examination of 92 ter, the starting point would be

Page 21042

1 an hour and a half or whatever less.

2 Some of the cross-examinations in Karadzic are an hour and a

3 half, two hours, and I expect that there will be some substantial

4 savings, although it is difficult to say with some precision until we get

5 the 92 ter motions.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

7 MR. GROOME: And it if I could add maybe just one point is that

8 if the Chamber will have noticed in the agreement that we've reached with

9 the Defence, it seems that the general rule will be that the exact

10 Karadzic statement will be now the primary way of adducing a witness's

11 evidence. Thank you.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Although the agreement does foresee the possibility

13 of an additional statement to be taken and to be presented.

14 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, and in those cases the

15 cross-examination I imagine would be limited to that new information.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Groome, before I give an opportunity to

17 Mr. Lukic to respond, I also have one question, and I read from the

18 transcript: You said you will make an application to admit the prior

19 cross-examination under Rule 92 bis or, in the alternative, under Rules

20 89(c) and (f).

21 Your reference to 92 bis and not to 92 ter, is that -- because

22 Rule 92 bis starts by saying:

23 "A Trial Chamber may dispense with the attendance of a witness in

24 person ..."

25 Which means that the witness would not be there if you would

Page 21043

1 apply Rule 92 bis, whereas under Rule 92 ter the witness still would be

2 present. I understood the -- your reference to 92 bis to be for

3 witnesses who -- for whom statements have been presented by the Defence

4 under Rule 92 ter, so the witness is there to be cross-examined; and

5 therefore, I do not fully understand why you refer to 92 bis rather than

6 to 92 ter.

7 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I can explain that.

8 I have considered that 92 ter would also be a vehicle for

9 tendering such evidence; however, we believe it is impractical. It would

10 require the witness to come some extra amount of time to The Hague and

11 listen to the audiotape of their testimony in Karadzic. Such a procedure

12 carries with it the risk that it may disrupt Defence preparations with

13 their witnesses. The proposal we've made also highlights an anomaly in

14 the rules and practices of this Tribunal. When Rule 92 ter is used to

15 adduce prior testimony before this Tribunal, the witness is ordinarily

16 asked to listen to it and make any amendments to his or her answers.

17 When 92 bis is used to adduce the very same evidence, the testimony is

18 considered to be self-authenticating. There is no need to have the

19 witness review and comment. Any dispute about what the witness said can

20 be resolved by listening to the official records of the Tribunal. It is

21 for these reasons that I believe 92 bis is the most appropriate

22 mechanism. Should the Chamber come to the view that 92 bis is not

23 appropriate mechanism, that in the context of unique and particular

24 parity that exists between the witness' evidence between the two cases,

25 that the Chamber should consider admitting the earlier cross-examination

Page 21044

1 pursuant to 89(c) and 89(f). 89(f) allows the Chamber to admit evidence

2 in writing where the interests of justice allow. Clearly, that test is

3 met by the simple fact that it allows Mr. Mladic's trial to proceed more

4 efficiently. And of course 89(c) is a broad grant of authority for the

5 Chamber to admit any evidence it deems to have probative value.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.

7 Of course the attestation for Rule 92 bis, there is no specific

8 need -- if an audio does exist, then if it is a verbatim transcription of

9 the witness, so to that extent there seems not to be the major problem

10 whether the transcript reflects what the witness really said because

11 that's, I would say, relatively easy to verify. However, whether the

12 witness still stands by that testimony and whether he would give the same

13 answers, which of course is also part of the attestation, that's of

14 course a matter still to be considered, even under Rule 92 bis.

15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, can I just add for your consideration,

16 we also imagine that in this proposal that we're making that should the

17 Chamber grant our application under 92 bis, the Defence will know that at

18 the time of our response and will have, I would imagine, an opportunity

19 to re-direct not only on the additional questions we ask but on whatever

20 transcript is brought in in lieu of cross-examination. So I think the

21 witness would have a fair opportunity to clarify any matter that they

22 wish to.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we would have to think about this in some

24 detail.

25 Mr. Lukic, any response at this moment on the suggestions made by

Page 21045

1 Mr. Groome?

2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Of course we'll need more

3 time to prepare the full response. On this issue I know that we already

4 filed two motions on this issue objecting, and that's our position at

5 this moment, of course, that we object -- still object this proposition.

6 And what I want to emphasise now is that the Prosecution had even more

7 Karadzic witnesses in their case and we didn't have this tool. The

8 Prosecution is trying to change the rules in their favour after their

9 case. If they wanted to propose this, they were able to propose this at

10 the beginning of their case, not at the beginning of our case.

11 So we deem this to be unfair. They want to have more rights than

12 the Defence, and that would be the outcome if their request is granted.

13 So we strongly oppose to this proposition. We are not willing to give

14 the Prosecution more rights than we had during their case. And we will

15 file our response probably in a week we can do this.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, any problems as far as the Prosecution

18 is concerned to receive an answer in a week from now?

19 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. And if the Chamber authorises us,

20 we can do it in the context of a specific application such as the sample

21 that we sent up, the arguments can be equally presented in regards to

22 specific cases rather than in the theoretical absence of such.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you have a week to respond.

24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE ORIE: The matter is important enough to be very carefully

Page 21046

1 considered. However, your short response raises already one question,

2 and perhaps you could assist me in refreshing my memory. Did you ever

3 apply for using the transcript of previous testimony as a vehicle for

4 cross-examination?

5 MR. LUKIC: No, we have never applied. It was proposed once by

6 the Prosecution and we did not -- did not go that way. We proceeded in a

7 normal way --

8 JUDGE ORIE: But --

9 MR. LUKIC: -- we never applied since it's not in the Rules and

10 it's not in the practice of this Tribunal.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll wait for your further response and --

12 but if I understand you well - and my recollection doesn't serve me in

13 detail on this matter - that the Prosecution where you say they're

14 seeking an advantage we did not have, that they offered at least to you

15 to be in a similar position.

16 MR. LUKIC: Only in one case.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, in one case you mean --

18 MR. LUKIC: One witness.

19 JUDGE ORIE: One witness.

20 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll further consider the matter.

22 Then ...

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ORIE: Then a few other matters.

25 On the 12th of May of this year, the Defence informally requested

Page 21050

1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Sladoje. Please be seated.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Sladoje, you'll be examined first by

4 Mr. Stojanovic. Mr. Stojanovic is counsel for Mr. Mladic.

5 Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.

6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

7 Examination by Mr. Stojanovic:

8 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, sir.

9 A. Good morning.

10 Q. I would kindly ask you to tell us your name for the record, your

11 first and last names.

12 A. My name is Mile Sladoje.

13 Q. Will you please tell the Court whether you provided a written

14 statement to the Mladic Defence team?

15 A. Yes, I provided a written statement and I signed it.

16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to call up 65 ter

17 1D01612 in e-court. Let's look at the first page first.

18 Q. In a minute you will be able to see the first page of the

19 document in front of you on the screen.

20 Mr. Sladoje, do you see a document in front of you and do you see

21 a signature on the document?

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. Is this your signature?

24 A. Yes, it is.

25 Q. And now let's look at the last page, page 7 in B/C/S version in

Page 21051

1 the same document. As it is stated in here, your statement has seven

2 pages all together and it contains everything that you stated. And there

3 is a signature below that. Mr. Sladoje, is this your signature as well?

4 A. Yes, it is.

5 Q. Is this precisely the statement that you provided to the Mladic

6 Defence team?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Sir, if I were to put the same questions to you today, would you

9 provide identical answers after having made the solemn declaration here

10 in the courtroom?

11 A. Absolutely.

12 Q. Would your answers represent the whole truth about the events

13 that you were questioned about?

14 A. Yes, only the truth.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, at this point I

17 would like to tender Mr. Mile Sladoje's statement into evidence. It is

18 65 ter 1D01612.

19 MR. GROOME: No objection.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D1612 receives number D453,

22 Your Honours.

23 JUDGE ORIE: D453 is admitted.

24 Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] If the following is in keeping

Page 21052

1 with the procedure, I would also like to tender the documents that the

2 Defence team used while taking this witness's statement, and I'm talking

3 about three documents: 65 ter 1D02076, 1D02075, and 1D02074.

4 MR. GROOME: No objection, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D2076 receives number D454,

7 Your Honours. Document 1D2075 receives number D455, Your Honours. And

8 document 1D2074 receives number D456, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE ORIE: All three are admitted into evidence.

10 Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. And with your leave,

12 Your Honours, I would like to ask you to allow me to read a summary of

13 this witness's statement.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so. You've explained to the witness the

15 purpose of it. It's not the evidence but it's not just to inform the

16 public on what the examination will be based on.

17 Please proceed.

18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, and the

19 witness is aware of that.

20 Mile Sladoje was born in 1951 in Kalinovik municipality. From

21 1970 together with his family he lived and worked in Sarajevo. When the

22 war started, he was in his family house in Nedzarici, in Sarajevo. Due

23 to the inter-ethnic tensions and fear, the Serbian population from

24 Nedzarici organised guards around their houses. The first armed

25 conflicts started on the 8th of April, 1992, and the first attack was by

Page 21053

1 Muslim paramilitaries on the Nedzarici neighbourhood. The leader of that

2 attack was Dragan Vikic. That was the neighbourhood where he lived with

3 his family at the time.

4 Witness Mile Sladoje was a member of the Ilidza Brigade which was

5 part of the Sarajevo and Romanija Corps. In the Nedzarici Battalion he

6 performed a number of important duties starting with being the assistant

7 commander of the battalion for morale, religious affairs. He discharged

8 those duties from June 1992 to March 1993, and then from March 1993 to

9 October 1993 he discharged the duties as the commander of that battalion.

10 From October 1993 until the end of the war, he was the assistant

11 commander of the logistics battalion and then also the deputy battalion

12 commander.

13 Throughout the war, the battalion and the Nedzarici settlement

14 were almost completely encircled so that the forces of the BiH army were

15 both in front and behind the positions of his battalion and they were

16 almost in close contact. For that reason, the strategic position of

17 Nedzarici was extremely important because if Nedzarici was taken the

18 1st Corps of the BiH army would have had a complete link with the 3rd

19 Corps of the BiH army and that would have afforded it a major military

20 supremacy of the Army of Republika Srpska.

