1 Wednesday, 5 November 2014
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is the case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Both parties have announced that they had preliminary matters.
12 MR. WEBER: Mr. Lukic can go first.
13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Lukic, you go first. And then Mr. Weber
15 will think about what his preliminary matters --
16 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- were. Yes.
18 MR. LUKIC: I just actually want Mr. Weber to put on the record
19 the position of the OTP in regard of two documents. So the first one is
20 P6889 MFI, and the second one is P6888. We want to know the position of
21 the OTP, whether they claim it's -- those documents were created by Serb
22 authorities, how they got these documents, and when.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, who drafted it is a question which seems
24 to be not in the same area as where they come from.
25 MR. LUKIC: Would --
1 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, if they are authentic, then whoever may have
2 drafted them, and that may have some impact on how to interpret the
3 documents and how to understand them and to -- but the first questions
4 are: Where do they come from?
5 Mr. Weber.
6 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour. And I appreciate what you
7 just said.
8 I'm just going to provide more detailed information than I
9 already provided yesterday. At issue are two reports that are from the
10 Trnovo DB. It is our position based on the language in the documents --
11 in both documents, the references in them, the names of the individuals,
12 and how they -- especially the second document, 6889, how it parallels
13 the minutes of who was present including police personnel, that they are
14 in fact drafted by individuals of Serb ethnicity who were playing a part
15 in these events.
16 So that would be our basis of why we believe that -- yeah, well,
17 they're from the Trnovo DB and why we believe that they were authored by
18 individuals with direct knowledge of these events.
19 In terms of the recovery of these documents, as I mentioned
20 yesterday, it occurred during the reintegration process which included
21 recovery of materials from various municipalities after the war
22 surrounding Sarajevo. This -- this -- these two documents were items 573
23 and 574 recovered from the Trnovo municipality. I do not have specific
24 information --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please slow down --
1 MR. WEBER: Yeah.
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER: My information just indicates that the box came from
4 police political authorities. I don't have very specific information as
5 to a specific building.
6 Aside from that, it was provided to the OTP by AID Sarajevo on
7 the 18th of May, 2001. That's the information we have.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm just wondering - I've looked at the
9 documents as well - what it is specifically that the references and the
10 names makes you believe that it's not, if I could express it this way, is
11 not the result of successful spying activity rather -- but rather from an
12 internal source. That's -- could you be a bit more precise? Because I
13 have no difficulties in following you, that there seems to be a match
14 with the minutes here and there. But even if I'm an intelligence
15 officer, I would take care that there is a good match because that makes
16 the information reliable.
17 Therefore, could you explain a bit better what, perhaps not
18 necessarily now immediately, but ...
19 MR. WEBER: What I'm deriving this for is based on the
20 individuals who were present at those meetings, which included police
21 personnel, members of the security services, and the fact that they are
22 also mentioned in the same context of those meetings present in here.
23 Then there is also references, which would make them a logical source for
24 the information, and then on top of it that there is references then to
25 commanders and company commanders sending orders or information to the --
1 to the Crisis Staff or to other individuals in the documents. So based
2 on the context of the discussion of how that's communicated, it would be
3 our position that it is -- it is from a source with direct personal
4 knowledge and involvement in the events --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah.
6 MR. WEBER: -- and we've seen who these people are based on those
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay.
9 Mr. Lukic, any need for you at this moment to respond or?
10 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, we do not want to respond. Although,
11 our position is that this document is not created by Serb authorities.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
13 MR. LUKIC: They -- there might be some documents used in
14 creating these documents, but we'll try to clarify this with the witness.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll then wait for that. Those were your
16 preliminary issues.
17 Mr. Weber, yours now.
18 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
19 It's with respect to P3207. This is the statement of
20 Mr. Radulovic. The Prosecution wanted to inform the Chamber that an
21 unredacted version is now available in e-court under 65 ter number
23 The second part of this is that -- is with respect to P6980, that
24 document can be made a public exhibit. Change the status.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It was -- yesterday we said that it should
1 provisionally be under seal.
2 Madam Registrar, the status of P6890 is now public.
3 For the other one, Mr. Lukic.
4 MR. LUKIC: I also have to inform Your Honours that we
5 attached -- that we asked for the B/C/S translation to be attached to one
6 document -- actually, this information report we provided with this
7 witness. So --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. LUKIC: -- I have --
10 JUDGE ORIE: I was still dealing at this moment with P3207
11 because two documents were -- the Prosecution wants P3207 to be admitted
12 in an unredacted format.
13 MR. LUKIC: I think that you gave us some time yesterday to
14 respond to this.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you wish to do that --
16 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- at a later stage.
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll -- the Chamber is aware that
20 30594a is now uploaded into e-court, but we'll wait for Mr. Lukic's
21 submissions before we decide whether that can replace the redacted
22 version which is in evidence now.
23 MR. WEBER: Understood, Your Honour. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 Then, Mr. Lukic --
1 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- you raised a different matter?
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Which was?
5 MR. LUKIC: In regard of D736, information report. The B/C/S
6 translation is uploaded into the system under ID doc number 1D17-0307.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think we had reserved a number for that
9 MR. LUKIC: It's D736.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, D736. That number was reserved. We'll not
11 decide immediately on admission.
12 But, Madam Registrar, the B/C/S version may be attached to the
13 original. I think it was not only a reserved number but it was even
14 MFI'd. Is that correct, Madam Registrar, that it was MFI'd?
15 THE REGISTRAR: That's correct, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then leave is hereby granted and you're instructed
17 to attach the B/C/S version to this -- to D736. The number just given by
18 Mr. Lukic was 1D17-0307.
19 Then I have one item which should be dealt with in private
20 session and it will not take very long, but we have to move into private
22 [Private session]
11 Page 27849 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 And I think it would be time already for the witness to be
11 escorted into the courtroom.
12 I have one short item. During the testimony of Mane Djuric, the
13 Defence tendered a document bearing 65 ter number 1D02733. The decision
14 on admission of this 40-page document was deferred pending an agreement
15 between the parties concerning ethnicity of the people listed in the
16 document and about the number of pages which should be received in
18 The Chamber would like to know whether the parties have come to
19 an agreement, and if so, what that agreement is.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, the Prosecution is checking right now.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
23 MR. WEBER: If we could inform you at the outset of the next
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 Good morning, Mr. Vlaski.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vlaski, you'll now be re-examined by Mr. Lukic.
4 You know where to find him. And I remind you that you are still bound by
5 the solemn declaration you have given at the beginning of your testimony.
6 Mr. Lukic.
7 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 WITNESS: NEDJO VLASKI [Resumed]
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Vlaski.
12 A. Good morning.
13 Q. We are not going to take very long this morning.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have Exhibit P6888 in
16 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise, is it D688 because this D6888
17 doesn't exist.
18 MR. LUKIC: P, sorry.
19 THE REGISTRAR: P.
20 MR. LUKIC: So it's P6888.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Vlaski, this morning we heard from the
22 Prosecutor that this document was received from AID Sarajevo on the
23 18th of May, 2001, and we heard that it is the position of the
24 Prosecution that this document had been created by the Serb side. The
25 position of the Defence is that this document had been created by the
1 Muslim side.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, this is totally inappropriate. I mean,
3 in cross-examination there is a duty to inform the witness about your
4 position if he contradicts that position. You are not supposed to tell
5 the witness what you would like to hear and what you would like to have
6 confirmed. That is in examination-in-chief totally inappropriate. I
7 just leave it to that for the time being.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Vlaski, it is written here that this is information on the
10 operation activities of the Main Staff of the TO and command personnel of
11 SR of the armed forces of Trnovo from the 15th of May to the 30th of May,
12 1992. As you can see from the document, it is not evident who this was
13 sent to. According to the rules of your service --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
15 MR. WEBER: I think that we're getting back again into a leading
16 component in this question.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're supposed not to tell the witness --
18 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- unless there is an agreement on it.
20 And now I take it, Mr. Weber, that you would have easily agreed
21 on that the addressees are not mentioned in the document.
22 But you are supposed not to do that, Mr. Lukic.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Vlaski, can we see who this document was sent to? Can we see
25 that from the document itself? Can one see from the document who it was
1 sent to?
2 A. From this document one cannot see who it was sent to, and the
3 information contains data that the author of this information received in
4 the period from the 15th of May to the 30th of May. That is precisely
5 the period when the authors were not aware of the data because they did
6 not know about the content of the conclusions of the organs of the TO of
7 the Serb Republic, as it says here SR of Trnovo. That happened later on
8 the basis of an analysis of the documentation that was accessible to
9 them. Now which period that is, it is very hard to establish. It is
10 only handwriting experts that could do that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, a few questions. Have you seen the whole
12 of the document, every single page?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, these few things that are here
14 were sufficient for me --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If that's your level of drawing conclusions,
16 that is -- I would like to -- you to be aware that it's impossible to say
17 that a document does not show something if you've not seen the whole of
18 the document. That's one.
19 Second, you're saying that the authors were not aware. Who is
20 the author of this document?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The author of this document in all
22 likelihood would be somebody from the security structures of the Muslim
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, what is in all likelihood is not
25 something we expect a witness to tell us.
1 Apart, Mr. Lukic, that here of course you have the effect of your
2 leading the witness.
3 But you say in all likelihood you don't know, isn't it?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I cannot make assertions but
5 on the basis of what I see here, knowing the circumstances involved in
6 that period of time, I can say that they did not have this information.
7 They did not have complete information about the content that has been
8 presented here.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us what tells you that the author of
10 this document did not have full information? And could you also explain
11 to us how you can draw such a conclusion if you have not seen the whole
12 of the document?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Information is provided here from
14 13 meetings, and from here we can see only three meetings on the first
15 page. Having just partially seen the content of these meetings on the
16 15th, 16th, and 17th, that I took part in as well, it can be seen that
17 this information was analysed subsequently on the basis of more complete
18 information that they had gathered.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you have seen the pages in between which
20 refer to many more meetings? You are not aware of that? Witness, we are
21 here to hear your knowledge about facts, not your assumptions or your
22 conclusions and especially not, as it has been clearly shown over the
23 last few minutes, that they do not have a proper basis in an accurate
24 analysis of what you say is the basis of your conclusions.
25 Mr. Lukic, I'm afraid that this is part of the whole problem with
1 this witness's statement. Could you please not add to the problems but
2 try to resolve them. Please proceed.
3 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Vlaski, in whose hands was Trnovo?
5 A. Trnovo is a municipality where control changed three times: Once
6 it was the Serb forces, the second time was the Bosniak Muslim forces,
7 and then again the Serb forces. Parts of the municipality, not the
8 entire municipality.
9 Q. At a certain moment, did the Muslim forces control the town
11 A. But of course.
12 Q. Let us take a look at the last page. We see here that it says at
13 the bottom: "SDB Department Trnovo." Do you see the signature?
14 A. I just see this typewritten text: "SDB Department Trnovo." I
15 see that typewritten. There is no signature.
16 Q. Do you see who the author of this text is?
17 A. The author is the department of the SDB. That is what is stated
18 in this document.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, ask the witness questions on specific
20 knowledge he has but don't ask him to tell us what the document says.
21 MR. LUKIC: Well --
22 JUDGE ORIE: This Chamber can read.
23 MR. LUKIC: When I tried that you said --
24 JUDGE ORIE: This Chamber --
25 MR. LUKIC: -- that I cannot ask him but I should ask him --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Facts.
2 MR. LUKIC: -- open questions.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But no useless questions. I mean, if you ask
4 him whether you would -- we see in the signature area, which is not a
5 signature but where the author is indicated, whether we see three words
6 in B/C/S and four words in English. Of course the witness will say that
7 he sees that, but the Chamber can see that as well. The Chamber can see
8 as well that there is no signature. You don't have to ask a witness,
9 unless he has specific knowledge about the document, why it was not
10 signed or whether there is a signed version elsewhere, but don't ask him
11 to tell us what is obvious from the document itself and which the Chamber
12 can read as good or perhaps even better than the witness. We can see
13 that. I can see that there is no signature. Don't ask the witness for
14 that. Either he confirms that and then it's useless information, or he
15 denies it and then we say it's unreliable.
16 MR. LUKIC: Can I continue, Your Honour?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you can, but I asked you not to add to the
18 problems but to -- to make them less, not worse. Please proceed.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Vlaski, is it customary to have such a document signed or not
21 in the SDB?
