1 Friday, 22 May 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused not present]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to be 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 number IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 I'd like to briefly deal with a matter before the witness enters
12 the courtroom, but I'll do that only after I put on the record that the
13 Chamber received a waiver signed by Mr. Mladic to be absent today during
14 the court hearing. We'll therefore proceed in his absence.
15 The other issue I'd like to deal with is that -- it's a remaining
16 issue from the testimony of Mr. Savo Sokanovic. During his testimony on
17 the 18th of May, D1050a was marked for identification pending the English
19 On the 21st of May, the Defence e-mailed the Chamber and the
20 Prosecution, advising that the translation had been uploaded into e-court
21 under doc ID 1D22-4835. On the same day the Prosecution e-mailed the
22 Chamber and the Defence advising that it has no objection to the
23 translation, and the Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to attach the
24 translation, for which I just gave the doc ID, to attach the translation
25 to D1058 and admits D1058 into evidence.
1 The witness may enter the courtroom.
2 Mr. Weber, I don't know whether Madam Usher can hear me when I
3 say that the witness may enter the courtroom.
4 MR. WEBER: Good morning, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Weber.
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, yesterday when we left off I mentioned
7 that there might be one matter that the Prosecution would seek to address
8 with this witness, and we will seek to address it with the witness.
9 I will still endeavour to try to complete in the two-hour range
10 but it may go slightly over and I just wanted to enlighten the Chamber to
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Try to do your best, Mr. Weber, and we'll sit
13 the usually one hour and a half sessions today through such sessions.
14 Good morning, Mr. Simic.
15 Before we continue, I'd like to remind you that you are still
16 bound by the solemn declaration you have given at the beginning of your
17 testimony. Mr. Weber will now continue his cross-examination.
18 WITNESS: SAVO SIMIC [Resumed]
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P4440 for
21 the witness.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Weber: [Continued]
23 Q. Good morning, Colonel Simic.
24 A. Good morning.
25 Q. Coming up is a document that you saw in the Karadzic case. It is
1 a 19 July 1995 SRK command ammunition expenditure warning from
2 General Milosevic. The first sentence of this warning states:
3 "For more than a month now, with brief interruptions, the enemy
4 has conducted a fierce offensive against our positions with the massive
5 use of artillery, which has not been the case so far."
6 It had not been the case that the ABiH forces prior to June 1995
7 conducted massive uses of artillery against your forces; right?
8 A. I would like to say that --
9 Q. Sorry, sir --
10 A. -- artillery was supported by --
11 Q. Sir, just to cut you off, I'm sorry. I'm going to be very short
12 on time today. I asked you a question. Could you please answer the
14 A. Mr. Prosecutor, as for then, that offensive, there had not been
15 such strikes like then, mid-June, when the offensive started, and further
16 on. As pointed out here, with interruptions ...
17 Q. Thank you, you've answered the question. Let's go through it.
18 The second paragraph begins:
19 "By discussing" --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, I have to intervene.
21 MR. WEBER: Okay.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, what did you intend to say when you say
23 that there had not been such strikes; during that period in mid-1995, or
24 was that during the whole of the armed conflict?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wished to say that as for this
1 period, mid-1995, the middle of June, when the Muslim offensive started,
2 in order to carry out this breakthrough from Sarajevo, there had not been
3 such artillery attacks, such fierce artillery attacks until then. Not as
4 fierce as those that were carried out then.
5 What I tried to say was that this strong artillery activity was
6 expressed because at the same time NATO Rapid Deployment Forces acted
7 against Serb positions in Igman --
8 JUDGE ORIE: That was not my question. When you said that for
9 that period, the middle of June, there had not been such artillery
10 attacks, such fierce attacks, did you intend to say that such fierce
11 attacks had not happened during those months, or did you want to say that
12 such fierce attacks did not happen, well, let's say on from 1992?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Attacks of such intensity, perhaps
14 from June 1992. They were very intensive then but not as intensive as
15 then in 1995 and --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you've answered my question.
17 Mr. Weber, I do understand --
18 MR. WEBER: I understand --
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- that you're under some time restraints, but the
20 witness at least should have an opportunity to give an answer which is
21 clear enough for us.
22 MR. WEBER: Of course, Your Honours. I also appreciate your
23 sentiments too on this.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MR. WEBER:
1 Q. The second paragraph begins by discussing the difficulties of the
2 production of ammunition and the behaviour of the SRK. In the middle of
3 the paragraph, General Milosevic states:
4 "That is why we very often fire at inhabited settlements and
5 specific buildings when there are no combat actions whatsoever, spend
6 vast quantities of ammunition, without paying attention to the fact that
7 we will not have anything to stop the enemy when it comes to mounting a
8 decisive defence."
9 Then in the third paragraph, General Milosevic states:
10 "It is inexplicable that some brigades spend much less ammunition
11 in repelling three or more fierce attacks during the day than others that
12 fire at inhabited settlements when there are no combat actions."
13 First, could you just please tell us the brigades that were
14 firing artillery at inhabited settlements while there were no combat
16 A. I cannot say anything to you with certainty. The warning was
17 addressed to all brigades in order to decrease the expenditure of
18 ammunition in view of the enemy offensive and not knowing when it will
19 stop or when we will stop it. As for which brigades carried out such
20 attacks against inhabited areas, I cannot tell you exactly. At the time,
21 I was at the forward command post --
22 Q. Sir --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, there are too many
24 microphones on at the same time when the witness is speaking. We have
25 great difficulty following.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Everyone is urged to switch off his microphone to
2 the extent possible.
3 Witness, I think you've answered the question. You don't know
4 which brigades were meant in this text.
5 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
6 MR. WEBER:
7 Q. Well, yesterday, when we were looking at some similar information
8 from your immediate superior, at transcript page 35999, when asked about
9 the old habits of units using massive and unselective amounts of
10 artillery, you stated:
11 "If the reference here is to old habits, it's probably the
12 initial period of the war. There were some units that used artillery
13 more than necessary."
14 Who did you have on your mind? What units?
15 A. I primarily mean units before brigade artillery groups were
16 established. Time was needed to have this organised, to have units
17 manned. And while they were under the direct command of battalion
18 commanders, probably there were greater use of ammunition then and firing
19 without a particular objective as far as individuals were concerned. And
20 that is the warning. I mean, before brigade artillery groups were
22 Q. Sir --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Weber, you should switch off your microphone
24 during the answer of the witness.
25 MR. WEBER: Thanks, Judge.
1 Q. You can't give the name of any unit?
2 A. I've said according to battalions. They were under the
3 responsibility of battalion commanders. I cannot say which ones
5 Q. What brigades -- I mean, there are only so many brigades in the
6 Sarajevo Romanija Corps. What brigades were these battalions a part of?
7 A. Well, every brigade has battalions within its composition, and
8 you know what the disposition of brigades was and you know what the
9 situation was in the Sarajevo Romanija Corps and also on the south-west,
10 on the north, north-west. One knows full well which brigades held
11 positions around Sarajevo. If necessary, I can enumerate all of that for
12 you. But anyway, these are well known things and these are those
14 Q. All right. So you can't name a single brigade which had a
15 battalion that was doing this? Is that what the answer is that you're
17 A. I cannot say concretely the name of a single battalion or brigade
18 because I do not have such information available, and probably --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you've answered the question. You don't
20 know it.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. WEBER:
23 Q. Sir, you were in the Sarajevo Romanija Corps throughout the
24 entire war. You attended regular meetings at both the brigade and SRK
25 command level. You sent reports, you received reports, you gave
1 artillery orders, you were directly subordinated to both Generals Galic
2 and General Milosevic. General Milosevic at the same time your immediate
3 superior also sent similar information saying that "we very often fire at
4 inhabited settlements," and he's referring to brigades sometimes doing
5 this. I put it to you that it's not credible that you are saying that
6 you have no idea what brigades General Milosevic is describing in this
8 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I did not attend regular meetings of the corps
9 command, because I had my superior, the chief of artillery. He attended
10 those meetings. So only exceptionally a forward command post outside
11 Sarajevo, that is to say Vogosca, Nisici, Trnovo, those command posts.
12 That is where I attended such meetings from time to time and the corps
13 command as well, because I had a chief of artillery who attended these
14 meetings. And in the brigade I attended meetings when it was necessary
15 for the chiefs of arms and services to attend, to present their
16 proposals, to say what the problems were and so on and so forth.
17 Q. This document was sent through the chain of the command, and we
18 see that your immediate superior knows similar information. Are you
19 really saying that you weren't aware of this same information?
20 A. I could just conclude from this order that there had been such
22 Q. Sir, I put it to you that you're minimising what this document
23 says, based on the scope of the conduct that's described by
24 General Milosevic. Do you have any other comments?
25 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I am saying here everything that I know and
1 everything that I remember from the period of war when I held certain
2 positions as recorded in my statement. I have no reason to keep silent
3 about anything. I have no reason to conceal anything, and I am going to
4 speak here to the best of my knowledge about that period.
5 Q. In the fourth paragraph, which starts with the statement:
6 "While we use massive artillery at a time when the enemy had a
7 just a few mortars and the occasional gun, we did not manage to settle
8 the war ..." And then it continues.
9 You acknowledge that that's the case, right? That's what
11 A. I acknowledge that Muslim forces had less artillery pieces and
12 artillery units in the initial period of the war, less than the
13 Sarajevo Romanija Corps that held positions around Sarajevo. However,
14 during the course of the war, this balance was struck, a balance was
15 struck. So in 1995, their artillery units, the artillery units of the
16 Muslim forces, were far superior to those on Serb positions around
17 Sarajevo, along with the support of NATO Rapid Deployment Forces and
18 later on NATO airforce as well.
19 Q. You've again ignored a part of the information in the sentence.
20 The SRK used massive amounts of artillery during that time; right?
21 A. I think that I have already said that they had more artillery
22 pieces and more artillery units in that period. So this is an order, a
23 warning about that period, when there was an overspending of ammunition.
24 Perhaps more ammunition was spent than necessary while they were under
25 the command of battalion commanders.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Was that massive artillery use at those times?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, at the beginning of
3 the war, and I've already pointed out that their offensive at the end of
4 May, beginning of June, 1992, was so intensive, and according to the
5 reports of the Muslim forces themselves, they were attempting a
6 breakthrough and we had sustained great losses on account of that, what
7 their artillery did.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, why don't you answer my question. My
9 question was that at the time when the enemy had just a few mortars and
10 the occasional gun, whether at that time the VRS, the
11 Sarajevo Romanija Corps, used massive artillery? That's the simple
12 question. That's written. Do you agree with that?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not agree that there were two
14 or three mortars and a cannon or two. This is written figuratively. But
15 it was less --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I'm asking you now for the third time
17 whether at that time whether massive artillery was used by your forces,
18 as written in this document?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would not say there was massive,
20 but they used artillery more than usual.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
22 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of both
24 Q. Directing your attention to item 4 of the warning,
25 General Milosevic orders:
1 "In order to achieve a surprise effect and inflict the highest
2 enemy losses, produce strong planned concentrated fire from several
3 weapons from different directions at a specific time, instead of firing
4 one or two weapons for an hour at the same target."
