1 Wednesday, 1st April, 1998
2 [Open Session] --- Upon commencing at 10.04 a.m.
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Good morning, ladies
4 and gentlemen. May we have the appearances?
5 MR. NIEMANN: My name is Niemann. I appear
6 with my colleagues, Ms. McHenry, Mr. Turone and Ms. Udo
7 for the Prosecution.
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: Good morning, your Honours.
9 Edina Residovic, Defence counsel for Mr. Zejnil Delalic,
10 along with my colleague, Eugene O'Sullivan, professor
11 from Canada.
12 MR. OLUJIC: Good morning, your Honours. I
13 am Zeljko Olujic, representing the Defence for
14 Mr. Zdravko Mucic, along with my colleague, Mr. Michael
16 MR. KARABDIC: Good morning, your Honours.
17 I am Salih Karabdic, attorney from Sarajevo, Defence
18 counsel for Mr. Hazim Delic, along with Mr. Thomas Moran,
19 attorney from Houston, Texas.
20 MS. McMURREY: Good morning, your Honours. I
21 am Cynthia McMurrey and, along with me, Ms. Nancy Boler,
22 we represent Esad Landzo.
23 MR. NIEMANN: Before the witness comes in,
24 may I mention a matter? It relates to the next witness
25 that the Defence proposed to call -- it is the military
1 expert, Brigadier Mohamed Vejzajic. I just wanted to
2 say to the court at this stage, so that your Honours
3 are aware of the position of the Prosecution, we do not
4 expect to be in a position to be able to cross-examine
5 this witness immediately at the conclusion of his
6 evidence. It is a much greater task in relation to
7 this witness, because of the volume of material and the
8 areas that he covers, and so I am just not going to be
9 in a position to be ready to cross-examine -- I can see
10 that now -- and I thought I should tell your Honours.
11 Your Honours, I do not expect any difficulty
12 with this and it is really a matter of formality, but I
13 notice that the Defence have not filed any
14 documentation pursuant to your Honours' order of 25
15 January 1997 seeking leave to call this witness
16 pursuant to paragraph 4 of your Honours' orders. I do
17 not expect any problem in the Prosecution other than,
18 because of the late receipt of the material, we are not
19 going to be in a position to cross-examine at the
20 ordinary and usual time.
21 That will be our only opposition, should they
22 seek to make such an application. I just note, your
23 Honour, for the record, that no such application has
24 been made.
25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Do you anticipate the
1 nature of the evidence that that witness is likely to
2 give will be other than the ordinary --
3 MR. NIEMANN: It is not only the length. It
4 goes to the complexity of the material which really
5 needs to be examined. Initially, when I started out,
6 I did not think I was going to be able to
7 cross-examine, either. By burning the midnight oil,
8 I was able to continue this cross-examination, which
9 I wanted to do. I just see now I am not going to be in
10 a position with the next witness, so I wish to indicate
11 that to your Honours.
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.
13 MR. NIEMANN: I am ready to continue, unless
14 there is a response, your Honours.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, as far as the
16 right of the Prosecution to cross-examine the witness
17 at another time is concerned, this is a matter for the
18 Trial Chamber. I only want to say that, in accordance
19 with the order of the Trial Chamber, we said that we
20 would examine three witnesses -- an historian, a
21 military expert and a demographer. We did not notify
22 the court, but I want to point out that we are not
23 going to examine the expert on demographic matters.
24 I think that we did provide full information
25 on the two witnesses that we intended to call.
1 However, during the last fall, our original expert
2 witness notified us that he was involved in the events
3 in and around Konjic and that he may not be fully
4 impartial in testifying, so we sought a new witness,
5 and, as far as the information regarding this new
6 military expert is concerned, we notified the Trial
7 Chamber that we would provide the full biographical
8 information for him as soon as we found one. After
9 about a month we did locate a new witness and we felt
10 that it was not necessary for us to ask for a new
11 permission of the Trial Chamber to call a military
12 witness, so we believed that we were still complying
13 with the original order when calling this new witness.
14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Let us have the
16 MS. McMURREY: I hate to interrupt right now
17 but we are having a problem -- LiveNote, the
18 transcript, is not coming up on our computer. I ask
19 the Registry if they could help us work on that.
20 [The witness entered the courtroom]
21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Would you kindly inform
22 the witness he is still on his oath.
23 THE REGISTRAR: I remind you, Sir, that you
24 are still under oath.
25 THE WITNESS: I take note of that.
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Niemann continued.
2 MR. NIEMANN:
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: How soon will you be
4 ready to continue?
5 THE REGISTRAR: It will take about five
7 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps while we are waiting
8 the professor could be given his report and his
9 exhibits -- his report and binder. (Handed).