22 A. It is usual that the heading of the document should say, on the
23 first page, what the institution is. Where this department of the SDB
24 is. It should have said: "Ministry of the Interior, State Security
25 Service." It should be someone that is the entity that this SDB
1 department belongs to. That is what is lacking in this document. There
2 is no protocol or register. There is no date when the document was
4 Q. Thank you. We heard that AID provided these documents to the
5 Prosecution. Whose service is AID?
6 A. That is the service that was created after the security service
7 of the Muslim side was transformed into the Agency for Investigations and
9 Q. What does AID have to do with Pogorelica?
10 A. That is one of the reasons why this transformation took place of
11 the State Security Service into this Agency for Investigations and
12 Documentation, because precisely at that time a Bosniak congress was held
13 in Sarajevo where a decision was made -- or, rather, where an attempt was
14 made to create a Muslim state in that part that was under the control of
15 the authorities from Sarajevo. In relation to that, these security
16 structures were transformed.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, from the answer, I don't understand how
18 Pogorelica is related to this.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Judge Moloto was asking what Pogorelica has to do with AID?
21 A. Pogorelica is the result of co-operation of a few years between
22 this intelligence organisation in Sarajevo with the Islamic intelligence
23 service and instructors that were coming to the area that was engulfed by
25 Q. You said Islamic. From which country?
1 A. From Iran.
2 Q. And was that -- did that have any links with terrorism?
3 A. At that time IFOR units felt that in that facility --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
5 MR. WEBER: What's the relevance of this?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
7 MR. LUKIC: They said --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: -- that they had received these documents from AID,
10 Sarajevo AID. This is exactly the relevance. Because we have all the
11 rights to suspect in anything provided by AID. And we'll especially show
12 it in the next document.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The witness may answer the question.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: But also my problem here, Mr. Lukic, is that you
15 suggested to the witness that there was terrorism involved instead of
16 asking him the question and letting him give you the answer. Again, it
17 is another leading question.
18 MR. LUKIC: We had that discussion with one of the Prosecution
19 witnesses before, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, not with this witness.
21 MR. LUKIC: Not with this witness.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are leading this witness.
23 MR. LUKIC: But he has Pogorelica in his statement.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know what Pogorelica is, but just don't
25 lead the witness.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the fact that we have received in
3 evidence materials which would support your suggestions in your leading
4 questions doesn't make the questions any less leading and do not make
5 them any less inappropriate. Apparently you have not a good
6 understanding of this type of procedural standards.
7 MR. LUKIC: I just draw Your Honours' attention to paragraph 19
8 of the -- this witness statement.
9 JUDGE ORIE: If it is -- let me see.
10 Mr. Lukic, if the matter is raised by the witness here, then I
11 would agree with you it's not leading. But your response was not the
12 witness talked about it himself but you said, "We had that discussion
13 with one of the Prosecution witnesses before," which is an answer which
14 at least confuses me. If you say we find the basis for this witness
15 talking about this and not leading him in this respect in his own
16 statement, that that's a totally different answer which might well be an
17 acceptable answer. That's -- I have no problems with that.
18 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
19 JUDGE ORIE: We'll check that and you -- meanwhile, you may
21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, you spoke about Pogorelica in your
23 statement. While you were working in the State Security Service before
24 the war, in the joint service, were documents altered by the Muslim part
25 of the service?
1 A. Before the war it would happen, including in this case where data
2 was, so to say, treated relating to Young Muslims. There was information
3 that during a search some foreign publications were left behind in order
4 to be able to process this group, to charge them. So this was
5 inappropriate, but somebody from the service felt that it was all right
6 to do something like this in order to provide evidence. And then if
7 we're talking about the wartime period, then there were no rules.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Lukic please repeat his question.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to draw the Chamber's
10 attention to paragraph 44 of the witness's statement where it says that
11 no mention was made in official documentation about unlawful and
12 anti-constitutional action by Muslims and Croats and their political
13 police and paramilitary structures.
14 Q. But now we can look at the following document received from AID.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] This is P6889.
16 Q. The document is similar to the previous one. It says that this
17 is a report on the activities and operation of the Trnovo SDS Municipal
18 Board. Can you tell from the document to whom it was sent?
19 A. Just like in the previous document, crucial elements are missing
20 here in order to be able to identify the document. As this is about who
21 the author is, representing which institution, and in the document you
22 can see that it was drafted pursuant to a specific request because it
23 discusses the activities and operation of the Trnovo SDS in the period
24 from the 1st of January, 1992, to the 31st of May, 1992. In the previous
25 case, the document referred to the Territorial Defence. This means that
1 in the case of both documents they were requested, the information was
3 Q. I will read the first paragraph.
4 "The SDS Main Board and the Crisis Staff held 24 meetings in this
5 period. The questions of preparing and organising the Serb people for
6 armed rebellion against the Muslim people were mainly discussed at this
7 meeting. This is supported by the following details ..."
8 Thus, someone is asking for confirmation of the assertions made.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
10 MR. WEBER: I believe that last part is leading.
11 MR. LUKIC: It says in the text, if I -- I can ask the witness,
12 but the Chamber instructed me not to ask him what's visible from the
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. LUKIC: It is visible from the document that somebody asks
16 for confirmation of something. That's the question for the witness.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The question is end leading and -- Mr. Lukic, what
18 we can read, we can read. Don't ask the witness about that.
19 If you say the document states this and this and this and then
20 you ask him a question about his personal knowledge about these matters,
21 no problem. But don't ask the witness whether the document consists of
22 four pages, because we can count to four.
23 MR. LUKIC: I exactly tried that way with the first document,
24 then you said I have to ask open questions.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'm not spending any more time on it.
1 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You apparently do not understand what I am telling
3 you and that is a problem, but can't resolve it at this very moment.
4 Please proceed.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, was your question not answered in the
6 previous answer? He says there it was drafted pursuant to a specific
7 request. So what you say that it's a report to somebody is actually the
8 opposite of what the -- the corollary of what he's saying? You're asking
9 a question that has already been answered.
10 MR. LUKIC: I'll move on because we need a sentence in the
11 seventh paragraph, and it's dealing with a -- we need next page in
12 English version. It's dealing with the 7th of March of 1992. No, I --
13 still it's on the previous page of English version, sorry. The last --
14 probably the last paragraph.
15 Q. [Interpretation] In a sentence saying the matter of preparing the
16 Serb people of Trnovo for "defence" was discussed at an SDS Municipal
17 Board meeting on the 7th of March, 1992.
18 A. Yes, I see what's written.
19 Q. Just -- just -- just one moment, please. While you were working
20 or while you were attending the Crisis Staff sessions, did you notice
21 that the Serb side is putting its own defence, the term "defence" in
22 quotes, quotation marks?
23 A. Well, such a word or term was never placed in quotation marks in
24 any documents. It was just used, and it was not accented like that in
25 real life, either. At least that applied to that micro-locality in view
1 of the ethnic composition of the local population.
2 Q. And these quotes, do they indicate something else?
3 A. Well, it's evident that the author intended to interpret this
4 defence, the term, in a different way, that it was an alleged defence and
5 that it should have stood for some kind of aggressive or offensive
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at the last page
8 of this document.
9 Q. The Prosecutor showed you this yesterday. I will read --
10 MR. LUKIC: We need the previous page in the English version,
11 bottom of the page 2. We start from: "The 29th of May, 1992 ..."
12 And the -- we have an issue with the translation of English
13 version. It will be shown during my reading of this text.
14 Q. [Interpretation] "On the 29th of May, 1992, the Serbian
15 Crisis Staff reached a decision for the entire Serbian population to move
16 out in the direction of Sirokari and Dobro Polje with the explanation
17 that they would be attacked by the Muslim forces, whereas in fact it was
18 a matter of preparation for an armed intervention against Trnovo."
19 Then the next date is the 31st of May, 1992.
20 "In the morning at 0830 hours, the aggression on Trnovo and
21 surrounding Muslim villages began."
22 Who used the term "aggression" and "aggressor"?
23 A. Well, before I begin my answer to the question, it's clear who
24 used the terms "aggression" and "aggressor." These were terms used by
25 the Muslim side, even though Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina were the
1 indigenous population, this includes Trnovo. There were no forces from
2 the outside. These were neighbours. And what preceded the aggression
3 was the attack on the village of Sirokari, when I was in that village,
4 when the Muslim forces led by police and reserve force elements made an
5 incursion into the village.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please answer the question rather than
7 expound on matters not asked.
8 Mr. Weber.
9 MR. WEBER: And I'm not finding the word "aggression." I see at
10 8.30 hours on --
11 MR. LUKIC: Exactly. We said we had an issue with the
13 MR. WEBER: Okay.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And we should --
15 MR. LUKIC: It's in B/C/S version --
16 JUDGE ORIE: We should first then --
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We see the term in the B/C/S version --
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- in the penultimate line.
20 JUDGE ORIE: "Agresija," fourth word from the semi-last line --
21 fourth word from the -- from the end.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Vlaski, when you were still in the SDB
25 during this period, would you say that the SDB of Republika Srpska or the
1 National Security Service used the word "aggression" for a Serb attack
3 A. No, that was not possible. I myself drafted the first
4 information that was sent to the National Security Service from this
5 region regarding the attack by a paramilitary, a Green Berets unit, as it
6 was passing through the settlement and when three policemen were killed.
7 Actually, two of those Muslims were -- two of those policemen were
8 Muslims. And when statements were taken, they were taken both from
9 Muslim policemen and from other citizens who were eye-witnesses and were
10 familiar with this incident.
11 Q. What I'm interested in right now is the word "aggression." Would
12 the Serbian side designate its attack on the village of Trnovo as
13 aggression in its own documents?
14 A. No, it would never do that. That term would not have been used
16 Q. Very well. And reporting on Serb actions by Serb forces, did you
17 ever use the term "aggression"?
18 A. It's an inappropriate term because in Bosnia and Herzegovina, all
19 three people should have been living equally together. So at one point
20 in time, the Croats were also proclaimed as aggressors even though they
21 constitute 50 per cent of the population. So this word, "aggression,"
22 this term is completely out of place and I don't really -- wouldn't
23 really want to dwell on it much more.
24 Q. Which side used that term?
25 A. Most often it was the Muslim side and sometimes in some areas in
1 the beginning the Croat side, too.
2 Q. Thank you. And now regarding paragraph 44 of your statement. I
3 already quoted it briefly today, and you said as a result of the
4 organisational and personnel structure in place wherein Serbian personnel
5 did not have any influence, there were cases of falsified information.
6 No mention was made in official documents about unlawful and
7 anti-constitutional actions by Muslims and Croats and their political
8 police and paramilitary structures.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So let us now look at document P6634.
10 Q. This document was shown to you yesterday by the SDB of Sarajevo
11 from the 31st of March, 1992, minister of internal affairs of BH, subject
12 forwarding an information. And the document states:
13 "We are hereby forwarding you the list of employees of the SRBH
14 MUP who took part in the activities related to setting of barricades in
15 the region of Sarajevo in early March 1992 ..."
16 Yesterday we saw that you were shown that Mandic Momcilo,
17 Dragisa Kujacic, Velimir Przulj, took part in this. Do you know if it
18 was properly reported who killed the Serb best man from the wedding
19 party? Who erected the barricades?
20 A. May I answer? You can see from this document that it was written
21 on the 13th of March, 1992, whereas the events that it refers to happened
22 in the period of March 1st. So in the period of 13 days. This is a very
23 dilettante sort of information. It's not properly worked through and
24 does not deal with all the problems that cropped up in that period. It's
25 one-sided. It doesn't provide any context in which the incidents
1 occurred. It does not explain the causes or the effect of the events.
2 It just noted the names of certain persons who were meant to be
3 disqualified in a professional and political sense in a way.
4 I myself was an eye-witness of all of these events and I am very
5 much aware of everything that was happening in that period, because
6 during that period and far earlier than that, Muslim paramilitary
7 formations blockaded certain roads in the old city area in the
8 neighbourhood of facilities being used by the JNA. And together with
9 police representatives, they stopped and blocked convoys that were
10 passing through with the authorisation of the Ministry of Internal
11 Affairs; in particular, the illegal activities of paramilitary units
12 after the event in the Kosevo hospital when they blocked a health centre,
13 and then these paramilitary formations ID'd all those who would come to
14 the hospital centre. They were armed, these formations that were doing
15 these identity checks.
16 So this information does not give any -- any information about
17 those aspects of these events.
18 Q. Just briefly, these paramilitary Muslim formations, did they stop
19 any members of your family at the entrance into the hospital?
20 A. They did. And I was stopped when I came to have my wound
21 bandaged at the time when I came to the hospital. I left in an ambulance
22 because I wasn't sure how things would go. We used an ambulance to leave
23 Sarajevo because I wasn't sure what kind of consequences could follow.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] P6886, briefly. Could we take a look
25 at that now.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'm interrupting you. How much more time
2 would you need? You said yesterday you would need half an hour.