5 As we see here, it is possible to produce concentrated fire from
6 several weapons that are located at different locations; right?
7 A. Yes, possibly. If firing positions allow for that possibility.
8 So there was that possibility.
9 Q. In paragraph 32 of your statement, you indicate that you are
10 aware of information regarding the Markale II shelling, which is after
11 this order. That there were five rounds fired from two different
12 directions. This is the type of firing that is consistent with the
13 instruction that we see here; right?
14 A. I don't understand. The type of firing that is consistent with
15 the instruction? Which instruction? You mean the concentration of
16 fire-power, is that what you mean?
17 Q. Well, according to your statement in paragraph 32, you're aware
18 that there was four rounds fired from 240 degrees, I believe is what you
19 say, that landed in the vicinity of the down-town area and that there was
20 another round from 170 degrees that hit the area of the market-place.
21 That's consistent with this type of order; right? Concentrated firing
22 from two different directions.
23 A. I think this has nothing whatsoever to do with that order and
24 that this doesn't to pertain that at all. It has nothing whatsoever to
25 do with concentration of fire-power and several objectives. It really
1 has nothing to do with any of that. That really is my assumption. It's
3 Q. In item 5 General Milosevic orders the commander of the
4 Ilijas Brigade to prevent artillery fire on settlements and positions of
5 the Kiseljak HVO because of agreements on mutual co-operation. He does
6 not order the other brigades to prevent artillery fire on Muslim
7 settlements as part of this warning; right?
8 A. According to the order, it seems that the order was only issued
9 to the Ilijas Brigade, but through the order we can see that he is
10 warning all units not to spend ammunition unnecessarily. So from this
11 paragraph, I see that the order was issued to the Ilijas Brigade only.
12 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 32621 for
13 the witness.
14 Q. This morning I'm going to try to get through a number of sequence
15 of events with you. This is a 14 September 1992 SRK command combat
16 order, which was issued at 1000 hours. It is General Galic's operational
17 order number 1.
18 In the first part of the order, General Galic discusses Croatian
20 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have the next page of
21 the B/C/S.
22 Q. Under item 4.1, there are tasks for the Ilidza and Igman Brigades
23 to carry out an attack toward areas in the western part of Sarajevo.
24 MR. WEBER: And then I believe this is in the next page of the
25 English version.
1 Q. At the end of the section, one of the brigades that is listed as
2 part of the support forces is the 1st Smbr. The 1st Smbr provided fire
3 support for this attack; correct?
4 A. Where there was a possibility not only in the context of this
5 attack but whenever there was a possibility for the 1st Sarajevo Brigade
6 to provide support to other units, it was done. Support was lent to the
7 Ilidza Brigade, the Igman Brigade, the 3rd Sarajevo Brigade or any other.
8 Support was lent whenever there was this possibility. I don't remember
9 this specific case. If there is an engagement plan, perhaps that could
10 jog my memory. But it is probable.
11 One needs to bear in mind the position of the firing positions of
12 the 1st Sarajevo Brigade, what were the targets, and whether there was
13 this possibility to target them. Such a possibility did exist in the
14 area of Igman and in the Ilidza Brigade and we lent support to those
15 units throughout the war.
16 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tenders this document into evidence.
17 I am then going to call up another document.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 32621 receives number P7408.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
21 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 32622 for
22 the witness.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And, Witness, could I again urge you to speak more
25 MR. WEBER:
1 Q. This is an excerpt from annex 6 of the 1994 final report of the
2 United Nations commission of experts, which was established pursuant to a
3 Security Council Resolution, number 780. This specific part relates to
4 the day of 14 September 1992. According to information from three news
5 sources, the targets hit on this day included the old town, the city
6 centre, the area near the Holiday Inn, the school-yard at the children's
7 embassy, an apartment bloc north of the river, Marin Dvor, and it
8 mentions the parliament building, government headquarters, and two
9 fire-gutted office towers.
10 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the
12 Q. The narrative events for this day states:
13 "Thousands of residents strolling to work and outside their
14 homes, enjoying sunshine were caught by intense day long salvos of tank,
15 cannon, mortar, and rocket fire, some of which set blazes in homes less
16 than 200 metres from the UN headquarters. The attacks began at around
17 10.00 a.m. At least 20 people were reported killed and 60 wounded in two
19 This attack appears to have began shortly after the 1000 hour
20 order from General Galic that same day. This is how General Galic's
21 order was implemented. That's what happened; right?
22 A. If I understood well, this was September 1992.
23 Q. Yeah, you understand it well. That's correct.
24 A. Orders of superior commands were implemented to the letter. When
25 Muslim forces skillfully provoked attacks on their firing positions close
1 to these facilities mentioned in the document, that is when we considered
2 the truce to have been violated and instances of disobeying orders
3 occurred. General Milosevic and other officers were informed of it, and
4 such fire needed to be responded to. I don't think anyone would have
5 opened fire at these targets had it not been for the fire coming from
6 their vicinity.
7 Q. Sir, I put it to you your answer makes no sense. This was a
8 massive attack that lasted for multiple hours throughout many different
9 parts of the city at or near shortly after the time General Galic issued
10 an order. That's what's happened. And I'll give you one last
11 opportunity to make any other comments you want to make.
12 A. As for some things taking place immediately after the order was
13 issued, that does not mean that the attacks had not been provoked. This
14 is a result of the Muslim propaganda coming through their media. They
15 used it very skillfully. They would open fire and then target civilian
16 facilities. They did so countless times during the war. I have no other
18 Q. Sir, I appreciate you don't want to answer the question. Just
19 let me ask you something for factually specific: Did your observers see
20 the houses on fire that day?
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic.
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I thought I should wait, but
24 this comment is unfair, saying that the witness would not answer. He
1 JUDGE ORIE: You invited the witness to comment, Mr. Weber.
2 That's what he did. And whether you like the comment or not is a
3 different matter.
4 So it's not an objection, but could you refrain from
5 unnecessarily making statements like you did.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Did your observers see the houses on fire that day? They must
9 have; right?
10 A. Do you have in mind my observers from my unit or UNPROFOR
12 Q. I said "your observers," meaning your -- the observers that are
13 associated with your brigade.
14 A. My observers must have seen it because they were at their
15 observation locations. However, before that they probably had asked that
16 fire be open at certain enemy targets which placed Serb forces in danger
17 in depth of our territory in Lukavica and further afield or from the
18 other side of north-north-west. So they must have seen it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you are entering the area of conclusions
20 rather than factual knowledge. Tell us what you know, tell us what you
21 remember, and otherwise tell us that you don't know.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tenders the document into evidence at
24 this time, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 32622 receives number P7409.
2 JUDGE ORIE: P7409 is admitted.
3 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P463 for
4 the witness. P463, Your Honours.
5 Q. This is a 6 October 1992 SRK command order for the next combat
6 operation from General Galic.
7 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 3 of the B/C/S
8 and page 2 of the translation.
9 Q. On this page under section 4, we see that General Galic decides
10 to engage in a decisive defence of many positions leading out of Sarajevo
11 from the north and the south and keep a firm blockade of the city.
12 In the next paragraph, he refers to offensive operations to take
13 possession of the wider area of Trnovo and establish a corridor with the
14 Herzegovina Corps. He then orders these offensive/defensive operations
15 to be carried out in three stages lasting from 30 to 45 days.
16 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 10 of the
17 B/C/S original and page 7 of the English translation.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you were reading the offensive/defensive
19 operations in the plural. The text itself is only in singular.
20 MR. WEBER: Thank you.
21 Q. Under section 6.2 of this order, General Galic indicates
22 artillery support will be provided by the Corps artillery group, KAG,
23 from the strength of the 4th MAP. In conjunction with this type of
24 order, operational order, the SRK command would then issue tasking orders
25 for the use were artillery during these operations; right?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 464. 464.
3 P464. Or I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'd said the wrong thing.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it is a 65 ter or is it a P number?
5 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour. I misspoke. Exhibit P464.
6 Thank you very much.
7 Q. This is an 11 October 1992 SRK command order from
8 Radislav Cvetkovic.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And it is Exhibit P464 and not like the number
10 given in page 18, line 3.
11 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. This order relates to the support that the 4th MAP and the 4th
13 MAOAP are supposed to provide.
14 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of both
15 versions. And I will be focusing on section (c).
16 Q. In section (c) of this order we see a number of firing tasks.
17 Mid-way in the section, it is ordered:
18 "Support the offensive combat operations by opening fire along
19 the following axes ..."
20 And then there are three axes that are provided. Just to take
21 the first one as an example, it states: Faletici-Zmajevac. This is an
22 instruction for firing positions from Faletici to fire into the area of
23 Zmajevac; right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The last one indicates that there should be fire from Borija into
1 Bascarsija; right?
2 A. I don't see that.
3 Q. It's the third one in the section that says:
4 "Support the offensive combat Operations by opening fire along
5 the following axes ..." There are three axes then provided,
6 Faletici-Zmajevac, Mrkovici-Breka and the third one Borija to Bascarsija.
7 Do you see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. None of these targeted areas are near Trnovo. They're all within
10 the area the SRK referred to as the inner ring; correct?
11 A. What is discussed here is lending support to our forces along
12 these axes, as it says Faletici-Zmajevac, Mrkovici-Breka,
13 Borija-Bascarsija. That is an axis. Our position was at Faletici, it
14 was in the direction of Zmajevac, our position at Mrkovici in the
15 direction of Breka. So support our forces from that axis, be on the
16 ready. But it doesn't mean to engage, necessarily. It just means to be
17 prepared to counter their attack or any other activity because their
18 forces had to be tied down in other parts of the Sarajevo even though
19 attacks may not have been directed at Trnovo directly from those areas.
20 That is precisely why all corps units were included in this order. We
21 could not rely only on lending support along the attack axis but it means
22 lending support to all those who are specified therein.
23 Q. We see that it says to support offensive combat operations and
24 we've seen General Galic describe what those offensive combat operations
25 were at the time. My question to you is just really simple: None of
1 these things are in the area of Trnovo; right?
2 A. I'm giving you a simple answer. Does it not mean that support is
3 lent to those forces if their forces are tied down at a different front
4 line and then such forces cannot be used along an axis we have foreseen
5 as the attack axis? Support is not only given along attack axes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I ask you: You again and again
7 stress that it was to return fire, whereas the document says opening
8 fire. Opening fire is something you start. That's at least my
9 understanding of the word "opening." It doesn't say support the
10 offensive combat operation but don't forget to return any fire if it
11 comes from one of these axis. It says support the offensive combat by
12 opening fire at certain axis. That's what we'd like to better understand
13 how what you say and what is written here, how that can be reconciled or
14 whether -- to explain how the one is consistent with the other in view of
15 the language used.