21 The positions held by the 1st Corps of BiH army were in civilian

22 areas of Sarajevo. Throughout the war these areas were inhabited by

23 civilians, and the official authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina did not

24 allow them to leave the city freely. There was no any part of the city

25 which didn't have a military formation or a military facility which was

Page 21054

1 used by the 1st Corps of the BiH army.

2 Throughout the war his battalion had a permanent, a standing,

3 order that fire could only be opened in response to enemy fire and only

4 on observed targets. All military activities were defence activities

5 because his battalion only on one occasion throughout the entire war had

6 an offensive activity against Stup hill in order to repair tactical

7 positions. He never received an order from his superior command nor did

8 he issue an order to subordinate units to attack a civilian facility.

9 That was always reiterated at regular briefings at the brigade command

10 and at briefings at battalion level.

11 He did not have an occasion to see General Mladic personally

12 during the war, nor did he ever receive any direct orders from him. On

13 one occasion General Mladic toured the positions of his battalion, but

14 the witness, Mile Sladoje, was absent from the unit on that particular

15 day. In the battalion command they received intelligence about the

16 facilities which were used by the 1st Corps of the BiH army and they

17 could also ascertain the accuracy of the intelligence by observing from

18 the front line and by observing artillery fire which was opened from some

19 of the positions by the BiH army. The artillery positions of the

20 1st Corps of the BiH army were very close to the civilian facilities.

21 Sometimes they were in the civilian facilities themselves. There were

22 also situations when they opened fire close to the facilities used by

23 UNPROFOR.

24 When the witness's battalion responded by either opening infantry

25 or artillery fire on those positions, what would happen would be

Page 21055

1 complaints that the Serbian army was targeting civilian positions. In

2 logistical terms and in personnel terms, the battalion was understaffed.

3 Among the officers, they did not have any professionals or career

4 officers. The standing order from the superior command was to be careful

5 about the use of ammunition, i.e., that ammunition could be used only to

6 repel attacks.

7 On the right wing of the positions of his battalion, the BiH army

8 had dug out a tunnel under the airport runway. They received a lot of

9 intelligence about that. The tunnel was used until the end of the war

10 for the members of the 1st Corps to be supplied with the equipment,

11 weapons, and logistics. The witness told us more specifically about the

12 artillery weapons that his battalion had throughout the war. He also

13 told us more specifically about the positions where those weapons were

14 deployed, so one can tell exactly where the mortar shells that were

15 implied in the indictment G6 could have been fired from those weapons and

16 from the positions of his battalion. The witness claims unequivocally

17 that three mortar -- the three mortar shells that allegedly on the 22nd

18 of January, 1994, fell in Alipasino Polje under the control of the BiH

19 army were not fired from the positions of his battalion.

20 And finally, the witness also said that they had two rifles with

21 optical sights; however, he also claims that the allegations from the

22 indictment, indicated as F9, are not correct with regard to the position

23 from which fire was opened. And finally he describes and identifies

24 specific positions of the BiH army from which artillery fire was opened

25 and the shells that fell on Alipasino Polje on 22nd January 1994 could

Page 21056

1 have arrived from there.

2 This was a short summary of the witness's statement,

3 Your Honours.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Could I correct you, it was not a short summary; it

5 was a very, very long summary. It takes three and a half pages in

6 transcript and that is for a statement in writing of seven pages is a

7 very long summary. The Defence is invited to indeed present short

8 summaries.

9 Before we continue, Mr. Stojanovic, one thing is still a bit

10 puzzling me. You have tendered three associated exhibits. Now, if I

11 look at your motion, you announce that - let me have a look. In the

12 motion you say paragraph 14 there are a total of three associated

13 exhibits to this witness statement as set out in the table that is

14 attached at annex B. And in the conclusion you also seek to have three

15 associated exhibits identified in annex B to be admitted into evidence.

16 However, annex B says: "Associated exhibits which the Defence seeks to

17 tender pursuant to Rule 92 ter ...," and there I find four. The one

18 you've not dealt with is the map of incident F9. Now, was it your

19 intention not to tender that fourth exhibit or did you forget it or --

20 because your submissions are contradicting?

21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't mention it

22 at this point deliberately because I was thinking of going through the

23 document with the witness and then tender it. Perhaps in the technical

24 sense if it's more acceptable, then I would take 1D02307 and then we can

25 admit the document if this is preferable before I put any questions on it

Page 21057

1 to the witness.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's therefore not by mistake. At the same

3 time, it's not tendered pursuant to 92 ter but you still are considering

4 to tender it during the examination of the witness. Then please proceed.

5 We have another seven minutes before we take a break.

6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. With

7 your leave I would like to look at 1D -- 65 ter 02307 in e-court, please.

8 And I would like to put some questions to the witness.

9 Q. Mr. Sladoje, we can see some markings in this image and I just

10 wanted to put some questions to you about the markings. The marking

11 showing the line of separation between your battalion and 1st and 2nd

12 Corps of the B&H army, is that a marking that you put in?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. The location of the incident marked as F9 in the indictment, the

15 location where a teenage girl was hit by a sniper marked as the crossroad

16 ss of the Adija Mulabegovic Street, is that also a marking that you

17 placed here?

18 A. I did not mark the street Adija Mulabegovic.

19 Q. And could you tell the Trial Chamber who marked that particular

20 spot, the spot of Adija Mulabegovic Street?

21 A. This was used in the Karadzic defence and perhaps somebody from

22 the defence did that, and what I did -- what I marked was the Institute

23 for Blind Children and the line of separation. As for the street, I

24 didn't mark that.

25 Q. Thank you. I wanted to clarify that and that is why I wanted to

Page 21058

1 go item by item. Another reason why I wanted to ask you the following is

2 this --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, one question first of all: This

4 also seems to be a projected map which is not projected at an angle of 90

5 degrees but in some way under a different angle which always distorts

6 whatever measurement you would like to make an a map. First of all,

7 could you confirm that this is a not-90-degree-projected map? And

8 second, would you have a better one so that we can use a map which can be

9 used in terms of distances?

10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I confirm

11 that this is not a 90-degree-angle projection, but since we're not going

12 to be doing any measurements and that is not our objective I believe that

13 there would be no need for this because the questions will actually lead

14 us in a completely different direction.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Well, we'll wait for that. At the same time,

16 I would encourage all parties not to use these type of maps because they

17 distort what is usually found on maps. Please proceed.

18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19 Q. Mr. Sladoje, the building or the spot that you marked, the

20 Institute for the Blind, is it on the actual line of separation between

21 your battalion B&H army units?

22 A. Yes, it is exactly on the line of separation.

23 Q. If you remember, how big is this building? How many floors does

24 it have?

25 A. I think that it's a three-floor building, three-storey building.

Page 21059

1 I'm not sure but I think so.

2 Q. Did your unit at any point in time during the war - and I kindly

3 ask you to focus on 1994 in particular - in its combat disposition ever

4 had crews, battalion members, who had rifles with optical sights in this

5 particular building?

6 A. We just had fortifications and classic trenches in this building

7 or facility. We never had such rifles in this building.

8 Q. And the building behind this Institute for the Blind building is

9 the Oslobodjenje publishing and newspaper company?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And was that then at that time in the defence sector of the B&H

12 army?

13 A. Yes, it was.

14 Q. During the war, and in particular during 1994, did you -- were

15 you exposed to fire from these positions?

16 A. A part of the Oslobodjenje building was already demolished so

17 there was no shooting from there, but there were other buildings nearby

18 that were 10- or 15-storey buildings from where there was shooting.

19 Q. All right. I'm going to finish with this document. I would

20 kindly ask you to tell us about this building in red which is a bit lower

21 in relation to the Institute for the Blind. I don't know if you're able

22 to see it. Do you know -- and this building is also literally on the

23 line of separation, do you know what this building is?

24 A. This is also a facility for the blind for adults who underwent

25 rehabilitation there. Before the war it was a clothing factory.

Page 21060

1 Q. And was that building also called Institute for the Blind?

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, I'm lost what building you are

3 referring to at this moment. You said -- you asked about the

4 Institute for the Blind. You have not invited the witness yet to point

5 at that in the map, and then you say a little bit further down there is a

6 building in red. I have no idea what you are talking about and I'm

7 surprised that the witness does. But could we invite the witness to mark

8 what he's talking about, what the Institute for the Blind is, and mark

9 what you refer to as another red building.

10 Would you guide the witness to do so so the Chamber knows --

11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Sir, you were talking about the rehabilitation facility --

13 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, could we take out any marking which

14 you made on your own initiative. You are supposed to not mark anything

15 unless instructed to do that. So we have a clean map now again. Listen

16 carefully to Mr. Stojanovic and he'll invite you if any need to make

17 markings.

18 Mr. Stojanovic.

19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you, Your

20 Honour.

21 Q. Sir, I would like to ask you to place a circle around the

22 Institute for the Blind facility for adults, where adults underwent

23 rehabilitation and where they worked. Could you please mark that on the

24 map.

25 A. [Marks]

Page 21061

1 Q. Thank you. Now I'm going to ask you the following. At any point

2 during the war did you have positions there from your battalion who used

3 rifles with optical sights?

4 A. We had normal infantry weaponry. We never had snipers or such

5 rifles.

6 Q. And I'm going to finish with this question. Since you come from

7 that area, could you see the street Adija Mulabegovic from this

8 particular spot? Did you have a clear line of vision from that spot?

9 A. It was perhaps possible to see the very beginning of Adija

10 Mulabegovic, former Djure Jaksica Street, but then later on you couldn't

11 see it.

12 Q. I would just like to ask you to mark the circle that you drew

13 with the letters Z S, Zavod za Slijepe, Institute for the Blind.

