Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 14051

1 Friday, 3 November 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The accused Sljivancanin takes the stand]

5 --- Upon commencing at 10.17 a.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. Unfortunately, the other Trial

7 Chamber was a little delayed so this start has been consequently delayed.

8 I apologise.

9 Mr. Lukic.

10 And, Mr. Sljivancanin, you will remember that the affirmation

11 still applies that you took.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I don't know if the interpreters can

13 hear me well. This courtroom is always a problem. Good morning, Your

14 Honours. Good morning to all in the courtroom.


16 [Witness answered through interpreter]

17 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic:

18 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, once again, Mr. Sljivancanin.

19 A. Good morning.

20 Q. I hope that we will finish within one hour and that really depends

21 on your cooperation. Please give me answers that are as brief as

22 possible. I will just focus on certain subjects that were dealt with by

23 Mr. Moore and my colleagues from the Defence. So let's deal with this

24 quickly because I'm sure that you also want to relax a bit and to get this

25 over with.

Page 14052

1 First, I'm going to put a question to you that Mr. Vasic asked you

2 about on the first day. He asked you about that entry in the war diary of

3 the 80th Kragojevac Brigade, dated the 19th; 375, I think it was. I don't

4 think we should put it on the screen. I think you know it. It says that

5 a surrender is expected of the Ustasha forces in the area of the hospital.

6 My question is the following: Do you know that, during the course

7 of those few days, there ever was a surrender of the ZNGs, the MUP, the

8 Ustasha forces - I'm not sure what the exact use of the term was - in the

9 area of the hospital?

10 A. Not in the area of the hospital. There was no surrender ever in

11 the area of Vukovar, except for those who surrendered at Mitnica. There

12 were no other surrenders.

13 Q. On the 31st of October, that is to say, the second day of your

14 cross-examination, the Prosecutor asked you - this is page 15 of the

15 working transcript; I'm sorry not to have compared it to the official

16 pages - but he asked you about certain facts, that you asked soldiers from

17 the front line to tell you what the situation was there, the morale, and

18 so on and so forth. Do you remember that the Prosecutor asked you about

19 this?

20 So my question would be as follows: The dissemination of

21 misinformation or false information about the situation in the units,

22 about the situation at the front line, betrayals of officers, intentional

23 misfiring and misshelling, is that the task of a security organ in the

24 sense of article 6(D), where you are in charge of that particular duty in

25 terms of this basic work conducted by security organs, to see what the

Page 14053

1 actual state of affairs is due to your very own job?

2 A. The way I understood it then and now, all of that had to do with

3 hostile activity within the unit and vis-a-vis the unit. I am correcting

4 you - I don't know whether the Prosecutor put it that way - I did not seek

5 information. As I moved about in the units of the Guards Brigade, I

6 talked to people and to soldiers. On the basis of talking to them, I

7 concluded whether this information, from the conversations I had with

8 them, was important in terms of security.

9 Q. Do you remember whether this was discussed in units, that there

10 was betrayal, that there is defeatism, that people don't want to go to the

11 front, that combat planning was not done right, and so on and so forth?

12 A. There were such discussions even before we set out to accomplish

13 this task, and at the place where the task was being carried out. And I

14 said that I thought then that perhaps we, the command, made a mistake

15 then, because we allowed people to receive mail, letters. Even at the

16 very front line they got this mail, and their family members were writing

17 to them. Everybody was afraid for Yugoslavia then, whether it would

18 survive, whether it would not survive, and that affected us, the members

19 of the Yugoslav People's Army, the most, us who loved this country.

20 People probably took this very badly and this affected them, and they were

21 wavering psychologically and whatever.

22 Q. The Prosecutor asked you twice, the first day and yesterday, I

23 believe, about using the term "Ustasha" and you gave an answer in relation

24 to this. My question is as follows: Do you remember whether, at that

25 time, in the official documents of Mr. Zivota Panic, and from the 1st

Page 14054

1 Army, and from the institutions in charge, from the Federal Secretary for

2 National Defence, as for the Croat forces, if I can put it that way, was

3 the term "Ustasha" used in official documents; do you remember?

4 A. Yes, I remember that this term was used, but my understanding was

5 at the time that that only pertained to those who took up arms and joined

6 the paramilitary formations in order to fight against members of the

7 Yugoslav People's Army.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we please show

9 Exhibit 729, page 2, on the screens. Can it be zoomed in, please.

10 Q. I'm just going to read the first paragraph. This is a Prosecution

11 document. This is a commendation, a citation, sent by Veljko Kadijevic,

12 Federal Secretary, to the units that took part in the Vukovar operation.

13 "Carrying out their tasks in repelling attacks at units and

14 facilities of the JNA and preventing a repetition of genocide and other

15 consequences of interethnic armed conflicts, the armed forces of

16 Yugoslavia achieved major success in combat operations in the area of

17 Vukovar. In long and difficult fighting, elite Ustasha forces were

18 defeated taken prisoner, as well as many murderers from home and abroad."

19 Were you aware of this document?

20 And the second question: In the public media at that time, was

21 the term "Ustasha" often used for these formations of the other side, that

22 is to say, the paramilitary forces?

23 A. As for this document, I cannot recall right now, but probably the

24 assistant commander for moral guidance dealt with this, if it had to do

25 with our unit, too. This is a document from the cabinet of the Federal

Page 14055

1 Secretary. I explained earlier on that at that time, my understanding of

2 the term "Ustasha" was that it was used by them, themselves, those who

3 were opposed to us, who were on the other side in relation to us.

4 Considering there was only those paramilitary formations --

5 Q. You explained that. Let's not repeat that. Do you remember

6 whether those terms were used in the media?

7 A. They were used every day.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now, I would like to ask that the

10 witness be shown that set of Prosecution tabs that was used the first day,

11 military documents and the rest. I would like to have a look for a

12 moment. That is Exhibit 847.

13 Q. Mr. Sljivancanin, the B/C/S version, tab 12. And for the Trial

14 Chamber and the OTP, it is tab 11.

15 Mr. Moore asked you about this document. Could you please look at

16 page 2, please. Three pieces of information are referred to here that you

17 testified about during your examination-in-chief, stating that this is

18 information that you provided to the cabinet of the SSNO, that is to say,

19 further on, to the security administration. The first is Bibic Milan.

20 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down. The

21 interpreters cannot follow. The witness answered "correct" to all three

22 questions, and all three names were not heard by the interpreters.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.

24 Q. The first information is Milan Bibic, the second information is

25 Boro Bugunovic, and the third information is about Muharem Besic.

Page 14056

1 Could you please look at page 1 now, the very beginning of the

2 text. The first sentence or the first few words, that is what I am going

3 to state: "Several sources of the security organs of the JNA indicate

4 that at crisis areas," and so on and so forth. This document, was it

5 compiled only on the basis of your information or some other information?

6 Sorry for phrasing the question that way, but I have to.

7 A. Well, I said on that day, and I'm saying now, that one source of

8 information was the information provided by the security organ that I was

9 in charge of. So in our reports, we precisely wrote about these three

10 persons that you mentioned here, and I believe that we were one of the

11 sources of information.

12 I already explained: A security organ never deals only with one

13 source. In order to be able to bring criminal charges against a person,

14 as a security organ, or to suspect a person of having committed a criminal

15 offence, I have to be certain of that and I have to have several sources

16 of information, several pieces of information, unless a person was caught

17 red-handed, so to speak. It was very hard, this work of ours, and a great

18 deal of effort had to be made in order to prove that a person had

19 committed a crime. So it is not only my information that is taken into

20 account, but several information at that.