16 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, if I can have an explanation for your
17 description of the English language saying "opening fire" is the first
18 party firing? I'm confused by that because it's contrary to my
19 understanding of English.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, first of all, I didn't think, Mr. Ivetic, that
21 you were the one who was examining this witness. But apart from that,
22 I'll not be formal on that.
23 Opening fire, in my view, is not the same as returning fire.
24 That's what I wanted to express.
25 MR. IVETIC: Okay. Then I would respectfully reflect that that
1 is not my understanding of the English language.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- okay. Then I will ask any native speaker
3 to address the matter so as to better understand as a non-native speaking
4 person the language which is used. I'm always open for that.
5 Mr. Stojanovic.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honour,
7 since B/C/S is my mother tongue. In the document, not "opening fire" is
8 referred to but "executing fire."
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then the native speakers will find out whether
10 that's different or not. I'll leave it to that. You've pointed at what
11 you consider to be possibly a imprecision, inaccuracy in the translation
12 of this document.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
14 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution have 65 ter 10973 for the
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, if the document can be released in
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I might have to return to that.
19 Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P430 for the witness.
20 Thank you so much for the Chamber's indulgence. I am going to go
21 to Exhibit P561, before moving on.
22 Q. This is an UNPROFOR incident report before you from the date of
23 1 November 1992. The events described are within the 30 to 40 days after
24 General Galic's order from 6 October. The report states:
25 "At 1000 hours on 31 October 1992 a major mortar and artillery
1 attack started on the centre of the city of Sarajevo. The first few
2 rounds caught many civilians in the open, thus causing casualties."
3 The second paragraph starts:
4 "We were presented with three casualties, all with varying
5 degrees of shrapnel wounds."
6 The report then mentions two additional casualties and states:
7 "Of these additional two, one was a man of about 60 years who had
8 a bad leg wound and possible injury caused by shrapnel hole (small) in
9 his side."
10 This document then describes additional firing that was going on
11 as they were trying to treat this individual and indicates the hospitals
12 were full.
13 These casualties were the result of the orders we just looked at.
14 That's what happened; right?
15 A. These events did occur after the order as stated in the report.
16 At the firing positions of my brigade, there were UNPROFOR officers
17 round-the-clock with an interpreter. They noted any opening of fire from
18 the position in terms of what units opened fire, how many rounds, and at
19 what target, as well as for what reasons the fire was opened. So they
20 knew. They had that information.
21 If you had information that would confirm it was done by my unit,
22 I am prepared to answer any questions. But I do know it was not the
23 case. It was in the period that I was the chief of artillery and
24 commanded the artillery regiment. I was familiar with almost each and
25 every instance of opening fire.
1 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P430 for
2 the witness.
3 Q. This is another SRK command operational order. This one's dated
4 26 November 1992, for further activities. It's also from General Galic.
5 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 3 of the B/C/S
6 and page 5 of the English translation.
7 JUDGE ORIE: While we're waiting for that, could I seek
9 You earlier said:
10 "If you have information that would confirm it was done by my
11 unit, I am prepared to answer any questions."
12 And then you say that was not the case. And two lines later, you
14 "I was familiar with almost each and every instance of opening
16 Did you mean instances of opening fire by your unit or more
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had my unit in mind. The brigade
19 artillery crew.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. Under section 4 of this order, General Galic decides:
23 "The main forces of the Corps should continue to protect the
24 lines and positions reached through persistent and active defence,
25 whereas the rest of the forces should start offensive operations with the
1 aim of keeping the Sarajevo and Igman sectors under complete blockade,
2 and depending on the development of the situation tighten the circle
3 around the city;"
4 He then states:
5 "... following thorough preparations and after receiving special
6 approval from the Corps Command, cut off and isolate specific parts of
7 the city and the surrounding settlements;"
8 These were the objectives of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps; right?
9 A. These are the tasks contained in the order to conduct operations
10 in the direction of Trnovo. It also refers to some other forces and the
11 main axis was the one in the direction of Trnovo. The other forces had
12 to be used to maintain the blockade and try and carry out incursions, but
13 that did not take place.
14 Q. On the next page, General Galic orders these operations to last
15 for a period of 30 to 40 days starting on 2 December 1992. The Smbr is
16 one of the brigades we see in this order assigned tasks pursuant to this
17 operation, along with the rest of the SRK units, much like the last
18 operational order we looked at.
19 Your brigade took part in these operations to keep Sarajevo under
20 blockade; right?
21 A. My brigade had positions right around Sarajevo; that is to say,
22 from the railway 1in the direction of Trebevic. My unit held positions
23 and certainly took part in the defence of Serb positions, Serb territory
24 in that zone.
25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P4423 for
1 the witness.
2 Q. This is another SRK artillery order from Colonel Cvetkovic to the
3 4th MAP and the 4th MAOAP. This one is the same date as the operational
4 order that we just looked at, the 26th of November 1992.
5 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of both
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You were referring to 4th MAOAP.
8 MR. WEBER: MP -- excuse me, it was the document. I might have
9 mispronounced. I was referring to the mixed anti-armour regiment.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: MP --
11 MR. WEBER: MPOAP. Thank you.
12 Q. On this page, again under section (c), we see the firing tasks
13 that were ordered. The firing tasks are almost identical to the one that
14 we saw for the previous month. Again, the order states:
15 "Support the offensive by engaging in fire along the following
16 axes ..."
17 And the exact same axes are listed as in the October order.
18 These are the same firing tasks that we saw previously; correct?
19 A. Yes, but do read the first paragraph here where it says:
20 "Prevent enemy attack ..."
21 All of these are tasks of the artillery. From Sarajevo, firing
22 at such and such areas. Then support the counterattack of our forces.
23 If their attack is successful, then we should launch a counterattack in
24 the following areas and only then support offensive activities. And
25 we've already said that a moment ago, by firing at Faletici-Zmajevac,
1 Mrkovici-Breka, Borija-Bascarsija.
2 Do allow me to say this too: In artillery, firing is planned for
3 support, for engaging a target that is closer or further away. If we are
4 attacking, it doesn't mean that that fire is actually going to take
5 place. Always a lot more is planned than actually carried out. Maybe
6 there will be no firing at all depending on how combat evolves.
7 Q. This Chamber has received evidence, and as an example I'd be
8 referring to the Chamber to Exhibit P425, that the pattern of shelling
9 during the month of December 1992 was widely dispersed throughout the
10 city. The fact is these orders were executed and areas all over the city
11 of Sarajevo were shelled throughout December 1992. That's what happened?
12 A. The order of the corps command was to shell the entire city in
13 December 1992? I don't know of that order, to carry out shelling of the
14 city. I really don't know about this. And the corps never issued such
15 orders. They issued orders to fire at their targets if they were within
16 the area of the city.
17 Q. Sir, we can see that there's areas all over the city that are
18 mentioned in these orders. What I'm saying is these orders were carried
19 out and there was shelling that was widely dispersed throughout the city
20 in December 1992. That's what happened; right?
21 A. The order envisages fire and it orders the preparation of fire.
22 And as I explained a moment ago, artillery prepares this fire. Now,
23 whether they will be carried out, that I don't know. It all depends on
24 the situation on the ground, on the combat operations involved, on the
25 tempo involved, and so on and so forth; that is to say, the concrete
1 situation. And sometimes none of what is planned is actually carried
2 out. That is the essence.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could you tell us whether what was planned
4 was carried out in relation to this order?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In relation to this order, I know
6 that the main objective was not reached that; that is to say, the area of
7 Trnovo was not taken. And that was the main objective, to take Trnovo,
8 and that was not carried out.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, we are talking about artillery tasks. Not
10 about the end result of the operation. Could you tell us -- where you
11 said several times that artillery support would not necessarily mean that
12 fire was opened, could you tell us whether in relation to this order that
13 fire, as planned, was opened? Yes or no.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot say with any degree of
15 certainty whether everything was carried out or not.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
17 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 32620 for
18 the witness.
19 Q. This is a 5 March 1993 Sarajevo Romanija Corps command tasking
20 order from General Galic, which was sent to all brigades and regiments.
21 The first paragraph refers to the completed analysis of combat readiness
22 for the SRK in 1992 and an assessment by VRS Main Staff team of SRK
24 The first section relates to command and control. Under task 1
25 of the order, General Galic states:
1 "Carry out the tasks from Directives nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the GSV
2 RS so that the planning and carrying out of operations from
3 Directive no. 5 may be initiated on time."
4 In March 1993 the Sarajevo Romanija Corps was still carrying out
5 tasks from the Main Staff directives nos. 2, 3, and 4; correct?
6 A. I don't know what these directives pertain to so I cannot answer.
7 Q. Well, Directive 5 that's mentioned here is in evidence before
8 this Chamber and relates to Operation Lukavac 93, which you comment on in
9 your statement. The SRK was preparing for Operation Lukavac 93 months in
10 advance, correct?
11 A. Thank you for the explanation. Now I know that it is
12 Directive 5. I didn't know. I'd forgotten. Yes, my brigade was
13 preparing, as the artillery was, for Lukavac 1993 and my brigade took
14 part in it as well.
15 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of the
16 English translation.
17 Q. Under number 5, General Galic states:
18 "The entire process of preparation, organisation and carrying out
19 combat activities should be based on offensive and active activities with
20 the application of defence only as the last resort ..."
21 Colonel Simic, the fact is the SRK's entire process of planning,
22 organisation, and preparation, and even carrying out activities was based
23 on offensive operations. That's the truth, what we see here in your own
24 corps commander's order; right?
25 A. No, that's not right. As for offensive activities, I would
1 single out this operation that I mentioned in my statement, Lukavac 93.
2 And the offensive activities of improving the tactical positions around
3 Sarajevo that we discussed yesterday in the area of Brajkovac, Vrakusa.
4 That is to say that there were other parts of the front as well. The
5 improvement of positions, taking of Grdonj and so on.
6 As for this order where it says carry out offensives, well, that
7 means that infantry units, infantry battalions at positions should fire
8 from infantry weapons all the time. And as for support, if they asked
9 their brigade artillery groups for that kind of support, they would get
10 it. But masking preparation towards Trnovo for Lukavac 1993, that is my
11 opinion, so that they would think that a breakthrough, the take-over of
12 Sarajevo was being planned, which was not actually the idea, so I think
13 that that might be the underlying idea of this order.
14 Q. Sir, throughout your testimony and yesterday and today, you've
15 been claiming and making various justifications that you were acting in
16 defence and just returning fire. Actually, according to this -- and now
17 you're not acknowledging, I think, that the full scope of what this says
18 and what General Galic is saying, that the entire process of preparation,
19 organisation, and carrying out combat activities should be based on
20 offensive and active activities. You're not being forthcoming. That's
21 what you're doing; right?
22 A. No, I am telling the truth totally, and I am speaking in all
23 sincerity. And there is no reason for me to make any kind of excuses by
24 way of saying that I was only carrying out defensive activity. This
25 order, that is Lukavac 1993, that is that operation has to do with that
1 order. I am saying that that is the only offensive activity carried out
2 by the Sarajevo Romanija Corps in that area.
3 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution would tender the
4 document into evidence.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 32620 receives number P7410.