14 A. [Marks]

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would now like

17 to tender document 65 ter 1D02077.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, what you've marked, Witness, is

19 that the Institute for the Blind of adults?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there were two

21 facilities for the blind within a distance of 100 metres apart. The

22 first one was the Institute for the Blind Children.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you then -- if you just answer my question,

24 the answer therefore is most likely: Yes, what you marked is the

25 Institute for the Blind who are adults. Could you also mark the

Page 21062

1 Institute which is the Institute for the Blind Children. Could you do

2 that on this map. Or was that what you marked?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I marked just now and marked

4 with the letters ZS is the Institute for Blind Adults. Now I'm going to

5 mark the Institute for Blind Children.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that is the building which was already

7 marked in red before and that is the upper of the two markings where it

8 reads: "Zavod za Slijepe decu" or something like that, but where there

9 is text added.

10 Any objection against admission?

11 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour, with the limitation that

12 Mr. Stojanovic has put on it, that distances -- it's not to be used for

13 distances, only for locations, given the projection.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Stojanovic, in the transcript I find the

15 number 1D02077. This is how it was interpreted. Perhaps you can check

16 if that is really the right number.

17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have

18 just been warned the number is incorrect. So it's the 65 ter number

19 1D02307.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And now in a version as marked by the witness.

21 Madam Registrar.

22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours document 1D2307 as marked by the

23 witness receives number D457, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE ORIE: D457 is admitted. We take a break. We will first

25 ask the witness to be escorted out of the courtroom.

Page 21063

1 [The witness stands down]

2 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break of half an hour, therefore we'll

3 resume at ten minutes past 11.00.

4 Mr. Stojanovic, until now you've used close to half an hour and

5 Your estimate was 45 minutes.

6 We take a break.

7 --- Recess taken at 10.38 a.m.

8 --- On resuming at 11.11 a.m.

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

10 [The witness takes the stand].

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.

12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

13 Could I just ask that we pull up in e-court the document which is

14 now marked D454.

15 Q. And I will ask you, Witness, to tell me. These locations that

16 are marked with these little circles were the positions from which you

17 say you were fired at. I'd like to ask you about the position which is

18 below the facility marked as Geodetski Zavod, the surveying institute.

19 What was there before 1992?

20 A. I believe it was a police station before the war and I believe

21 it is still a police station, it's still there.

22 Q. According to your information, the information you had as one of

23 the warring parties, was this building used for military purposes still

24 in 1994 and were you fired at from there?

25 A. It was used throughout the war as a military installation. We

Page 21064

1 suffered from artillery fire from that building.

2 Q. Right there is Gete street and that is connected with the

3 scheduled incident G6 that you speak about in your statement. Now, from

4 the position you marked, did you have any optical visibility? Did you

5 have a line of vision from Gete Street towards Alipasino Polje?

6 A. No, we did not, but Alipasino Polje was ahead of us and in the

7 last -- this is the last stage, a settlement called Alipasino Polje C.

8 Q. Thank you. I'll be finishing with this document. You mentioned

9 regarding the incident marked in the indictment as G6 that in your view

10 those three mortar shells could have arrived from the west, namely, from

11 the Sigma building --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Before you continue.

13 Mr. Stojanovic, Gete Street, where are we supposed to find that?

14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's just before

15 this circle that the witness discussed, the square of independence,

16 Trg Nezavisnosti and Gete Street.

17 JUDGE ORIE: I see something which can be spelled as

18 G-e-t-e-o-v-a. Is that what you are referring to?

19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Then I found it. And Now let's have a look at your

21 question again.

22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, I'll repeat the

23 last question.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Your question was: Did you have a line of vision

25 from Gete Street towards Alipasino Polje? And could you please then be

Page 21065

1 very clear on what you refer to exactly as Alipasino Polje, which seems

2 to be an area, and for a line of vision or a line of sight you need two

3 points to see whether you can see from one point the other point. I'm a

4 bit lost. And Mr. Groome is on his feet.

5 Even to confuse me more, Mr. Groome?

6 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour, I'm lost as well. Could I ask

7 since there are numerous circles on this, could Mr. Stojanovic please

8 have him mark the circle that means -- that indicates the police station.

9 It's unclear to me what we're talking about.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see -- what I understood, Mr. Stojanovic, is

11 that you referred to the circle which is just below the oval with the

12 text "Geodetski Zavod." Just below that there is a circle. Just above

13 where it reads "Prvomajska" that's what you're referring to?

14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: I also -- but let me just re-read what the witness

16 said. One second, please. Well, where the witness said: We did not --

17 we did not, but Alipasino Polje was ahead of it. And in the last stage a

18 settlement called Alipasino Polje C, that's an answer which is for me at

19 least incomprehensible as to how to understand this. So could you please

20 put clear questions to the witness and seek to clarify whatever answer he

21 gives if it is not immediately comprehensible. Please proceed.

22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I think

23 we had a problem in interpretation, but I believe the witness understood

24 me. I'll ask the question again.

25 Q. Witness, from the positions that you marked on this photograph

Page 21066

1 and the positions that you militarily held in 1994, did you have a direct

2 line of vision to the area of Gete Street?

3 A. From the line of separation and the positions we held, we had no

4 line of vision because there were tall buildings ahead of us and we

5 couldn't see through to there.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Stojanovic, I have a problem when you say from

7 the positions that you marked on this photograph. Now, there are lots of

8 markings on this photograph. I don't know from which position the

9 witness did not have a line of vision. I am also lost now. The question

10 was: "From the positions that you marked on this photograph and the

11 positions that you militarily held in 1994, did you have a direct line of

12 vision to the area of Gete Street?"

13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. To

14 clear this up completely, the question was, just as we see this marking

15 in the bottom left corner --

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which markings? Let the witness show us the

17 marking --

18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] -- the line of separation.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- where from -- the position from where he was.

20 Can you show us which marking you are talking about.

21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave then we can ask

22 the witness to mark the position that he held together with his battalion

23 in 1994.

24 THE WITNESS: [Marks]

25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

Page 21067

1 Q. Witness, this line which makes an angle of approximately 90

2 degrees and which breaks at the Institute for Blind Children, what does

3 it represent?

4 A. Those were the positions we held, the positions we controlled.

5 It happened to be this shape.

6 Q. And what is the feature that you encircled, what is this street?

7 A. This is Gete Street and the building behind is the police

8 station.

9 Q. Thank you. I'll finish with this question. You mentioned in

10 your statement the Sigma building. Where was it relative to Gete Street?

11 A. It was to the west of Gete Street.

12 Q. In 1994, were you targeted by artillery fire from the ABH

13 positions near the Sigma building?

14 A. Yes, from the Sigma building and another feature which was

15 actually the agricultural complex of Butmir.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, if you want the Chamber to

17 understand where the Sigma building is -- I mean, "west" gives us 40.000

18 kilometres from the position you indicated. So therefore, try to take us

19 by the hand and tell us where the Sigma building is or ask -- invite the

20 witness to tell us where the Sigma building is, rather than leaving us

21 with 40.000 kilometres to guess.

22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will do that.

23 Q. This agricultural complex and the Sigma building, how far were

24 they -- how far are they, as the crow flies, from Gete Street?

25 A. The distance to the Sigma building and the agricultural complex

Page 21068

1 is approximately 2 and a half to 3 kilometres as the crow flies.

2 Q. Thank you. From what type of mortar were you fired at from that

3 direction?

4 A. The 82-millimetre and 120-millimetre mortars.

5 Q. Thank you, Witness, for answering my questions. I have nothing

6 further.

7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would appreciate

8 your instructions. This document has been admitted as D454, and now the

9 witness added some markings. Do we need to give a new number to the

10 document now?

11 JUDGE ORIE: Has this been admitted as D454? Oh, without the

12 marking. Yes, then we should -- if you please would tender it now as a

13 map marked by the witness.

14 Madam Registrar, the number would be?

15 But, Mr. Groome, any objections?

16 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Please, Madam Registrar.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Document D454 as marked by the witness receives

19 number D458, Your Honours.

20 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. With

22 your leave, if I could consult with my client.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

24 And perhaps we'll wait for a second before you start your

25 cross-examination, Mr. Groome, so that Mr. Stojanovic has an opportunity

Page 21069

1 to consult.

2 Meanwhile, I already can tell you, Mr. Sladoje, that you'll be

3 cross-examined soon by Mr. Groome.

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

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome is counsel for the Prosecution.

6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, you may proceed.

8 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Cross-examination by Mr. Groome:

10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Sladoje.

11 A. Good morning.

12 Q. Before I ask you other questions, I just want to clarify what we

13 see now in D458 in front of us. The blue circle that you drew in

14 Alipasino Polje, that's simply a mark to locate a particular street; is

15 that correct?

16 A. Approximately.

17 Q. So where all the other circles on this map that you prepared for

18 Karadzic case, this particular -- those circles refer to places you

19 believed to be military targets. This particular blue circle does not

20 indicate the existence of any military target there; correct?

21 A. You're right. All these elliptoid circle markings used to be

22 agricultural buildings converted into military facilities during the war

23 and this Gete Street was populated by civilians. There was only a police

24 station nearby, so we did not identify it as a military installation.

25 Q. Okay. Now, I may want to show this, your diagram, to another

Page 21070

1 witness. So could I trouble you to please perhaps with the red pen just

2 mark the English letters or -- for the abbreviation police station, the

3 letters P and S next to the circle where you say the police station was.

4 A. [Marks]

5 Q. And maybe put the letter P and the letter S next to that.

6 A. [Marks]

7 Q. Thank you very much, sir.

8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, could I ask that that be now admitted

9 into evidence.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, with another marking, a marking in red added by

11 the witness to the previous exhibit.

12 Madam Registrar, it would now receive number?

13 THE REGISTRAR: Document D458 as marked by the witness receives

14 number P6507, Your Honours.

15 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

16 MR. GROOME:

17 Q. Now, I'd like to ask you some general questions about your

18 command. Am I correct in saying that the barracks of your battalion was

19 in Nedzarici; is that correct?

20 A. It was in Nedzarici.

21 Q. And the headquarters of your battalion was in the barracks at

22 Nedzarici; correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Now, you've referred to a location that you've referred to as the

25 Institute for Blind Children. Am I correct that that location is

Page 21071

1 approximately 300 to 350 metres from your barracks?