21 I do apologise. May I just add something else? That is why this

22 document was returned to me from the cabinet of the chief of the General

23 Staff, recommending that I document the activity taken by these persons.

24 I said, if this minister said -- that this minister left the territory

25 once this was made known.

Page 14057

1 Q. Mr. Sljivancanin, there is no doubt about that. We've already

2 discussed that. That is why I'd like us to deal with very concrete

3 subjects during this re-direct. There is no need to repeat what you've

4 already said.

5 As for this document and the allegations made, if I can put it

6 that way, or rather, what you said about Besic Muharem, I see in the last

7 paragraph that the security administration is asking the command of the

8 1st Military District to set up a commission. Why? There you go. In two

9 words, can you tell us why?

10 A. Because the gentleman was from the units that belonged to the 1st

11 Military District. As for the work of this gentleman, we documented what

12 he was doing, because it says here what is attached, that is to say, that

13 we found the authorisations that he had issued and we sent this as a

14 document with his signature. And that is why a commission was set up, to

15 see what was going on. And what happened to him later is something I

16 really don't know.

17 Q. From the first page of this document, Mr. Moore showed you a

18 sentence where the plural is used for "prisoners" that are being brutally

19 treated, and increasingly, often, they are being killed in order to meet

20 out justice that way.

21 In addition to this case, throughout your stay in Vukovar, did you

22 here of any such incident of that nature, that prisoners were treated

23 brutally and that they were being killed, in the plural, as it says here?

24 A. This document applies to the entire territory of the entire

25 military district, or perhaps of the territory of all Yugoslavia, because

Page 14058

1 it was written by the security administration. In my report, there aren't

2 any such reports except such references. Had I heard of that, I would

3 have written about it, as I wrote about these people. If I didn't write

4 about it, then I didn't know about that. I wrote about my own zone, and

5 this was written about the territory of all of Yugoslavia.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic, you are coming in very quickly;

7 Mr. Sljivancanin is responding to you very quickly and at high speed. The

8 interpreters will just not be able to maintain this pace, so we must slow

9 down a little.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I apologise for the umpteenth time to

11 the interpreters. My wish is to control the witness, so to speak, so once

12 I get the answer that I'm seeking, I don't want to him to engage in

13 repetition.

14 Q. So, Mr. Sljivancanin, that is perhaps why I am interrupting you,

15 that is why I am interjecting. But I would really just like to discuss

16 what I am interested in. I do apologise.

17 During combat activity in Vukovar, did you ever receive security

18 information or instructions from the organ, the security organ of the 1st

19 Military District; yes or no?

20 A. Not a single piece of information from the security organ of the

21 1st Military District. I never received a single one while I was in

22 Vukovar.

23 Q. During your stay in Vukovar, did you send any information, seek

24 suggestion or advice or whatever, from the security organs of the 1st

25 Military District?

Page 14059

1 A. I did not seek any assistance and I did not send any information.

2 As I already explained, I sent all information to the persons I mentioned

3 here, or rather, the professional organ in charge that was giving me

4 information as well.

5 Q. Thank you. Could you please move on to tab 10 now, that is to

6 say, the information from Colonel Jeremija. That is 9 for the Trial

7 Chamber; 636 is the exhibit number. Mr. Moore put a question to you and

8 he expounded on his own thesis that there was widespread mistreatment of

9 Croat forces and that there was significant documentation corroborating

10 that. He said that on the 31st of October and he showed this document to

11 you.

12 You already testified during the examination-in-chief that you did

13 not hear of the Lovas case while in Vukovar. While you were here in

14 detention, or when you had the opportunity of seeing your own

15 documentation and the documentation of the Prosecution, did you see any

16 other document, report, information, that speaks of mistreatment or abuse

17 of Croat forces, except for this Lovas case, that would jog your memory,

18 remind you that, perhaps, you are aware of some other such case? Did you

19 see any other evidence?

20 A. I didn't see any other evidence. To be quite clear, I think I saw

21 this telegram here. I heard someone mention it here, perhaps, too. I saw

22 it here in the courtroom. I did not see any other evidence, ever. The

23 mentioned gentleman wrote this probably for his own zone, so it could not

24 have referred to anything that was widespread, only if he saw it there.

25 Q. Thank you. The Prosecutor asked you, I think this was on the 31st

Page 14060

1 and, once again, yesterday, as to what you did when Major Vukasinovic

2 informed you about the events in the barracks, when he returned the bus

3 with 24 persons on board.

4 My question is the following: Try to look back to the past and

5 those days in Vukovar. In your assessment as the chief of security of the

6 Guards Brigade, on the 20th of November, 1991, which facility was the

7 safest in Vukovar?

8 A. Since the Guards Brigade had come to Vukovar and entered the

9 barracks, for me, the safest and securest facility was that facility, and

10 that is where I felt best as a soldier, that is, in the barracks. The

11 barracks were a facility that provided peace for everyone and especially

12 soldiers who were on assignment there.

13 Q. Are you aware what forces Captain Predojevic's company had, what

14 forces he had at his disposal to secure the barracks?

15 A. I was well aware of that. That company had previously secured the

16 headquarters, so it didn't have many casualties. It had three platoons

17 and each platoon had three armoured personnel carriers, and the crew of

18 one carrier was eight to ten men. So I cannot tell you by heart the exact

19 strength of the whole unit.

20 Q. Who is superior to the security officers in the barracks?

21 A. Regarding the security of the barracks, it is the barracks

22 commander who is in charge in every respect.

23 Q. Who is the commander of Predojevic's company?

24 A. That company, once it entered Vukovar, became part of the 2nd

25 Advanced Detachment, it was resubordinated to it. And the battalion

Page 14061

1 commander was Kavalic and then he was replaced by Mr. Susic, that is, the

2 assault detachment.

3 Q. Do you know where his command post was those days? Where was he

4 stationed at the time?

5 A. I'd rather not engage in any guesswork. I really can't remember

6 where the command post was of the command of the 1st Battalion.

7 Q. Never mind. Let me ask you something else. You testified that

8 you asked Mr. Vukasinovic who was there and that he informed you that

9 Major Lukic was that, or rather, lieutenant colonel. What was he at the

10 time?

11 A. I know that Lieutenant Colonel Lukic was sent by the commander to

12 assist the commander of the 2nd Motorised Battalion, and for a while, he

13 was barracks commander. And I testified to that fact.

14 Q. And what was Lieutenant Colonel Panic?

15 A. Lieutenant Colonel Panic was Chief of Staff of the Guards Brigade.

16 Q. On the basis of this information which you obtained from

17 Mr. Vukasinovic, were you able to make a security assessment regarding the

18 risk these people were exposed to? Did you act in that sense and assess

19 whether you need to go there and intervene?

20 A. Knowing these officers and knowing the situation in the barracks

21 up until then, there was no need for me to go or to undertake anything at

22 all, because these were highly responsible officers. So they would be

23 entitled to give me assignments rather than me giving them assignments.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we see now Exhibit 107, page 16

25 in the B/C/S and page 20 of the English text. It is article 49.

Page 14062

1 Q. Mr. Sljivancanin, Mr. Moore asked you several times about - let me

2 put it in simple terms - whether you were superior to Borisavljevic as the

3 security organ of the 80th Kragujevac Brigade; that you were the main

4 person for security in the territory of the operative group.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we enlarge this article 49,

6 please. The page was fine, page 16. Article 49, please.