7 JUDGE ORIE: P7410 is admitted.
8 MR. WEBER:
9 Q. Sir, this Trial Chamber has also received additional operational
10 orders from the SRK command throughout the war, including General Galic's
11 operational order for Lukavac 93 which orders a 155-millimetre howitzer
12 battery to "prevent to lift the blockade of Sarajevo by firing on the
13 sectors of the Stari Grad municipality." This is Exhibit P6549.
14 They've also received the SRK operational order from January 1994
15 which orders the use of all available means to penetrate areas like
16 Dobrinja. This is just weeks before civilians were killed and wounded in
17 a humanitarian line in this area. The same orders task firing into the
18 region of Alipasino Polje just four days after six children were killed
19 while sledding in the snow and supporting offensive activities from
20 firing from areas -- from firing positions in Mrkovici just two weeks
21 before the Markale I shelling. For the record, I'm referring to P4476.
22 What I'm saying to you, sir, is that we've looked at some
23 operational orders. The SRK continued to engage in operations of an
24 offensive nature and shelled various areas of the city throughout the
25 entire war; right?
1 A. I cannot give any other answer besides the one I've given. As
2 for offensive activities, the ones that I know about, those are the ones
3 I've already told you about. That we would cut off the city, that we
4 would do something -- I mean, from the beginning of the war the combat
5 positions did not change. There were lesser or greater minor changes,
6 from the beginning of the war. Which shows that there were no offensive
7 activities. And also, there was no plan to relocate the artillery
8 forward for a further task and so on and so forth.
9 So maybe these are offensive actions around Sarajevo. No way are
10 these offensive operations. We kept defending our defensive positions,
11 and that's what the enemy said themselves, in order to protect the ethnic
12 areas of the Serb population behind enemy lines, deep in the territory.
13 Q. I'm going to move on to a different topic.
14 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P3, page 80
15 in e-court. And I'm just going to try to get some marking done on a map
16 before the break.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, if it comes to marking of maps on the
18 screen, would you carefully wait until you're instructed to mark
19 something and then follow the instructions as how to mark it.
20 MR. WEBER:
21 Q. Sir, if you could wait until I actually ask you to mark
22 something. But just so we know, you are familiar with the area that's
23 depicted in front of you?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. In paragraph 12 of your statement, you list part of the combat
1 disposition of the 1st Smbr. You state that the command post of the
2 mixed artillery division of the brigade was in the Uzdojnice village
3 sector. Could you please mark the command post of this artillery
4 division with the letters KM.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Could you mark it with the position -- with the letters KM?
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. You mentioned one 120-millimetre mortar battery in the Uzdojnice
9 village sector. Could you please mark the location of this battery on
10 the map with the letters MB.
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. Next you reference a firing position of the 128-millimetre Plamen
13 multiple rocket launchers, VBRs, in the area of the Uzdojnice village.
14 Can you please mark this firing position with the letters VBR?
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. You refer to one 120-millimetre mortar battery in the
17 Kraljevo Brdjo sector. Could you please mark this location with the
18 letters MB.
19 A. [Marks]
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now we have twice MB.
21 MR. WEBER: I know. I'm just using it for "mortar battery."
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It would be helpful if we could distinguish
23 between the two.
24 MR. WEBER: Okay.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should we mark it as 1 and 2.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. That would be great. That was what I was going to be suggesting.
3 Could you mark the one in the Uzdojnice area as MB1 and the one you
4 marked if the Kraljevo Brdjo area as MB2?
5 A. [Marks]
6 Q. You also referred to a 120-millimetre D30 howitzer battery firing
7 position in the Tilava village. Could you please mark this location with
8 the letter H.
9 A. [Marks]
10 Q. The Chamber has received evidence in this case about the address
11 of Toplika Cesta 57R in the area of Toplik.
12 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honours, I'm referring to P537, page 60 in
14 Q. Do you see the road of Toplika Cesta on this map?
15 A. I do.
16 Q. The evidence that the Chamber has received is that this is the
17 address of the UNMO Lima 5 observation post. Can you please mark the
18 approximate location of Toplika Cesta 57R on this map with the letters
20 A. They changed locations there. I remember two or three locations.
21 Now, I don't know. I mean, perhaps I could with some approximation. One
22 was closer to this Toplik, towards the west of this howitzer position.
23 And before that, it was closer to the command post in Uzdojnice. So they
24 often changed their locations. They were always on duty at the command
25 post, 24 hours a day. So I don't know where I should mark this. At one
1 or the other?
2 Q. Well, sir, I'm asking -- the Chamber has received evidence that
3 their observation post was -- we can talk about it further, but we've
4 received evidence that the observation post was at the address of
5 Toplika Cesta 57R. Are you able to indicate approximately where that was
6 along the road of Toplika Cesta in Toplik?
7 A. The letter L?
8 Q. L5, if you could.
9 A. L5.
10 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I would tender this document. I do
11 have more questions on this, but it would be a good time, actually, for
12 the break, if Your Honours wouldn't mind.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the map as marked will receive
15 number P7411.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
17 You would like to take the break now, Mr. Weber?
18 MR. WEBER: If I could. I think that will allow me to probably
19 more efficiently go through this and finish in a more efficient manner
20 after the break.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the witness already follow the usher and
22 leave the courtroom, but give the usher one second to save the marked
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Before we take that break, as I said I welcome any
1 further clarification of terms like "opening fire" or "returning fire" or
2 "effecting fire" or firing, whatever it is. I think the Chamber could
3 also be assisted if there is any translation issue. And if you would do
4 so, then I would share with you one of the things that makes it difficult
5 for me to have a contextual understanding of these terms.
6 If one gives instructions a few days before something happens and
7 then if the instruction is "open fire," if that would be also would
8 include returning fire, then I'm struggling with the idea that how you
9 could know two days in advance where the fire comes from that you should
10 respond to. That is one of the issues of contextual understanding of
11 this language. Again, if there is any translation issue we would like to
12 know that as well so I have to have the best understanding of the texts
13 and the best understanding of the testimony that is before us.
14 We take a break and will resume at 11.30.
15 --- Recess taken at 10.58 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 11.31 a.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, any update as to how you reorganised the
18 remainder of your cross-examination.
19 MR. WEBER: Yes, I think I'm ahead of schedule and I really
20 appreciate, Your Honours, for the break because I think I'll probably
21 finish within a half-hour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And, Mr. Stojanovic, your timing is still the same
23 as it was yesterday?
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a bit longer in order to
25 deal with the issue that was opened before the break concerning some
1 documents and translations.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But I'm then confident that we would easily conclude
3 also re-examination in this session? Half an hour for Mr. Weber.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps quarter of an hour for
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It may be that the Chamber then earlier takes
7 a break, that we make that break slightly longer, and that we will
8 deliver quite a number of decisions after that break so that we have a
9 clean slate or an almost clean slate by the end of today's hearing.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you may proceed.
12 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 32624 for
13 the witness.
14 Q. Sir, there is no current translation for this -- oh, there is.
15 If you could please follow along with me.
16 Colonel Simic, this is a UNMO Sarajevo Lima team operation order,
17 dated 22 October 1993. In paragraph 1 it indicates that UNMO Sarajevo is
18 deployed on both sides of the warring parties. The order then indicates
19 it is the UNMO's task to monitor Serb and Bosnian fire. And under the
20 first item, it says:
21 "Observing preferably by patrolling activities, or through the OP
23 And then we see it's also part of their responsibilities under
24 item 3 to "monitor gun and mortar positions."
25 The UNMOs were monitoring your positions from their observation
1 post facilities and through patrols; right?
2 A. That is right.
3 Q. Sir, we acknowledge that the UNMOs did come at times to your
4 various gun positions and that they did come to your headquarters
5 sometimes more frequent than other times. That was the case; right?
6 A. They were constantly at the regiment command post
7 around-the-clock as of late June when UNMOs were introduced until the end
8 of the war. They were constantly at the regimental command post at
9 Breka. They came to the brigade command occasionally. I don't know how
10 frequently. Given the fact that the command post was in the area of the
11 firing positions, they could observe the firing positions through the
12 window of the command facility and they also visited them directly.
13 Q. With respect to the last item, we do acknowledge that, and we've
14 seen you mark where the general area, Lima 5, was in relation to many of
15 your positions. There is a difference that I'm trying to understand
16 here, though. From this observation post you wouldn't consider that they
17 were constantly around the clock at all these positions; right?
18 A. Lima 5 was the location where all of the observers were
19 accommodated. It was the house they used. From the house, a duty
20 UNPROFOR officer would go to the observation post where they would be on
21 duty for 24-hours a day, as of late June until the end of the war. They
22 rotated daily. They would come in the morning, spend 24 hours there,
23 then the next person would come and so on and so forth. There was an
24 interpreter there as well.
25 Q. I'm not going to spend a significant amount of time with this
1 because the Chamber has received a lot of evidence from UNMOs. You agree
2 that under the organisation of this in part 3, which is on the next page
3 in the B/C/S version, that Lima 5 was based in Toplik; right?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tenders 65 ter 32624 into evidence.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document receives number P7412.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
9 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 32625.
10 Q. I want to now go through an example of a UNMO patrol report.
11 This is a -- I picked this example because it's an UNMO patrol report
12 from Lima 5. It is dated 7 September, 1993. Under number 2, it says:
13 "Mission: Patrol L5A and update gun's serial numbers."
14 Under the significant points, we see the serial numbers for six
15 120-millimetre mortars and what appears to be six 120-millimetre
16 howitzers. There are also eight-digit grid reference that we checked
17 which appeared to be correspond to the area of Uzdojnice.
18 In September 1993, the Smbr did have six 120-millimetre mortars
19 and six 122-millimetre howitzers in the area of Uzdojnice; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. The report lists the names of the mission commander and the other
22 personnel, and then beside number 6 it stays: "Patrol start time:
23 0900 - end time: 1130." Sir, this document indicates that, in fact,
24 UNMOs were coming to your gun positions sometimes for a period of two,
25 two and a half hours in this instance, to just check on your positions.
1 That's what happened; right?
2 A. It happened that they occasionally toured the positions, yes.
3 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the -- well, actually, since we're on
4 this document. I see that there is some additional information in it.
5 Q. The main direction of the 120-millimetre howitzers appears to be
6 300 degrees. That would be pointing towards Dobrinje; right?
7 A. Direction: Lukavica, Dobrinje, Igman.
8 Q. The 122-millimetre howitzer, the main direction I see is 230
9 degrees. That would be pointing towards roughly the area
10 Sokolovic Kolonija and Hrasnica; correct?
11 A. Yes, Sokolovic Kolonija, Hrasnica, and Igman. That was the axis.
12 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution would tender this document into
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document receives number P7413.
16 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, if I may --
17 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to have it admitted, you should pause
18 for a second.
19 P7413 is admitted into evidence.
20 MR. WEBER: My apologies.
21 Your Honours, that last matter the Prosecution addressed with
22 respect to an outstanding matter that had been left over from a previous
23 witness, Dusan Skrba. If there's any other particular outstanding
24 matters related to that the Prosecution would be happy to provide any
25 additional information. The Chamber had asked for reports concerning the
1 activities of the UNMOs and the firing positions related to the Smbr.