3 MR. LUKIC: Not much, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Not much means how much?
5 MR. LUKIC: I'll try to finish in five, six minutes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, do you have any questions?
7 MR. WEBER: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll do that after the break and I'll -- but
9 before we take the break, I'm seeking clarification on one issue,
10 Mr. Lukic, which is behind us already. I can do that after the break as
11 well. Perhaps that's better.
12 If the witness would follow the usher.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and will resume at five minutes to
16 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
18 JUDGE ORIE: We'll wait for the witness to enter the courtroom.
19 Meanwhile, Mr. Lukic, I can inform you that the distribution list
20 for the decision of the 2nd of October includes you and Mr. Stojanovic as
21 being the addressees of to whom they were sent.
22 MR. LUKIC: That is possible. Our computers are not still
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Were they not working on the 2nd of October -- oh,
1 you say you cannot verify.
2 MR. LUKIC: No, I cannot verify.
3 JUDGE ORIE: You cannot verify at this moment. Yes.
4 MR. LUKIC: I believe so but I cannot verify yet.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The title is: "Reasons for denial of ..." and
6 then the name of the motion, submitted by Trial Chamber I on the
7 2nd of October, 2014.
8 Mr. Lukic, you -- although you used even in net time more than
9 the 30 minutes you announced yesterday, you have another five to six
11 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 We need pages 3 in B/C/S and 4 in English of this document that
13 is on our screens, which is P6886.
14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Vlaski, we have to move quickly. Please,
15 just take a look at the first line of this document. Number 1 says:
16 "Nedjo Vlaski, paid in SNB." What does that mean, paid in SNB?
17 A. I received a decision in the SNB, the security service, the
18 National Security Service, and I don't know who put me on this list. I
19 was wounded and I was being treated in Trnovo, and I guess that these
20 colleagues thought that they should put me on their list so that my
21 interests would be met, although I had actually been in the SNB. That is
22 where my job was.
23 Q. Column 5 where it says "signature," is that your signature?
24 A. I did not sign this document. I've never seen this document.
25 This is the first time I am seeing this document. Actually, yesterday
1 and today.
2 Q. Can you just see what is written?
3 A. It says: "ispl." That would be short for "isplacen," paid out.
4 Q. And then that is crossed out, right?
5 A. Yes, it's crossed out.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And now briefly the next document,
7 P6887. This is a record of the meeting of the Crisis Staff in Trnovo
8 held on the 29th of April. We need page 6 in English and 8 in B/C/S.
9 Q. This was discussed yesterday. On this page --
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Actually, the transcript page was
11 27811. That's the reference.
12 Q. So what was discussed was this attack; namely, Edo attacking
13 Hamo Karic. Edo is Edhem Godinjak, that's what you said.
14 A. Yes, chief of the public security station.
15 Q. What is the ethnicity of Edhem Godinjak and Hamo Karic?
16 A. They're ethnic Muslims or, rather, Bosniaks as it is called now.
17 Q. Did one of them work for the Serb side or were they both on the
18 Muslim side?
19 A. They were engaged on the Muslim side. They had some internal
20 problems of their own.
21 Q. Down here it says:
22 "Nedjo: All problems can be overcome."
23 Are these your words?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We'll just go briefly to P68980 [as
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Lukic. You are recorded to have said
3 68980. That's 69.000.
4 MR. LUKIC: Yes. P6980.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 [Interpretation] That's a document that was signed "Milos." Let
8 us look at the last page now, briefly.
9 Q. You see the signature down here, "Milos." You've already
10 commented upon this document, but now I would like to ask you the
11 following. Now that you have seen the first and second page, since this
12 is an Official Note, is the form of this Official Note right?
13 A. Just like in the case of AID, we also unfortunately had these
14 para-intelligence structures in our own ranks and they acted outside the
15 chain and the rules of service. Therefore, these documents are not
16 satisfactory from a formal point of view and also in terms of essence.
17 Professionally they are not proper.
18 I have examples of such notes here with me, what notes should
19 look like, with all the elements that are necessary. If anybody is
20 interested, I can hand them over so that you can compare. However, I
21 spoke here for reasons of substance -- I do apologise. This is also
22 information that was ordered because this structure acted in the interest
23 of some other intelligence and security service.
24 Q. Let me ask you another thing briefly: Was the addressee supposed
25 to be referred to here?
1 A. Well, certainly. There would have to be some designation, first
2 of all, the immediate superior of this structure or group that acted
3 outside the system for it to be part of regular co-operation with an
4 agency. However, all of this was extra-institutional and therefore these
5 constructs are possible. For what purpose and on the basis of what kind
6 of needs, that would require a broader explanation.
7 Q. This group, when was it most active?
8 A. Well, it was active from the beginning, in 1991, all the way up
9 until 1994, when we decided to cut off not only the activity of this
10 organisation but also others like Typhoon. I personally took part in the
11 charges that were brought against that group and also the author of this
12 Official Note.
13 Q. You personally talked to the author?
14 A. Not only him but also a few other members from this
15 para-intelligence group.
16 Q. Just my last question, sir. What was mentioned was that you
17 testified in the Stanisic/Zupljanin case. Who called you to testify in
18 that case?
19 A. The Office of the Prosecutor, in order to establish the truth
20 about all the things that were happening in this period that I am
21 testifying about.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vlaski. We certainly won't have any more
23 questions for you.
24 A. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
1 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Weber:
2 Q. Good morning, Mr. Vlaski.
3 A. Good morning.
4 Q. Do you realise that in your statement you rely on multiple
5 documents provided by AID?
6 A. I didn't hear the question from the very beginning because I got
7 the interpretation late, so could you please repeat what you said.
8 Q. I'd be happy to. Do you realise that in your statement you rely
9 on multiple documents provided by AID?
10 A. Provided by AID? We did not have any insight into documents
11 provided by AID. We had insight into documents that we obtained through
12 our own operative work.
13 Q. I imagine that you're not aware of this. But as associated
14 exhibits that you comment on in your statement - specifically, paragraphs
15 62 and 48 - do you realise that those documents were provided AID?
16 MR. LUKIC: It is, I think, pretty broad. It should be shown to
17 the witness. How can he know?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if the witness has commented on a document,
19 you can ask a question. Of course, if he doesn't remember, it should be
20 shown to him.
21 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But, Mr. Lukic, the Prosecution may expect that the
23 witness is aware of the documents he commented on, but --
24 MR. WEBER: And actually it's our position that the witness is
25 probably not aware of this since this is information that would be known
1 to the OTP as to where the documents were provided from.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Now the witness is supposed to know the
3 documents but you now add another aspect - that is, that they are coming
4 from the AID.
5 MR. WEBER: Correct.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. First of all, if you look at paragraph 62 --
7 it's both documents, Mr. Weber?
8 MR. WEBER: It's specifically P2984.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the decision of the BiH Presidency and what it
10 shows. Were you aware that its provenance is the AID?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, these are documents that were
12 published in the Official Gazette. This is not an AID document. These
13 documents were published in the Official Gazette and everybody who works
14 in the state organs was duty-bound to be informed about these documents.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
16 MR. WEBER:
17 Q. That's not my question, sir. I get that AID provides documents
18 that were authored by others, similar to the ones that you've seen
19 earlier today. My question is: Were you aware that those documents had
20 been provided to the Office of the Prosecutor by AID?
21 JUDGE ORIE: But, Mr. Weber, the witness --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] How can I know --
23 JUDGE ORIE: The witness -- that's -- one second.
24 MR. WEBER: That's exactly -- he's answered it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Is it -- the witness says that this document is a
1 document published in the Official Gazette. Is it --
2 MR. WEBER: And the other one is not.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But we -- let's first deal with the first
4 one. Is it of any use to find out and would you be surprised if the
5 witness would look at the document which is in the Official Gazette and
6 considers it irrelevant, whether you copied the Official Gazette that was
7 delivered to the AID or to the UN or to the government of Spain or -- I
8 mean, Official Gazette is Official Gazette. So therefore, whether it was
9 received from the AID, at least at this moment the relevance of that
10 question escapes me.
11 MR. WEBER: It actually doesn't go to as much as the Official
12 Gazette or not. I'm just trying to establish that the witness has a lack
13 of knowledge that documents -- multiple documents that he comments on --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
15 MR. WEBER: -- we just went to the first one here and --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Choose one which is more convincing.
17 MR. WEBER: I think the witness has said that he was not aware of
18 the -- and that's all I was trying to establish.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And I commented on it --
20 MR. WEBER: Okay.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- that it's totally irrelevant whether you receive
22 -- whether you have bought the Official Gazette at the bookshop at the
23 corner, whether you received it from the AID, whether you -- Official
24 Gazette is Official Gazette.
25 MR. WEBER: I think we're getting sidetracked. The witness says
1 he's not aware so I'm going to move on.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. WEBER:
4 Q. So yesterday, sir, when you were shown Exhibit P6888 at
5 transcript page 27815, you stated:
6 "The events that were referred to from the SDS Department of
7 Trnovo are something that I'm seeing for the first time because I had
8 left the area already on the 13th of May and I did not come back ever to
9 this municipality, so that I do not know what happened after the
10 13th of May."
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you repeat that P number?
12 MR. WEBER: I'm referring to a transcript page --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah.
14 MR. WEBER: -- 271815, when the witness was -- during the witness
15 being shown P6888.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Triple 8.
17 MR. WEBER: Yes.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
19 MR. WEBER:
20 Q. I'll read the last sentence here of what you said:
21 "So whatever the events were there after the 13th of May, I am
22 not aware of what happened."
23 Today when you were shown Exhibit P6888 at transcript page 12,
24 you stated:
25 "Information is provided here from 13 meetings, and from here we
1 can see only three meetings on the first page. Having just partially
2 seen the content of these meetings on the 15th, 16th, and 17th, that I
3 took part in as well, it can be seen that this information was analysed
4 subsequently on the basis of more complete information that they had
6 Based on the inconsistent answers you have provided to this
7 Chamber, one claiming that you did not know what happened after the
8 13th of May and the other claiming you actually took part in meetings
9 between the 15th and 30th of May, is it correct that you have not told
10 the truth to this Chamber?
11 A. I said the truth. As for what is mentioned in this information,
12 from the aspect of how it was written up formally and from the point of
13 view of substance, until the 13th of May I was following certain events.
14 After that, not. And they are referred to in this information which is
15 compound information. For all these things that happened between the
16 1st and the 31st.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you told us today that you attended the
18 meetings. The meetings 15th, 16th, and 17th of May. At the same time
19 you told us that you had left on the 13th of May. That is the matter on
20 which I'd like you to focus your answer to start with.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps I misspoke, that it was the
22 15th, 16th, and 17th, because at the time I really wasn't there.
23 Probably I wasn't focused enough on my answer when I gave it.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You referred to the reference 15th, 16th of May,
25 which you saw on the first page of that document. You said -- you
1 referred to all of the meetings and you said, "the ones I see on the
2 first page," which were after the 13th of May, that you attended them.
3 Any explanation for -- that's not misspeaking, that is referring to a
4 specific date mentioned in the document and you said: "What is said
5 about that meeting is not accurate because they were misinformed. I
6 attended those meetings." That's the basis for your knowledge why you
7 told us that the report was inaccurate. Any explanation for that?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not have enough information
9 about the dates. All I know is that the first meetings that I attended
10 were actually in April, not in May. But I did not pay attention to that
11 detail, that it was after the 13th. Because on the 13th, I left the area
12 and I think that I was in Belgrade then. I couldn't comment on this,
13 really. But the first three meetings during April, in that --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Witness -- Witness --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- period I was in that area, so in
16 that context I was --
17 JUDGE ORIE: You are commenting on a document and you say what is
18 said here, and that is only mid-May, that document didn't say anything
19 about the April meetings on the page you refer to, "I know that it's
20 inaccurate, they were not well informed," and you give us the basis for
21 your judgement because it's opinion and judgement anyhow, your presence
22 during those meetings. And this turns out not to be true. What are we
23 supposed to do with this kind of evidence, Witness? That's a question
24 you don't have to answer, but ...