2 A. Thereabouts. You're probably right.

3 Q. Now, in your statement that's now D453 in evidence at paragraph 7

4 you talk about the faculty of theology. Am I correct that the faculty of

5 theology was approximately 150 to 200 metres from the barracks compound?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. Now, at the end of 1993 did the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Battalion of

8 the Ilidza Brigade, were they combined to form a single battalion?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And the headquarters of this combined battalion was located on

11 Kasindolska Street; right?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And the area of responsibility of this combined battalion also

14 included Nedzarici?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. Did it include Aerodromska Naselje?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Did it include Kasindol?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Now, Mr. Sladoje, can you please estimate the total number of

21 mortars that were fired by your battalion over the course of the three

22 years of the conflict? I'm just looking for a general approximation.

23 A. I wouldn't be able to answer your question. I don't know, not

24 even approximately.

25 Q. Is that -- is that because so many mortars were fired that you

Page 21072

1 have difficulty approximating a general number?

2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection --

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. That's not the reason.

4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, what's the objection, Mr. --

6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] The way the question is

7 structured. The previous question was whether he could provide a general

8 approximation and the witness said that he could not even give an

9 approximate -- a general approximation. And then the question was

10 whether it was due to the fact that so many mortars were fired. The

11 witness, however, didn't say either "many" or "few." He could not give

12 any kind of information to that effect.

13 JUDGE ORIE: That is what is suggested in the question and that's

14 what makes it a leading question and that is permitted in

15 cross-examination, Mr. Stojanovic. So therefore -- Mr. Mladic apparently

16 wants to consult with you, but meanwhile Mr. Groome may proceed.

17 MR. GROOME:

18 Q. Sir, are you able to tell us, is it in the hundreds? Is it in

19 the thousands?

20 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I told you that I could not give you even an

21 approximate number. I didn't count mortars because it was not just us

22 but also the enemy who fired mortars. So really, one couldn't say who

23 fired what and how many. I was not in charge of that. That's why I

24 don't know. If I could give you an approximation, I could, I could tell

25 you 50 or 50.000, but whatever I gave you at this point would not be

Page 21073

1 relevant information because I don't have any relevant information to

2 impart.

3 Q. So would it stand to reason if I asked you about how many mortars

4 were fired on a particular day, let's say the 8th of August, 1992, would

5 it be correct that you would be unable to assist me with the number of

6 mortars fired on that day as well?

7 A. I wouldn't know, but I don't know which incident you have in

8 mind. I don't know what may have occurred on the 8th of August. It's

9 really not something that I could objectively know.

10 Q. Okay. Thank you.

11 Now, in March 1993 you succeeded Radivoje Grkovic as commander of

12 the Nedzarici area; correct? I see you nodded your head, but we need to

13 hear your answer for it to be recorded.

14 A. No, no. I seem to have "1992." Is that what you said? But that

15 was in March 1993, so I don't know whether I misheard or whether you were

16 misinterpreted or whether you misspoke.

17 Q. Well, now the record is clear that it was in March 1993; correct?

18 Were you replaced by Svetozar Guzina who took the post of

19 battalion commander when the three battalions were combined into one?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Now, I want to call before you an exhibit that you marked in the

22 Karadzic case and that is 65 ter 30629, and it's a variation of the map

23 that Mr. Stojanovic has been working with today. Now, in the bottom

24 right-hand corner am I correct in saying that that bears your signature

25 and the date of the 27th of November, 2012?

Page 21074

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, can I ask that we focus on the left-hand side of the

3 exhibit.

4 In the lower left-hand corner of this exhibit we see a green

5 line. Am I correct in stating that this green line marks the perimeter

6 of the area of responsibility of your battalion?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And that was drawn by you; correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So that the area above the green line and onto the red line was

11 within your responsibility; correct?

12 A. The area of responsibility of the newly established battalion is

13 what I marked in red and then something was added in green, and the rest

14 was the enemy's side outside of the lines that are -- have been drawn

15 here.

16 Q. Correct. So that the space above the green but below the red,

17 that's area under your control?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Now, if we look at the red rectangle on the left-hand side of the

20 page, it approximates the location of the barracks where the Nedzarici

21 Battalion headquarters were; is that correct?

22 A. Well, it is marked here.

23 Q. And I just want to confirm these markings. So that is where the

24 barracks is located?

25 A. Yes.

Page 21075

1 Q. And we can see the letters KP and the fork in the road just

2 beyond the airport. Was this the location sometimes of a check-point

3 that was within your area of responsibility?

4 A. That was not a classical check-point. We did not have any troops

5 there. However, in view of the fact that the Muslim side was in

6 Stupska Street and that they -- that UNPROFOR soldiers also passed along

7 that way, there was some containers there, there was some sandbags there,

8 and the UNPROFOR unit was known as Sierra 4. This is marked as a

9 check-point because in the Karadzic case Mrs. Edgerton asked me whether

10 there was a check-point there. That's why I actually marked this

11 position at K5.

12 Q. Now, in paragraph 27 of D453 you describe an event in which flak

13 jackets were confiscated from French forces. Am I correct that where

14 you've marked KP is the location where this happened?

15 A. You are right. You see, we had information --

16 Q. I'll ask you about that --

17 A. -- that --

18 Q. -- in a few minutes. I just want to make sure we orient

19 ourselves to the locations --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, could you also seek clarification for

21 the reference to K5 which I have not found yet.

22 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, can Your Honour direct me to a line

23 number?

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, page 41, the line 5, last word -- 4: "That's

25 why I actually marked this position at K5."

Page 21076

1 Or did you intend to refer to KP, Witness?

2 MR. GROOME:

3 Q. The transcript recorded you as saying "K5," but were you

4 referring to "KP," what's marked on the map?

5 A. Not "K5" but "KP."

6 Q. Thank you.

7 Now, just above that KP mark we see a small red circle. Am I

8 correct in saying that your battalion had between four and five mortars

9 located here?

10 A. Very close by. Some hundred metres away from the school of

11 theology in the residential area itself.

12 Q. Now, could I ask you to look for the location of the theological

13 seminary and if you can find it, can you please circle the location and

14 place the letters TS next to it. Perhaps if we use the colour red since

15 I think blue has been used with the witness with the Defence.

16 A. No. The theological seminary is marked in red.

17 JUDGE ORIE: You are invited to mark where the theological

18 faculty is which you said was at a distance of some hundred metres from

19 where the mortars were. So could you indicate where the premises of the

20 theological faculty is and could you please mark that.

21 THE WITNESS: [Marks]

22 MR. GROOME:

23 Q. And you've marked that with the letters TF. Now, were mortars

24 located at this location throughout the course of the war?

25 A. Yes.

Page 21077

1 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I would tender 65 ter 30629 with the

2 additional markings made by Mr. Sladoje.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar -- no objections, Mr. Stojanovic?

4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No objection.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Document 65 ter 30629 as marked by the witness

6 receives number P6508, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE ORIE: And yes, what I should say is that "additionally

8 marked by the witness," because the original one was already a document

9 marked by the witness, so additionally marked and is admitted into

10 evidence as P6508.

11 MR. GROOME:

12 Q. Now, I'd like to return to the incident involving the flak

13 jackets. In paragraph 27 of your statement where you talk about

14 confiscating those flak jackets belonging to French forces, you say:

15 "Towards the end of 1994 we stopped a convoy of the French

16 Battalion because we had information that they were transporting weapons

17 and equipment for the Muslim forces."

18 And then you go on to describe stopping the convoy and

19 confiscating the jackets. Now, my question is the following: Where you

20 stopped and confiscated the jackets, that was just outside the airport;

21 is that correct?

22 A. Some 200 metres away from the airport.

23 Q. And the information that you had about the French transporting

24 weapons, that was from your brigade command; is that correct?

25 A. Not from the commander but from our intelligence service.

Page 21078

1 Q. You did not find any weapons, did you, just flak jackets?

2 A. Only flak jackets, 126 pieces all together.

3 Q. So my question to you is whether the information you received

4 about what the French had, was that incorrect? Or have you perhaps made

5 a mistake in your recollection about the information you were provided?

6 A. We received information about weapons and flak jackets were being

7 transported. The French Battalion was deployed at the airport. They

8 didn't have any units in the town, so it would have been illogical if

9 they transported things for somebody else and there was no need for them

10 to be supplied by anybody else. That's why we confiscated everything.

11 Q. Just to make the point that the information you received was

12 incorrect with respect to weapons?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, Mr. Sladoje, I want to show you a series of photographs to

15 help the Chamber understand your testimony.

16 MR. GROOME: Can we please have 65 ter 30633. It's a panoramic

17 photo from the theological faculty.

18 Q. You'll see that photograph in a few minutes or a few seconds.

19 Can I ask you to look at it, orient yourself. And then my question is:

20 Does it fairly depict the area around the theological seminary?

21 A. The school of theology is being renovated. This was not taken

22 during the war. And the houses that you see in Nedzarici is where we

23 were and where we lived.

24 Q. So this does fairly depict the area surrounding the theological

25 faculty?

Page 21079

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, can I draw your attention to the -- where the truck that we

3 see in the right-hand side of the photograph, is this where the mortars

4 were located, the four to five mortars that you've mentioned?

5 A. They were located there at the beginning of the war and later on

6 they were next to the green meadow, that's where they were deployed.

7 Q. Can I ask you to put the letter M to show us -- maybe a circle

8 where the mortars were located and the letter M?

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, at the beginning of the war or where

10 they were located later?

11 MR. GROOME: Good point, Your Honour.

12 Q. Can I ask you to put M1 for the beginning of the war and M2 for

13 this later period.

14 A. [Marks]

15 Q. And then -- okay, I see both.

16 Now, can we see the development of Alipasino Polje in this

17 photograph?

18 A. From the positions where the mortars were deployed you mean?

19 Q. No, no. From this photograph, can you mark the towers, can you

20 see the apartment towers of that apartment complex?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Can I ask you to put the letters AP just above them to indicate

23 where they are.

24 A. [Marks]

25 Q. And finally, can you give us the approximate date when the

Page 21080

1 mortars were moved from this first position to this second position.

2 A. I believe that that was in late 1992.

3 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, could I tender at this stage 65 ter

4 30633 with these markings made by Mr. Sladoje?

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30633 receives number P6509,

7 Your Honours.

8 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

9 Again, if there's no clear objection, I will usually ask

10 Madam Registrar to assign a number even without explicitly having asked

11 for whether there are any objections. I expect the parties to act on

12 their own initiative under those circumstances.