2 JUDGE ORIE: At this moment, nothing comes to our minds. Let's
3 hope that it doesn't change.
4 MR. WEBER: Okay.
5 Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P580.
6 Q. While this is coming up, you would agree, and it seems from your
7 comments yesterday, that Colonel Tadija Manojlovic was very knowledgeable
8 about artillery; right?
9 A. Given the fact that he was chief of artillery of the SRK, yes.
10 Although, I was not competent to assess his professionalism and
11 competency. He was my superior. Someone, whoever appointed him to that
12 position, must have assessed that instead.
13 Q. This is a SRK document dated 26th April 1995 to the VRS Main
14 Staff. It's from Colonel Manojlovic. In paragraph 1, he says:
15 "At the morning briefing of 26.04.1995 the decision was taken to
16 carry out firing using aerial bombs on the village of Donji Kotorac
17 (tunnel entry)." It's then noted.
18 In the second paragraph, the firing is supposed to be executed in
19 the early morning hours and all the necessary preparations for the firing
20 were to be executed beforehand.
21 In paragraph 3, it talks about the assessment of all the
22 facilities and it mentions an observation post with a very specific
23 trigger point and the fact that it was about -- that two UNPROFOR points
24 were almost 200 metres away.
25 In the next paragraph, he additionally says:
1 "Our forward defence line is approximately 500 metres away from
2 the tunnel entrance in the direction of Kula."
3 He then --
4 JUDGE ORIE: It says:
5 "The direction of fire is over the Kula restaurant."
6 MR. WEBER: Is over the Kula restaurant.
7 JUDGE ORIE: That's not what you said, Mr. Weber.
8 MR. WEBER: Thank you for that clarification.
9 Q. So because -- then he goes on to say:
10 "Because I was unable to report this information to the
11 Commander - after the reconnaissance - as he was in the zone of
12 responsibility of the Igman Brigade, I have abandoned the firing on
13 account of jeopardising the security of own forces and that of the UN
15 Here we have Colonel Manojlovic cancelling the firing of or the
16 use of an aerial bomb out of concern that his own forces might be hit who
17 are approximately 500 metres away and UN forces of a lesser distance are
18 also there. The fact is, sir, modified air bombs were -- had at least an
19 imprecision of at least 500 metres; correct?
20 A. No, I would not agree. I am familiar with the impact of air
21 bombs. I could personally observe their flight and I was satisfied with
22 their precision. The measures undertaken by Colonel Manojlovic were
23 taken because UNPROFOR forces were so close. He gave up from targeting
24 because the commander was not present as well.
25 As for the Muslim population in the Kotorac area where the tunnel
1 entrance was, by that point there was no one there any more. There was
2 just the entrance of the tunnel behind a house. And the other point of
3 entry was on the other side at Dobrinje.
4 I believe he made this decision solely due to the fact that the
5 UNPROFOR forces were so close.
6 Q. Sir, that's not all this document says. Colonel Manojlovic says:
7 "I have abandoned the firing on account of jeopardising the security of
8 own forces and that of the UN forces." So he's not just concerned about
9 the safety of the UN but also his own forces. You see that, right?
10 A. Of course he took care of his own forces, but it doesn't only
11 deal with the line at 500 metres distance because the distance varied
12 according to location. It is true that in this report to the Main Staff
13 he pointed that fact out as well as one of the reasons for giving up.
14 As regards precision of aerial bombs, as far as I could observe I
15 was quite satisfied with it.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you explain to me what you meant when you
18 "It doesn't only deal with the line at 500 metres distance
19 because the distance varied according to location."
20 Distance between what and what varied to the location of what?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The front end of our forces at some
22 places was indeed 500 metres away from the tunnel, but there were places
23 where the distance was smaller or larger than that. So the distance is
24 not always 500 metres between the tunnel entrance and the front end of
25 our forces.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. Sir, if I understand your previous testimony correctly, you
4 believe that there was some precision to the modified aerial bombs
5 because there were rockets attached to them that had stabilisers. Do I
6 understand that correctly?
7 A. Aerial bombs did not have a certain degree of precision. They
8 were as precise as classical assets. They did have a degree of deviation
9 from the desired target, but it all fell within the shooting tables as
10 was the case with the other artillery assets. As for the aerial bombs,
11 we did not mount any rockets on them but we actually turned them into
12 rockets by virtue of mounting a rocket engine on a bomb, that bomb became
13 a rocket. If you attach a rocket engine at the rear of a bomb, it
14 becomes a rocket launched from the ground rather than classical assets
15 that would be dropped from the plane.
16 Q. We appreciate that. But is a part of that reasoning that you
17 have, in terms of the precision, the fact that these rocket engines that
18 were attached to the bomb, that they had stabilisers which would
19 stabilise then the projectile in flight?
20 A. Right.
21 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P4525.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you're referring to firing tables. Did you
23 have firing tables for these air bombs?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the two occasions when I was
25 present and observing the activity of those air bombs, since I was at the
1 position where it was mounted on the launching pad, I could observe the
2 tables similar to the ones used by standard assets. Depending on
3 different elements, there were certain requirements that needed to be met
4 to have them fired.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now, they were not produced according to a specific
6 standard, isn't it? It was not factory standardised, controlled
7 production, or was it?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know how they were produced
9 and where in terms of the launching pads.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So you don't know that.
11 Can you tell us whether any tables you may have seen -- first of
12 all, do you have any further details of the tables you saw; and second,
13 could you tell us whether these tables were produced on the basis of
14 testing of that type of weapon?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not certain. I suppose that
16 such tables were created based on tests and different parameters were
18 JUDGE ORIE: If you don't know that, what you assume or what you
19 suppose is a different matter.
20 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. Colonel Simic, just based on Judge Orie's questions, I'd just
23 like to confirm something you stated in the Karadzic case. It's a quote
24 that I'm referring to at transcript page 30100. In those proceedings,
25 you stated:
1 "I was not involved in compiling firing tables, so I wouldn't
2 know what they entailed."
3 Do you stand by that?
4 A. No, no. I don't believe that. I don't think I said that I
5 wasn't aware of the contents of the tables. I must have said that I saw
6 the tables and that they contained all the elements that would otherwise
7 be found in the tables for standard assets. I can't specify each and
8 every such element, but the same thing applied to the launchers of aerial
9 bombs. I don't think I said that I didn't know what was in the tables,
10 because I was well aware of it. Perhaps I said that I didn't know where
11 the testing was done and how. I really don't know that. But I do know
12 that firing tables are created based on testing, and I suppose that had
13 been done.
14 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, and I would just for the record, if we
15 could excerpt just the full question and answer from transcript pages
16 30099 and 30100 and tender that into evidence.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I don't know how long that is and we haven't
18 seen it, did we?
19 MR. WEBER: Okay. I can call it up, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Or if you read the relevant portion -- or you could
21 call it up. That's perhaps better.
22 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 32641. And
23 if we could go to page 64. And I'm going to line 19.
24 Q. This is during the cross-examination. It was stated to you:
25 "Stop, please. Stop. You don't have to ask rhetorical
1 questions. We can get this straightened" --
2 JUDGE ORIE: The witness cannot read it, so could you please
3 slowly read it for him.
4 MR. WEBER: Okay.
5 Q. It was stated to you:
6 "Stop, please. Stop. You don't have to ask rhetorical
7 questions. We can get this straightened out very quickly. It's not the
8 bomb itself that has a firing table because it's normally dropped out of
9 an aeroplane, right; it's the rocket that has a firing table?"
10 Your answer was:
11 "Correct. However, in view of the situation that we discussed
12 just a while ago, we -- I told you how we launched it. It could not just
13 be launched arbitrarily. All the other elements had to be provided in
14 advance in order to launch an air bomb. You had to have firing tables,
15 and those firing tables are made by experts. I was not involved in
16 compiling firing tables so I wouldn't know what they entailed. But just
17 like any other artillery weapons excerpts are familiar with the type of
18 shells, you determine distances for a certain type of ammunition, there
19 are firing tables for every artillery weapon. And that's how things were
20 done for air bombs as well. That was done subsequently when those
21 launchers were crafted, and when the launching of air bombs were started
22 in that way, firing tables were devised. They were compiled, they had to
23 be prepared in advance because everything else would have just been
24 shooting blindly, shooting in the air, I don't know where. Firing tables
25 were compiled in order to hit a target and they accompanied every piece
1 of weaponry, of course."
2 Do you stand by this evidence?
3 A. I really don't understand how we see here that I stated I hadn't
4 seen it. It is impossible. I know I said that I did not take part in
5 their creation. And as I said now, I know who was usually tasked with
6 creating firing tables and how they were created.
7 JUDGE ORIE: This is how your words were recorded. If you say
8 that's not what I said, we'll go back to the audio of that session and
9 we'll find out whether your criticism is justified or whether just your
10 own recollection is not good. We can check the audio, we can check the
11 interpretation of the words you spoke, and we can then check whether this
12 record is accurate, yes or no. If you say that's not what I said, that's
13 what will be done. Do you say that it's not accurately recorded what
14 Mr. Weber read to you a second ago?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe it is incorrect. I would
16 actually like to have that listened to. I don't know what the context
17 must have been that I would say I don't know what was in the firing
18 tables. I just said I saw them. I don't know how it was interpreted.
19 If it was interpreted well, we can check that against the recording and
20 verify the context.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, as a matter of fact, I think what Mr. Weber
22 read to you a minute ago didn't say that you never saw them. So
23 therefore, you are commenting on something Mr. Weber may have said
24 earlier when we had not the text of your testimony before us as recorded.
25 But, Mr. Weber, it may be that if you continue that the problem
1 may be over.
2 MR. WEBER: Yeah. And, Your Honours, I'm happy to tender
3 whatever section the parties think is necessary to understand this.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: But in fairness --
5 MR. WEBER: I understand what you're saying. What I was trying
6 to go after very quickly was the fact that he was not familiar with the
7 content of whatever tables he claims to have seen.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But let's have a look at what you put to the
9 witness because this may have created part of the problem.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It would be helpful if we continue reading.
11 MR. WEBER: Okay. Fine.
12 JUDGE ORIE: But I'd also like to check what Mr. Weber put to the
13 witness earlier.
14 Yes, what was earlier put to you by Mr. Weber was:
15 "I was not involved in compiling firing tables, so I wouldn't
16 know what they entailed."
17 That is what Mr. Weber earlier put to you and he now read a part
18 of the transcript.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And this is exactly what we can see on lines 2
20 and 3 of this page in front of us.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 So you say that's not what you said? Then we'll check that. If
23 you had not said "I wouldn't know what they entailed," then we will
24 verify that.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that I did not say that.
1 How could I have said that? When I saw the tables and when I know what
2 they contain, I mean really.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, whether it's a mistake or not. But you are
4 challenging that you said it and that will be verified. And perhaps,
5 apparently, you are concerned about whether you ever saw them.
6 Perhaps, Mr. Weber, the next few lines might ...
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: And just to be clear, sir, here it is not being
8 said that you didn't know what they contained. It's said that you didn't
9 know what they entailed, which is slightly different.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, perhaps the next question and answer
11 might assist.