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My reaction was rushed, I said
1 that. I didn't pay attention to the dates. So I spoke in the context of
2 the contents of the documents, and then I remembered that I was in a few
3 previous meetings of the Crisis Staffs and that the analysis included all
4 the meetings. But as for the period of the 13th, I myself was not in
5 that area. So I wasn't focused enough on the dates. I know that there
6 were -- the first meetings that I participated in were in April but the
7 information refers to May, and as of the 13th I was no longer there. I'm
8 sorry, it was my error in answering.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
10 MR. WEBER:
11 Q. Sir, today I put it to you that based on the record that we have
12 today before you made that comment, that it was made quite clear to you
13 that it related to meetings and events between the 15th and 30th of May
14 and that you are now just giving excuses when, in fact, you intentionally
15 lied to this Chamber. Do you have any other comment?
16 MR. LUKIC: Objection. I don't think that we use this word in
17 this courtroom. We were able to use it many times during our
18 cross-examinations of their witnesses. We never used it. And I think in
19 this Tribunal this word is not permitted.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, although the Chamber would have preferred --
22 MR. WEBER: Okay.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- Mr. Weber, that you would have said that the
24 witness was intentionally not telling the truth, but that comes down to
25 the same.
1 Do you have any comment on what Mr. Weber said, that you
2 intentionally were not telling us the truth?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not saying this
4 intentionally. I was not focused on the dates that I was looking at. I
5 was focused on the content of the information that we were looking at. I
6 wasn't concentrating on the dates.
7 JUDGE ORIE: But the content was about what was discussed during
8 those meetings, isn't it?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These topics were discussed at all
10 the meetings at the time that I was there as well. It's not just these
11 meetings that are referred to in the records. There were daily meetings
12 and contacts with those people during this critical period, so I don't
13 know who wrote which records when because I didn't see any of those
14 minutes or records of the meetings.
15 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has heard your explanation.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
17 MR. WEBER: No further questions.
18 JUDGE ORIE: No further questions.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, it was your witness so this was the last
21 round. No further questions from you.
22 No further questions from the Bench, no further questions from
23 the Prosecution, which means that this concludes your evidence, your
24 testimony in this court, Mr. Vlaski. I would like to thank you very much
25 for coming to The Hague and I would also like to thank you for having
1 answered all the questions that were put to you by the parties and by the
2 Bench, and you may now follow the usher. And I wish you a safe return
3 home again.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 [The witness withdrew]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Is the Prosecution -- is the Defence ready to call
7 its next witness, Mr. --
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, we are, Your Honour. Only I think that we might
9 maybe discuss associated exhibits now or if you want us to postpone it
10 for tomorrow, whatever you --
11 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is ready.
12 MR. LUKIC: We reduced a number of the documents so -- as
13 Judge Moloto instructed us.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And let me see. The position of the
15 Prosecution on the associated exhibits would be the following, Mr. Weber?
16 MR. WEBER: This could take some time. So the first one I think
17 that we had left off at was 1D03114. There was an objection based on the
18 relevance of the document --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. WEBER: -- and lack of a date context which I think the
21 Defence indicated that they did not know. The witness does comment on
22 the document and this was one of the documents from AID. So based on
23 re-examination, I'm going to actually withdraw my objection and ask to
24 have it admitted based on the way the witness commented on it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. WEBER: The next one is 1D03115. The Prosecution has no
3 JUDGE ORIE: No objection.
4 Then let's take them one by one. We go back to the previous one.
5 Madam Registrar, 1D03114 would receive number?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Document receives number D743, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: D743 is admitted.
8 1D03115 would receive number?
9 THE REGISTRAR: D744, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
11 We move to the next one, Mr. Weber.
12 MR. WEBER: We object based on the grounds of reliability and
13 relevance. We do not know --
14 JUDGE ORIE: And the next one is?
15 MR. WEBER: I'm sorry. 1D03121.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. WEBER: We object based on the grounds of reliability and
18 relevance. These appear to be handwritten notes. It's not clear to us
19 who they're from or what the temporal context of these notes are. We did
20 request origin information, which I'm not aware of right now. And also
21 the Prosecution inquired of the Defence whether these were the complete
22 notes. So those were the matters related to --
23 MR. LUKIC: We'll withdraw this one.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Withdrawn.
25 Next one is 1D05124. A translation was pending.
1 MR. WEBER: Yes. We have had the opportunity to review the
2 translation. We indicated to the Defence that we would have no objection
3 provided the Defence gave us the origin information and established some
4 personal knowledge foundation with the witness which they have not. So
5 based on the fact that they have not done that, we object to the
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
8 MR. LUKIC: Maybe we should MFI this one, and if we find a way to
9 provide more information, then we would ask for admission.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No objection against it being MFI'd?
11 MR. WEBER: No objection.
12 JUDGE ORIE: 1D05124, Madam Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number D745, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: D745 is marked for identification.
15 Next one is 1D05127.
16 MR. WEBER: Similar to the handwritten notes we just discussed,
17 the Prosecution objects based on reliability and relevance. There is
18 also no temporal indication to these handwritten notes or a context in
19 the notes, and it's unclear who they're from.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: They are from this witness, but I -- that's true, I
22 didn't ask him. So we withdraw this one because there is no other way to
23 establish it.
24 JUDGE ORIE: 1D05130.
25 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution objects based on reliability and
1 relevance. This is purportedly an intercepted conversation involving
2 Sefer Halilovic. There is no date to this conversation. The Prosecution
3 did ask for a copy of the recording which the Defence did give to the
4 Prosecution on the first day of this witness's testimony. We would note
5 that both according to the transcripts that have been provided and also
6 according to the recording, that the conversation appears incomplete.
7 And the notes indicate the rest of the conversation was not reproduced
8 because the tape broke.
9 I also had the opportunity to look at the -- the property
10 details, the electronic property details for the audio file that was
11 provided to us, and they indicate that the file was modified on
12 1 January 1995. We have some concerns about the reliability of this
13 material. We did ask the Defence to establish some context to this with
14 the witness and the witness's knowledge about this recording and they
15 have not, so we would oppose the -- its admission.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
17 MR. LUKIC: We would propose then for this to be MFI'd. It would
18 be easy probably with somebody else to establish that it was the voice of
19 Sefer Halilovic.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the concern seems not to be primarily whether
21 it's the voice of Mr. Halilovic. The concern seems to be that the
22 material has been tampered with, and that of course is a far more serious
23 issue than the one you now refer to.
24 MR. LUKIC: Tampered in which way? The tape [overlapping
25 speakers] --
1 JUDGE ORIE: The change --
2 MR. LUKIC: The tape did break but it was put together later on.
3 JUDGE ORIE: It did break but it was put together --
4 MR. LUKIC: No.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just try to understand.
6 MR. LUKIC: That's what this witness told me, that he couldn't --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you haven't asked him anything about it, but
8 let us just assume that that happens. If a tape breaks, that will stop
9 the recording, yes?
10 MR. LUKIC: During the reviewing the tape, not during the taping.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, typically questions you -- first of all, we do
12 not know to what extent this witness knew about those details. And that
13 is a general concern the Chamber has about the source of knowledge.
14 But -- that certainly is an issue which -- but we would need more details
15 from Mr. Weber what he or, may I take it, your experts or those who are
16 knowledgeable about the matter told you and whether that is consistent
17 with the explanation given by Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, it's not a matter of consulting with
19 experts. I've given -- I've related all the information known to me and
20 that's all we know at this time. You know, if the witness was the proper
21 person to ask about this, they should have been asked about this, and we
22 don't know where this tape is even coming from. It's been provided to us
23 from the Defence. But --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we'll --
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, we do understand that the Prosecution has
2 asked for further details. You are now telling us in court what happened
3 and you have not verified that with the witness. You have not given
4 those details prior to today, from what I understand. Therefore, the
5 Chamber is not willing at this moment to MFI this document. If you want
6 to revisit the matter at a later stage, then we'll -- we'll then hear
7 what the reasons are for the way in which you dealt with the matter until
8 now and what are the reasons why you want to revisit the matter. But
9 we -- at this moment, we'll not MFI the document under the present
11 The next one, Mr. Weber, would be 1D05133 if I'm well informed.
12 MR. WEBER: You are, Your Honour. And if I could try to expedite
13 things a little bit more and also address the three after that:
14 1D05136 --
15 MR. LUKIC: Just to make things shorter. The rest -- the rest of
16 the documents, the three following documents we are not going to tender.
17 JUDGE ORIE: That is the ones with last three digits 133, 136,
18 and 139?
19 MR. LUKIC: No.
20 JUDGE ORIE: No.
21 MR. LUKIC: No, sorry. 136, 139, 143 we are not going to tender.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. 133 therefore stands, and there is no
23 objection, Mr. Weber?
24 MR. WEBER: There is going to be, but obviously if they are
25 withdrawing there is no need to make it --
1 JUDGE ORIE: No, but for 1D05133 there is no objection?
2 MR. WEBER: No, there is an objection.
3 JUDGE ORIE: There is an objection, yes.
4 MR. WEBER: Again, we objected -- we wanted to know the origin
5 information of the document, and we asked the Defence, since it was
6 unclear that the witness actually had personal knowledge of the document,
7 to establish a foundation with the witness which they have not done.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: The truth is that I tried to deal with other things
10 and I didn't have time. We didn't establish this so we -- maybe -- this
11 document -- it's a written document, we would be using that one in the
12 future for sure, so we can MFI that one. Actually, we ask Your Honours
13 to MFI.
14 JUDGE ORIE: In the future, you mean with other witnesses?
15 MR. LUKIC: With other witnesses, yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then since no questions were put to the witness,
17 we'll wait until you would use that and we'll not MFI the document for
18 the time being. But we're looking forward to you introducing the same
19 document through another witness.
20 136, 139, 143 are not tendered anymore.
21 Mr. Weber, may I take it that the Prosecution feels no need to --
22 MR. WEBER: If they are withdrawn, we have nothing further to
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
25 MR. WEBER: And if they get used in the future, the Defence is
1 aware of our considerations with respect to that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we have 1D05250, the information from the
4 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I actually think that would be the
5 clearest record for both the statement and the proofing -- the
6 information report, to actually submit those in writing.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Submissions are expected to be made in writing
9 MR. WEBER: Okay.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And having MFI'd this one already, I'm just
11 wondering --
12 MR. LUKIC: I think --
13 JUDGE ORIE: I think it has been MFI'd.
14 MR. LUKIC: Yes, yes, D736 MFI.
15 JUDGE ORIE: D736.
16 Then the last one is 26215, but I think we have decided on that
17 one already and it was admitted, Official Note signed by Milos.
18 Having dealt with this, any further matter?
19 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honour. If I may be excused, if that's
21 JUDGE ORIE: You are excused, Mr. Weber.
22 Ms. Bibles, will it be you or will it be Mr. Jeremy who --
23 MS. BIBLES: It will be Mr. Jeremy, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then is the Defence ready to call its next
1 MR. IVETIC: I believe we are, Your Honours, and I believe the
2 next witness is Mr. Ranko Kolar.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could he be escorted into the courtroom.
4 MS. BIBLES: Excuse me, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bibles.
6 MS. BIBLES: You'd previously asked about 1D02733, whether the
7 parties had reached agreement.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MS. BIBLES: The parties have apparently not had an opportunity
10 to discuss that yet. We would expect some discussion before Monday,
11 probably a discussion after court tomorrow.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'd like to hear Monday not later than
14 MS. BIBLES: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Kolar, I assume.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you
19 make a solemn declaration. The text is now handed out to you. May I
20 invite you to make that solemn declaration.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
22 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 WITNESS: RANKO KOLAR
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated, Mr. Kolar. I noticed already that
1 even when giving your solemn declaration you have a speed of speech which
2 will cause our interpreters certainly quite some problems. Could you try
3 to speak slowly, otherwise perhaps part of your testimony would be lost
4 and that's not what we are -- what we want to happen.
5 You'll first be examined by Mr. Ivetic. You'll find him to your
6 left. Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence team for Mr. Mladic.
7 Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.
8 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours. And perhaps to assist the
9 usher, I do have a clean copy of the witness's statement that I can give
10 to the usher so as to save time later.
11 Examination by Mr. Ivetic:
12 Q. And in the interim, Mr. Kolar, good day to you, sir. I would ask
13 that you please state your full name for purposes of the record.
14 A. Good day. Ranko Kolar.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. IVETIC: And at this time I would ask that the document
17 1D01708 be called up in e-court.
18 Q. And, sir, what we see on the screen now is a witness statement.
19 Can you tell us if you recognise the signature on page 1?
20 A. Yes, that is my signature.
21 MR. IVETIC: And if we can turn to the last page in Serbian and
22 page 4 in the English.
23 Q. Sir, there is a signature on this page as well. Can you tell us
24 whose signature appears here?