13 Please proceed.

14 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we now take a look at 65 ter 30630.

15 Q. Now, Mr. Sladoje, I'm going to show you some close-ups of this

16 panoramic photo and these are ones that you made markings on in the

17 Karadzic case. I am simply going to ask you to confirm what your

18 markings mean.

19 MR. GROOME: So we could perhaps zoom in on the photograph.

20 Q. Now, in 30630 we can see the letter M circled in the centre of

21 that photograph? Am I correct that this represents the area Mojmilo?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And we can see a VP circle to the left. Am I correct that this

24 represents Vojnicko Polje; correct?

25 A. Vojnicko Polje, military field.

Page 21081

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. GROOME: Could I ask now that we see 65 ter 30631.

3 Q. And this is another close-up of this photo. And my question to

4 you after you have had a chance to look at this, am I correct that when

5 you marked this photo D1, you did that to indicate the location of the

6 residential apartment complex known as Dobrinja 1?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. You also marked D5 to indicate the location of Dobrinja 5;

9 correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And both of these were large apartment complexes where many

12 people lived; correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this stage I would tender

15 65 ter numbers 30630 and 30631.

16 JUDGE ORIE: You want them to be one exhibit or two exhibits?

17 MR. GROOME: I think perhaps two exhibits, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: That perhaps makes it easier.

19 Madam Registrar.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30630 receives number P6510 and document

21 30631 receives number P6511, Your Honours.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Both admitted.

23 MR. GROOME:

24 Q. Now, sir, I'm going to now ask you about different portions of

25 your statement. Your statement has been admitted into evidence and the

Page 21082

1 Chamber has read it. There is no need to repeat what's in the statement,

2 but perhaps just focus on the additional information that I am

3 requesting. Okay.

4 Now, in paragraph 3 of your statement you said that in 1991 a

5 Muslim colleague asked you to sell him ammunition; correct?

6 A. No, just the opposite, to buy ammunition.

7 Q. Okay. He wanted to buy ammunition from you?

8 A. No, he wanted to sell ammunition to me.

9 Q. Oh, I see. Let's just take a look at that. Your -- I'll read

10 you how your statement has been recorded, and if we need to correct it or

11 if you need to correct it, please let us know. Paragraph 3 reads:

12 "In the course of 1991 one of my Muslim colleagues asked me if I

13 was interested in selling ammunition ..."

14 Is that correct?

15 A. That may be so written; however, you need to read the entire

16 statement. If he said if I was willing to sell ammunition and then I go

17 on to say that already in 1991 Muslims had been prepared for war. So I

18 had no reason to sell ammunition. He actually offered me to buy

19 ammunition.

20 Q. He wanted to buy ammunition from you?

21 A. No, no, he wanted to sell ammunition to me.

22 Q. Okay. Okay. I think that's clear.

23 MR. GROOME: Now, could I ask the court officer to bring up P3 in

24 e-court, page 37 to our screens. Your Honours, this is page 32 in the

25 Sarajevo map book.

Page 21083

1 Q. Now, I want to draw your attention to your evidence regarding a

2 shelling which occurred on the 22nd of January, 1994, in which six

3 children were killed and five people were wounded. You provide evidence

4 about this event at paragraph 30 of your statement. I want to read you

5 an excerpt of that paragraph and then ask you a question.

6 "In connection with the allegations that the shell was fired from

7 the west, I should point out that the shell was fired from behind the

8 lines from the western side, that is, from the Sigma building, i.e., from

9 positions controlled by BH army forces."

10 Do you still maintain that the shell that killed those children

11 was fired from the Sigma building in the BH army position? A simple yes

12 or no.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Do you accept that according to your evidence that shelling an

15 area where children were playing was a crime?

16 A. Absolutely.

17 Q. So you acknowledge that what happened was a crime. Your evidence

18 is that the shell that fell on the children or the shells that fell that

19 day was from the BH army. Do I understand your evidence correctly?

20 A. Precisely.

21 Q. Now, I direct your attention to the map in front of you. I want

22 you to simply make a note, a mental note of where G6 and that green dot

23 next to it is. That's the precise location of where this -- these shells

24 fell. When you've made a note of that, let me know and I'm going to

25 change the exhibit.

Page 21084

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, could you assist me in the green dot,

2 that is just under the word "Polje"?

3 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 MR. GROOME: -- to the left of G6.

6 JUDGE ORIE: If I could say to the south-west of G6, close to it.

7 Yes. Please proceed.

8 MR. GROOME: Now if we could call up I believe it's P6507.

9 Q. This is your map of the same area.

10 MR. GROOME: And if we could focus in on the "Alipasino Polje."

11 Q. Now, am I correct that during the course of the war your evidence

12 now at this point is that you never knew there to be any military targets

13 or personnel at the location that we've just seen in the previous map,

14 the place where the shells landed on the 22nd of January, 1994?

15 A. I stand by the fact that there was no building there because I

16 think you couldn't really put anything there.

17 Q. Okay. Now, you were the commander at this time. Would you agree

18 that there was no military objective to be achieved on this day by

19 shelling the location of G6 where that green dot was?

20 A. Could you please tell me the date. I'm not quite sure which

21 date.

22 Q. 22nd of January, 1994.

23 A. Well, it's not that important. I wasn't the commander at the

24 time, but I was in the battalion. You insist that it was not a military

25 facility and I understand you, but I can also respond by saying that we

Page 21085

1 did not have a line of sight there. We couldn't have known that children

2 were playing there or anything like that. We couldn't see it. We never

3 did anything like that in any cases during the war. During combat some

4 incidents could happen, but I think that there was no case when anything

5 like that was done deliberately.

6 Q. So to your knowledge, on the day that I'm concerned with, you

7 know of no military object that was actively there, do you?

8 A. That is correct, there was no military object there.

9 Q. Now, there was a series of three mortars that landed in this

10 group of apartment buildings around the same time. Would you agree that

11 such an event would likely instill feelings of terror among the people

12 living there?

13 A. Instilling terror is a very serious term. In combat there is no

14 terrorising because there was a police station nearby, the

15 Geodetski Institute was there. So when responding to fire the civilians

16 here --

17 Q. Sir, I'm talking about this specific event on this very specific

18 day. What I'm asking you is whether you agree it would be likely that

19 the children playing there, their parents in the apartments, that they

20 would have experienced this event - three mortars landing where the

21 children played - they would have experienced that as terror?

22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection. The witness is being

23 asked to speculate about how other people and children could have

24 understood shelling in war time and this is something that the witness

25 cannot know.

Page 21086

1 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, do you agree with Mr. Groome that it would

2 be very scary for children playing there where three mortars fell?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's scary for any normal person,

4 but there are other indications.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Indications of what?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are indications by the

7 Prosecutor that this is terrorism, there is insistence upon it, and I am

8 absolutely asserting that that is not the case and that's why I say that

9 there are other things.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I invite the English interpreter to move a

12 little bit closer to the microphone because it's quite ununderstandable

13 sometimes.

14 MR. GROOME:

15 Q. Now with respect to your conclusion that the mortar was fired

16 from the Sigma building, am I correct that you did not yourself

17 personally see the mortar when it was fired?

18 A. No, I did not see it.

19 Q. You did not go to where the mortar landed and conduct any type of

20 investigation, did you?

21 A. I couldn't -- Prosecutor, sir, I couldn't even go and see the

22 place because it was under Muslim control. It was far away from me, so I

23 couldn't go there.

24 Q. I know it was an obvious question, but I want to establish that

25 you did not participate in any investigation of any kind related to this

Page 21087

1 event; correct?

2 A. No, no.

3 MR. GROOME: Could we see 65 ter 30634 on our screens. This is

4 the witness's 92 ter statement for the Karadzic case. It was signed by

5 him on the 25th of November, 2012. And could I ask that we please go to

6 e-court page 5 where the witness provides evidence of this event.

7 Q. Now, you speak about this event in paragraph 26 of your Karadzic

8 statement which is quite similar but with respect to this particular

9 event you have left out a sentence. The sentence you left out was:

10 "It has been explained to me that on 12 July 1993 an incident

11 occurred in Spasenije Cane Babovic Street and that according to the

12 findings of the Muslim police the area from which the projectile was

13 launched was Nedzarici.

14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour.

15 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, if I could repeat the question. I read

16 from the wrong paragraph. I'm sorry.

17 Q. It's paragraph 27 that I want to direct your attention to. And

18 the sentence -- just one second, please. The sentence that has been left

19 out is:

20 "It has been explained to me that on 22 January 1994 an incident

21 occurred in Klare Cetkin Street and the Cetinjska Street and that

22 according to the findings of the Muslim police the projectile was

23 allegedly fired from the Nedzarici sector/the Home for Blind Children."

24 Do you acknowledge that that sentence has been left out? Is this

25 my statement in the Karadzic or in the present case?

Page 21088

1 Q. The statement before you now is from the Karadzic case. That

2 sentence does not appear in D453. Do you acknowledge that or would you

3 like me to call up D453?

4 A. This is what I said and I stand by it because that's how it was.

5 That's how it was in the preparations. I don't know how it came about

6 that this sentence was left out of the statement.

7 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I see we're at the time for the

8 break --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we are. And the last break was longer than we

10 usually have. I have to get back to the daily routine again. So now we

11 take a break of 20 minutes. Could the witness be escorted out of the

12 courtroom.

13 [The witness stands down]

14 JUDGE ORIE: We'll resume at half past 12.00.

15 --- Recess taken at 12.11 p.m.

16 --- On resuming at 12.32 p.m.

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

18 MR. GROOME: Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.

20 MR. GROOME: I think it might be fairer to the witness if I'm

21 going to be comparing to the two statements that he have access to both

22 at the same time. So I have a copy of his -- hard copy of the Mladic

23 statement, I've shown it to Mr. Lukic and he has no objection that the

24 witness have it before him.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ask the assistance of the usher once he has

Page 21089

1 returned with the witness.

2 [The witness takes the stand]

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please assist Mr. Groome giving

4 a document to the witness. There's no need to show it to the Defence

5 first. Yes.