10 TECHNICIAN: This line is broken -- it will
11 not work. I cannot solve it immediately, I will have
12 to do it in the break.
13 MS. McMURREY: We are willing to proceed
14 without it as long as we can get it as soon as
15 possible. We do make our notes on it.
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you, you can
18 ILJAS HADZIBEGOVIC (continued)
19 Cross-examined by MR. NIEMANN (continued)
20 Q. Good morning, professor.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. Professor, I wanted to start by asking you
23 some questions about the old structure under the
24 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia -- just a
25 couple of questions on that. Professor, under that old
1 structure, the position was that the JNA and the
2 Territorial Defence, during times of war, the design
3 was that they would work together; is that right, and
4 that the command of the Territorial Defence would come
5 under the JNA?
6 A. In my report, since I knew that there was a
7 military expert who was going to be called here, I did
8 not particularly deal with the JNA and the Territorial
9 Defence, because I believe that it is the next witness
10 who is going to testify to that in detail.
11 Q. Certainly, professor, I do not want to take
12 you to things that you are uncomfortable talking
13 about. So, if you feel that it does not happily fit
14 within your expertise, please tell me, and I will move
15 on. I still wanted to ask you some questions, and
16 I will put them to you, but on the understanding, if
17 you feel uncomfortable about answering them, let me
19 Would it be correct that the Territorial
20 Defence is, however, very much a local organisation,
21 and was designed to have the capacity to operate
22 independently of the JNA in circumstances where, for
23 example, the JNA was no longer able to function. I am
24 speaking again under the old structure?
25 A. Again, I would like to state that these are
1 theoretical issues, which I have not dealt in, and I am
2 sorry, but I do not feel comfortable about answering
3 this question.
4 Q. What you did speak about, however, in your
5 report was the relationship between the Territorial
6 Defence and the local municipal Government -- do you
7 agree with me -- is that right, that you mentioned that
8 and spoke of that in your report?
9 A. I mentioned the Territorial Defence in a very
10 limited sense -- as part of the Defence of the Konjic
11 municipality and this is something that was the
12 competence of the presidency, and this is the context
13 in which I spoke of the Territorial Defence and I would
14 like to limit myself to that.
15 Q. By all means. I am happy to remain limited
16 to that as well. Do you agree with me that the
17 president of the municipality had authority over the
18 Territorial Defence when it comes to matters of Civil
20 A. Could you please make the question more
21 specific? I am not clear what it is, because the
22 president of the municipality had no command or control
23 authority over the military, including the Territorial
24 Defence units.
25 Q. What I am putting to you is that, in terms of
1 Civil Defence -- that is, matters that happened in the
2 municipality relating to natural disasters, flood,
3 fires and things of that nature -- the president of the
4 municipality did have certain authority over the
5 Territorial Defence, or do you deny that?
6 A. That is correct.
7 Q. Do you deny it, or do you agree with me?
8 A. Civilian Defence or protection is not the
9 same as Territorial Defence. Civilian protection takes
10 care of the population in extraordinary situations --
11 floods, earthquakes, disasters, so it is not the same
12 as the Territorial Defence -- it is a separate part of
13 the administration.
14 Q. You are quite right. My question, though, is
15 in terms of civil disaster, such as earthquake, floods
16 and so forth, the president of the municipality has the
17 authority to mobilise and utilise the Territorial
18 Defence in those circumstances?
19 A. Yes, civilian protection and, in my view,
20 Territorial Defence, no, but I again would like to
21 stress I did not study this Defence, so yes, they can
22 use the civil protection but not the Territorial
23 Defence, that is the high command.
24 Q. I am somewhat confused by your answer.
25 Perhaps you are saying you do not know the answer,
1 which is fine if you do not know the answer, just say
2 so, or are you saying that, no, I am wrong when I put
3 to you that the president can mobilise -- the president
4 of the municipality can mobilise the Territorial
5 Defence in times of civil disaster?
6 A. He cannot mobilise Territorial Defence. He
7 can mobilise civilian protection or defence, but he has
8 no authority -- control or authority over the
9 Territorial Defence.
10 Q. Okay, that is your view. Yesterday you were
11 asked certain questions about a document that appeared
12 in your index of documents as D22. What I am asking
13 you is where is the document D22 as is referred to in
14 the index -- not the document that is actually numbered
15 D22, but the one that the index refers to -- where is
16 that? When you find it perhaps you might give us the
17 number at the bottom of the page.