25 A. It's my signature.
1 Q. Sir, upon signing this statement, did you have a chance to read
2 it in the Serbian language so as to ascertain if everything is accurately
3 recorded therein?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And is everything accurately recorded herein?
6 A. Could you please repeat your question? I didn't understand it.
7 Q. Upon your review, did you determine that everything in your
8 statement is accurately recorded?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Sir, if I were to ask you today questions based on the same
11 topics as contained in your written statement, would your answers be in
12 essence the same as in your statement?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And since you have taken the solemn declaration today, does that
15 mean that the answers as recorded in your statement are truthful?
16 A. Yes, of course.
17 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I would move for 1D01708 to be entered
18 into evidence as the next Defence exhibit.
19 MR. JEREMY: Good morning, Your Honours. No objection to the
21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D1708 receives number D746,
23 Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: D746 is admitted.
25 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. Your Honour, there are no associated
1 exhibits. I would thus now be prepared to read a short summary.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
3 MR. IVETIC: Witness Ranko Kolar lived in Prijedor when the war
4 broke out but was assigned to the reserve forces of the 6th Sana Brigade
5 of the JNA. Upon being mobilised, he was given the position of platoon
6 commander within the 1st Company of the 1st Infantry Battalion with the
7 rank of reserve lieutenant.
8 During that time there were few Muslims and Croats in the unit as
9 they had not wanted to respond to the mobilisation called. Also the few
10 officers of non-Serb ethnicity in the command began to dissipate from the
12 His unit was dispatched to parts of Croatia to defend locations,
13 and 1st April 1992 was returned to Sanski Most per the agreement on the
14 JNA's withdrawal from Croatia.
15 The witness went on leave to Prijedor and his stay was extended
16 when fighting erupted in Hambarine.
17 His unit was engaged in unblocking friendly forces that were
18 encircled by Croat Muslim forces in the Korenjovo village.
19 The witness recalls that 150 personnel under the command of
20 Amir Avdic surrendered to the Serbs and were transported with their
21 weapons to the zone of the 5th Corps and in exchange the Avdic forces
22 released 15 Serb soldiers.
23 Towards the end of the war, the witness became brigade chief of
24 staff and held the rank of major.
25 That completes the summary.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
2 Do you have any further questions for the witness?
3 MR. IVETIC: Yes, I do.
4 I wish to look together at paragraph 4, which is to be found in
5 page 2 in both languages.
6 Q. And, sir, you have a hard copy also in front of you. Here in
7 paragraph 4 you use the term "ethnic intolerance." What do you mean when
8 you use this term? What you are describing?
9 A. Well, specifically in 1991, I personally noticed that there was a
10 lack of national tolerance among the peoples of Yugoslavia. The first
11 example of that were open attacks against the members of the JNA already
12 on the 6th of May, 1991, in Split, when an attempt was made to strangle,
13 brutally, a military conscript who was of Macedonian ethnicity and
14 another soldier fell victim in the barracks.
15 There was another thing that I thought of. The first armed
16 conflicts in Slovenia were launched by parts of the Slovenian
17 Territorial Defence when members of the JNA were brutally attacked at
18 border crossings and in Slovenia itself.
19 Then in 1991, in June, our brigade had already been mobilised and
20 most of the Croat and Muslim people, although they had responded to the
21 first call up, they said that they didn't want to join the members of the
22 JNA to restore law and order at the borders in Slovenia. All of this is
23 a series of evidence and it would take a lot of time if I were to refer
24 to each and every example. So all of this led to a lack of tolerance
25 among the peoples of the Yugoslavia.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just get clarification Mr. Lukic.
2 Am I right, sir, to say that at that time the JNA was a
3 multi-ethnic army?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you are right.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would you then say that an attack on the JNA is an
6 ethnic issue?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, you are supposed to speak at a level of
8 volume not audible for others.
9 Could you please answer the question.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please put the question
11 to me once again? I do apologise.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: If the JNA was a multi-ethnic army, would you say
13 an attack on the JNA - you've referred to attacks twice, one in Slovenia
14 and another one on the JNA - would you regard an attack on the JNA as an
15 ethnic issue, a reason for ethnic tensions? You are attacking the army
16 which is multi-ethnic.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that was one of the reasons of
18 the inter-ethnic tensions and lack of tolerance amongst the peoples of
19 the former Yugoslavia.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Maybe -- I think we are talking at
21 cross-purposes. What I am saying, if the Slovenian Territorial Defence
22 attacks the JNA, how do you say that is an ethnic attack when the JNA is
23 a multi-ethnic army? That's my question.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think that the JNA at that
25 time consisted of representatives of all the ethnic groups of the former
1 Yugoslavia and it was one of the bases of the former Yugoslavia. The
2 attack of the Slovenian Territorial Defence was an attack against the
3 state of Yugoslavia itself. That is my opinion.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's not ethnic. That's an attack on the state
5 and the state has no ethnicity.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, since the former Yugoslavia
7 was a multi-ethnic state, that was one of the causes that led to the
8 clashes among the peoples of the former Yugoslavia. One of the reasons.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. I think I have asked my question. I leave
10 it at that.
11 Thank you so much, Mr. Lukic.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I -- it is always my duty to correct
13 somebody. Now I have to correct my colleague. It's Mr. Ivetic and not
14 Mr. Lukic.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did I say that again?
16 MR. IVETIC: It's all right, Your Honours. I think we are at the
17 time for the break, though. I'm not positive but I think it's there.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I establish that there is no dispute about the
19 matter raised a second ago.
20 Witness, a mistake was made in addressing Mr. Ivetic. That
21 explains this exchange of views. We'll take a break of 20 minutes and we
22 would like to see you back after the break - that is, at quarter past
23 12.00. You may follow the usher.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at quarter past 12.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 11.57 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.23 p.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It's not the Chamber but it's me personally who has
5 to apologise for the late start.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But at least we should correct the transcript.
7 We didn't resume at 12.32 but 12.23. That means it's a kind of excuse
8 for our Presiding Judge.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you would need the full 30 minutes of
10 your estimate?
11 MR. IVETIC: I may even come in under, but it won't be over,
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.
15 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
16 Q. I'd next like to look at paragraph 12 of your statement.
17 MR. IVETIC: Which we find on page 3 in both languages.
18 Q. Here, sir, you talk about going back to Prijedor and you mention
19 fighting in Hambarine. Did you have occasion to become aware of what had
20 triggered this fighting in Hambarine?
21 A. Yes, I did find out. That day I went for a holiday, a two-day
22 holiday from Sanski Most to Prijedor. And then as soon as I arrived in
23 Prijedor, after noon, you could hear shooting in the region of the
24 Hambarine village and other villages in the area. That day I found out
25 that the road where the Muslim forces were under the command of a certain
1 Aliskovic, the evening before or a couple of evenings before was fired at
2 at members of the JNA who had been in the Western Slavonia front who were
3 returning home to Ljubija. That was when a request was made, if I can
4 put it that way, by the forces of the Yugoslav People's Army that that
5 section of the population or the -- of the population should hand in
6 their weapons by a certain date.
7 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the date.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since the weapons were not handed
9 over, there was fighting which broke out in that area.
10 MR. IVETIC:
11 Q. Sir, the interpreter did not catch the date that you said that
12 the weapons should be handed in. I don't know whether you actually
13 mentioned the date, but if you did, could you please repeat it?
14 A. As far as I can remember, that was the 24th of May. I don't know
15 if it was a Saturday. 1992.
16 Q. Okay. Now I'd like to look together at paragraph 15 of your
18 MR. IVETIC: Which is to be found on page 4 in both languages.
19 Q. And, sir, here you identify that 150 personnel headed by
20 Amir Avdic surrendered to your forces and were delivered with their
21 weapons back to the Muslim side. First, can you tell us if these are the
22 same fighters that are referenced in the previous paragraph 13 in
23 relation to the attempts to unblock, via Hrustovo village, the forces in
24 Korenjovo village?
25 A. Yes, these are the Muslim formations headed by Amir Avdic, which,
1 after fighting around Hrustovo and Vrhpolje, began negotiating with our
2 forces. In the fighting they had captured 15 of our members and had
3 withdrawn towards the Golaja woods. After the negotiations began with
4 our forces, they were allowed to pass unhindered through our territory
5 which was under the control of the then-Army of Republika Srpska of
6 Bosnia and Herzegovina and our military police and with the help of the
7 Red Cross. The agreement was that our 15 captured members of the Army of
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina should also go with them up to Grabez. The
9 exchange was carried out, according to what I heard. I wasn't there. I
10 just heard about it. It was done with the help of the Red Cross in the
11 line of separation with the 5th Corps of the Army of Bosnia and
12 Herzegovina in Grabez, near the barracks, where about 150 members of the
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina Army crossed over to the side of the 5th Corps,
14 and these 15 captured soldiers of ours were returned to Sanski Most.
15 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is kindly asked to speak more
17 MR. IVETIC:
18 Q. Sir, I would caution you to try to speak more slowly so that the
19 interpreters can keep up with your speech. I know it's difficult. I
20 have the same problem.
21 I now would like to look at paragraph 16 of your statement where
22 you state that your company was sent to other theatres of war. Can you
23 please tell us about any other such theatres of war that you personally
24 accompanied your unit to which stand out in your memory?
25 A. During 1992 already, in late 1992, I assumed the duty of
1 battalion commander. It was the infantry battalion of 500-strength. We
2 went to a number of fronts with the battalion, I'm just going to mention
3 one of them, and that is the theater when we went to intervene and help
4 our forces in the Drina Corps sector on the 6th of January, 1993. We
5 were helping to stop a Muslim operation carried out by Naser Oric from
6 the 28th Muslim Division whose task was to cut off the road from Zvornik
7 to Bratunac and to capture both of these towns.
8 Then it's well known later what happened on the 7th of January,
9 1993, when practically 12 Serb villages, initially Kravica and then the
10 other villages, were torched. We came there to intervene. We stopped
11 Naser Oric and his units at the Banjevici-Ocenovici line, where we
12 managed to stop his units and we managed to save a number of the civilian
13 population that happened to be in that area. We managed to evacuate a
14 number of those citizens.
15 Q. First of all, these villages that were torched, who were they
16 torched by?
17 A. I personally watched from an observation post from where the
18 village of Kravica and those other villages that I cannot remember can be
19 seen very well. This was an OP at the village of Ocenovici. This was
20 done by the Muslim forces who were moving in two echelons. The first
21 echelon was moving and carrying out combat actions. The second echelon
22 was moving and using horses and saddles. They were looting and robbing
23 these Serbian houses, and then after that they burned the houses. The
24 second echelon looked to be quite disorganised. They were moving in
25 groups and practically everything that could be carried out of the
1 appliances and food - primarily food - was taken out of those houses
2 which were then subsequently burned.
3 Q. And for my last topic, I'd like to ask you a few general
4 questions. What kind of orders were given by your brigade command during
5 the war in relation to the treatment of prisoners of war?
6 A. Each order regardless of whether it related to defensive or
7 assault actions, the decision would also refer to the treatment of
8 prisoners where it was decisively stated that captured soldiers or
9 civilians, we must not mistreat them and we had to hand them over to the
10 nearest command organ for intelligence and security affairs.
11 Q. And what kind of orders were given as to engaging the enemy in or
12 near populated areas?
13 A. It was also clearly worded in the order, since I was a commander
14 of the brigade -- no, I'm sorry, of the battalion. I apologise. I had
15 orders from the brigade command with the signature of the brigade
16 commander where it stated expressly: In inhabited places, open fire only
17 at facilities from which resistance is coming with minimal destruction.
18 Q. And what steps were taken to communicate these orders both in
19 relation to prisoners of war and opening fire in populated areas so that
20 every soldier would know and understand them?
21 A. The orders were conveyed along the hierarchy of the military
22 line, from the written order of the brigade commander to battalion
23 commander --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to slow down.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Witness --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I will repeat it.
2 The brigade commander would convey a written order to the
3 battalion commanders. The battalion commanders would convey written
4 orders to the komandirs of the companies. The commanders of the company
5 would convey oral orders to platoon commanders, and then platoon
6 commanders would convey the orders to each individual fighter or soldier.
7 MR. IVETIC:
8 Q. Mr. Kolar, I thank you for answering my questions.
9 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, that is the end of my direct.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
11 Mr. Jeremy, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
12 MR. JEREMY: I am, thank you, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kolar, you will now be cross-examined by
14 Mr. Jeremy. You find him to your right. And Mr. Jeremy is counsel for
15 the Prosecution.
16 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Jeremy:
18 Q. And good afternoon, Mr. Kolar.
19 A. Good afternoon.
20 Q. Now to begin with, I'd like to get a brief overview of your
21 military career history to the extent that it's not already covered in
22 your statement or during direct examination today.