6 Witness, you'll be provided with a hard copy of your Karadzic

7 statement --

8 MR. GROOME: Karadzic is on the screen and Mladic is in hard

9 copy.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, Mladic is in hard copy. So that you're able to

11 read them in comparison.

12 Yes, please proceed, Mr. Groome.

13 MR. GROOME:

14 Q. Mr. Sladoje, I just want to confirm that you understand the hard

15 copy, the typed version in front of you is your statement that was

16 tendered in this case, and the one that we have on the screen is the one

17 that was tendered in the Karadzic case. Okay? So if I can pick up where

18 we left off, so if you look on the screen paragraph 27, this is your

19 statement in the Karadzic case, the sentence, first sentence:

20 "It has been explained to me ..."

21 And it continues on. That sentence has been dropped in the

22 statement for this case. So my first question regarding this is: Who is

23 it that explained details about this event to you? Who is the person who

24 did that?

25 A. No one explained it to me. There's nothing that needed to be

Page 21090

1 explained to me. I explained it and it was in this statement but it's

2 not in this statement here. I don't know how that happened, but this is

3 the statement and these are the facts that you and I can talk about.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I just -- you just told Mr. Groome

5 that you were not there. So whether an incident occurred in those

6 streets you couldn't know it from your own observation. Therefore, the

7 question is: Who told you that this happened there? Or how did you

8 otherwise learn about this event?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me, which incident are we

10 talking about, 27?

11 JUDGE ORIE: We are talking about what is in your statement

12 incident G6, which is found in the statement in this case in paragraph 30

13 of your statement and which you see on your screen in paragraph 27 of the

14 Karadzic statement. Explosion, children playing, Klare Cetkin Street,

15 Cetinjska Street. That's what we are talking about. 22nd of January

16 1994. Could you tell us how you learned about it?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I found out about it from the media

18 after a few days because the TV reported about it and this happened later

19 during preparations for the Defence of Dr. Karadzic. This was presented

20 and based on that I provided the statement as you see it there.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so it's from the media that you learned about

22 it or --

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

24 JUDGE ORIE: And did you also learn from the media that it was

25 fired from the Sigma building?

Page 21091

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, because this is something that

2 was reported by the Muslim side.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, I leave it further in your hands.

4 MR. GROOME:

5 Q. So you've just said in reference to the Karadzic statement:

6 "This was presented and based on that I provided the

7 statement ..."

8 Are you saying that the statement was presented to you?

9 A. No, the statement was not presented. The incident when we were

10 working on the basis of the indictment, when we were working down that

11 list, I said what I said and what is presented here in my statement.

12 Q. So when -- again when it says "it has been explained to me," was

13 it explained to you by a member of the Karadzic team or by Mr. Karadzic

14 himself? Was that who explained the information to you?

15 A. I don't know this term "explained." Perhaps I misused it at a

16 certain point, but nobody explained anything to me. There was no need

17 for anyone to explain anything to me. I know what happened on the basis

18 of fact. That's -- the most important thing here is that it was not

19 possible to fire the shell from the Institute of the Blind because there

20 were no mortars there throughout the whole war and that is the gist of

21 this whole matter here.

22 Q. Would it have been possible, just possible, to have fired at this

23 location from the locations you've marked, M1 and M2 on the picture

24 from -- taken at the theological faculty?

25 A. It's possible but it was not so.

Page 21092

1 Q. Okay. Now, there's another notable admission from your version

2 of the evidence in the Karadzic case and here. Now, if I could ask you

3 to look at paragraph 30 on the copy that's on your desk and paragraph 27

4 on the screen. The following sentence that you have in the Karadzic

5 statement has been deleted in this case.

6 "I also affirm that no one from our command had ordered the

7 shelling of the place where the incident allegedly occurred ..."

8 My simple question at this stage is: You agree with me that that

9 sentence is not in your Mladic statement?

10 A. It's true it's not in the Mladic statement because that statement

11 was given one year later and we were not copying anything, but the gist

12 is that it relates to same incident, only it was added --

13 Q. Let me ask you -- so that sentence, you agree, was removed. Now

14 my question is: Was that --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- that's not what the witness said. The

16 witness said it's not in there.

17 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Whether it was removed or not is a different matter.

19 MR. GROOME:

20 Q. That sentence is no longer there. Is it true that that sentence

21 was deleted because you can no longer affirm under oath that your command

22 did not order the shelling that killed the six children? Is that why

23 that sentence is no longer there?

24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, objection. In

25 paragraph 30 of the witness's statement in the Mladic case, the beginning

Page 21093

1 reads:

2 "There is no order to open fire ..."

3 It's exactly the same in content as the sentence that was deleted

4 because otherwise it would be a repetition.

5 JUDGE ORIE: It's not exactly the same, but Mr. Groome is invited

6 to rephrase his question.

7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honours,

8 let me just point out to paragraph 18 of the statement this witness gave

9 to us in the Mladic case where he said the same thing explicitly. So I

10 did not feel the need to repeat the same thing three times.

11 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have to explain how you drafted this

12 statement. That is argument which comes later.

13 Mr. Groome.

14 MR. GROOME:

15 Q. Mr. Sladoje, you've heard Mr. Stojanovic's explanation as to why

16 the sentence is no longer there. Is that -- do you agree with that

17 explanation?

18 A. Yes, I can, and it says here too: "There was no order to open

19 fire." There was no mortar at the location of the Institute for Blind

20 Children. And I confirm what you just said. It's explicitly said here

21 that there was no order.

22 Q. Now, when I look at the two statements it's also noticed that

23 there are some assertions in the Mladic statement that were not in the

24 Karadzic statement, and I want to deal with them now. And again at

25 paragraph 30 in your Mladic statement you write:

Page 21094

1 "I should point out that the shell was fired from behind the

2 lines from the western side, that is, from the Sigma building, i.e., from

3 positions controlled by the BH army forces."

4 Now, my first very simple question is: Do you acknowledge that

5 that sentence does not exist in your Karadzic statement, that that's a

6 new assertion?

7 A. I agree.

8 Q. So now in the context of this case you have signed a statement

9 more than 20 years after the event in which you assert for the first time

10 that BH forces fired the shell on the 22nd of January, 1994, from the

11 Sigma building, an area under their control? This is the first time that

12 you are giving that as evidence; correct?

13 A. In the Karadzic case I asserted - and that's the point - that the

14 shell was not fired from the Institute for Blind Children. That was the

15 point. And perhaps this is put too strongly here when it says I

16 emphasise that the shell was fired from the west from the position of the

17 Sigma building. I cannot be sure. It's my assumption because it came

18 from the west. I know that they had mortars in that location and in the

19 location of the Butmir agricultural complex.

20 Q. And that was -- that's the point I want to get at. You accept

21 that that's an assumption that you've included in this statement that was

22 not in your Karadzic statement?

23 A. Yes, I accept that.

24 Q. Now, sir, when I first started asking you questions, I was asking

25 you about the approximate number of total mortars and I asked you about

Page 21095

1 whether you recalled what might have happened on the 8th of August and

2 you were unable to do so. Is it fair to say that you have no specific

3 independent recollection of what happened on the 22nd of January, 1994?

4 A. I've already told you that I did know what happened on the 22nd

5 of January, 1994. It was publicised because children were the victims.

6 That's how I found out. I didn't know about the 8th of August. I knew

7 about the other incident and that's why we are discussing it today.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, just in order to avoid whatever

9 misunderstanding, we are not discussing events. We are exploring your

10 personal knowledge about these events, just for you to be sure.

11 MR. GROOME:

12 Q. And you accept that you have no personal direct knowledge of this

13 event. What you are able to do is tell us what you read in the media,

14 what you may have heard from other sources, but you yourself do not have

15 any personal, direct knowledge about what happened; is that correct?

16 A. No, I don't have any direct knowledge nor could I have.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, Witness, one other question. You

18 tell us now that this new element in your statement which reads that it

19 was fired from the Sigma building, that it's an assumption, nothing more,

20 nothing less. Did you tell the Defence that it was an assumption?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

22 JUDGE ORIE: But they wrote it down not as an assumption but as a

23 statement of fact and you signed it. Could you explain why you sign a

24 statement stating that it was fired from the Sigma building, where you

25 had told those interviewing you that it was your assumption that this had

Page 21096

1 happened?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I stand by my opinion that it

3 was fired from the Sigma position, but I cannot be absolutely sure

4 because I'm neither an expert --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, in your statement it does not appear as

6 an opinion but it appears as a statement of fact. And to be quite

7 honest, opinions are not what we are seeking primarily from witnesses.

8 We are seeking from witnesses their knowledge based on their personal

9 experience.

10 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I at this point put a question to the

12 witness.

13 Where have you been on the 22nd of January, 1994?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I can't say. It was

15 22 years ago. It would be abnormal if I remembered that moment. I was

16 somewhere around, probably going about some task I had at the time.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

18 MR. GROOME:

19 Q. I want to switch now to the other incident that is contained in

20 your statement in this case at paragraph 30. It's captioned incident F9.

21 To discuss this case -- this particular incident with you, could I ask

22 that P3 be brought to our screens. It's the Sarajevo map book. And

23 could we go immediately to e-court page 20, a photograph of the

24 neighbourhood where this took place.

25 Now, when you can see the photograph before you, I want you to

Page 21097

1 take your time and make sure you orient yourself. And when you feel you

2 know what's depicted, maybe let me know and then I'll ask you a few

3 questions.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Groome, you are recorded as dealing

5 with F9 at paragraph 30 --

6 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, Your Honour, that's F9 -- that was

7 paragraph 30 in the Karadzic statement and it is in this particular case

8 it's paragraph 31.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

10 MR. GROOME: I apologise for that confusion.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

12 MR. GROOME:

13 Q. Okay. It's now on our screens so let me know when you've had a

14 chance to study it and then when you have tell me: Do you recognise the

15 neighbourhood that's depicted here?

16 A. This is a part of town called Vojnicko Polje, soldiers field, and

17 Alipasino Polje, and what is marked here is the separation line. So

18 these were the positions controlled by the Army of Republika Srpska.