18 A. D22 -- this document is marked 450.
19 MR. NIEMANN: Looking at the translation
20 I have of that document, 450, and going to the
21 description in the annex D of the document, the
22 description I have in annex D is the report of the
23 Konjic RBH army military police, dated 9 December 1992,
24 on the transfer of detainees from the Celebici prison
25 into the sports gymnasium prison in Konjic. The
1 document you have just shown me is a decision on
2 establishing of the State committee for collecting the
3 facts regarding war crimes. I do not know the date but
4 it looks as though it might be 28 April 1992, which
5 I do not know, you might tell me why you say that
6 document is the one that corresponds to the description
7 in annex D.
8 MR. MORAN: I am going to object to this line
9 of questioning. It came out clear on my cross
10 yesterday that it is a mistake in the index. That is
11 what the witness said, we all agreed it was a mistake
12 in the index.
13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Do you not think the
14 witness can tell us what actually the position is?
15 MR. MORAN: Yes, your Honour. I thought it
16 had been made clear yesterday.
17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It is fairer he gives
18 the evidence instead of you.
19 MR. MORAN: Yes, your Honour.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour, I would also
21 like to object, because the witness has the annex in
22 Bosnian language, which is correct and it was obvious
23 that a mistake was made in translating the annex --
24 that became clear yesterday.
25 MR. NIEMANN: I did not realise I was doing
1 anything spectacular other than trying to sort out what
2 the document is. I want to ask the professor if he
3 relied on it. I cannot see anything objectionable
4 about that.
5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think he might be
6 able to answer the question. It is a simple question.
7 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps, professor, what
8 I might do is, rather than hold up the proceedings now,
9 we will proceed with other questions and you might have
10 a look for me -- basically I am trying to find that
11 document. I cannot find it. You might have a look
12 through your report and documents later and see if you
13 can assist us. I will come back to it.
14 Professor, you testified about the number of
15 detainees that were held in the Celebici camp. How did
16 you determine the number of detainees -- how did you go
17 about the process of determining the number?
18 A. In the first place, I had the list of persons
19 who had been arrested, who had arms in their possession
20 -- military arms -- and who were interrogated.
21 I looked through a large number of those lists, and
22 interrogations, and brief reports on those
23 interrogations. Personally, I examined about 150 such
24 cases and I saw a list of 105 against whom criminal
25 proceedings were instituted. We have also here the
1 document that was referred to yesterday, which
2 I received towards the end of my work on my report and
3 I only managed to have a few of those certificates
4 translated, the certificates on amnesty, which were
5 issued by the higher court in Mostar, and I do not
6 believe that I have collected all the documentation.
7 Some of it has probably been lost, some of it I just
8 could not obtain, but according to some estimates, one
9 may put the figure between 250 and 300 as the number of
10 people who were arrested and detained and whose guilt
11 was in the process of being established. Many were
12 released and I do not know what happened to those
13 documents on persons who were just arrested,
14 interrogated and released. So, I was unable to
15 establish the exact number.
16 Q. Professor, you referred to a list. Is the
17 list included in your documents that you have tendered
18 to the court?
19 A. I think I have included the documents on
20 amnesty that I received, and only several of those have
21 been translated. If your Honours wish, as I consider
22 these documents to be extremely important, these are
23 certificates on amnesty, I can have the others
24 translated, too, within a short time delay and submit
25 them to the court.
1 Q. That might be helpful, professor, if that
2 could happen. But, for the moment, you might just
3 assist us with some of the issues concerning it. Can
4 you tell us whether all of these documents relate to
5 persons who were detained in Celebici, or do some of
6 them relate to Musala?
7 A. Musala also appears as an area in which
8 prisoners were held and I think that they are referred
9 to as well -- these persons -- because they were
10 transferred from Celebici to Musala and other locations
11 and that is why it makes it difficult to establish the
12 exact number.
13 Q. How did you know they were in fact
14 transferred from Celebici?
15 A. I learnt that later. I had not lived in
16 Konjic, so I could not know, but I knew that Musala was
17 opened as another place of detention. It is a gym in a
18 school in which persons were detained.
19 Q. Yes. But what I am asking you, professor, is
20 not about it so much as how you came to know about
21 Musala. Was it something that someone told you, or was
22 it documents that you examined, or is it indeed these
23 documents D21 and the D21 bundle of documents?
24 A. I learnt about that in Konjic, because I went
25 there to see on the ground where those people were and
1 that is where I learnt about it. I went to the
2 locations themselves and I saw this.
3 Q. You also said that you had looked at
4 Institute for the Study of War Crimes documents, where
5 you looked at allegations that were made. Did you
6 actually see formulated allegations against the
7 detainees, or was it merely information that was being
8 collected to suggest that something may have -- that
9 the detainees may have committed some offence?