7 Q. I'll read the second paragraph:

8 "Data which constitute an official secret. The officer from para

9 1 of this article may inform other authorised officers of the security

10 organ or other persons about them only upon authority from the superior

11 officer of the security organ."

12 Who, in your opinion, was the superior officer?

13 A. My superior officer was the chief of the security of the Federal

14 Secretary for Defence.

15 Q. And Mr. Vukosavljevic, who was the superior officer to him?

16 A. The chief of security of the corps to which that brigade belongs,

17 I think that was the 24th Corps, according to the testimony I heard here.

18 Q. Could you exchange information without permission of your

19 superiors?

20 A. I tried to explain here that all activities of security organs are

21 confidential and secret. That is why we had closed sessions and I

22 hesitated to speak about things in public. Even security organs do not

23 share the information amongst themselves but only with their superiors

24 along the chain of command.

25 I did not take part in that discussion much for that particular

Page 14063

1 reason when we were in open session. Do you wish us to go into closed

2 session for this purpose?

3 Q. If we have time, yes.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we go into private session for a

5 moment, please.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

7 [Private session]

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 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 14064

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 [Open session]

6 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open session, Your Honours.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. There was quite a lot of discussion about those lists in the

9 binder. While we have this tab in front of you, please look at tab 22,

10 Exhibit 834. The English version is tab 21.

11 This is your report addressed to the security organ of the cabinet

12 of the Federal Secretary of National Defence on the 9th of November,

13 1991. Please look at page 2 and the last sentence of the last paragraph.

14 I'll read it to you:

15 "We are expecting that further combat operations will generate

16 more such people and we, therefore, request that you send us any new

17 information about all the extremists in the Vukovar area and the vicinity

18 for further intelligence work."

19 Will you now please look at the other set of documents - could the

20 usher assist, please? - the other binder known as the lists. Tab 6,

21 Mr. Sljivancanin, please. Tab 5, Exhibit 826, page 1, please.

22 This is a letter from the institution you wrote to, dated the 10th

23 of November, 1991, and it is addressed to you, and it has to do with the

24 lists that Mr. Moore discussed with you. But I'm going to read you this

25 first. It says here -- the title is "Intelligence on Members of the

Page 14065

1 Zengas, the Croatian National Guard Corps, and the Ministry of the

2 Interior in Vukovar," and then it says:

3 "Based on general intelligence from the Federal Secretariat of

4 National Defence and the security administration, the Republic of Serbia

5 MUP and the security organ of the cabinet, we have selected some

6 partially-verified intelligence and are sending them for your use.

7 Although some of the intelligence is no longer relevant, it can be used to

8 determine focal points for searches on the ground, controlling liberated

9 territory, and potentially for finding concealed members of the MUP and

10 the Zengas, as well as for questioning prisoners of war."

11 Mr. Sljivancanin, before the question, look at the previous binder

12 again, the one we were looking at a moment ago, and let us look now at

13 Exhibit 835, tab 24. For Your Honours, tab 25.

14 It is a report of the same body, with the same date, addressed to

15 the security administration. And I'm reading the first paragraph:

16 "We are hereby sending you the report of the security organ of the

17 Guards Brigade upon which we acted and took the necessary measures of

18 guidance primarily concerning the efficient organisation of work with

19 prisoners of war. We have sent more recent information and knowledge and

20 the information of the security administration, and we are currently

21 carrying out identity checks in accordance with information gathered in

22 interviews."

23 My question to you is: These three documents, as I have placed

24 them before you, are they in a certain order, following one another,

25 whereby you are reporting on what is happening with respect to those

Page 14066

1 persons and the influx in terms of the liberation of the Bosko Buha

2 settlement? You're asking for information for your operative intelligence

3 work, and then your superior is sending you information from the security

4 administration and other sources, informing the administration of the

5 same.

6 Have I properly understood this?

7 A. Yes, you have fully explained this, and that is why I asked that

8 all these documents be tendered such as they are, whereas only details are

9 read out that may be in somebody's interest. I believe that Their Honours

10 will read these documents in detail.

11 If I may just add with respect to these lists. When a large group

12 of civilians appear, for us, as the security organ, there are persons who

13 want to admit if they have done something and then it is easy to gain

14 information; there are others who conceal themselves. So we didn't go

15 there to sit around; as the security organ, we went to work there. And

16 those who committed crimes should be arraigned and handed over to the

17 investigators.

18 These lists are not all significant for me, but if a certain

19 person under a certain name appears among this group, I have to forward

20 him to the investigator. It is easier to proceed in this way rather than

21 suspecting each and every civilian.

22 Q. If you, as the security organ, get instructions and information

23 about persons that you need to find or about whom you need to collect

24 information, do you make an omission if you allow such persons to hide and

25 escape?

Page 14067

1 A. Of course. This is a very serious omission on my part.

2 Q. The Prosecutor put it to you that some persons for whom you

3 received information, or rather, that they are mentioned in the indictment

4 as persons whose bodies were found or are registered as missing, but at

5 any rate, that, in his view, they are among the people who were taken out

6 of the hospital on the 20th of November.

7 Now, in your view, where were these persons supposed to be taken

8 on the 20th of November?

9 A. All persons who were brought in as crime suspects were supposed to

10 be taken to the prison in Sremska Mitrovica.

11 Q. Was that fully in line with what was stated by Mr. Kypr in his

12 talks with Colonel Pavkovic, in Exhibits 320 and 333, that General Raseta

13 ordered that wounded members of the National Guards Corps would not be

14 allowed to leave Vukovar in the convoy of the wounded. You saw that

15 document.

16 A. I saw it. That is the decision of the Superior Command and it was

17 in line with what had been decided.

18 Q. Thank you. A few questions about Velepromet. Mr. Moore claims

19 that you isolated people there. My question is: Was that isolation or

20 was that temporary detention until their identity was established, whether

21 these persons belonged to the category that you were supposed to be

22 dealing with, as security organ?

23 A. There was never any isolation. These people who were kept for

24 interviews were not kept for longer than two or three hours with us.

25 Q. You or your security organs, could you order anything to Zigic,

Page 14068

1 Jaksic, Ljubinko Stojanovic, or any other TO leader?

2 A. We didn't even try to give them any orders. We were just making

3 suggestions if anything was needed. They were given orders through their

4 chain of command. I tried to explain to you that the security organ is

5 not supposed to interfere with the chain of command or the command if they

6 want to carry out their task successfully. Any security organ that

7 interferes will not carry out his professional duties, specialist duties.

8 Q. Let me not be too literal, but could they issue any orders to you,

9 these three people from the TO?

10 A. They could not order us to do anything. They could not issue any

11 kind of orders to us.

12 Q. Thank you. You were shown Mr. Schou's evidence and you remember

13 yourself, you were in the courtroom, that on the 19th of November, you

14 forbade the International Red Cross to enter the hospital; do you remember

15 that?

16 A. I remember that.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we see please Exhibit 333 on the

18 screen. B/C/S page 3. The title is "Comments and Lessons." Page 3. I

19 think that the English is there, too. A bit lower down, please.

20 "Comments and Lessons," number 2.

21 Q. It says -- I'm reading the second paragraph:

22 "During the evacuation in Vukovar, we were forbidden, on the

23 evening before the evacuation, to meet with the administration of the

24 hospital through an order issued by Admiral Brovet through our liaison

25 officer with the JNA."

