Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 36004

 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

 6     courtroom.

 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

18     translation.

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.

Page 36005

 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

11     that.

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

Page 36006

 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

13     question.

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

Page 36007

 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:

Page 36008

 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

15     actions?

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.

Page 36009

 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

21     established.

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.

Page 36010

 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

 4     specifically.

 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

13     brigades.

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

16     giving?

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

Page 36011

 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

 7     document.

 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

21     cases.

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

Page 36012

 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

10     happened?

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.

Page 36013

 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

23     versions.

24        Q.   Directing your attention to item 4 of the warning,

25     General Milosevic orders:

Page 36014

 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

Page 36015

 1     has nothing to do with any of that.  That really is my assumption.  It's

 2     impossible.

 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

19     forces.

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.

Page 36016

 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

24     slowly.

25             MR. WEBER:

Page 36017

 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

11     B/C/S.

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

18     hours."

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

Page 36018

 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

17     answer.

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

25     did.

Page 36019

 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

11     observers?

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.

Page 36020

 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?

Page 36021

 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

Page 36022

 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

Page 36023

 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

Page 36024

 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

15     witness.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, if the document can be released in

17     e-court.

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

Page 36025

 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.

Page 36026

 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

 8     clarification.

 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

13     say:

14             "I was familiar with almost each and every instance of opening

15     fire."

16             Did you mean instances of opening fire by your unit or more

17     broadly?

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

Page 36027

 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

Page 36028

 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

 6     versions.

 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,

Page 36029

 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

Page 36030

 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

23     units.

24             The first section relates to command and control.  Under task 1

25     of the order, General Galic states:

Page 36031

 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

Page 36032

 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

Page 36033

 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?

Page 36034

 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

Page 36035

 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.

Page 36036

 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

13     e-court.

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

19     L5?

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

Page 36037

 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

23     document.

24                           [The witness stands down]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we take that break, as I said I welcome any

Page 36038

 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

Page 36039

 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

 5     me.

 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

22     facilities."

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

Page 36040

 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

Page 36041

 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.

Page 36042

 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

13     evidence.

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

Page 36043

 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:

Page 36044

 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

14     forces."

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

Page 36045

 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

17     said:

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.

Page 36046

 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

Page 36047

 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

17     entered.

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:

Page 36048

 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

Page 36049

 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

Page 36050

 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

Page 36051

 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.

Page 36052

 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

Page 36053

 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

11     it.

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

Page 36054

 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

23     happen.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But this possibility is not ruled

25     out.

Page 36055

 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

 7     complete.

 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.

Page 36056

 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

 7     receive.

 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

Page 36057

 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

Page 36058

 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

 8     "ostvariti."

 9             THE WITNESS:  Ostvariti.

10        Q.   So it says "ostvariti," "implementing," not "opening,"

11     "otvarati"?

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

Page 36059

 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

Page 36060

 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

17     forces.

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?

Page 36061

 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?

Page 36062

 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.

Page 36063

 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

16     them?

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

Page 36064

 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

23     second.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  In view of what the Chamber further has to do, we

Page 36065

 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.

Page 36066

 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

20     moment.

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

Page 36067

 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.

Page 36068

 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

25     analysis.

Page 36069

 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

 5     expertise.

 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.

Page 36070

 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

Page 36071

 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

 5     statement.

 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

Page 36072

 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

24     testimony.

25             And this concludes the Chamber's decision.

Page 36073

 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

15     decision.

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

Page 36074

 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

 9     testimony.

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

Page 36075

 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

Page 36076

 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

Page 36077

 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]

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 36078











11  Page 36078 redacted.  Private session.















Page 36079

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23                           [Open session]

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're in open session.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

Page 36080

 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]

Page 36081

 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.

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 36082

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

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]

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 36083

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

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.

Page 36084

 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.