10 A. As is customary in my work, I undertook to
11 study all the documentation that I had access to, to
12 establish the number of persons, the charges against
13 them, and, having sifted through all that, 105 persons
14 remained, that is, the persons who -- against whom
15 criminal proceedings were started by the courts, and
16 that is what I consider to be important. It is also
17 important to establish how many persons were detained
18 in all, how many of them had hunting weapons with
19 regular licences -- quite a number of them had such
20 licences -- and then the people who did not have arms
21 but who happened to be in certain locations where they
22 were arrested, so that it is rather uncertain except
23 for the fact that they had military arms, according to
24 their own statements, and that they had been organised
25 and they were putting up armed resistance against the
1 legal authorities.
2 That was for me the most essential factor,
3 and of course the total number of people treated, and
4 I could not establish that number, because of the
5 difficulties in collecting the documentation, in
6 preserving the documentation, and therefore such an
7 estimate is permissible and it is valid until other
8 documents are found which prove otherwise.
9 Q. So, your view of it is, justifiably so,
10 provisional, based on the material that you could see?
11 A. That is right.
12 Q. From what you could see, you say that some of
13 the persons interned in Celebici were there because
14 they possessed weapons, some military weapons; others
15 because they possessed hunting rifles, others because
16 they possessed weapons that they had with licences, and
17 other people because they just happened to be in the
18 wrong place at the wrong time; is that right?
19 A. One could put it that way, except for this
20 third group, to be in the wrong place at the wrong time
21 -- I am not sure about how many there were in such a
22 position, but these two groups, I agree with the way
23 you described them. It is possible that some people
24 were rounded up who were not armed at that moment --
25 whether they had thrown away those weapons in the
1 meantime or hidden them somewhere, I cannot be sure
2 about that, but some reason must have existed for
3 arresting people who at that moment did not have any
4 weapons on them.
5 Q. That reason, I put to you, professor, could
6 well have included the fact that they were in the wrong
7 place at the wrong time?
8 A. Not necessarily. The person found without
9 weapons may have had some weapons and thrown them away
10 into shrubs.
11 Q. Did you know that?
12 A. Probably this happened -- I do not know that
13 it happened.
14 Q. Did you read documentation which said things
15 like this, that, as they approached, these people were
16 throwing their weapons away in the grass -- did you see
17 that, professor?
18 A. I do not recall exactly all those documents
19 and all the details, because there were many of them.
20 Probably there were among them some of such contents.
21 Q. Would you be able to help us by referring to
22 some of those documents in the material that you
23 provided, which said that?
24 A. (Pause).
25 Q. Perhaps, professor, rather than delay the
1 process now, we might come back to that -- you can have
2 a look through your papers and come back after the
4 A. Very well.
5 Q. Professor, you say that most of the prisoners
6 who were detained in Celebici were persons, you say in
7 the first few days -- persons who were mainly those who
8 illegally possessed arms when they were brought to
9 Celebici. Is it not correct that, during the entire
10 time, the persons that were detained in Celebici -- no
11 actual charges were brought against them during the
12 time they were there?
13 A. I do not know. I am afraid the question is
14 not clear to me.
15 Q. Perhaps I will make it clear then. My
16 question is that you say in your report that people
17 were arrested and detained in Celebici -- when
18 I say "people", I mean some of the people -- I withdraw
19 that. I will quote directly from your report. You
21 "During the first days of the war, the
22 arrested persons were mainly those with whom illegally
23 possessed arms had been found."
24 My question is: in relation to the people
25 who were interned in Celebici prison, is it not a fact
1 that, during the period of their internment, that is,
2 in 1992, no charges were actually filed and brought
3 against those persons?
4 A. I am not aware of that.
5 Q. Professor, we referred a moment ago to your
6 certificates on amnesty. Is it not the case that some
7 of your certificates could belong to persons who were
8 never detained in Celebici -- you would agree with
9 that, would you not?
10 A. No, these are mostly persons who were in
11 Celebici and who were amnestied by the high court in
13 Q. "Mostly" will be sufficient.
14 A. I am sorry?
15 Q. "Mostly" will be sufficient, professor.
16 I take it, professor, that you do not know of any
17 incidences where HVO soldiers or paramilitaries were
18 detained in Celebici during 1992?
19 A. No.
20 Q. But, going on what you said yesterday, they
21 would have been illegally possessing arms, would they
23 A. I think that an equation mark cannot be
24 placed between the two.
25 Q. I am sorry -- I did not understand your
2 A. My answer was in response to the way
3 I understood your question -- the HVO was within the
4 system of defence of Konjic and the defence of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina and it was under arms. It defended
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina; it defended Konjic and that HVO was
7 not an illegal institution, nor an illegal army, nor a
8 para-army at that time, because there were armed
9 defence forces consisting of the Territorial Defence,
10 the police, and the HVO.