23 So in your statement we read that you were commander of the
24 1st Infantry Company of the 1st Battalion. Now, when were you first
1 A. I have first said that in September when I was mobilised I became
2 a platoon commander and that was until January 1992. And then in January
3 1992, I was appointed as the commander of the 1st Infantry Company of the
4 1st Infantry Battalion.
5 Q. Thank you. Now how many men were in your 1st Company?
6 A. By establishment, the infantry company numbers from 110 to
7 120 men, and we usually did have that number of men in the unit.
8 Q. Now your commander, the commander of the 1st Battalion, at this
9 time in January through to July was Ranko Brajic; is that correct?
10 A. No, that is not correct. Ranko Brajic was appointed only in
11 June 1992 as battalion commander.
12 Q. So is it correct that in June and July 1992 Ranko Brajic was your
13 battalion commander?
14 A. In June, yes. But in July, in the first half of July,
15 Ranko Brajic was killed.
16 Q. Thank you. And at the time that he was killed, do you recall
17 when where you were? Were you still in Sanski Most?
18 A. He was killed in the Bihac-Grabez plateau, he was killed in the
19 direction of Bihac. And I was there at that time, along that axis with
20 my unit. He was the battalion commander and I was the commander of the
22 Q. And do you recall when your unit first went to this Bihac-Grabez
24 A. Yes, we were there for two days: On the 13th of June until the
25 14th of June. That's when I think we returned, in the evening. That was
1 the first time. But it was just one company, the infantry company. Not
2 the entire battalion.
3 Q. So just to confirm, at the time that Ranko Brajic was killed in
4 July, you were not with him but instead you were in Sanski Most? Because
5 I understand from your previous answer that you were -- you were in this
6 Grabez area on the 13th and 14th of June, 1992.
7 A. Yes. On the 13th and the 14th of June, I was there but it was
8 only just one infantry company. I was a part of that company. I think
9 this was on the 10th or the 11th of July. I don't remember precisely
10 when Ranko Brajic was killed. The complete battalion was there and I
11 was -- my company was there. I was the commander. So I was there when
12 Ranko Brajic was killed. I wasn't really close to that place but I was
13 in that sector.
14 Q. Okay. But prior to the 10th of July, you were in Sanski Most; is
15 that correct?
16 A. Yes. Before the battalion left to the Grabez plateau, we were in
17 Sanski Most for a period of time.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked not to come
19 so close to the microphone. Thank you.
20 MR. JEREMY:
21 Q. Mr. Kolar, our interpreters are asking you not to come so close
22 to the microphone.
23 A. [In English] Okay.
24 Q. Thank you. Now the 1st Infantry Battalion was part of the
25 6th Brigade, the 6th Krajina Brigade; correct?
1 A. [Interpretation] Yes.
2 Q. And the commander of the 6th Krajina Brigade during this January
3 to July period was Colonel Branko Basara; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now today you said that in late 1992 you became the commander of
6 a 500-strength infantry battalion. This was the 2nd Infantry Battalion
7 of the 6th Brigade; correct?
8 A. No, it was the 5th Battalion of the 6th Sana Brigade. I was
9 appointed to the post in late November 1992.
10 Q. Okay. Now in your statement you say that you -- later in the
11 war, in 1995, you became chief of staff of the 6th Brigade. When were
12 you appointed?
13 A. I was appointed chief of staff of the brigade --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to repeat the
16 MR. JEREMY:
17 Q. Witness, could you please repeat the dates that you were
18 appointed chief of staff of the 6th Brigade.
19 A. I cannot remember the exact date, but I think it was in late
20 January 1995. That was the beginning. Because I handed the battalion
21 over in late January, in Glamoc, and I was immediately appointed the
22 chief of staff, so this was then in late January 1995.
23 Q. And how long did you hold this post of chief of staff until?
24 A. Until February 1996.
25 Q. Thank you. And I would like to focus on Sanski Most in
1 April 1992, and I've got a few questions about your locations and duties
2 from this period onwards. And for orientation purposes, I'm going to
3 call up a map of Sanski Most.
4 MR. JEREMY: Could we please see 65 ter 31557. And could we
5 focus in on the top-third of the page, please.
6 Q. Now, Mr. Kolar, in paragraph 11 of your statement we read that
7 you were a company commander and your main task was securing the main
8 bridge in the town of Sanski Most. When did you first starting securing
9 this bridge? What was the date?
10 A. I cannot remember the date but it was sometime in mid-April 1992.
11 Q. And do you see the bridge on the map in front of us?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. Now, with the assistance of the usher, I'm going to ask you just
14 to mark that bridge that you were guarding in mid-April 1992. Just one
16 MR. JEREMY: Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Do we need that? There is only one bridge which
18 seems not to be a railway bridge, Mr. -- or do you see more bridges?
19 MR. JEREMY: I don't see more bridges.
20 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, then -- well, the witness has marked it now
22 not surprisingly at the one and only place where there is a bridge not
23 being a railway bridge.
24 MR. JEREMY:
25 Q. Thank you, Witness. That's clear. Now, who gave you this task
1 to guard the bridge?
2 A. The battalion command or, rather, the battalion commander.
3 Q. Now in your statement and today, you've talked about your visit
4 to Prijedor in May 1992. When did you return back from Prijedor? What
5 was the date?
6 A. I remember well that I returned on the 30th of May, 1992, because
7 that was the day that the town of Prijedor was attacked from a number of
8 directions by Muslim Croat forces. I returned in the late evening
9 because I could not come in by the main road, the Prijedor-Sanski Most
10 road. We had to go by the right bank of the river, then go to Prijedor,
11 Usorci, Ostra Luka, that's where we crossed the bridge. And then in the
12 afternoon I met up with my unit, the 1st Infantry Unit, in the sector of
13 the village of Krkojevci.
14 Q. Now, this village of Krkojevci that you've just mentioned, do you
15 see it on the map that we have before us?
16 MR. JEREMY: And could we go down a little bit on the map,
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then you will lose the marking.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. JEREMY: I think we can leave the marking because the bridge
21 is obvious to us all.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, the bridge is --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I see Krkojevci.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Just to avoid any confusion, the bridge is just
25 in -- crossing the river at the centre of what is indicated as being
1 Sanski Most village.
2 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. JEREMY: And could we just move the map down a little bit
5 please. That's great. Thank you.
6 Q. So, Witness, on the map before us, just to the right of the
7 centre, I see the place name Krkojevci running north to south written
8 in -- in a vertical way. That's the area that you -- that your unit was
9 based; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now was your unit providing security in this location?
12 A. When I arrived, the unit was in the area of deployment. That is
13 to say, that it did not provide security at that location. Rather, it
14 was in the area of deployment and it was a reserve position.
15 Q. Was your command post in -- based in Krkojevci, was that the
16 purpose of your return to that location?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now with the assistance of the usher, I'd like you to mark the
19 location of your command post on this map. Do you see the location of
20 your command post on the map? And I'd ask you not to make any markings
22 A. Could it be lowered a bit southward, the map? Just a bit down,
23 south. [In English] No, no, okay.
24 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. I'd suggest in order to have a
25 better view on how far this is from Sanski Most town, that we slightly
1 zoom in, not too much, slightly, so that we have the outskirts of the
2 town still there and at the same time also -- yes, I think when I said
3 "zoom in" I meant "zoom out," but ...
4 THE WITNESS: Okay. [Interpretation] May I do it now?
5 MR. JEREMY:
6 Q. Yes. Do you see the location of your command post? If you could
7 indicate that with a number 1.
8 A. Close to this intersection here, I don't know if I'll get the
9 right house but here near Svajba. That's the location. The command post
10 of the company was about ten metres away from that.
11 Q. And could you put a number 1 next to that.
12 A. [Marks]
13 Q. Thank you. Now, with the Sana River as your -- or was the
14 Sana River the easterly border of the area of responsibility of your
15 company in this reserve position?
16 A. I've already said that we were at the reserve position in the
17 area of deployment waiting for our next assignment. Quite simply we were
18 resting, the unit was, and we were there. We did not have specific areas
19 of responsibility therefore.
20 Q. Now, you say in your statement that the Dabar area was the area
21 of responsibility of the 1st Battalion. I'm just going to get your
22 statement so I'm not misquoting. You say the 1st Infantry Battalion was
23 in the area of -- of Dabar. That's the area that we are all looking at
24 or we're looking at a portion of the Dabar area; correct?
25 A. We are not looking at the Dabar area now. That's a separate
1 village that cannot be seen from here. From Krkojevci it is to the
2 north-west, a few kilometres, 4 or 5 kilometres north-west. The
3 1st Battalion in the month of April was indeed in the area of Dabar.
4 Then the companies were deployed, and as I've already said, until mid-May
5 roughly, until I went home to Prijedor somewhere around the 20th or 22nd
6 of May, from there we were withdrawn again to the area of Dabar. Until
7 then we were providing security to the -- at the main bridge in town,
8 Sanski Most.
9 Q. Now, in your statement you say that after the June disarmament
10 operations that you were involved in, you again returned to this
11 Krkojevci area, village; correct?
12 A. We are now saying that on the 30th of May I found the unit in the
13 area of the village of Krkojevci --
14 Q. Sir --
15 A. -- after --
16 Q. -- that's in your statement. You say you first went to Krkojevci
17 after you returned from Prijedor. You were then involved in disarmament
18 operations in early June. Then you say after this period, your unit
19 returned to the village of Krkojevci. Can you -- is that correct?
20 A. Yes. After Hrustovo and that operation, the unit returned to the
21 village of Krkojevci. I'm talking about the beginning of June up until
22 the 13th when we went towards Bihac, the 13th of June.
23 Q. So you were based in this village of Krkojevci from early June.
24 You left on the 13th and 14th of June when you were in Bihac. Then you
25 returned. And then again you left on the 10th and 11th of July, again to
1 go to Grabez, and then you returned. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this map as marked
5 by the witness as the next Prosecution exhibit.
6 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Document 31557 as marked by the witness receives
9 number P6892, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
11 MR. JEREMY:
12 Q. Sir, I'd now like to discuss your role in disarmament operations
13 in Hrustovo, which you mentioned today and you mentioned in your
14 statement. Now, what was the date that your unit first entered Hrustovo?
15 A. We did not directly enter Hrustovo. As I said in my statement,
16 we were given the following task: The roads from Begejci, Kenjari should
17 be taken, and we should reach our forces in the village of Korjenovo in
18 the municipality of Kljuc. On that road, on the 2nd of June, we were met
19 by the Muslim units there and there was an armed conflict. So on the
20 2nd of June, we first set out on that mission.
21 Q. So on the 2nd of June you were not in Hrustovo; is that correct?
22 A. On the 2nd of June we were facing the village of Hrustovo,
23 somewhere on the border between the village of Kljevci and Hrustovo.
24 Perhaps part of the unit was in Hrustovo and another part was in the
25 village of Kljevci because we were moving in combat disposition.
1 Q. Now in your statement you state that three members of the
2 2nd Infantry Company of your battalion were killed in the village of
3 Hrustovo and that's on the 1st of June, 1992. So I understand from your
4 evidence today that you were not present at that time; correct?
5 A. No, it was members of the 2nd Infantry Company and I was
6 commander of the 1st Infantry Company, and we are talking about the
7 1st Infantry Company.
8 Q. Okay. Now this Trial Chamber has received evidence that on the
9 31st of May, 1992, so the day before these events, Serb soldiers killed
10 27 unarmed non-Serb civilians including children and a pregnant woman who
11 were sheltering in a garage in Hrustovo. Are you aware of these deaths
12 of these non-Serb civilians?
13 A. No, I'm not.
14 Q. So you've never heard about this incident in this garage in
15 Hrustovo on the 31st of May, 1992?
16 A. Later on from the media and in the Vrhpoljski Most case, I heard
17 about some details. But during the war I did not.
18 Q. So you were facing this village on the 3rd of June, 1992, you
19 were commanding a company of men in that area, yet you have no knowledge
20 about the massacre of these people in that garage a few days earlier to
21 your arrival in the same area; correct?
22 A. No. Because I was in the area of the village of Krkojevci and I
23 really don't know what was happening during those days. I've already
24 told that you the first time we went towards that village with my unit
25 was on the 2nd of June.
1 Q. Now in paragraph 13, you discuss your role in the disarming
2 operations in Sanski Most in June 1992. Now, you are aware, are you not,
3 that some of the Muslims disarmed during these mop-up operations were
4 taken to various locations in Sanski Most, yes?