19 Q. Okay. Now, let me ask you now some very specific questions and

20 we'll go one by one so there's no confusion. The high-rise apartment

21 buildings that we see in the background at the top of the picture,

22 that's Alipasino Polje; correct?

23 A. Yes, yes. This is Alipasino Polje and Vojnicko Polje is a bit

24 further below.

25 Q. Now, if I can draw your attention to the middle bottom of the

Page 21098

1 photograph, we can see a compound of several buildings that has a red

2 line around it. And my question to you is: Today at transcript page 23

3 you refer to a location called the Institute for Blind Children and line

4 of separation. Am I correct that's what's contained in that box marked 1

5 is this area that you've referred to as the Institute for Blind Children?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Now, you refer to another building that -- another facility that

8 catered to blind adults. Can you see that building on this diagram or on

9 this photograph?

10 A. This is a more recent picture. It was made later. I cannot

11 quite see it on the photograph, but I know the exact juxtaposition. I

12 remember what it looked like before this photograph was taken.

13 Q. So you would be unable to identify it on this photograph although

14 it may be here; is that your evidence?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Now, would you be able to mark the confrontation line on this

17 photograph? And please don't do anything till I give you a specific

18 instruction. Is that something you would be able to do?

19 A. Yes.

20 MR. GROOME: So can I ask what colour we're in? Red.

21 Q. So you have a red pen now. Can I ask you to trace the

22 confrontation line as it passes through the area depicted by this photo.

23 A. Maybe I got it wrong.

24 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to delete what you marked, please ask

25 the assistance of the usher and you could start again.

Page 21099

1 A. [Marks]

2 Q. Now, I see that you've drawn a red line right in front of the

3 compound marked as number 1. Where does the confrontation line go from

4 there? You've kind of stopped.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Which way does it go? Where does it go from there on the

7 left-hand side?

8 A. [Marks]

9 Q. And now you've drawn another red line that's going down the side

10 of that compound marked number 1; correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I would tender P3 -- the version of P3,

13 e-court page 20, that's now been marked by Mr. Sladoje.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Page 20 of Exhibit P3 as marked by the witness

16 receives number P6512, Your Honours.

17 JUDGE ORIE: P6512 is admitted.

18 MR. GROOME: Can I now ask that we go to e-court page 22 of P3.

19 Q. Now, Mr. Sladoje, this is a photograph taken from this compound

20 that's marked number 1 in this photo. Just give us a moment to bring

21 that to your screen. So again, this is a picture taken from the building

22 marked as number 1, and the red circle in front of you shows you the

23 location where Sanela was shot. My question to you is: Isn't it a fact

24 that at this distance with this line of sight it would be possible to

25 distinguish between a fully grown soldier in uniform and a 16-year-old

Page 21100

1 girl in civilian clothing?

2 A. I don't know this photograph, but you are right in saying that a

3 soldier can distinguish between a grown soldier and a girl. But this

4 photograph does not mean anything to me. I can't identify anything.

5 Q. Okay. Now, would you also agree that a soldier trained with an

6 ordinary rifle would be able -- at this close distance would have a

7 reasonable possibility of hitting his target?

8 A. He could.

9 Q. So an optical scope would not be required for firing at a target

10 this distance; do you agree?

11 A. Yes, but I can't agree about only one thing. I can't agree that

12 there was a sniper's nest here. I say with full responsibility that

13 there was never a sniper's nest here, and you say there is only one

14 incident scheduled in the indictment relating to this place. It's

15 impossible that there was only one incident if there had been a sniper's

16 nest through four years of the war. My question is: What was the girl

17 doing at the separation line? I suppose that the incident never happened

18 or perhaps it was a stray bullet that hit the girl.

19 Q. So what is your evidence then, that the incident never happened

20 or you believe a stray bullet hit the girl?

21 A. I maintain that there was never a sniper's nest at the school for

22 blind children. I don't know about this incident. I can't say whether

23 it happened or not, but I know that there was never an order given to

24 shoot at civilians. And in the four years of the war there was never an

25 incident directly in the vicinity of the separation line.

Page 21101

1 Q. Now, will you concede that during the conflict there were

2 soldiers that used that school for blind children? Let's forget about

3 snipers for the moment. Were soldiers -- did soldiers ever occupy and

4 use that facility?

5 A. What do you mean "used"? During the war or before the war?

6 Q. During the war were soldiers in your battalion ever present in

7 that school for blind children?

8 A. Yes, and I said in my statement that there was a position there.

9 Q. Now, you've just said:

10 "I don't know about this incident ..."

11 So am I correct in understanding that, just as with the shelling

12 we've talked about, you have no personal or direct knowledge about this

13 girl being shot at this location?

14 A. None.

15 Q. I want to move to a different topic now. In your statement,

16 D453, in paragraph 14 you say the following:

17 "There was not a single neighbourhood without an enemy unit or

18 military target in it."

19 I want to ask you several questions about this statement. First,

20 when you say there was not a single neighbourhood without a military

21 target in it, are you referring to neighbourhoods in your area of

22 responsibility or are you talking about the entire city of Sarajevo?

23 A. We can talk about the whole city of Sarajevo because all the

24 features that could be used were used by the military and they turned

25 them into military installations and they mixed with those civilians and

Page 21102

1 that's why collateral damage occurred in incidents involving exchange of

2 fire. I know what you mean. You are trying to say that we claim every

3 part of the city was used for military purposes, but the greatest part of

4 the city was used for military purposes and troops were mixed with

5 civilians. In my own neighbourhood, civilians were mixed in with

6 soldiers and they were collateral damage in every exchange of fire.

7 Q. I want to read something you said to --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, could I seek clarification.

9 You said in your own neighbourhood civilians were mixed in with

10 soldiers and they were collateral damage in every exchange of fire. Are

11 you referring to your neighbourhood, the Serb side or the Muslim side?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm talking about the part of town

13 where my unit had its area of responsibility. The civilian population

14 lived side by side by my own troops.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That clarifies your answer.

16 Please proceed.

17 MR. GROOME:

18 Q. Now, I want to read you something you said before the Karadzic

19 Chamber and ask you whether you still maintain this and I'm reading from

20 transcript page 30574 in those proceedings. You said:

21 "It is not possible for us to fire at military objectives only

22 without jeopardising the civilian population because they were there and

23 very often civilians were used for that kind of thing."

24 My question to you is whether you believed every time your

25 battalion took some action with respect to the city there was a chance of

Page 21103

1 civilian casualties?

2 A. I believe that was so but we had to respond to fire because our

3 positions were in jeopardy. Our troops were in danger, so we had no

4 choice.

5 Q. Did you consider it a significant chance -- that there was a

6 significant chance of civilian casualties when you took action against

7 the city?

8 A. We did not think that way. We didn't think there would be major

9 casualties. We didn't always know what the disposition was and the

10 civilians were supposed to seek shelter during military action. I cannot

11 tell you in those terms. We had to think about other things, how to

12 defend our positions. Of course we were supposed to have civilians in

13 mind and we tried to minimise civilian casualties, but if they were there

14 then they had to suffer.

15 Q. Would you agree with me that shelling or sniping into Sarajevo

16 neighbourhoods that was not in response to specific fire coming out of

17 those neighbourhoods was not militarily justifiable?

18 A. We did not take action if our lines were not jeopardised. I said

19 that in my statement. And we received orders from our superior command

20 to act that way. If some renegade shooter did that, I couldn't control

21 it, we couldn't control it. It's impossible to control.

22 Q. I want to draw your attention to paragraph 15 of your statement

23 where you say the following:

24 "The permanent order from my battalion was that we could open

25 fire only in response to enemy fire and only at observed firing targets."

Page 21104

1 Is it your evidence that there were never any orders to fire upon

2 built-up civilian areas absent there being targets which you could

3 observe were firing at your positions?

4 A. Never. There was not a single order to target civilians. It's

5 absolutely inconceivable, unfathomable. It's outside all civilian and

6 human norms. I don't see any reason why we would open fire if there had

7 been no fire from there.

8 Q. So you've kind of mixed up my question now. I wasn't talking

9 about an order to specifically target civilians. I'm asking you about

10 what you've said here that the only -- your standing order was that you

11 were only to engage targets in the city if there was observable fire

12 coming out.

13 A. It didn't always have to be observed, but if there was fire, and

14 we couldn't always see who was shooting from where, but you can assume,

15 you can estimate, and in those cases we received and gave out orders to

16 open fire. And the story about the civilians is a separate story. We

17 never issued or received orders to target civilians. But civilians did

18 suffer in exchanges of fire but that's a different problem.

19 Q. So it's your evidence that you never received an order to take

20 action against the city -- well, let me ask -- sorry, strike that. Let

21 me ask another question.

22 Did you ever receive an order to take action against the city

23 because of something that was happening elsewhere in Bosnia far away from

24 Sarajevo?

25 A. No.

Page 21105

1 MR. GROOME: Can I ask that we see 65 ter 30636. It's an order

2 signed by Dragomir Milosevic on the 21st of July, 1995.

3 Q. Now, sir, that's on your screen now. It's an order signed by

4 Dragomir Milosevic on the 21st of July and it's addressed to several

5 subordinate units of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, including the Ilidza

6 Brigade, the Sarajevo Infantry Brigade, and the Sarajevo Mechanised

7 Brigade. My first question to you is whether the stamp and the document

8 itself appears authentic to you?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Now, the first paragraph talks about some problems the VRS

11 military is experiencing in several locations. The first thing I want to

12 do is ask for your help in helping the Chamber understand where these

13 locations are. Am I correct that the locations of Cardak, Celina, and

14 Hum are places in the vicinity of Trnovo?

15 A. Yes, Kragujevac, Cardak, and Hum, yes. Celina is on Trebevic.

16 And as for Trnovo, I don't know.

17 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we see -- I'm sorry, I'll dispense

18 with that.

19 Q. Would you agree that the distance between Trnovo and Ilidza is

20 approximately 28 kilometres?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. The order also talks about Mount Treskavica. Would you agree

23 with me that that's about 45 kilometres from Ilidza?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. The order also talks about events in Gorazde. Would you agree

Page 21106

1 with me that that's approximately 82 kilometres east of Ilidza?