11 Q. I see. What was the legal foundation for the
12 HVO? Where is it in the constitution of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina that you find that?
14 A. This was not a question of the constitution
15 but a question of the survival of Bosnia-Herzegovina
16 and all the military formations that placed themselves
17 in the service of the defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina
18 were legal, because they were defending an independent
19 State -- an internationally recognised State.
20 Q. Legal because of what reason is the question
21 I am asking you?
22 A. May I just add to this, that, in Konjic, as
23 well, there were Serbs who fought as part of the
24 Territorial Defence and who defended Konjic, whereas
25 others on the other side were attacking it. Therefore,
1 the legitimacy is expressed in the fact that each
2 people and each place has the right to defend itself,
3 if it is attacked.
4 MR. NIEMANN: If you do not know, professor,
5 you should just tell me you do not know of any legal
6 foundation for the HVO.
7 JUDGE JAN: He has given the answer.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 JUDGE JAN: (... INAUDIBLE ...) Total
10 defence -- it is everybody's responsibility to defend
11 the land and the HVO was engaged in defending the
12 land. Therefore, they thought it was in possession of
13 illegal weapons. It is related to total defence.
14 MR. NIEMANN: That position of legality
15 continued, did it, through 1993?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. NIEMANN: So the HVO was a legally
18 constituted force in 1993 -- they were merely defending
19 their territory, of course, which would make them legal
20 on the basis of your analysis?
21 MS. RESIDOVIC: I object. This does not come
22 under the indictment.
23 MR. NIEMANN: Cross-examination is at large,
24 your Honour, and I think the question of what is legal
25 and what is illegal is a very important issue for this
1 case, because the whole defence seems to be structured
2 on what they say is the legitimate and legal position.
3 JUDGE JAN: You are asking him a legal
4 question. You are not asking him an historical
6 MR. NIEMANN: The professor --
7 JUDGE JAN: It is a question of higher State
8 policy --
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think the witness
10 might be able to answer it.
11 MR. GREAVES: There is also an objection on
12 the basis that the counsel is giving evidence when he
13 says they were merely defending their territory. There
14 is no evidence from witnesses in this case to that
15 effect. I object to the question and the way it has
16 been framed, the way counsel is seeking to give
17 evidence as to the activities of the HVO in 1993.
18 MR. NIEMANN: I will reframe it,
19 differently. Mr. Moran told us about the position in
20 the United States and we heard no objection then.
21 MR. MORAN: I object to that side bar
22 remark. I was using an example.
23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think it was
24 explained yesterday sufficiently.
25 MR. MORAN: I was just objecting to the side
1 bar remark.
2 MR. NIEMANN: Professor, assuming the HVO in
3 1993 were merely defending their territory when they
4 were assumingly involved in a war against the army of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina, were they a legal force at that
6 stage -- they were after all defending their territory,
7 were they not?
8 A. I explained yesterday the position of the
9 legal authorities towards the HVO and I think that is
10 sufficient in view of the fact that I did not continue
11 my report to cover 1993, which would require additional
12 research and analyses -- what happened in 1992, that is
13 the area I can answer about, and I can say that the
14 constitutional court proclaimed certain acts by the HVO
15 and the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna as
16 anti-constitutional, but that the legal Government did
17 not do anything in that connection, because it was
18 under pressure of the struggle that I referred to
19 yesterday -- I do not want to repeat it -- you have it
20 in the transcript and I think that is enough.
21 As regards 1993, the situation is quite
22 different, and a quite different approach is required.
23 MR. NIEMANN: Indeed?
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think this would
25 answer all your queries.
1 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you, your Honour.
2 Professor, the Serb forces in Konjic in 1992
3 were merely defending their territory, were they not?
4 A. The Serb forces were not merely defending
5 their territory. The Serb forces were rebelling
6 against the legal authorities -- they wanted to make a
7 State within a State, and that is what was illegal and
8 what is considered a rebellion against the legal
10 Q. I will pass on.
11 A. They were not attacked by anyone.
12 Q. You stated in your report that the war
13 presidency passed decisions to provide necessary
14 medical care to people in the Celebici prison; is that
15 right -- do you remember saying that in your report?
16 A. Yes, that is correct.
17 Q. That decision was not never implemented, was
19 A. I do not know, but I know that such a
20 decision was taken. It was addressed to the person,
21 but I do not know whether it was implemented.
22 Q. You also state that members of the family
23 could visit arrested persons; do you remember saying
24 that in your report?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Is that your expert opinion?