5 A. I came to Sanski Most on the 30th of May and I just heard that
6 the unit took part in disarming the armed formations that were not within
7 the Army of Republika Srpska or Bosnia-Herzegovina. I did not hear about
8 anyone being taken away and my deputy did not tell me about that.
9 Q. And after you came to Sanski Most on the 30th of May, after you
10 yourself were involved in these disarming operations, did you hear that
11 members of the 6th Brigade took persons disarmed to a number of different
12 locations in Sanski Most?
13 A. First of all, let us be clear on this. On the 31st of May, the
14 unit did not take part in any combats operations or disarming. I'm
15 talking about the 1st Infantry Company. Nothing until the 2nd of June.
16 And now you're asking about the members of the 6th Sana Brigade, whether
17 they took part in such activities. I'm not aware of that.
18 Q. In connection with that answer, I'd like to show you a document.
19 MR. JEREMY: Could we please could P2900. And I'd like to go to
20 page 14 in the English and 18 in the B/C/S, please.
21 Q. Now, we see -- we see that this is a report of the Sanski Most
22 SJB, and it's dated the 18th of August, 1992.
23 MR. JEREMY: Could we please go to page 16 in the English and 21
24 in the B/C/S.
25 Q. And, sir, at the bottom of the page we see that this document is
1 signed by the chief of the SJB, Mirko Vrucinic. You knew this man, yes?
2 A. Yes. At the time he was chief of the public security station of
3 Sanski Most.
4 MR. JEREMY: Now could we go back to page 14 in the English,
5 please, and 18 in the B/C/S.
6 Q. Sir, in the first paragraph we read that:
7 "During the time of armed combat, two collection and
8 investigation centres were set up in Sanski Most. One, the sports hall,
9 was a collection centre, and one (facilities of the Betonirka enterprise)
10 was a collection and investigation centre. Since 1 August 1992, the
11 sports hall has been empty, and a collection and investigation centre was
12 set up in the Krings factory hall."
13 Sir, are you familiar with the locations referred to in this
15 A. I heard about that but I did not have any common points with
16 them, these locations you mentioned, Betonirka, what was meant
17 specifically. And this factory, Krings, I know where that is but I
18 wasn't present there at the time because that wasn't really my line of
20 Q. And, sir, I hear that you are saying that you were not present at
21 the time but do I understand your answer to be that you were aware that
22 these were locations that captured Muslims were taken to?
23 A. Well, I heard about these places where the soldiers were
24 practically disarmed. I did not hear of all inhabitants of the Muslim
25 faith were being taken away. Just the disarmed members of the Muslim
1 Croat forces.
2 Q. Okay. So I understand from your answer that you heard that
3 disarmed members of the Muslim forces were taken to the three locations
4 referred to in this paragraph; is that correct?
5 A. Yes, that's what I heard.
6 MR. JEREMY: Could we please go to page 16 in the English and 20
7 in the B/C/S.
8 Q. Now towards the top of the page in the English and towards the
9 bottom of the page in the B/C/S, we see the heading number III:
10 "The role of the SJB in connection with bringing in, securing,
11 and guarding prisoners in the assembly centres."
12 MR. JEREMY: And could we please go to the next page in the
14 Q. Now in the second paragraph of this section, we read:
15 "Members of the SJB carried operative processing of and provided
16 security for captives both in their collection centres and when they were
17 transferred to Manjaca Army Camp."
18 MR. JEREMY: Now, I'd like to go --
19 Q. Or, sir, are you aware that persons were transferred to Manjaca
20 army camp? You've heard about that, yes?
21 A. Yes, I heard about that.
22 Q. Now, on this page we see a list and shortly before this list we
23 read the following:
24 "Speaking of records and processing of persons, we inform you
25 that all persons who were operatively processed were simultaneously
1 recorded and we accordingly provide the following details."
2 Now halfway down this list we see: "Escaped during
3 transportation to Manjaca, 20 persons."
4 In the paragraph below this list, we read:
5 "There is official forensic documentation on persons who died,
6 and an official report by the persons responsible for transport
7 concerning the people who escaped (disappeared) while they were being
8 transported to the army camp."
9 Mr. Kolar, do you have any knowledge about these 20 persons who
10 escaped or disappeared while being transported to the Manjaca army camp?
11 A. No.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy, one of the lines read "escaped during
13 transportation to the army camp," the other one -- line reads "escaped
14 during transportation to Manjaca." Now, you combined the two and are
15 still talking about 20, you are talking about Manjaca army camp.
16 MR. JEREMY: Your Honour, I see the ditto marks after 20 which I
17 understood to be replicating the previous part. I'm happy to instead
18 refer to the part saying "escaped during transportation to the army camp,
19 20 persons."
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I'll have a look at the original to see
21 whether that sheds any light on the issue I raised. But the witness
22 doesn't know anything about 20 people escaped, so therefore -- yes.
23 MR. JEREMY:
24 Q. Sir, there is evidence in this case that on or about the
25 7th of July, 1992, Muslim detainees died of suffocation while being
1 transferred from Betonirka to the Manjaca camp. Do you have any
2 knowledge about this incident?
3 A. No, because my unit did not do that work. It didn't provide
4 security in the camp and it did not escort the prisoners.
5 Q. Now, on the 3rd of November, 2006, the court of Bosnia and
6 Herzegovina convicted Nikola Kovacevic, previously known as
7 Danilusko Kajtez, for among other things, the suffocation of at least 19
8 detainees, detained civilians who were being transported from Betonirka
9 to Manjaca on the 7th of July, 1992. Now, you are aware of
10 Danilusko Kajtez's conviction in the state court; correct?
11 A. I have heard of Danilusko Kajtez. I don't know what he was
12 convicted for. I did hear that he was convicted for war crimes, though.
13 Q. Now, you were in the 6th Brigade for over four years and you rose
14 to chief of staff. Danilusko Kajtez was a member of your brigade;
16 A. I did not have the opportunity to see that man or to get to know
17 him. To tell you the truth, 4.000 men passed through the brigade. So I
18 didn't know him personally and I wasn't aware that he was a member of the
19 unit. The first time I heard of him was from the media where I read that
20 he was convicted for war crimes.
21 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I think we're at the time for a break
22 or --
23 JUDGE ORIE: We're close to a time for a break.
24 Witness, we would like to see you back in 20 minutes. You may
25 follow the usher.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy, we listened for quite a while to the
3 evidence of this witness, mainly consisting in that he doesn't know
4 anything about matters which are covered by some of the evidence the
5 Chamber has received until now. Will this result in any -- or do we just
6 continue for another half-hour hearing that the witness doesn't know
7 anything about what happened because he was just a little bit further
9 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I hope that it will become clear to
10 you. I can -- I can certainly explain that to you --
11 JUDGE ORIE: No --
12 MR. JEREMY: -- now or --
13 JUDGE ORIE: If there was a -- if you -- if it comes to a point
14 where your next questions will shed more light on the previous answers,
15 then of course we'll wait for that as long as you stay within your time.
16 But how much time would you need for that, to seek that?
17 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I'd hoped to conclude within the next
18 15 minutes of court time.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then you'll stay just within your own time
21 We'll take a break. We'll resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.
22 We expect you to finish then within 15 -- certainly not more than
23 20 minutes.
24 Mr. Stojanovic -- or, Mr. Ivetic, how much time would you, as
25 matters stand now, need for --
1 MR. IVETIC: As matters stand now, no questions.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which means that we try to do our utmost best
3 to have this witness excused today so that they can return home.
4 Mr. Stojanovic, you are concerned about your next witness? Yes.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honours. I
6 just need your guidance on that, please.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it may be that there could be 15 minutes left,
8 which we should still use. If it's only three, four, or five minutes, we
9 might decide otherwise. But I'm also relying on the estimates given by
10 the parties that we'll -- that we'll finish to hear the evidence of this
11 witness at approximately 2.00.
12 We resume at 20 minutes to 2.00 sharp.
13 --- Recess taken at 1.19 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 1.40 p.m.
15 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy.
17 MR. JEREMY: Just in respect to Exhibit P2900. That was the
18 document the translation of which you queried. We will submit this for
19 retranslation. We understand that where we have these two references to
20 20 persons, the first reference in B/C/S actually means "succumbed"
21 [Realtime transcript read in error "is commed"] rather than "escaped." I
22 don't think it affects the question that I asked the witness, but I think
23 it is worth submitting for a revised translation.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And also we see that the translation does not
25 follow exactly the interpunction as we see it on the original, that is
1 persons or --
2 MR. JEREMY: Ditto marks.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. JEREMY: Yes. We'll ask that to be carefully looked at as
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ditto marks you call them. Yes, I understood what
7 you meant but I have to -- it's not my native language.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Jeremy, if you could just looked at whether
9 you -- the transcript says exactly what you said, "succumbed" or "is
10 commed"? Line 9 --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Succumbed. I understood you to say
12 s-u-c-c-u-m-b-e-d. Is that --
13 MR. JEREMY: I'm glad you did the spelling, Your Honour. But
14 yes, that's correct.
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Were you not able to do it?
17 MR. JEREMY: Of course, of course.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy, you may proceed.
19 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.
20 Q. Now, Mr. Kolar, I'd like to finish today by discussing the mass
21 grave in which the bodies that I've been referring to was found. Now,
22 the 3rd of November, 2006, state court judgement that I referred to in
23 represent to Danilusko Kajtez noted that the 19 bodies were identified
24 and exhumed at the mass grave site Usce Dabar in Sanski Most. Now, that
25 is a location that is known to you; correct?
1 A. Yes, it's where the Dabar River flows into the Sana River.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. JEREMY: Could we call up 65 ter 12331, please. And this is
4 the court record of exhumation Usce Dabar dated the 24th of November,
6 Q. Now, sir, this is an exhumation report from the cantonal court in
7 Bihac dated the 24th of September, 2001.
8 MR. JEREMY: And if we go to the last page, please, in each
9 document, we see that it is signed by the investigating judge. Thank
10 you. And if we could go back to page 1, please.
11 Q. Now, in the first paragraph of this document, we read that the
12 record of exhumation relates to two mass graves: One found in the
13 location of Usce Dabar and another in the Tomina Markovici area, both in
14 Sanski Most. I want to focus on the mass grave found in Usce Dabar.
15 MR. JEREMY: Could we please go to page 2 in each language.
16 Q. Now, halfway down the page we see description of scene. We read:
17 "On the 17th of July, 2001, at the locality of Usce Dabar,"
18 co-ordinates are given, "exhumation commenced of a mass grave with
19 19 bodies, most of which were skeletonised and some saponified."
20 Now, in the next paragraph we read:
21 "The location in question is in the area of Sanski Most
22 municipality, near the centre of town, at a distance of around
23 3 kilometres at the section of the road running upstream along with the
24 Sana River to the SG of the Dabar River on the left bank of the Sana
25 River at a distance of around 100 metres from the Dabar river, in a
1 narrowed part of the property (meadow) in the village of Krkojevci."
2 And we read:
3 "The owner of the property is not known."
4 Sir, are you familiar with the location of the mass grave as
5 described in this document? Just yes or no.
6 A. No.
7 Q. Now to finish I'd like to show you a final map, and it's --
8 MR. JEREMY: And, Your Honours, I've read the relevant portion of
9 this document that I'm relying on. I won't tender it.
10 Could we please go to 65 ter 31558.
11 Q. Now, sir, this is the same map of Sanski Most that we saw earlier
12 with one exception, that exception is that the OTP has marked -- that the
13 Office of the Prosecutor has marked on this map with a red dot the
14 location of the mass grave according to the co-ordinates described in the
15 exhumation report.
16 Now, you've told us earlier today that you and your unit were in
17 the village of Krkojevci in July 1992, other than for two days on the
18 10th and the 11th of July. Now, a mass grave of 19 people requires a
19 great deal of activity, sir, and as the commander of the company in this
20 village, I put it to you that you must have known about the creation of
21 this mass grave at the time it was created in July 1992?
22 MR. IVETIC: I object to the foundation of the question. Where
23 do we have evidence that the grave was from July of 1992?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy.
25 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, the evidence that I've referred to
1 indicates that the persons, the 19 persons who were killed on the
2 7th of July, I would submit that it is a reasonable inference to suggest
3 to the witness that the grave itself was dated around a similar time --
4 was created at a similar time.