2 A. Well, yes.

3 Q. Now, it may seem like an obvious question but I just want to be

4 clear: You had no type of artillery or other weapon that could give any

5 kind of direct support to the locations mentioned in this order, did you?

6 A. No.

7 Q. So now the paragraph continues:

8 [As read] "Our forces on the Trnovo axis who have a lot of

9 problems, (Kragujevac, Cardak, Hum, Celina have fallen). On top of all

10 other difficulties our defence on Mount Treskavica also has a lot of

11 problems. The Turks have probably moved the main focus of attack towards

12 Gorazde. In order to relieve our forces on the Trnovo axis and to link

13 up the forces and deceive the enemy, I hereby order ..."

14 In this order Milosevic is referring to troops well outside

15 Sarajevo that are experiencing problems; correct?

16 A. I have to tell you something. It may go beyond some fears.

17 However, do you know what? When it comes to tactics, when an area is at

18 risk, the focus of war activities is moved to another area. That's why

19 General Milosevic issued that order. You have to know that Gorazde was

20 connected via Trnovo and Treskavica and supplies were done through there.

21 So if you wanted to succeed, you had to open a new theatre of war, you

22 have to open fire in another place, hence that order. So that order was

23 not only with a view to getting to Treskavica or if Ilidza or Trnovo or

24 Gorazde were at risk, the commander of that unit issued an order in order

25 to launch an offensive and to relieve pressure on them as a result of the

Page 21107

1 enemy supremacy.

2 Q. Now that you've seen the order, do you remember this order, do

3 you remember being ordered to do this?

4 A. I've not received this order. It was received by the brigade.

5 As a battalion we may have been in receipt of that order but it would

6 have been pointless. We were engaged in defence. We did not have enough

7 troops to protect the positions that we held and that I marked on the

8 maps that you presented to me previously.

9 Q. Okay. Now, I want to remind you again of what you've said in

10 paragraph 15.

11 "The permanent order for my battalion was that we could open fire

12 only in response to enemy fire and only at observed firing targets."

13 The first specific order states -- starts:

14 "The brigade command shall independently plan, prepare, and carry

15 out an attack or a show attack against the city of Sarajevo ..."

16 My question for you is: The phrase "the brigade shall

17 independently plan ..." indicates that the attack on Sarajevo that's

18 being ordered by Dragomir Milosevic is not one that was co-ordinated

19 between the brigades surrounding Sarajevo; correct?

20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour, for a

21 simple reason. In paragraph 15 which my learned friend is reading from,

22 the witness says very clearly: A permanent order for my battalion ...

23 and what he is being shown is an order for the brigade, and the witness

24 answered that he never received such an order from the brigade.

25 JUDGE ORIE: He didn't say so, as a matter of fact. I'll remind

Page 21108

1 you what his evidence was, Mr. Stojanovic. He said that it would not

2 have made sense. Mr. Groome asked him: Do you remember this order. He

3 said: I've not received the order was received by the brigade --

4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, yes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. We may have been in receipt of

6 that, therefore it's unclear whether the witness ever received this

7 order. And could I invite you to be short in your objections and not to

8 make objections argumentative.

9 Mr. Groome, you may proceed.

10 MR. GROOME: Thank you.

11 Q. So if I can return to my question. The phrase:

12 "The brigade command shall independently plan ..."

13 This indicates that the attack on Sarajevo that's being ordered

14 in this document was not one that was co-ordinated between the brigades

15 surrounding Sarajevo; correct? They were doing it independently?

16 A. I've tried to explain what this is about. I don't know what else

17 could I say? When I --

18 Q. Sir --

19 A. -- was talking about the deployment of units and the refocusing

20 of their activities -- go ahead.

21 Q. We've heard that evidence and we understand it. My question is

22 simply: According to this order, there's no requirement for the

23 different brigades that could engage Sarajevo to co-ordinate. They're

24 all left to independently plan an attack on Sarajevo; correct?

25 A. You're saying that they were allowed to act independently, but

Page 21109

1 I'm telling you that my battalion did not receive this order from the

2 brigade command and we did not act. So what were we to do in that case?

3 Q. Let me just ask you from an experienced, career soldier, when you

4 read what Dragomir Milosevic has ordered, am I correct in understanding

5 that the brigades were not to co-ordinate the attack; they were simply to

6 engage -- to commence an attack on the city of Sarajevo for the reasons

7 you've described, for tactical reasons related to areas outside of

8 Sarajevo?

9 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I'm not a professional soldier. My occupation is

10 different. However, I was forced to be what I was in the war. And now

11 as to what the General wrote, it was his right and it was his duty as the

12 unit commander to defend the positions that were held by the Army of

13 Republika Srpska. If your view is somewhat different, there is nothing I

14 can do about that.

15 Q. Sir, this order isn't an order to defend territory. This is an

16 order to attack the city of Sarajevo; is that not correct? Am I

17 misreading this order?

18 A. It says here that the city of Sarajevo should be attacked, but it

19 was not meant literally, but rather that fire should be opened on the

20 separation lines or that it should be faked in order to refocus the

21 activities. I don't see anything in dispute in this order from the

22 military point of view. I don't know how you see things yourself. I

23 can't be the judge of that.

24 Q. Well, sir, doesn't it contradict your evidence in paragraph 15 --

25 I'm sorry, I thought I heard something.

Page 21110

1 Doesn't this contradict your evidence in paragraph 15, that you

2 could only open fire in response to enemy fire and only at observed

3 firing targets? Doesn't this contradict your evidence on that point?

4 A. No, there's no contradiction at all because units were threatened

5 at other front lines, which means that fire was opened somewhere, maybe

6 in Nedzarici or maybe somewhere else. And this means that our units had

7 to react. When fire was not opened first, I never received an order nor

8 did I issue an order either as commander or as deputy commander to that

9 effect. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to cut this short. What Mr. Groome is

11 putting to you is the following, that on the one hand side you have

12 testified that you would -- you were ordered to fire exclusively if fire

13 was opened at you, and Mr. Groome reads in this order that apparently

14 brigades were ordered to fire even if they were not fired at but because

15 something had happened at a distance. And he's trying to seek your

16 comment on what he considers an inconsistency in what you stated and what

17 is found in this document. Could you briefly in one or two lines say

18 whether you wish to add anything; if so, please do. If not, we'll move

19 on.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that anything should

21 be added to this. I stick by what I said in paragraph 15. This is all I

22 need to say at this point.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll move on but only after we have taken a

24 break.

25 MR. GROOME: I only have about two more questions --

Page 21111

1 JUDGE ORIE: Two more questions. Let's --

2 MR. GROOME: Well, just very short. Very brief.

3 JUDGE ORIE: If you think we could finish in, well, let's say

4 five to seven minutes then --

5 MR. GROOME: I think so.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps it's preferable to move on.

7 Please proceed.

8 MR. GROOME:

9 Q. Sir, you've just said there's no contradiction at all because

10 units were threatened at other front lines, which means that fire was

11 opened somewhere, maybe in Nedzarici or maybe somewhere else. Aren't you

12 agreeing or aren't you saying right now that you considered it proper to

13 open fire in your battalion because of something that may have been

14 happening at another front line perhaps as far away as Gorazde?

15 A. When we talk about that, I know what your standpoint is; however,

16 as I've already told you, war is not waged only in one territory. The

17 complete territory where war is waged has to be covered. And people have

18 to adjust to the goings-on everywhere, and this is according to all

19 military doctrines. I can't say anything differently. I can't

20 contradict military doctrines that have been in place for thousands of

21 years, so I don't see what may be in dispute here.

22 Q. And just my final question then: Is your understanding of what

23 you've just described about the war in all the areas and its

24 justification for action in Sarajevo, was that a common understanding

25 among the rank and file of soldiers in the VRS?

Page 21112

1 A. I apologise. Would you please repeat your question?

2 Q. This concept that you have just explained, the justification of

3 action taken in Sarajevo being something that happened --

4 A. Very well.

5 Q. -- perhaps far away, my question to you is: Was that a common

6 understanding of your colleagues, of your subordinates, of your superiors

7 in the Army of Republika Srpska?

8 A. That's what they had to do, but not within the same context that

9 you have in mind. You are focusing on the attack on Sarajevo. There

10 were attacks from Sarajevo on our position. There was a war going on.

11 Now, there is a discrepancy in the way --

12 Q. Sir --

13 A. -- you think and the way I think together with the Defence --

14 Q. This order requires an attack to commence on the city of Sarajevo

15 on the 22nd of July, 1995. What was -- was there any conflict that you

16 were aware of or any operation by Bosnian forces in Sarajevo on that date

17 that you can tell us about now?

18 A. Mr. Prosecutor, would you allow me to read this and then I will

19 answer? [As read] "The command of the brigade will independently plan,

20 prepare, or carry out the attack or demonstrate an attack on the city of

21 Sarajevo," but there is a difference there. I was talking about a

22 tactical term, faking fire, so this is not an explicit order to attack

23 the city of Sarajevo or demonstrate an attack on Sarajevo. This is

24 exactly what I'm reading here.

25 Q. So you're saying that this order is not a real attack on the

Page 21113

1 city; it's simply a show attack. That's your evidence?

2 A. If this is what it says here, that's what it is, either to carry

3 out an attack or fake an attack.

4 Q. Can you explain to us how you fire a shell into a built-up area

5 such as Sarajevo and it not be an attack?

6 A. And who is it who says that it was ever fired? Who says that it

7 was fired in this case? I don't know that it was fired.

8 MR. GROOME: I have no further questions, Your Honour. I'll

9 raise it with another witness. Thanks.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.

11 I suggest that we take a break first.

12 Could you tell us how much time you would need for re-examination,

13 Mr. Stojanovic?

14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Some 15 minutes, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: And then we'll see whether there will be enough for

16 finalising the testimony of the witness.

17 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, Your Honour, could I ask that that

18 exhibit be MFI'd, Your Honour?

19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30636 receives number P6513,

21 Your Honours, MFI.

22 JUDGE ORIE: P6513 is marked for identification.

23 We take a break after the witness has been escorted out of the

24 courtroom and we'll resume at ten minutes to 2.00.

25 Mr. Mladic, no loud speaking in the courtroom, as you are aware