Page 14069

1 This is a document of the head of the European Monitors, Colonel

2 Calaghan. We have a document here that we don't want to show here. May I

3 refresh your memory: Discussions are taking place on that day, and we

4 know who the liaison officer for the JNA was. It says here that

5 Memisevic, Loncar and Lazarevic [as interpreted] were the liaison

6 officers.

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. My question: Were you ever a liaison officer of the JNA?

9 A. Never. I was never liaison officer. And I wish to clarify what

10 you read out. I, as security officer, everything I did with the European

11 monitors, I did only when the liaison officer asked me to do that. These

12 liaison officers were the most important people who took care of this, and

13 they received instructions from those who brought them in. Not a single

14 delegation could come without a liaison officer.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Correction: On page 18, line 25, the

17 third officer referred to in that document was Major Zaric, not

18 Lazarevic.

19 Q. I think that everybody in this courtroom knows this, but can you

20 tell us, nevertheless, who was Admiral Brovet, and what position did he

21 have then?

22 A. He was Assistant Federal Secretary for National Defence, Admiral

23 Brovet.

24 Q. Thank you. Now that we're dealing with this document, the

25 Prosecutor also asked you about Schou's report, this evacuation of the

Page 14070

1 wounded that Schou describes in his report, that there were no priorities

2 involved in terms of the wounded and the staff. Remember that you were

3 asked about that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Can we go back to page 2, now, of this document, the same

6 document. So there is just one page --

7 MR. MOORE: I didn't object to the earlier approach to a document

8 that I had not used. I have no objection to the use of the document, but

9 it is the content of the document. The witness, surely, should be asked

10 whether, in actual fact, as should have been, I submit, on the last

11 occasion, why was it you refused Schou to go to the hospital, rather than

12 showing the document and basically leading the witness.

13 I would submit, if there is an issue, the witness can be asked

14 about it; and if there is confirmation of it, then that is open for the

15 Defence to use. But to use the document to refresh the memory and then

16 ask for confirmation, in my submission, is not correct.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Moore. It's a trap that counsel on

18 all sides have fallen into during this trial.

19 Mr. Lukic, if you could watch out for it. Thank you.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I can just make a small comment. Of

21 course I will be careful, but I think, after all, that Mr. Sljivancanin

22 does not belong to the category of witnesses who - how should I put it? -

23 is not aware of all documents in detail. I think that he has been

24 testifying here for quite a few days now. He testified, and he said even

25 during his examination-in-chief, that he himself did not stop the

Page 14071

1 representatives of the international community on the 19th of November.

2 He is very well aware of this document. But there's no problem with this.

3 Q. Mr. Sljivancanin, first I'm going to ask you as follows, my

4 question is: As for the wounded, you talked about that a bit to Mr. Moore

5 and you said that it was mostly the soldiers who were carrying the

6 wounded. What about the wounded being taken into the medical vehicles and

7 when the convoy set out for Sremska Mitrovica?

8 A. I remember when the column or convoy came, led by Mr. Pavkovic,

9 that he called Major Tesic and asked soldiers to help load the wounded

10 into the vehicles, and I know that it was the military doctors who were in

11 charge of that and part of the staff were helping from the medical centre,

12 part of them only, because many of them ran into the buses.

13 I really was not in charge of that. I was not engaged in any one

14 of those assignments. But what I saw the most was that it was soldiers

15 who were carrying the wounded into those vehicles, as the doctors in the

16 hospital were telling them how each wounded person should be carried.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at page 1 of this

18 document.

19 Q. I'm very briefly going to read out one sentence and I'm going to

20 ask you whether this refreshes your memory, that this is the way it

21 actually went, the way the report says. And this is what it says -- this

22 is a report of Mr. Calaghan's group of the European monitors:

23 "The wounded who could walk, the elderly and children, got out of

24 the hospital as a mass that could not be kept under control. Most of the

25 old administration, instead of helping with the evacuation of the hospital

Page 14072

1 or instead of caring for the wounded, were sitting in front of the

2 complex, the hospital complex, not doing anything. The ambulances had

3 problems with reaching the entrance of the hospital where there were

4 masses of staff, and in this way, they were practically hindering the

5 placement of wounded persons into ambulances."

6 Q. Did you see that?

7 A. Even before you said this and read this out, I testified about

8 that. Everybody just tried to run into the buses, and that is why I said

9 that I was proud of my soldiers, my young soldiers, who behaved that way,

10 who carried the wounded who had been shooting at them until the previous

11 day. You can play this recording and you can see. Well, the man wrote it

12 the way it was. He probably wrote the truth, didn't he?

13 Q. Thank you. As for what Mr. Schou said, that the International Red

14 Cross was prevented from entering the hospital on the 19th - that is quite

15 literally what he said and what he wrote in his report - I'm going to ask

16 you the following: You know, you remember, the detailed testimony of

17 Mrs. Bosanac - that is page 686 - when she testified, stating that she

18 insisted that Borsinger should stay there and spend the night there, and

19 that he quite literally said that he had nothing to do there and that he

20 would come in the morning. Were you present, perhaps? Do you remember

21 that?

22 A. I remember that very well. That is correct. Mr. Borsinger, when

23 I also asked him to go and look at the corpses together, and Paunovic told

24 me that they were there - yesterday, these corpses were shown on the

25 screens - he told me that he had this very important business to attend to

Page 14073

1 that could not be postponed. And he apologised to me and to Dr. Bosanac,

2 saying that he had to go. Of course, I didn't ask him where he had to go

3 and why he was in such a hurry. But, anyway, I asked him for the medicine

4 to be brought to the hospital, as I said.

5 Q. Thank you. The Prosecutor asserts on the 1st of November, on page

6 76, rather, he said that the group of Bogdan Vujic, if I can call them

7 that, came to help you. You said that there's an entry in the war diary

8 about that, as to what their task was. Now I'm going to ask that this be

9 placed on the screens, but let me ask you: Do you remember what their

10 task was; to help you or something else?

11 A. I did not say that they came to help us, and the entry in the war

12 diary does say exactly what their assignment was and why they came. I'm

13 saying here now as well that that is precisely why they came, to carry out

14 this assignment, to carry out the triage of perpetrators of crimes that

15 were supposed to be taken to the prison in Sremska Mitrovica.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please place on the screens now

17 Exhibit 401, the war diary. In B/C/S, it's page 48; in English, it's 41.

18 The 19th of November, at 2000 hours.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before this is placed on the screen,

20 may I say that, as far as I know, the rules of service in the armed forces

21 of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that applied to the JNA,

22 assignments were given very precisely to officers as to who was supposed

23 to do what.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Page 48, please.

25 Q. This is the way it is. I'm going to read it. The 19th of

Page 14074

1 November, at 2000 hours, this is what it says:

2 "A team from the security organs has arrived in the area of

3 responsibility of the OG South to select and separate members of the

4 Ustasha formations from civilians."

5 The next entry, the same handwriting, I see it's Trifunovic - I

6 assume it's Trifunovic - the 20th of November, at 0100 hours:

7 "A team from the logistical organs of the 1st Military District

8 has arrived to help with security and transport of the civilians, the

9 wounded and sick."

10 Is there a difference between the two entries in terms of

11 vocabulary? I don't want to lead in any way.

12 A. There is a big difference. I think that since this gentleman, as

13 far as I can see, was probably Trifunovic, he wasn't just writing all this

14 off the top of his head of. He wrote this on the basis of the

15 authorisation he got from the task of the leader of that group.