2 A. No. I was in Celebici and I asked people who
3 were there and they told me that relatives could come
4 to visit and bring food.
5 Q. Did you keep a record of those discussions to
6 include in your papers?
7 A. No -- no, I just -- no, I did not make any
8 kind of minutes or record, but this will probably be
9 confirmed by other witnesses who were contemporaries of
10 those events.
11 Q. In your report you stated that the war
12 presidency appointed different kinds of coordinators;
13 do you remember saying that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did you rely on any documentation for that
17 A. I relied on what I found, and I found that
18 Zejnil Delalic was appointed coordinator of the war
19 presidency in cooperation with the defence forces, the
20 TO, the HVO and the police -- he was meant to
21 coordinate the work between the war presidency and
22 these segments of the defence of Konjic.
23 Q. That is not quite my question, professor. My
24 question was directed to the different kinds of
25 coordinators -- not specifically Zejnil Delalic.
1 A. Yes. I also found another fact about
2 coordination within the system of communications
3 between the communications centre and the PTT service
4 -- there, too, a coordinator was appointed, and the
5 HVO, in some cases, also appointed its own
7 Q. Was that fact contained in a document, or was
8 it again something someone told you?
9 A. There is a document about what I have said
10 regarding the communication centre and the post office
11 -- the PTT service, actually.
12 Q. This deals with the appointment of different
13 kinds of coordinators, does it?
14 A. Yes, and all of them -- these appointed by
15 the presidency, such a coordinator had mostly logistic
16 tasks, and to engage in various procurements and
17 supplies and to regulate various other matters,
18 including procurement of military materiel and, in this
19 connection, I came across quite a number of documents,
20 whereby the coordinator is instructed to purchase such
22 Q. Can you show us where they are in your
23 appendices -- just take us to them.
24 A. I have here the English version. Could I be
25 given the version --
1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Niemann, are you in
2 any case doubting whether such an appointment was
4 MR. NIEMANN: I am very curious to find out
5 the document basis of it, your Honour. I think it is
6 certainly relevant -- the professor has mentioned it
7 and it becomes significant, considering that the issue
8 of coordinator is something of some substance to this
9 case. I am just asking him if he can help me by
10 pointing to what he is relying on.
11 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You are actually not
12 disputing the accused was appointed coordinator of any
14 MR. NIEMANN: There is considerable dispute
15 about the roles and functions, your Honour. It may be
16 that we can gain no benefit from it, but it may be we
17 can glean some insight into this issue from looking at
18 other coordinators and what they did.
19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I thought you had
20 already given your own evidence to the nature of this
22 MR. NIEMANN: It is not that one we are
23 talking about -- it is the others. The professor has
24 mentioned them and surely I am permitted to ask him to
25 tell us what he relied on. That is all I am asking,
1 your Honour?
2 A. I do not have the contents in the
3 Serbo-Croatian Bosnian language.
4 Q. We can come back to this after the break.
5 A. I have only the contents page in English.
6 Q. We can come back to this, professor.
7 Professor, you mentioned that you had access
8 to a number of documents that were supplied to you by
9 the Defence -- do you remember saying that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you have your own copies of these
12 documents, or did you just review the Defence files?
13 A. I had copies of documents, which I analysed.
14 MR. NIEMANN: Were they your own copies, or
15 were they the Defence -- did they retain possession of
16 them and you just looked at them, or did you keep
17 copies yourself.
18 JUDGE JAN: The question is not clear. Are
19 you saying the documents were supplied by the Defence
20 or documents independently obtained by him?
21 MR. NIEMANN: If I sound confusing I will
22 correct that.
23 The point I want to know, professor, is did
24 the Defence give you access to their documents to look
25 at, and which you reviewed but did not keep a copy of,
1 or did they give you documents, copies of documents
2 which you kept yourself, or is it a mixture of both?
3 A. I could keep the copies for myself. I could
4 just simply keep them and analyse them and use them.
5 Q. I think you said that some of the documents
6 that you saw you did not put in your appendix of
7 documents -- that is right, is it not?
8 A. It is possible, it is possible. I did not
9 say -- I cannot recall which ones I did not include,
10 but of those that I did include, I think that they are
11 all relevant.
12 Q. In forming your opinion, which you came to
13 when you wrote your report, when you formed your
14 opinion, did you rely on any documents which you did
15 not put in the appendices?
16 A. I do not know whether I can answer that
17 question unequivocally, because an opinion is never
18 formed just simply on the exact number of documents
19 that are being presented into evidence. I think that a
20 much wider basis of documents is always used and then
21 you just fill in the gaps, so I did use other material
22 which I have not enclosed here, that was not submitted
23 here, and that it did contribute to forming a full
24 picture of what I presented. But none of that was
25 crucial or essential -- none of that would have changed
1 my views.