5 MR. IVETIC: Unless we have evidence that it's a primary grave.
6 I mean, we don't have any of that, do we? There is many graves --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
8 MR. IVETIC: -- that could be --
9 JUDGE ORIE: If you would rephrase the question in such a way
10 that the witness understands that this is an inference from the
12 MR. JEREMY:
13 Q. Sir, there is evidence in this case that 19 persons, 19 Muslim
14 civilians died while being transported from Betonirka to Manjaca camp on
15 the 7th of July, 1992. It is the position of the Prosecution that this
16 mass grave in which these 19 persons were found was created on or shortly
17 after the 7th of July, 1992. We see here that this grave was created in
18 the village or near the village of Krkojevci where you yourself was
19 located in July, and I put it to you that you must have been aware of the
20 creation of this mass grave at that time.
21 A. I don't know. You don't sound convincing. But I did not know.
22 Q. So you have no knowledge whatsoever about this mass grave or the
23 creation of it in your area, in your village?
24 A. No. This is the first time that I hear of this. Let me clarify
25 once again: The unit was in the upper part of Krkojevci. I've already
1 showed that to you. 200 metres. That's where my entire unit was. As
2 far as I can see, this location is at least 2 kilometres away, perhaps
3 even more than that, from the location where my unit was.
4 Q. And do I understand, then, that you'd never heard at all about
5 the creation of this mass grave in the village where you were located at
6 time-periods during the war?
7 A. Yes. This is the first time that I hear of this grave.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I have no further questions.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 MR. JEREMY: And, Your Honours, I would tender this exhibit as
12 created by the Prosecution.
13 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, the Defence would object. Based upon
14 the evidence and the representations that have been made of date, we
15 would not object to it being MFI'd. And if the Prosecution wishes to
16 present evidence of how the map was marked, based upon what investigator
17 did it, based upon what technique, as they have with other such exhibits,
18 either by way of declaration or by testimony, then we would not have an
19 objection. But based upon just the representation that the OTP put a
20 point on a map doesn't, I think, suffice for -- for our purposes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, wouldn't it be reasonable that if you have
22 the grid details, that you just check whether it's accurately done or
23 not; if so, to not further make any fuss about it, and if not, to make a
24 lot of fuss about it? I mean, we have the --
25 MR. IVETIC: Can you show me where the grid details are on this
1 particular map, Your Honour? It does not have the longitude and latitude
2 lines identified as such.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
4 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I'd -- I mean, I would suggest that we
5 MFI this document to give Mr. Ivetic an opportunity to verify the -- the
6 co-ordinates within a time-period after which I'd stand by my request for
7 it to be admitted into evidence.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. IVETIC: How can I verify if I don't have the base map that
10 is in the Prosecution's possession? That is my point, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You would like to have a look at the map?
12 MR. IVETIC: Absolutely. Because I have -- I have this. I can't
13 do anything with this.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well --
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The objection is denied. The witness
17 testified about what he saw on this map. It was -- he explained that
18 this was at a distance from where he was located with his unit at that
19 point in time. Now whether or not the picture -- whether the red marking
20 corresponds with what is found in that other report, which is not in
21 evidence, Mr. Jeremy, you did not --
22 MR. JEREMY: It's not in evidence, but I --
23 JUDGE ORIE: No, but of course that document gives the details of
24 where that locality was. I mean, that's -- on the second page you have
25 read that out but you have said co-ordinates --
1 MR. JEREMY: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- are there without reading them out so to see
3 whether they correspond with what we find on the map. Because the
4 document read that it's at 32.243-53.124, and that's exactly what appears
5 on the map.
6 Now, of course, another matter is whether it's plotted well on
7 the map, yes or no, which of course may shed some light as to how to
8 understand the testimony of this witness. Mr. Ivetic may finally come to
9 the conclusion that it was even closer to where the witness's units was
10 or further away or at exactly the location.
11 It is a matter I would suggest the parties could try to agree
12 upon. But since the witness has testified about the matter and what he
13 said, to understand that testimony we need this map. And it does not
14 automatically mean that the location is marked accurately and
15 corresponding with what we find in the report in which I just read out.
16 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours. And after the witness has
17 been discharged, I'll invite Mr. Ivetic to see if we can reach agreement
18 about the -- this particular location on the map.
19 JUDGE ORIE: That would be appreciated. I take it that
20 Mr. Ivetic would make himself available for such a consultation.
21 MR. IVETIC: Of course, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 Madam Registrar, the objection being denied, what would be the
24 number of the map as marked -- not as marked by the witness but as marked
25 by the Prosecution?
1 THE REGISTRAR: Document 31558 receives number P6893,
2 Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
4 Any further questions, Mr. Ivetic?
5 MR. IVETIC: We have no questions. We would just thank Mr. Kolar
6 again for his testimony.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 There may be a small mistake in the transcript. Page 83,
9 line 12. Madam Registrar -- Madam Registrar's recollection is that she
10 mentioned P6893.
11 This concludes your evidence in this court, Mr. Kolar. I would
12 like to thank you very much for having coming to The Hague and for having
13 answered all the questions that were put to you by the parties and by the
14 Bench, and I wish you a safe return home again and we are happy that we
15 can release you still today.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, if the next witness would be ready, then
19 we would like him to be escorted into the courtroom.
20 Mr. Bojanovic is your next witness. Mr. Stojanovic, you'll
21 examine him?
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] May I just say that I have also
25 reduced the list of exhibits in accordance with the guidance you gave us,
1 so I will have eight along with the statement of this witness.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's appreciated. Still slightly above the
3 guidance of five, but I take it that the Prosecution doesn't take any
4 issue with that.
5 MS. BIBLES: Mr. Traldi will be handling this witness,
6 Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then we know that for sure -- no, Mr. Traldi, do you
8 take any issue with that?
9 MR. TRALDI: No, I don't.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The number?
11 MR. TRALDI: We had no issue with the number. Depending on --
12 obviously a number of these relate to particular cases, it may be that we
13 would request that one or two more come in depending on the selections
14 the Defence has made.
15 JUDGE ORIE: That's understood.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Bojanovic. Before you give
18 evidence, the Rules require that you make a solemn declaration. The text
19 is handed out to you. May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
21 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
22 WITNESS: SAVO BOJANOVIC
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bojanovic, you'll first be examined by
2 Mr. Stojanovic. You'll find Mr. Stojanovic to your left. Mr. Stojanovic
3 is counsel for Mr. Mladic.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
5 Examination by Mr. Stojanovic:
6 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Bojanovic.
7 A. Good afternoon.
8 Q. For the record, could you please speak slowly and state your
9 exact name and surname.
10 A. I am Savo Bojanovic.
11 Q. Mr. Bojanovic, at one point in time did you give a statement in
12 writing to General Mladic's Defence?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we please
15 have 65 ter 1D01732 in e-court, please. And could we take a look at the
16 first page of this document.
17 Q. Mr. Bojanovic, you have the document in front of you and this is
18 what I'm asking you. Is this your signature on this page and are your
19 details correct?
20 A. Yes, that's my signature and the details are correct.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now take a look at the
22 last page of this document.
23 Q. Mr. Bojanovic, on this page of the document do we also see your
24 signature and is the date that is handwritten on this page written in
25 your own hand?
1 A. Yes, it is on the 28th of July this year that I signed this.
2 Q. In preparation for your testimony in court, did you indicate two
3 typographical errors to me that need to be corrected?
4 A. Yes. Three, not two.
5 Q. Thank you for the correction. We'll see whether it's an error or
6 an addition.
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] So could we please take a look
8 at paragraph 11 in this document; that is, the witness statement.
9 Q. Mr. Bojanovic, in the second subparagraph, did you tell me that
10 this date that is stated here; namely, this is how it reads:
11 "To the best of my recollection, on the 30th of December, 1992,"
12 et cetera.
13 Should it say the 30th of October, 1992?
14 A. That would be correct.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have paragraph 16 now.
17 Q. Paragraph 16 of your statement.
18 Mr. Bojanovic, did you indicate to me that here in this sentence
19 which starts with the following words, "In the second half of 1992, it
20 was held," et cetera, did you say that it should read "1993"?
21 A. Yes, that would be correct.
22 Q. And did you also indicate to me that in that sentence, by way of
23 clarification, after the words "perpetrators of crimes committed in the
24 course of military duty," should the word "military" be added?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. So would we agree then that this sentence would correctly read,
2 I'm reading this out for the transcript now:
3 "In the second half of 1992 [as interpreted], it was held that
4 the military courts should try perpetrators of crimes committed in the
5 course of military duty and that all other crimes were to be under the
6 jurisdiction of regular courts."
7 Would that be the correct text in this sentence?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you?
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Stojanovic, may I just correct. What you are
11 recorded now, instead of "1992" it's going to read "1993," I think?
12 "1993." In line with your previous correction. It should read "in the
13 second of half of 1993 ..."
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour. Line
15 87 -- no, page 87, line 13 of the transcript, it should read "1993."
16 That would be correct. Thank you, Your Honour.
17 And now I would like to ask that we look at paragraph 19. I'm
18 sorry, paragraph 25.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi.
20 MR. TRALDI: I'm sorry to interrupt. I hadn't caught where the
21 additional word "military" was appearing.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Before the word "duty" in --
23 MR. TRALDI: It -- so it was because it already appeared in the
24 English that I -- I didn't realise. That's my mistake. I apologise.
25 JUDGE ORIE: No problem.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. And now
3 paragraph 25, please.
4 Q. While preparing for your testimony in court, did we establish
5 that there is something missing in the last sentence? It says here:
6 "By in the judgement in this case, the accused was sentenced to a
7 suspended term of imprisonment of four months with a probation period of
8 one year." And the words "and six months" should be added?
9 A. Yes, that's right.
10 Q. Thank you. Now that we've made these corrections, Mr. Bojanovic,
11 and now that you took the oath in this courtroom, this statement that was
12 provided, is it truthful, complete, and based on your best recollection?
13 A. Yes, that is my statement.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
16 tender the statement of Witness Savo Bojanovic, 1D01732 being its
17 65 ter number.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Have you asked the witness already whether he
20 would give the same answers if being asked the same questions?
21 Would you give the same answers, Witness?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: No objections, Mr. Traldi?
24 Madam Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D1732 receives number D747,
1 Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: D747 is admitted.
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honours, I
4 would like to read a brief summary of Witness Savo Bojanovic's statement.
5 When the war broke out, Witness Savo Bojanovic was in Bijeljina
6 where he had a law office of his own. When the military court in
7 Bijeljina was established, since it was necessary and since he held the
8 appropriate professional qualifications, he was appointed judge in this
9 court. He remained in that position until the end of 1993 when he
10 transferred to a different duty.
11 In his statement he speaks about internal organisation and
12 personnel, subject matter jurisdiction, and the tasks that the military
13 judiciary had during the war. He points out that the work of the court
14 was based only on respect for and implementation of the law. All
15 perpetrators of crimes were treated equally by the court, regardless of
16 their religious or ethnic affiliation. He personally as a judge tried
17 Serbs, inter alia, for crimes committed against non-Serbs.
18 In his statement he analysed some cases like that and he says
19 that he personally never received any orders as to how he should try
20 cases, and he never heard that any of his colleagues had received
21 suggestions as to how they should work and how they should try cases.
22 The court also carried out no discrimination whatsoever on the
23 basis of religious or ethnic affiliation of the accused persons or
24 injured parties. The witness says that when the military judiciary
25 started operating, there was a dispute in terms of jurisdiction between
1 regular courts and military courts. So there was a question raised:
2 Namely, who would try the perpetrators of individual crimes.
3 Then in the second half of 1993, finally the position was taken
4 that military courts should try perpetrators of crimes if the crimes were
5 committed in the course of military duty. Their relationship with
6 regular courts was proper and based on the law.
7 Finally, the witness says that any claim that he personally knew
8 of the alleged killings of 40 to 80 civilians perpetrated by members of
9 MUP of Republika Srpska would constitute a fabrication and lie because he
10 has no information about that.
11 Your Honours, that would be a brief summary of this witness's
13 Perhaps I could end within the next five minutes. I see the
14 time, so it is for you to say whether I should finish the direct today.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, unfortunately we are not able to
17 continue at this moment. But we took note of the fact that you need only
18 five minutes for examination-in-chief. So therefore, those five minutes
19 are available for you tomorrow.
20 Witness, Mr. Bojanovic, I would like to instruct you that you
21 should not speak with anyone about your testimony, whether already given,
22 not much today but already given today or still to be given tomorrow, not
23 to speak with anyone or to communicate in any other way. And we would
24 like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in this same courtroom.
25 You may now follow the usher.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day and will resume tomorrow,
3 Wednesday -- Thursday, the 6th of November, 9.30 in the morning, in this
4 same courtroom, I.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 6th day
7 of November, 2014, at 9.30 a.m.