16 And what you asked about logistics, this assistance that is

17 referred to, that means that we do not have motor vehicles of our own that

18 are needed. Probably there has to be mobilisation of such vehicles or, I

19 don't know, from work organisations, whatever, to get buses that the JNA

20 did not have among its own resources in order to transport the people who

21 were supposed to be transported. So the difference is a major one.

22 Q. Thank you. Mr. Moore suggested to you that it was illogical for

23 Mr. Vujic already then, at that meeting, to propose that you meet the next

24 morning in front of Velepromet, because he had just arrived. But, anyway,

25 that was what he was asserting.

Page 14075

1 Now I'm asking you the following: At that time, or rather, first

2 of all, do you remember how many persons were in that group?

3 A. Three high officers with the rank of colonel are the people I

4 remember. I remember there were other officers, too. And to tell you the

5 truth, I cannot remember the actual number now, but I'm sure that three

6 were sitting at the table. But now I cannot remember to say whether there

7 were nine, ten, five of them. I don't know.

8 Q. All right. You know what Vujic's testimony was, that Mr. Korica,

9 Mosesku, Muncan were there, and so on, not to go into all the names. At

10 that time, when you were discussing this, to go to Velepromet, that that

11 was a priority, did you know that the work at Velepromet would be

12 completed that night?

13 A. No, I didn't know. Based on the information I had from my

14 security officer, Captain Borisavljevic, and because it was dark, I

15 believed that there would be enough work there for the entire following

16 day, during daytime. That was my assumption.

17 Q. Did you tell anybody there that there was enough work there for

18 the following day?

19 A. I informed them in detail that evening about everything that I

20 knew at the time.

21 Q. Thank you. The next topic: Mr. Moore asked you whether you ever

22 supported the political doctrine of Mr. Seselj, and to that end he put a

23 portion of your interview from 1996 to you. In that interview of yours,

24 did you speak of the political doctrine of Mr. Seselj or did you speak of

25 his position vis-a-vis the JNA, whose member you were?

Page 14076

1 A. I never accepted Mr. Seselj as a politician. I only see him as a

2 comical figure who appears at a scene, in a theatre, or something like

3 that. I never discussed his political doctrine at all. I wasn't

4 interested in it. And if a journalist wrote something, perhaps this

5 journalist wrote about what suited him. I was never interested in

6 Mr. Seselj's political doctrine, and I can state it loud and clear. I

7 stated so back then and I can state it now.

8 As for the papers, they report on everything. And perhaps I

9 simply stated what I had heard from Mr. Vuk Obradovic about Seselj having

10 a positive attitude towards the JNA. But other than that, I no nothing

11 further.

12 Q. Thank you. Did you have any conflicts with Mr. Seselj at that

13 period of time, with him and with his supporters?

14 A. If this can be called a conflict, although we had no direct

15 contact, then yes, we had a conflict at the House of Flowers in 1996, or

16 in 1991, when they wanted to knock down the grave of Comrade Tito. That

17 was the conflict I had with them, or rather, we, members of the Guards

18 Brigade, had with them.

19 Q. What was one of your tasks prescribed by the very existence of the

20 Guards Brigade?

21 A. Our tasks were always very clear and accurate: We were there to

22 secure the grave of Comrade Tito. We were to ensure that it remained

23 intact, and as long as we secured it, that's how it was.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we go, for a moment, into private

25 session, please.

Page 14077

1 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

2 [Private session]

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 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 14078

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 [Open session]

7 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open session, Your Honours.

8 THE INTERPRETER: Could we ask Mr. Lukic to turn off his

9 microphone while the witness is answering.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Mr. Moore put to you something that you said during

12 examination-in-chief about the evidence of Mrs. Zvesdana Polovina, about

13 where the men were supposed to go, you know, those who were supposed to go

14 to the barracks for questioning; and then you said that what you had

15 stated to her at the time wasn't true.

16 My question is: Did you ever prevent anyone from learning where

17 that group of buses had gone to when the convoy for the transportation of

18 the wounded arrived? And by this, I mean international representatives,

19 the JNA officers who were there, journalists. And, finally, did you

20 prevent civilians who were present there from talking to them?

21 A. I did not prevent; not only I, but no other member of the Guards

22 Brigade in that area did that. To the contrary, I had -- rather, I always

23 instructed people and gave them information about where they were. I

24 mostly instructed them to go to Velepromet. And everybody who had been

25 taken away as a suspect, my suggestion was that they needed to be taken to

Page 14079

1 Sremska Mitrovica, to the prison there. So that was the information that

2 I gave.

3 Q. All right. Thank you. Would you please make sure that your

4 answers are brief.

5 Now I'm going to turn to a different topic. The Prosecutor put it

6 to you that the members of the TO who were armed were a real threat in

7 terms of revenge; do you remember that question?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Were the members of the TO armed throughout the conflict while you

10 were there? Did they have weapons?

11 A. When we arrived, they had weapons.

12 Q. And please tell me, throughout your stay there, did you observe a

13 single case where the members of the TO manifested a desire for revenge?

14 A. I never heard anything of the sort, and wherever I moved, I never

15 saw a single person who was bent on revenge or attempted to do that.

16 Let me just supplement my answer. In every case where we had any

17 doubts, as I stated in my report, then we disarmed such people, even

18 though we were allowed to use these people to reinforce our own units.

19 And you can read about this in my reports.

20 Q. Just a brief question about the article which appeared

21 in "Monitor." I'm not going to call it an interview, relying on your

22 words that it wasn't an interview that you authorised. You covered this

23 quite in detail with Mr. Moore and I will just have one brief question

24 about it for you.

25 This interview dates from late 1992. In the previous period of

Page 14080

1 time, did you give any interviews to public media houses, and were these

2 interviews available to everyone?

3 A. Well, if we were to analyse in depth what an interview is --

4 Q. I didn't ask you that.

5 A. Yes, I talked to journalists.

6 Q. Thank you. We may proceed. Now we're going to turn to the

7 statement that you gave to the security administration. Maybe we should

8 take the relevant binder with statements. Let us turn to page 5 of this

9 statement you gave to the security administration where you discuss

10 Ovcara.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is tab 1 of the

12 binder where the statements are.

13 Q. Mr. Moore -- this is quoted on page 76 of yesterday's transcript.

14 Mr. Moore suggested to you that, based on this statement, Vukasinovic told

15 you that it wasn't nice to mistreat those people at Ovcara, and that, in

16 his view, that could not have happened on the 19th - that's Mr. Moore's

17 position - that it had to be on the 20th; and that Vukasinovic told you

18 this in relation to the people who were at Ovcara on the 20th.

19 My question is: In that statement of yours, it says explicitly in

20 the middle of that paragraph --

21 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Lukic please refer the interpreters to

22 the relevant paragraph.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. -- it says:

25 "I heard from one person it is possible that this involved Major

Page 14081

1 Vukasinovic, although I'm not sure about that, that it wasn't nice to

2 mistreat those people."

3 And that later on you said that everything was peaceful there.

4 This statement was given eight years after the events, as you stated

5 yourself, when you had no information, no documents on you; you didn't

6 have the war diary or anything else that you had heard in the meantime.

7 Did you state to them explicitly in this statement that it was

8 Vukasinovic; yes or no?

9 A. No, I didn't tell them this firmly. I couldn't remember all of

10 the people. And this interview took the whole day. Mr. Moore didn't

11 allow me to say this yesterday, but there are a lot of mistakes in that

12 statement. For example, it says that the commander of the 80th Brigade

13 was Slobodan Misevic, that that's what I said. That was a mistake. And I

14 couldn't remember all of the people and all of the events at the time. I

15 didn't say that I was sure that it was Vukasinovic at the time; I said

16 that it's possible.