2 Q. So, I think what you are saying is we can
3 safely assume that any document which is important,
4 upon which you formed an opinion, is contained in this
5 appendix -- is that what you are saying?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You mentioned in your report that -- on the
8 last page of your report, that the International
9 Committee of the Red Cross prepared a report and it
10 made certain findings; do you remember saying that? It
11 is the very last line, professor, of the report on page
12 -- the very last page, the very last line, and you
14 "According to the findings of the ICRC report
15 and other organisations, some other measures were
16 undertaken for the improvement of the conditions in the
18 Do you see that -- the very last sentence?
19 A. Could you please -- are you referring to my
20 expert's report, or the document?
21 Q. The expert report, the very last sentence of
22 your expert report -- the very last page?
23 A. The family visits were allowed according to
24 the findings of the commission of the ICRC and other
25 measures were taken to improve the conditions in the
2 Q. Do you see that there? Professor, did you
3 have access to this report?
4 A. No. This, I found out separately.
5 Q. How can you comment on the findings of a
6 report that you never read?
7 A. That is the way that the reports are used --
8 that is the reports that appear in the media, and this
9 is how such reports were interpreted, and so that is
10 also a way to form an opinion, so my position is that
11 the finding of the commission was that certain
12 improvements were made and it was not qualified how
13 much of an improvement it was, but, through the visits
14 of the International Commission of the Red Cross and
15 other bodies -- radio and television, that is, visitors
16 from different media, I am saying that all this has
17 distributed to the position of the prisoners as an act
18 of democratic behaviour towards these people, so
19 I believe that this comment is something usual,
20 something that is not out of the ordinary, so that this
21 was not a prison any more from which the outside world,
22 the media and the international organisations were
23 kept, because we do have cases in 1992, different camps
24 about which different people did not know and certain
25 persons were executed there, whereas here people were
1 already receiving food from home. So, you cannot
2 compare these two. So, such a comment is, to me, quite
3 in place and even though it is not supported by any
4 document, but if the media could visit, if the
5 international organisations could visit, if they could
6 influence the conditions there, then I think this
7 comment is very much in place.
8 Unfortunately, I did not quote this document
9 and I did not enclose it, because I did not feel it
11 MR. NIEMANN: So you have got it then,
12 professor, the document that you relied on.
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: Excuse me, but the professor
14 already answered this question whether he did have this
15 report or not. He did say that he did not have it.
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: He said he did not have
17 it. He relied on various comments in the media and
18 reports of the commissions and other organisations,
19 which he did not himself read.
20 MR. NIEMANN: Then he says, the very last
21 words, and it is appearing on the screen now:
22 "Unfortunately, I did not quote this document
23 and I did not enclose it, because I did not feel it
25 That seems to be in somewhat contradiction to
1 what he said earlier. I am asking him where it is.
2 May I put the question to him?
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may. But I think
4 it will merely mean he is referring to so many
5 newspaper reports and visits by the other persons,
6 which he got to read about, and on which he formed his
7 opinion. I am not sure he really had any particular
8 document on which he relied.
9 MR. NIEMANN: Findings of the International
10 Committee of the Red Cross would be very important,
11 your Honour, and the witness does say that, according
12 to the findings of the ICRC and other organisations
13 some other measures were undertaken, et cetera. I am
14 asking him, did he rely on it, did he see it. He said
15 "no", and then he said, "I did not include it."
16 I respectfully submit that I should be entitled to
17 pursue this to find out what the position is.
18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Find out. Let us know
19 exactly what you did not enclose?
20 THE WITNESS: Simply because I did not find
22 MR. NIEMANN: We are back to the position
23 now where you are saying you never had it?
24 A. No, I did not.
25 Q. But you did have media reports?
1 A. Yes, I did have them.
2 Q. Presumably, you relied on them, because you
3 have made a finding in your report, have you not -- you
4 have expressed an opinion?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You would agree with me, would you not,
7 professor, that it is very important what the ICRC
8 found when they visited Celebici during the period 1992
9 -- that is a very important matter, is it not?
10 A. Yes, it is important.
11 MR. NIEMANN: So, am I now to assume that
12 there are some very important sources that you relied
13 on which are not included in your appendix?
14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Objection. He did not say
15 that. He said he did not see the report.
16 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, if I may deal
17 with the --
18 THE WITNESS: I would not agree that
19 I failed to include many important and relevant
20 documents. What I said is that I used the sources that
21 were -- to which I had access during my research.