12 MR. WEBER: Of course. I'll read it into the record.
13 Q. Starting on line 14:
14 "Did you ever see one of these firing tables?
15 "A. Yes, on those two occasions -- actually on just one
16 occasion. The first time I saw those firing tables, I saw how elements
17 were calculated and applied to the weapon that was used on the
18 Nisici plateau."
19 Is that correct or do you stand by that?
20 A. Yes, that's what I stated there, that I saw the firing tables on
21 the basis of which elements were being calculated. It's not that they
22 make it possible to calculate the elements. Not a single table
23 calculates elements. Elements are calculated separately for each and
24 every target.
25 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I'm just happy to verify what he said
1 and tender this section of his previous evidence since he's questioning
2 whether he said stuff.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think that that we should admit into evidence,
4 also in view of what happened, these two pages, these extracts. Is it
5 uploaded as such?
6 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honours. But --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will reserve a number for that.
8 Mr. Stojanovic, I think it would be wise to have the transcript
9 verified and the interpretations verified. And if that would give us any
10 reason to revisit the matter, I take it that you'll draw our attention to
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour.
13 Because I think that this witness has precisely been saying that in his
14 answers, so let this be verified, listened to.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Apparently you have a recollection yourself as
16 well, but you are not giving evidence here. We'll verify it.
17 Madam Registrar, the two pages extract from this testimony, what
18 number is reserved for that?
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number would be P7414.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Reserved for that extract.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution quickly go to P4525.
23 Q. Sir, I'm showing you this document because of what your view is
24 concerning the precision of these air bombs, modified with rockets being
25 attached with stabilisers. This document states -- it's a document from
1 Pretis in Vogosca to the Main Staff rear command post dated 18 January,
2 1995. It states:
3 "We kindly ask you to provide us with 600 pieces of FAB-250,"
4 which are 250 kilogramme air bombs. And then it says, "without a
5 stabiliser, with fuses, for the completion of rocket motors, 122
6 millimetres with aerial bombs. FAB-250."
7 "'Pretis' Holding Vogosca will manufacture all other positions
8 for the rocket bombs."
9 Sir, in addition to this the Chamber has also seen the rocket
10 motors that have impacted in Sarajevo, some of which did have
11 stabilisers, some which did not or had ones which did not open. I put it
12 to you that there was no consistent practice of putting stabilisers on
13 these motors. And, in fact, there were ones that were produced without
14 any stabilisers. That's what happened?
15 A. I'm not aware of that. And it says here that Pretis would make
16 the other elements. I don't know whether they manufactured stabilisers
17 or not, but they didn't really need what they made themselves because it
18 says here that the other positions, I mean, they would regulate that.
19 They will manufacture all other positions for the rocket bombs. That's
20 what it says. So I guess it's not what they do, but I don't know that
21 anybody targeted without stabilisers. So it could happen that --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not hear what could
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But this possibility is not ruled
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. Sir, could you please repeat the end of your answer about what
3 you're saying?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, I got the impression that what then
5 follows in the transcript is the last --
6 MR. WEBER: Okay. If that's the case, I wasn't sure it was
8 JUDGE ORIE: And at least that seems to be logical.
9 Mr. Stojanovic is following in the --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Part of what the witness
11 said is missing. We could not hear it due to background noise.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you said:
13 "... it could happen that ..."
14 Could you then repeat what you then said.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It could happen that when an air
16 bomb is launched the stabiliser would not open and that then it would not
17 take the right trajectory. That possibility exists with other artillery
18 pieces too. There could be a technical error or something like that. I
19 don't know if that happened but there is that possibility.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution has no further questions.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Weber.
23 Mr. Stojanovic.
24 Re-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Simic.
1 A. Good day.
2 Q. Just a few more questions that I would like to go through.
3 Today, you had an opportunity to give answers - for the record, this is
4 page 25, lines 16 to 25 of the transcript - what it means to implement
5 fire or open fire in terms of artillery. So I would like to ask you what
6 the term "implementing fire" means when it is in the order that you
8 A. In all orders for combat activities that are issued by the
9 superior command on the basis of which artillery orders are written up as
10 well, what is noted is how the fire is planned, but it doesn't mean that
11 this fire has to be open. However, if the order says "open fire," that
12 means that this concrete order should be carried out, that a certain
13 target should be engaged; whereas, implementing is the planning of this
14 fire at some moment during combat operations. And as I said, several
15 fires are planned.
16 Now, which one will be opened or whether any one will be opened
17 depends on the specific situation on the ground.
18 Q. Thank you. Now, on the basis of what does someone who is
19 planning action and who is issuing an order for the use of artillery, on
20 the basis of what does he state in his own document that fire should be
21 implemented? On the basis of what does he envisage these places where
22 fire may occur?
23 A. First there is planning of fire or rather it is order to
24 implement fire against targets that have already been observed, and we
25 have information exactly where these targets are. So the firing is
1 planned with regard to these targets that have already been observed.
2 Also, as the combat disposition moves during combat operations, then it
3 is assumed where their next positions could be during withdrawal, and
4 that is how fire is planned. In terms of such leaps. In terms of
5 carrying out further tasks, and so on.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] P464, please. Could we have
7 that document, now.
8 This is a document that that we've had an opportunity to see
9 already. It's a document of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. An order dated
10 the 11th of October 1992. And I would like to ask that we move onto the
11 next page in B/C/S and in English.
12 Q. Where it says "Firing tasks." In the first line, it says:
13 "Prevent the enemy's attack from Sarajevo aimed at lifting the
14 blockade of Sarajevo by implementing [as read] fire at the areas of ..."
15 And then the areas are listed here. These areas here, do they
16 indicate to you why they are marked as firing tasks in this document?
17 A. Yes. Because in these areas firing positions of the enemy
18 artillery were observed. Larger calibres at that. And mortars, too,
19 that fired at our positions.
20 Q. Now --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just one moment, Mr. Stojanovic. You quoted this
22 part and in the first line it says:
23 "... attack from Sarajevo aimed at lifting the blockade ..."
24 But I see it says open fire.
25 "Prevent the enemy's attack from Sarajevo aimed at lifting the
1 blockade of Sarajevo by opening fire ..."
2 I don't know what it says in the B/C/S. But what you quoted to
3 the witness says "by implementing fire at the earliest," and here it say
4 I see "opening fire" in the document.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's the problem why we went
6 back to this document, in the B/C/S version -- and that is why I asked my
7 colleague to say that in English. In the B/C/S it clearly says
9 THE WITNESS: Ostvariti.
10 Q. So it says "ostvariti," "implementing," not "opening,"
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'll try to deal
13 with this as quickly as possible and I'll highlight that word.
14 Q. Colonel, sir, would you take a look at line 4 now. This is what
15 it says:
16 "Neutralise enemy artillery, implementing fire at the following
17 areas ..."
18 What about these areas? Do they indicate the reasons to you why
19 this was included in the firing tasks that were given to you?
20 A. Yes. These are the areas are some of the ones that I mentioned
21 in my statement as those where enemy artillery and mortars were.
22 Q. I am going to complete the next paragraph. It says, I quote:
23 "Neutralise enemy tanks by implementing fire at the area of
24 Kosevsko Brdo."
25 This area, Kosevsko Brdo, that an area where enemy tanks had been
1 observed too?
2 A. That's correct. And all the tasks that we mentioned earlier on
3 are based on enemy firing positions that had already been established, of
4 enemy artillery and mortars.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have document
7 P7402 in e-court.
8 Q. Colonel, sir, this is a document that you had the opportunity to
9 see yesterday. It's that table of signals and targets. Most of this
10 document was shown to you. I would like to ask you to take a look at the
11 next page as well and the next one, please. Thank you.
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask for the next
13 page in B/C/S as well.
14 Q. This is what I'd like to ask you. Can you tell us on the basis
15 of anything whether you could locate the time when this table of signals
16 and targets was used?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please take a look at
20 document P7408. First, let us look at the first page of the document.
21 Q. You had the opportunity of seeing that. If you remember, this is
22 a document dated the 14th of September, 1992. Commander Stanislav Galic.
23 A document of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps.
24 Could we please focus on paragraph 4 that has been put to you
25 already. It's on the next page in B/C/S. And I would kindly ask that we
1 move on to the next page in English as we start reading this. What it
2 says here is as follows.
3 "The Ilidza and Igman Brigades shall carry out in close
4 co-ordination and agreement of the commanders an attack along the
5 following axe: Doglodi-Bare axis toward Stupska Petlja and along the
6 Otes-Stup interchange axis to unblock the village of Doglodi and save the
7 Serbian population, and then continue operations to deblock and save the
8 people and soldiers of Nedzarici."
9 Please, could you tell us since precisely in this paragraph the
10 1st Sarajevo Brigade was mentioned and the support that the KAG is
11 supposed to provide, what kind of blockade and what kind of saving of the
12 Serb people is being referred to in this document?
13 A. This is the deblockade and saving of the Serb people from the
14 area of Nedzarici. Throughout the war, they were in a terribly difficult
15 position. They had only one street towards Ilidza. And they were
16 suffering losses every day and they were being terrorised by the Muslim
18 Q. Thank you. I am going to conclude by using yet another document.
19 You said several times, and you also said in your statement, you stated a
20 fact that the UNPROFOR observers were at the locations that you marked
21 today for my colleague, the Prosecutor. And these were the positions
22 that were held by your unit. I would kindly ask you to tell us how this
23 actually functions? You need to act on orders from your superior
24 command. Is it your obligation to ask them for any kind of consent, or
25 do you ask on the basis of the order issued by your superior command?
1 A. I acted on the orders issued by my superior officers, and
2 UNPROFOR observers were right next to me. I mean, we were sitting in the
3 same room, round-the-clock, 24 hours a day. We spent the night there,
4 bed by bed. We were there together all the time. And whenever my
5 brigade artillery fired, first of all he'd have to see that, hear that,
6 and I would show it to him on the map. I would show the area, the
7 co-ordinates of the target that I'm engaging, and he would see it
8 himself. And I would tell me him which units I'm using and how many
9 projectiles I'm using. He could see that, he could hear that because he
10 was right there. So the period is June 1992 all the way up until the end
11 of the war.
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see P7409 next.
13 Q. You could already see this document before, Colonel, dated the
14 14th of September 1992. Let us look at paragraph 895 of this document.
15 I believe it is on the third page in both languages.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. It is the second
17 page in English. Paragraph 895.
18 Q. In the report, inter alia, it says as follows, perhaps you can
19 follow me in the language you understand.
20 "At Tilava, a mountainous area south of Sarajevo, at least a
21 dozen 122 millimetre Serbian artillery guns were employed in the field.
22 The Serbian Commander, Captain Savo Simic, was observed by three United
23 Nations officials but fired one volley in what he said was a response to
24 an attack by BiH Government forces in the suburb of Ilidza."