17 Q. Thank you. You heard evidence given by Vojinovic, Vukosavljevic,

18 Bezmarevic, Danilovic, P014, and I think that you read another seven to

19 eight, if not ten, statements given by members of that unit when they

20 testified before the court in Belgrade. All of them, except for P014,

21 stated firmly that you were not at Ovcara on the 20th. You know that

22 because you could read it in the documents; correct?

23 A. Yes, that's what I read.

24 Q. P014 testified before this Court, stating that he did not see you

25 at Ovcara on the 20th. My question: Did you contact any of these people

Page 14082

1 before 1998 or after 1998?

2 A. Before 1998, I didn't contact any of these people. As for P014, I

3 contacted that person - let me think - maybe in 2001 or 2000, and I can

4 describe the circumstances.

5 Q. You don't have to. Did you discuss Ovcara at all on that

6 occasion?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Thank you. Now I'm going to put my final question to you:

9 Yesterday, at the very end of cross-examination, based on the statement

10 that you gave in front of the hospital where you said that you were proud

11 that you were at the helm of these soldiers and officers - and then we

12 also know that you said to Borsinger that you were the commander in your

13 own country - and Mr. Moore put to you that all of that taken together

14 meant that you were the captain of the ship.

15 My question to you is: During these three years that you have

16 been deeply involved in this case - and you received, continuously,

17 documents both from the Defence and the OTP - did the Prosecution or the

18 Defence provide to you any sort of a document, or did Mr. Moore, in

19 cross-examination, offer to you any document or any regulation that would

20 support that you had the command role in Vukovar in 1991?

21 A. Nobody supplied such a document to me, nor did I ever see one, nor

22 do I believe that such a document exists.

23 Q. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sljivancanin, do you really think it's

24 important for you to add something?

25 A. I think it's important for me to add that, in that interview, I

Page 14083

1 wasn't going to say that I was at the back of the column of my soldiers.

2 No, I mean, what kind of an officer would I be? Because the officer

3 always has to be at the helm, at the head of the column.

4 Q. I asked you about this document. Did Mr. Moore ever provide such

5 a document confirming that you were in charge? And, as for 1991 --

6 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Lukic please repeat his question.

7 A. I believe that I was in a proper army that abided by all the

8 regulations.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. As far as I'm concerned, that's fine, Mr. Sljivancanin. I have

11 concluded my examination.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Did the interpreters get your question, Mr. Lukic?

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I will repeat my question. I repeat

14 just the question. "In 1991, were you a member of the army which abided

15 by the regulations?" And Mr. Sljivancanin gave his answer.

16 Thank you, Your Honours. And I apologise, once again, to the

17 interpreters.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

19 Mr. Sljivancanin, you will be pleased to know that that concludes

20 the examination of you and the evidence that you have chosen to give, so

21 if you would return to your place. Thank you.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I thank

23 you for having the patience to listen to me throughout all these days.

24 [The accused Sljivancanin stands down]

25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic.

Page 14084

1 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have an additional

2 ten minutes. Should we do now what I suggested earlier or should we do it

3 after the break?

4 JUDGE PARKER: I think it would be wonderful to hear you now,

5 Mr. Borovic.

6 MR. MOORE: Your Honour, before Your Honour starts on that, we

7 just got an e-mail in relation to that application and Mr. Lunny will be

8 dealing with it, so I wonder if -- well, perhaps we can start, but I'd

9 like Mr. Lunny to be in court for that, if it's possible, as he's dealing

10 specifically with the point.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Are you saying Mr. Lunny is on his way?

12 MR. MOORE: I suspect Mr. Lunny is on his way, but I haven't got a

13 tracking device. I'm hoping he's on his way.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Well, Mr. Borovic, would it trouble you if we

15 waited until after the break?

16 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

17 JUDGE PARKER: We will resume again at 12.00.

18 --- Recess taken at 11.37 a.m.

19 --- On resuming at 12.08 p.m.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic.

21 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. The three

22 documents that have been provided to Your Honours is just in support of

23 what I will be saying, and the Prosecution has already been informed, an

24 e-mail with the document and an address to Mr. Smith in connection with

25 all these documents.

Page 14085

1 Your Honours, the Prosecution, in its response to the Defence

2 submission on the adoption of documents with regard to witnesses P018,

3 P022, P024, has pointed out the following: All this reduced to quotations

4 from Rule 54 and Rule 89(C) and (D), and essentially the right to the

5 admission of this evidence is challenged because we did not indicate when

6 we came into possession of these documents. That is one point. And

7 second, why we didn't recall witness P024 for another examination and why,

8 under Rule 22 bis -- 92 bis, sorry, we didn't take a statement from

9 Witness Radovanovic, a physician who signed one of those medical

10 documents.

11 Before I elaborate the position of the Defence, the documents

12 linked to Witness P022, we will withdraw that submission because we showed

13 this witness all the court documents, the witness read parts of the

14 sentence, and I believe that that will be enough for the Chamber regarding

15 the reasons why we wanted to have those documents admitted. We are now

16 talking only about Witness P018 and P024.

17 Referring to the objections of the Prosecution, I am now talking

18 about the court document linked to Witness P024. Under 1, the identity of

19 that witness was disclosed to us late, as a Defence team, we have had

20 problems with witnesses with protective measures, because to gain any kind

21 of documents is a problem; and to explain to judiciary and prosecution

22 institutions why we are asking for such documents is very complicated,

23 because I'm not allowed to say that I will be using those documents in The

24 Hague.

25 So we worked on this very carefully. We didn't have much time,

Page 14086

1 because the witness, P024, started to testify on the 10th of February,

2 2006.

3 On the 13th of February -- sorry, on the 14th of February, at 7.00

4 p.m. - and, Your Honours, you have this e-mail - we received information

5 about the sentence for KZ, a number from Sremska Mitrovica, 602/03, from

6 which it can be seen that this witness was sentenced to one year in

7 prison. It was a final decision.

8 Towards the end of the working day, on the 15th of February, I

9 showed the witness this court decision and the case number, and I cannot

10 believe that the witness, who has taken an oath in this Tribunal, lied

11 that this sentence, which is a judicial sentence of a public nature,

12 doesn't exist and that he is not aware of it. He said this because he

13 didn't wish to disclose that an international arrest warrant has been

14 issued against him on the basis of a sentence from the year 2004.

15 Witness P024, Your Honours, on pages 4409 to 4411, on those pages,

16 I explained in detail what is contained in the sentence, so I'll just read

17 out a couple of sentences, not to tire you. My question as the Defence

18 counsel was:

19 "Is it true to say that the district prosecutor invested -- filed

20 an appeal that a higher court in Sremska Mitrovica bar its sentence KZ

21 602/03, dated the 5th of April, 2004, changed, amended the original

22 decision and sentenced the accused to one year in prison?

23 "No, that is not true," says the witness. "I wasn't there at the

24 time."

25 My second question was, "Did you serve your sentence in Serbia?"

Page 14087

1 The witness said, "No."

2 I also showed him, in the order I have described to the

3 Chamber, "Why did you ask for protective measures? Was it because of

4 secret services you spoke about over the past three days, or was it

5 because you wanted to avoid a prison sentence of one year?" Then you have

6 his monologue and his reply to that question.

7 Therefore, Your Honours, I showed the witness everything I could

8 at that point in time, and if his answer was no, there would be no point

9 in calling him once again for additional examination for him to comment on

10 these court sentences.

11 I then showed the witness that a large number of criminal

12 proceedings were conducted against him, not only for one act of

13 impermissible trade but also for ownership of weapons, which is punishable

14 under the appropriate law, for the criminal act of serious robbery;

15 therefore, several such criminal acts committed in Bosnia when he was

16 looting the houses of refugees, of poor people, the elderly, and women who

17 were still there. And when he wanted to avoid criminal responsibility, he

18 fled to Serbia.

19 These documents arrived from Bosnia, in Serbia, and he was

20 sentenced to one year in prison. I don't want to dwell on this. He was

21 shown that he was suspected of attempted murder, and the punishment for

22 this is 5 to 15 years' imprisonment. You will see in his statement that

23 this was light injury, and his answers were vague, but the truth is that

24 he tried to kill his wife with an axe and she protected her head with her

25 arms and she was very seriously injured.

Page 14088

1 When the Prosecution says that this could not be admitted into

2 evidence by saying that it is a criminal investigation, but this is not a

3 criminal investigation. This is something that has been judged in court

4 and a sentence passed of one year in prison. To avoid any repetition, I

5 showed this to the witness and he commented on all these facts.

6 On the other hand, this Defence team for Miroslav Radic has

7 endeavored to economise with the time. Let us imagine if, for each

8 witness, about whom we subsequently acquire documents and learn

9 information subsequently and then call him back, this would take up a

10 great deal of time. It would not contribute to efficiency.

11 Furthermore, Your Honours, you have the last e-mail among the

12 three documents I have shown you. The very next day, after what happened

13 when examining Witness P024 with colleague Smith, we agreed that he would

14 not oppose the tendering of these documents, as these are court

15 judgements, and one document relating to Witness P018, which is an

16 official document of the Military Medical Academy and it relates to the

17 testimony of P018.

18 Mr. Smith tried to check this, and after some time he asked me to

19 give him the addresses and telephone numbers of the persons who were in

20 the trial chamber for this case, and I have provided that in this e-mail.

21 And Mr. Smith said, if anything should be in dispute, he would let me

22 know; if not, he would not object. I'm sorry, but deputy prosecutors

23 often change on the opposite bench, so if they haven't been informed, this

24 is something we can deal with easily.

25 In paragraph 12 of their filing, the Prosecution asked how we

Page 14089

1 obtained, or rather, when we obtained these documents, and with the help

2 of these faxes and e-mails, I have explained that the dates are the 14th,

3 15th and 16th of February, 2006.

4 The Trial Chamber - and perhaps this is the most important point I

5 wish to make - in its decision on the Defence submission linked to

6 protective measures for Witness P024, on the 13th of July, 2006, presented

7 a position, which was fully accepted by the Defence, saying that the

8 contradictions and lack of precision in the testimony of this witness is

9 of obvious importance and will be of relevance when Your Honours judge the

10 reliability of this witness. When talking about contradictions, it is a

11 contradiction between what he said and what is contained in the

12 documents. Therefore, Your Honours, for you to be able to judge these

13 contradictions, it is almost impossible to do that unless these documents

14 are admitted into evidence.

15 I think that is all I have to say with respect to Witness P024, as

16 this has been elaborated in our submission on protective measures.

17 Allow me now, briefly, to comment on the document for Witness

18 P018. It is a document of the Military Medical Academy which says that

19 this witness was never on the 14th floor, which houses the

20 neuropsychiatric ward of the Military Medical Academy.

21 The files of medical institutions are classified, according to the

22 law in Serbia, and through the National Council, we managed to obtain this

23 document, addressed to the lawyer's office, and it is an official

24 document, with the stamp of the doctor -- I'm sorry, not the court stamp,

25 the medical stamp, confirming that what he has written is true. However,

Page 14090

1 this physician represents an institution and it is a document of the

2 institution, so we couldn't, as suggested by the Prosecution, pursuant to

3 Rule 92 bis, examine or take a statement from this witness. This is the

4 Military Medical Academy and this is a document of that institution.

5 Also, in the Halilovic case, there is a decision of the 16th of

6 February, 2005, where there is no prohibition on the admission of

7 documents, only on the ground that the author has not been asked to

8 testify. However, on the transcript pages of the 10th and 11th of April,

9 Witness P018 also commented on these circumstances. In this way, Witness

10 P018 is not placed in an unfair position because he did comment on the

11 documents and the circumstances that the documents reflect and which we

12 are trying to have admitted into evidence.

13 He was not only shown what is written in the documents, but on

14 page 7523, dated the 11th of April, 2006, we asked him as follows: "You

15 also said that you were sent to the Military Medical Academy for an

16 examination with a neuropsychiatrist because everyone thought that you

17 were crazy." And he said, "Yes." Then I asked him: "Thank you. Let me

18 tell you now, with respect to your visit during the Vukovar operation,

19 that, in fact, you were never there. You made this whole thing up." And

20 his answer -- you have his answer. And then, finally, on behalf of the

21 Defence, I said to this witness, P018: "I am submitting, once again, that

22 you were not at the academy in connection with the killing of Sostic, of

23 Lieutenant Sostic. He was killed as soon as he reached Vukovar, although

24 he claimed that it was much later. Secondly, his body was not

25 dismembered, that you had to carry him in a blanket. He had a shrapnel

Page 14091

1 wound in the head. Thirdly, he was pulled out by other soldiers with the

2 help of the captain. And fourthly, and most importantly, the Defence has

3 verified through their investigators that you went to the academy because

4 of knee problems in February. You were on the 14th floor because you knew

5 about this, but there is absolutely no indication that you were there

6 during the Vukovar events. These are all pure fabrications. You have

7 made this up and that is why you can't answer my question when you went

8 there, who sent you there, who brought you there, how you went back," et

9 cetera, et cetera.

10 So the accused would be placed in an awkward position if the Court

11 were not to be informed about these things to see that the witness did not

12 speak the truth. The court files in the Serbian and Yugoslav law never

13 had the status of confidential documents. These are all public documents.

14 As for the document linked to Witness P018, the document under 65

15 ter 2(D)(iii), (vii), and it is underlined in the Prosecution's

16 submission, paragraph 17, that the document is not dated, which the

17 Defence interpreted as challenging the authenticity of that document. But

18 what do I say to that? The Prosecutor cannot, at this stage, challenge

19 the authenticity of their own document which they disclosed to the

20 Defence. It was on the basis of that Prosecution document that we

21 examined this witness.

22 Also, from the Halilovic case, with respect to similar documents

23 shown and tendered, it is stated that such documents don't have to be

24 signed and stamped; they don't even have to have a date, and yet they can

25 be considered authentic.

Page 14092

1 Your Honours, the Defence submits that all these documents,

2 particularly those relevant to Witness P024, that is, documents issued by

3 judicial bodies, are documents with a high degree of probative value and

4 are, therefore, relevant for judging not only the credibility of the

5 witness but all the evidence which he produced and which he referred to in

6 the course of his testimony and which are linked to the position of my

7 client.

8 All these court documents and judgements are considered reliable

9 documents. The Prosecutor never challenged their authenticity; they have

10 more possibilities to do that than myself. And if certain documents, such

11 as the judgement and the indictment of Ovcara, support it without any

12 reservations upon the tendering by the Prosecution, without checking them,

13 believing that this would not undermine the fairness of the proceedings,

14 without further comment, we feel that the Defence should enjoy a footing

15 of equality with the Prosecution with respect to similar documents.