25 Can you see that?
1 A. I do.
2 Q. This kind of response or rather this kind of report of theirs,
3 does it reflect what you just said in terms of how and in what way they
4 could observe your work at any point in time?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Another question for you. When they say he fired an artillery
7 round --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: It is actually one volley.
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. I don't know to what extent the translation is accurate, but what
11 did they have in mind?
12 A. Perhaps they had a volley in mind of three projectiles. So it is
13 possible that at least three projectiles were fired in the volley. That
14 is probably that.
15 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I rise. I just noted one thing that
16 the interpreters raised. There is a difference between the English
17 original and the B/C/S translation as to whether it's a volley or round.
18 In the B/C/S translation it says "one round," in the English original it
19 says "one volley."
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then the best would indeed be to have the
21 translation revised and not to read from the translation but rather from
22 the original.
23 Mr. Stojanovic --
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
1 Could you rephrase the question -- or as a matter of fact, I'll
2 rephrase the question in English because you're a B/C/S speaker.
3 Witness, you were asked earlier by Mr. Stojanovic:
4 "When they say he fired an artillery volley ..."
5 And could you resume from there what you wanted to ask the
6 witness? Because you were interrupted there, Mr. Stojanovic.
7 So the beginning of the question is:
8 "When they say he fired an artillery volley ..."
9 And could you now resume what you wanted to ask the witness,
10 Mr. Stojanovic.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I quote the B/C/S version.
12 Q. "... and he said it was a response to an attack by BiH government
13 forces in the suburb of Ilidza."
14 Does this report of theirs accurately and precisely describe the
15 process as it was observed by the observers through your interaction with
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. WEBER: I do object to that characterisation of the document
19 because what the document says is that that's what the witness said that
20 it was, not, in fact, that that's what the observers were considering it.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is right.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But we have -- yes, you apparently agree,
23 Mr. Stojanovic. It's what the document says is what --
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour. I don't
25 think that's in dispute. If I may be allowed another question and I can
1 clear it up with the witness.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you could do that.
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Right.
4 Q. So, Mr. Simic, let me conclude with this question: Can we see in
5 the text that you informed them about the reasons why you approved for
6 the volley to be used?
7 A. Yes, I informed them as is reflected in the report. I always did
8 that. And they could note that themselves.
9 Q. Mr. Simic, thank you.
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you. We
11 have no further questions.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
13 Mr. Weber, no further questions?
14 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No further questions from the Bench.
16 Mr. Simic, this concludes your evidence. I'd like to thank you
17 very much for coming to The Hague and for having answered the many
18 questions that were put to you by the parties and by this Bench, and I
19 wish you a safe return home again.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest to the parties that we take a break -- one
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: In view of what the Chamber further has to do, we
1 would like to take a break slightly longer than usual. We would resume
2 then at quarter past 1.00, and it's our expectation that within, I would
3 say, 35, 40 minutes after that we would be able to deliver the decisions
4 that are on our list.
5 Then finally, Mr. Stojanovic, I noticed that "opening fire" was
6 now replaced by "implementing fire." And again, as a non-native speaking
7 person, in trying to understand the language, I understand that "to
8 implement" means either to carry out or to effect or to carry through or
9 to complete or to apply or to perform or to realise or to fulfil or to
10 execute or to discharge or to bring about or to put something into
11 effect. To say that it's not yet entirely clear to me what the
12 difference is with my understanding of "opening fire," that is firing,
13 but I'm open for all submissions. I do not stick to any explanation, but
14 apparently all these terms, "returning," "opening," "implementing," seem
15 to need further interpretation. And to the extent the parties could
16 assist the Chamber in that, me, as a nonspeaking speaker -- as a
17 nonnative speaker, and perhaps some of my colleagues are as well, would
18 appreciate such assistance.
19 MR. WEBER: Your Honours if I may.
20 I think it is a simple matter. We could just verify the word
21 and --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, not necessarily to be done now immediately.
23 MR. WEBER: Yeah.
24 JUDGE ORIE: But rather to think about it and to find a way how
25 to best assist the Chamber in overcoming this problem.
1 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, on a related issue, you had asked about
2 assistance that could be provided in terms of understanding how before an
3 attack happens one could already know where to return fire upon.
4 If you look at the transcript, page 26267, lines 19 through
5 26273, line 13, Witness Lucic there described how they had bands of fire
6 60 to 100 metres in front of the trenches where they would fire upon the
7 enemy forces when they were attacking the trenches to defend the
8 trenches. That may assist you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That was clear to me. My problem was a slightly
10 different one; that is, could you tell us two days in advance from where
11 people would fire so that you could return that fire.
12 MR. IVETIC: Well, there has been -- I think this witness and
13 other witnesses have identified that artillery targets are all
14 preselected and all premeasured so that they are in existence before, but
15 I -- you know, I do understand, Your Honours --
16 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, I heard that there were mobile
17 mortars in Sarajevo, so -- and to already know from exactly what
18 positions one would fire this axis. But I leave it open. It's still a
19 matter for thoughts rather than for too much discussion at this very
21 MR. WEBER: If I could just try to clean up one housekeeping
22 matter for the last witness so we can have a clean break.
23 The 32641 has now be uploaded into e-court. This was the
24 transcript excerpt that was referred to at the end of the examination
25 that was assigned P07414. These are the official transcript pages and it
1 is our understanding that Registry will then verify whether or not the
2 transcript reflects the actual text. So we'd ask that that --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar --
4 MR. WEBER: 65 ter 32641a be admitted.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: 41a?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, I think we had reserved a number
7 for that. That was?
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number was P7414.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And P7414, which is 65 ter 32641a, is admitted.
10 We resume at quarter past 1.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 12.41 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 1.17 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We will deal with a few procedural matters.
14 First the Chamber delivers a short statement on the reopening
15 presentation of evidence.
16 Yesterday, the Prosecution informed the Defence and the Chamber
17 that it intended to file a bar table motion as part of the reopening of
18 its case after its witnesses have given evidence.
19 In its decision of the 23rd of October, 2014, the Chamber stated
20 that it understood that the 60 documents the Prosecution intended to
21 tender would be tendered in court through the witnesses. There was no
22 intimation that the Prosecution would want to file a bar table motion in
23 the litigation over the past year.
24 Accordingly, the Chamber prefers to received the documentary
25 evidence in court through the witnesses.
1 Then I'll first deal with an oral decision on the expertise of
2 Witness Milan Tutoric.
3 On the 3rd of March, 2015, the Defence filed a motion to have
4 Tutoric's statement admitted pursuant to Rules 92 per and 94 bis of the
5 Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
6 On the 2nd of April, the Prosecution submitted that while it does
7 not challenge the expert status of Tutoric it does not accept the
8 statement and requests to cross-examine him. The Prosecution further
9 submits that it reserves its position to contest the relevance of the
10 subject matter of the statement to the extent it challenges materials or
11 findings that the Prosecution does not rely on.
12 On a preliminary note, the Chamber recalls its 17th of March
13 decision whereby it considered that the Defence is presenting Tutoric as
14 a Rule 94 bis witness and not as a 92 ter witness. This can be found at
15 transcript pages 33210 through 33211.
16 With respect to the applicable law concerning expert evidence,
17 the Chamber recalls and refers to its 19th of October 2012 decision
18 concerning expert witness Richard Butler.
19 The Chamber notes that the Defence has not specified Tutoric's
20 field of expertise but gathers that it wishes to present him as an expert
21 in qualitative and quantitative data analysis. The Chamber has reviewed
22 Tutoric's curriculum vitae and statement which purports to provide a
23 comparative analysis of lists of victims of the July 1995 Srebrenica
24 events in order to establish whether he is a qualified expert in data
1 However, the Chamber notes that Tutoric's education, as set out
2 in his CV, does not establish that he is a qualified expert in this
3 field. Furthermore, the CV does not refer to any publications or
4 participation in any other scholarly activities in this presumed area of
6 With regard to his work experience, the Chamber notes that
7 Tutoric spent most of his career in law enforcement and security.
8 Recently, he has been working at the Centre for Research on War, War
9 Crimes, and the Search for Missing Persons since April 2012 as a project
10 manager, although not as a researcher or a scientist.
11 Furthermore, the Chamber reviewed Tutoric's statement to see if
12 it demonstrates that he is an expert in the field. In this respect, the
13 Chamber finds that the statement does not present a clear and
14 methodologically sound data analysis as would be expected of an expert.
15 The witness also introduces factual information in his statement but
16 fails to cite references.
17 Therefore, the Chamber finds that neither Tutoric's CV nor his
18 statement demonstrate that Tutoric has the specialised knowledge required
19 to testify as an expert witness and denies the Defence motion. And this
20 concludes the Chamber's decision.
21 I now move to a decision on the admission of MFI D936.
22 On the 16th of March of this year the Defence requested the
23 admission into evidence of D936 as an exhibit associated with
24 Milenko Karisik's witness statement. The Prosecution opposed admission
25 and the Defence withdrew its tendering.
1 On the 17th of March, after the Prosecution challenged paragraph
2 19 of the witness statement, the Defence re-tendered pages 5 through 11
3 of D936 and the Prosecution reiterated its opposition to admission as an
4 associated exhibit. This can found at transcript pages 33123, -145, and
5 33253 to -256.
6 Paragraph 19 of the witness statement refers to an agreement
7 reached at the MUP of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on
8 the 31st of March 1992, P3009, and it refers to the agreement to split up
9 the BH MUP into Serbian and Bosnian parts. The witness stated that this
10 division was in accordance with the so-called Lisbon treaty, also known
11 as the Carrington Cutileiro plan.
12 During cross-examination, the Prosecution questioned the
13 witness's evidence that the agreement to split up the BH MUP was part of
14 the Cutileiro plan. To rebut this challenge, the Defence re-tendered
15 parts of D936, a transcript excerpt dated the 22nd of March 2011 of
16 Alija Delimustafic, his testimony, in the case against Momcilo Mandic
17 before a court in Bosnia.
18 In it, Delimustafic shared some light in the decision-making
19 process in the collegium of the BH MUP, a body he states was composed of
20 Serb, Croat, and Muslim representatives.
21 The Chamber recalls its guidance of the 11th of December 2012
22 where it stated in instances in which an associated exhibit mainly
23 corroborates the evidence of a witness, there may be no need to tender
24 it, though such tendering may become necessary under Rule 89(C) upon a
25 challenge to the witness's evidence if the exhibit has the potential to
1 counter that challenge.
2 The Chamber understands the Defence's retendering of parts D936
3 to fall within this category as both parties agreed that the document was
4 not indispensable for understanding paragraph 19 of the witness
6 The Chamber considers the exhibit to have sufficient relevance
7 and probative value for admission, because although Delimustafic could
8 not recall whether the collegium had been involved in the decision to
9 separate and relocate BH special police units along ethnic lines, it
10 explains the witness's evidence regarding the collectively
11 decision-making process in the collegium of the BH MUP at the time which
12 had been challenged by the Prosecution.
13 For these reasons, the Chamber admits into evidence page 5 up to
14 and including page 11 of D936 in order to properly assess the context of
15 pages 5 through 11, the Chamber will also admit the first two pages of
16 the document into evidence.