16 Thank you, Your Honours.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Borovic.

18 Mr. Lunny.

19 MR. LUNNY: Thank you, Your Honour. With regard, first of all, to

20 the documents relating to Witness P018, documents 2D36 and 2D37, as I

21 understand it, my learned friend is now stating that an undertaking was

22 given by my former colleague, Mr. Bill Smith. I am afraid I'm certainly

23 unaware of any such undertaking, and it is regrettable that was not raised

24 before today. Had that been mentioned in any earlier motion, then the

25 matter could have been checked to make sure that we are talking about the

Page 14093

1 same documents with regard to any undertaking.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Was that Witness P018 or P024?

3 MR. LUNNY: P018, Your Honour. And certainly the matter could

4 have been checked.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

7 MR. LUNNY: Your Honour, obviously, if any such undertaking was

8 given, the Prosecution would be bound by that and would, indeed, stand by

9 that. But we wish the opportunity to check the position, just to make

10 sure we're talking about the documents. I'm not challenging my friend's

11 integrity as an officer of the court, but just to make sure there is no

12 confusion and there is no doubt that we are talking about documents 2D36

13 and 2D37.

14 In the meantime, Your Honour, with regard to those documents, the

15 Prosecution will stand by what was written in its motion of 25th of

16 October. I don't think there's anything I can add beyond what was written

17 in the Prosecution motion at that time.

18 However, with regard to 2D36, I think my learned friend is

19 maintaining that Rule 92 bis was not open to them, given the nature of the

20 document. And the Prosecution would submit at this stage, again, that, on

21 the face of it, it is a letter from a doctor, a named individual, to my

22 learned friend's law firm stating a position contrary to Witness P018, and

23 it seems to be no more than that. At this stage, it really is just a

24 letter.

25 On that basis, Your Honour, the Prosecution would underline and

Page 14094

1 stress and further submit that Rule 92 bis would, indeed, be the correct

2 way forward.

3 With regard to Witness P024, Your Honour, the Prosecution, again,

4 submits that the position set out in its written motion ought to be upheld

5 and my friend's motion repelled. It would appear that the Defence came

6 into the information on the evening of the 14th, which was during the

7 cross-examination of Witness P024.

8 There is now a challenge to Witness P024's credibility with regard

9 to his answers, and I would submit that is not a fair position to put to

10 that witness now, in a vacuum. The witness was challenged with a series

11 of dates and a series of reference numbers which may, in fairness, giving

12 the benefit of the doubt, may have meant nothing to him. We just simply

13 do not know what his answer might have been if he had been shown the

14 documents and allowed a chance to comment on those documents. However, he

15 was simply confronted with a series of dates and numbers. To jump to the

16 conclusion that he is lying because of the answers he gave, I would

17 respectfully submit, is a step too far, without allowing that witness the

18 fairness of seeing the documents and having them placed before him.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Does that mean you propose the witness should be

20 recalled?

21 MR. LUNNY: Yes, Your Honour, that was the position taken within

22 the Prosecution's written response of the 25th of October, and the

23 Prosecution would stand by that, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Anything else, Mr. Lunny?

25 MR. LUNNY: Not really, Your Honour. Just to say, generally,

Page 14095

1 within common law, matters of credibility are final. There is a remedy

2 open to my friend to recall witnesses and I would submit that is the

3 proper course, should he wish to do that, rather than leave matters in a

4 vacuum, which is not fair to the witnesses in question.

5 Unless there's anything further, Your Honour, that requires our

6 assistance, I do not wish to say anything further.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

8 MR. LUNNY: I'm obliged, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic.

10 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Very briefly. I sent this document

11 to the Prosecution, showing my communication with Mr. Smith; however,

12 that's irrelevant now.

13 If the Prosecution proposes that we recall Witness P024 in order

14 to examine him about these judicial documents, I will gladly do that. I

15 simply didn't wish to waste the Court's time. If that is the only option

16 available, then I will accept it. But I initially thought that that

17 wasn't necessary because this Trial Chamber is fully capable of assessing

18 the validity of judicial documents and everything that I put to this

19 witness at the time.

20 Thank you, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Borovic.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber will reserve its decision in respect of

24 both documents, allowing to the Prosecution in respect of the reliance

25 upon the undertaking of Mr. Smith a week to consider the position and

Page 14096

1 advise both Mr. Borovic and the Chamber of the outcome of its

2 consideration.

3 While we're interrupting the flow of the evidence, there was a

4 motion in the course of the cross-examination of Mr. Sljivancanin by

5 Mr. Moore for the admission into evidence of two statements made by

6 Mr. Sljivancanin; one was a statement taken in February of 1998 by

7 officers, it seems, of the security organ of the military in Belgrade; the

8 other appears, essentially, a record of evidence or a statement made to an

9 investigating judge in the military court late in the year 1998.

10 The Chamber gave an extensive decision in respect of this matter,

11 which is dated the 9th of October, 2006, in which we indicated that it

12 would allow the use of each of those statements for limited and specific

13 purposes, which is what Mr. Moore did in the course of the hearing, but

14 would not admit either of those statements as evidence in the case so that

15 they would not stand as substantive evidence against Mr. Sljivancanin.

16 The Chamber is not persuaded by the submissions of Mr. Moore that

17 the circumstances are now materially different in that Mr. Sljivancanin

18 has now given evidence and has been cross-examined, in accordance with the

19 Chamber's earlier order, on those statements. It appears to the Chamber

20 that the objections to the admission of each of those statements as

21 substantive evidence in this case remain of the significance that they had

22 earlier, and for that reason, the Chamber is not prepared to admit either

23 of these documents as substantive evidence in the trial. The Chamber will

24 make use of the two statements in the manner indicated in its decision of

25 the 9th of October, 2006.

Page 14097

1 Now, Mr. Lukic, we've taken a fair bit of your time with your next

2 witness. We would, because of the tapes, need to finish 50 minutes from

3 now. Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Bulatovic?

4 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. Our

5 witness is ready to come into the courtroom and we can begin. What is

6 certain is that, within the time remaining for today's work, which is 50

7 minutes, we will not be able to complete the examination of this witness.

8 So it is up to you whether we should begin or not. We are in your hands,

9 both we and our witness.

10 JUDGE PARKER: We are in yours and you are in ours, Mr.

11 Bulatovic. We have in mind the desire to finish the case of

12 Mr. Sljivancanin by a certain date. If you are happy that you can do

13 that, we would allow you to commence the evidence on Monday. But if you

14 think time is a real pressure, we'll commence the evidence now. Perhaps

15 you and Mr. Lukic could discuss and let us know.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in that case, upon

18 my consultation with lead counsel, Mr. Lukic, I think it would be better

19 if we started on Monday, and I think Mr. Sljivancanin would need a rest as

20 well. And I hear that other counsel feel the same, except for

21 Mr. Borovic, but he has to go with the majority.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Some people are blessed with a superior stamina,

23 perhaps, Mr. Bulatovic.

24 Well, in view of that encouraging indication, I think we would be

25 better calling it an early day this Friday, with a view to a fresh start

Page 14098

1 on Monday afternoon, at 2.15. I hope you all feel much more rested by

2 then.

3 We will, therefore, adjourn until Monday.

4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.44 p.m.,

5 to be reconvened on Monday, the 6th day of

6 November, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.