17 The Defence is instructed to upload these excerpts into e-court.
18 The Chamber instructs the Registry to replace the existing Exhibit D936
19 with these new excerpts.
20 And this concludes the Chamber's decision on this matter.
21 I now move on to a decision on the expertise of
22 Witness Milos Kovic.
23 A decision with regard to his analysis of Prosecution expert
24 reports authored by Witness Robert Donia and Patrick Treanor.
25 On the 30th of March of 2015, the Defence filed a notice of
1 disclosure of Milos Kovic's expert report pursuant to Rule 94 bis of the
2 Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Prosecution filed its notice
3 pursuant to the same rule on 24th of April, submitting that while it does
4 not challenge the expert status of Kovic or the relevance of his reports,
5 it does not accept the conclusions of his reports and therefore wishes to
6 cross-examine him.
7 With respect to the applicable law concerning expert evidence,
8 the Chamber recalls and refers to its 19th of October 2012 decision
9 concerning expert witness, Richard Butler.
10 On the basis of Kovic's curriculum vitae and considering that the
11 Prosecution does not dispute Kovic's qualification as an expert in the
12 field of political history, the Chamber is satisfied that he has the
13 specialised knowledge and expertise and that such knowledge and expertise
14 may be of assistance to the Chamber in assessing the expert evidence
15 presented by the Prosecution during its case in chief.
16 With regard to the Prosecution's request to cross-examine the
17 witness, the Chamber notes that the Defence plans to call Kovic to give
18 evidence. The Prosecution will therefore have the opportunity to
19 cross-examine him.
20 Based on the foregoing, the Chamber decides, pursuant to Rule 94
21 bis, that Kovic may be called to testify as an expert witness and shall
22 be made available for cross-examination by the Prosecution. The Chamber
23 defers its decision on the admission of the reports to the time of his
25 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
1 The Chamber will now deliver its decision on the expertise of
2 Mile Dosenovic with regard to his report entitled "Communications in the
3 Army of Republika Srpska with special emphasis on interception."
4 On the 10th of April 2015, the Defence filed a notice of
5 disclosure of Mile Dosenovic's expert report pursuant to Rule 94 bis of
6 the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Prosecution filed its notice
7 pursuant to Rule 94 bis on the 30th of April submitting that while it
8 does not challenge the expert status of Dosenovic or the relevance of his
9 report, it does not accept the conclusions of the report and therefore
10 wishes to cross-examine him.
11 On the 12th of May, the Defence filed a response to the
12 Prosecution's 30th April submission. On the 19th of May, the Prosecution
13 sought leave to reply and filed its reply to the Defence response. The
14 Chamber will address the 12th and 19th of May submissions in a separate
16 With respect to the applicable law concerning expert evidence,
17 the Chamber recalls and refers to its 19th of October 2012 decision
18 concerning Richard Butler.
19 On the basis of Dosenovic's curriculum vitae and considering that
20 the Prosecution does not dispute Dosenovic's qualification as a military
21 communication expert, the Chamber is satisfied that he has specialised
22 knowledge and expertise and that such knowledge and expertise may be of
23 assistance to the Chamber in understanding the communication systems used
24 by the VRS.
25 With regard to the Prosecution's request to cross-examine the
1 witness, the Chamber notes that the Defence plans to call Dosenovic to
2 give evidence. The Prosecution will therefore have the opportunity to
3 cross-examine him.
4 Based on the foregoing, the Chamber decides pursuant to Rule 94
5 bis of the Rules that the Defence may call Mile Dosenovic to testify as
6 an expert witness and that he shall be made available for
7 cross-examination by the Prosecution. The Chamber defers its decision on
8 the admission of Mile Dosenovic's expert report to the time of his
10 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
11 I move to the next decision. The decision the Chamber delivers
12 is the decision on the remaining associated exhibits tendered through
13 Witness Milomir Savcic.
14 On the 29th of January, 2015, the Defence filed tendering the
15 written statement of Milomir Savcic together with 14 associated exhibits.
16 In its response of the 12th of February, the Prosecution did not oppose
17 the motion.
18 During the testimony of Savcic on the 25th of March, the Chamber
19 admitted into evidence his written statement as Exhibit D968 and four
20 exhibits, which had been listed as associated exhibits by the Defence in
21 its 92 ter motion but eventually were tendered into evidence by the
22 Prosecution during cross-examination admitted as P7266 up to and
23 including P7269.
24 The same day, the Defence stated that it withdraws the tendering
25 of two other documents. The Chamber reserved exhibit numbers D969 up to
1 and including D975 for the remaining documents. This can be found at
2 transcript pages 33639 and -640.
3 The Chamber recalls that the case law with regard to the
4 admission of associated exhibits establishes that documents can be
5 admitted if they form an inseparable and indispensable part of the
6 witness's written testimony. In order to satisfy this test, the
7 witness's statement would have to be incomprehensible or at least of less
8 probative value without the admission into evidence of the associated
9 exhibits in question.
10 The Chamber finds that the statement of Milomir Savcic is fully
11 comprehensible without associated exhibits D969, D970, D971, and D972,
12 and D973 because these documents include no additional information than
13 what is already given by the witness in paragraphs 75, 84, 44, 38, and
14 45, respectively, of his statement.
15 The Chamber further finds that without the additional information
16 in Exhibits D974 and D975, the witness's statement would be
17 incomprehensible and therefore the Chamber finds that these exhibits form
18 an inseparable and indispensable part of the statement.
19 The Chamber therefore admits D974 and D975 into evidence as
20 associated exhibits to Milomir Savcic's statement and denies the
21 admission of documents D969 up until and including D973.
22 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
23 The Chamber now delivers its decision on the Defence request on
24 the 12th of December, 2014, to add 17 documents to its Rule 65 ter list
25 and have these documents admitted as associated exhibits to
1 Goran Krcmar's witness statement admitted as D916.
2 On the 19th of December the Prosecution filed its response, not
3 taking a position on these requests.
4 Dealing first with a request to add documents to the Defence's
5 exhibit list, the Chamber recalls the case law with regard to amendments
6 to exhibit lists which provides that a Chamber may, in the exercise of
7 its inherent discretion in managing the trial proceedings, authorise
8 requested additions to the exhibit list if it is satisfied that it is in
9 the interests of justice to do so.
10 The Defence submits that it only finalised Krcmar's statement
11 after filing its exhibit list and therefore it could not have included
12 the 17 documents.
13 While the Chamber does not consider that this amounts to a
14 showing of good cause, it does consider that the documents are prima
15 facie probative and relevant to the indictment. Furthermore, the
16 Prosecution did not raise any objections.
17 Accordingly, the Chamber finds it to be in the interest of
18 justice to allow the addition of the 17 documents to the Defence's
19 exhibit list.
20 Moving to the Defence request to admit the 17 documents as
21 associated exhibits to D916, the Chamber recalls that documents can be
22 admitted if they form an inseparable and indispensable part of the
23 witness's written testimony.
24 In order to satisfy this test, the tendering party must
25 demonstrate that the witness's evidence would be incomprehensible or of
1 less probative value without the admission of the relevant associated
2 exhibits into evidence. The Chamber has discussed its interpretation of
3 this case law at transcript pages 530 to 531 and 5601 to 5603, and in its
4 written decisions of the 23rd of July 2012 and the 7th of February 2013.
5 Having moved the test, the Chamber finds that the requested
6 documents form an inseparable and indispensable part of the witness's
7 written testimony as, without their admission, Witness Krcmar's evidence
8 would be incomprehensible or of less probative value. The Chamber hereby
9 admits documents bearing Rule 65 ter numbers 1D05235 through 1D05243 and
10 1D05245 through 1D05249 into evidence as associated exhibits to the
11 written statement of Witness Krcmar.
12 The Chamber notes that the Defence is awaiting CLSS translations
13 for documents bearing 65 ter numbers 1D05233, 1D05234, and 1D05244.
14 Therefore, the Chamber marks these documents for identification pending
15 translations. The Registrar is requested to assign exhibit numbers and
16 MFI numbers by way of filing an internal memorandum.
17 And this conclude's the Chamber's decision.
18 The last decision should be delivered in private session.
19 [Private session]
11 Page 36078 redacted. Private session.
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
1 If any of the decisions delivered by the Chamber triggers the
2 need to address the Chamber and before the four non-sitting weeks which
3 are before us, then a brief opportunity will be given to any party that
4 feels the need to do so.
5 MR. TRALDI: Mr. President, actually not related to any of the
6 decisions the Chamber has just read, but the Chamber will have seen, as
7 did we, the Defence this morning filed the Rule 92 ter motion for
8 Witness Zdravko Salipur. We note that he's on the July schedule that the
9 Defence circulated yesterday. He's also one of the subjects of the
10 Defence's motion to add a number of witnesses. He's one of the ones the
11 Prosecution had not objected to, and we wouldn't -- the Defence has
12 informally communicated to us that they would appreciate that the same
13 approach be taken as with Witness Simic, that the addition be informally
14 granted or be formally granted, reasons to follow. We would have no
15 objection to that approach if the Chamber is also agreeable.
16 JUDGE ORIE: That would be adding it to the 65 ter list? That is
17 the issue at this moment?
18 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Mr. President. And I'd invite my colleagues to
19 correct me if I've erred at all in setting out our understanding.
20 MR. IVETIC: Mr. Traldi has been rather precise and accurate.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We had not seen it yet but adding to the
22 65 ter list is a decision which is -- well, has not a final impact on the
23 case as a whole, and it's rather a decision which is not purely
24 administrative but to some extent is. I'll just consult my colleagues.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber rules on the request and allows the
2 Defence to add Witness Zdravko Salipur to its 65 ter witness list.
3 One issue. Is it on the July list we -- is scheduled for July?
4 MR. TRALDI: Yes. And I think the Defence circulated, again I'd
5 invite them, I think they circulated it yesterday.
6 MR. IVETIC: That is also accurate.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And when in July?
8 MR. TRALDI: The copy my colleague is showing me says the end of
9 the first of the two sitting weeks that they and we anticipate would
10 follow the presentation of reopening evidence.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If there is any time left after that, then --
12 so these are -- that would be just briefly before the summer recess?
13 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Everyone seems to be in agreement.
15 We -- Mr. Tieger.
16 MR. TIEGER: Mr. President, I don't know whether you are moving
17 on to something else, but before we adjourned I wanted to take the
18 opportunity presented by the Court to address any additional matters.
19 Not necessarily specifically related to the matters discussed in Court
20 thus far.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so. If it's an urgent matter, we'll
22 certainly now listen to you.
23 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: There will always be a may to communicate with the
12 Court. We are not in recess, even if we might not all be in The Hague --
13 MR. TIEGER: Mr. President, if I can, I was just reminded. If we
14 can move into private session quickly.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
16 [Private session]
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Nothing else on the agenda. We'll adjourn for a longer period
23 than usual, still a lot of work to be done before we resume, and that
24 will be on the 22nd of June of this year, 9.30 in the morning, in this
25 same courtroom, I.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.57 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Monday, the 22nd day of
3 June, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.