22 I did not have an opportunity to see it, but I was
23 following the efforts which were made in Konjic by the
24 organised authorities, which took care that the
25 prisoners in Celebici were treated fairly, and what
1 I found is that the presidency found -- that the
2 presidency attempted to find blankets for Celebici, and
3 that the conditions would be created for the prisoners
4 getting medical care in Celebici.
5 MR. NIEMANN: Professor, I know, you have
6 said all that. All I am asking you about is something
7 that the ICRC said, which is an independent,
8 international organisation that visited the camp and
9 you have referred to it. The only thing that interests
10 me is the material on which you relied in order to make
11 the comments and express the opinion that you did. If
12 you can find that material --
13 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honours --
14 MR. NIEMANN: I notice that Mr. O'Sullivan is
15 objecting. I am somewhat confused as to who in fact
16 this witness is -- whether it is Mr.s Residovic's or
17 Mr. O'Sullivan's.
18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I am not sure he is
19 objecting to asking questions. If a question is asked,
20 the witness, if he is unable to answer it, the court
21 will know what to do. I think the witness will be able
22 to answer such a simple question.
23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: We have been through this
24 already once and we have the answers.
25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What I remember the
1 witness saying is he has not read the document himself,
2 but he got reports from media and other sources, but
3 that is not the question being asked.
4 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours please.
5 Professor, can you make available these media
6 reports that you relied upon so that we can all see
8 A. I do not have it here with me.
9 Q. That does not matter. If you can make it
10 available to us after you go back to Sarajevo, that
11 would be fine. Can you do that?
12 A. I will try.
13 Q. Thank you. Professor, in your report, you
14 make the point that, when the war started, the existing
15 laws could not always be followed and you instance a
16 particular example of persons being detained for longer
17 than three days before they were brought to the court.
18 Do you remember saying that?
19 A. (Pause).
20 Q. I am just asking you if you remember saying
21 it in your report. Maybe you do not remember saying
22 it. If you do not, let me know and I will take you to
23 where you said it.
24 A. I do not recall, but if you could point me,
1 Q. By all means, professor. There is the
2 chapter or section on Celebici prison, which is number
3 9, and I think it is the 8th paragraph -- that is my
4 English version, but assuming the paragraph order is
5 the same, and the paragraph starts:
6 "According to the regulations being in effect
7 at the time -- "
8 A. Yes -- "at the time of these events the
9 persons were detained and kept in detention for only
10 three days" -- yes, that is correct.
11 Q. You also make the point -- I am not dealing
12 specifically with this -- I am using these as instances
13 -- you also make the point than when laws were enacted
14 or changed, it often took a significant time for the
15 new laws to be distributed and sometimes even longer
16 for those laws to be implemented. Do you remember
17 expressing that opinion in your report?
18 A. Yes, that is an opinion based on the reports
19 issued by the official gazette of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
20 and that is true. However, there are certain
21 oscillations in that regard. Firstly, you have what we
22 spoke of yesterday. There was a document about the
23 appointment of the staff, that is, there were
24 instructions already, so that on 17 April they
25 established the Territorial Defence and they proposed
1 -- what I am doing here is I am illustrating the
2 events or developments that occurred because of
3 unavailable copies of the official gazette.
4 Q. Yes, I think we understand that. I mean,
5 please feel free to give us whatever explanation you
6 feel appropriate, but, really, I am only asking for
7 "Yes" or "No" answers. If you feel it is useful to go
8 into a greater explanation, you can. I am asking you
9 some general questions which are whether or not you
10 said so in your report -- that is all.
11 A. I would like to explain this issue, because
12 it is a significant one. What it is about is that, in
13 Konjic, there was only a police prison -- not an
14 investigative prison, which was in Mostar, so that all
15 the detained persons who were to be investigated were
16 allowed to be kept there for a period of time.
17 However, the district court, in which jurisdiction the
18 investigations were, was not operative, so it was not
19 safe to transport 200 people there. The same in Zenica
20 and Sarajevo.
21 Q. May I interrupt you? We have all read your
22 report and a very fine report it was, too. Everything
23 you are saying now is something we have seen in it.
24 I am not asking you to recite the report for me again.
25 I just want you to acknowledge whether these are things
1 that you are saying in the report. So, really, you do
2 not have to go into all this detail. We appreciate
3 that you have said it.
4 A. Yes, but these are all things in my report,
6 Q. Very well, thank you. You also make the
7 point that communication with Sarajevo was difficult;
8 do you remember making that point?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So, professor, if you put all these sort of
11 instances together -- the fact that people were
12 detained longer than was permissible by law, and you
13 have given us an explanation for that; the fact that
14 laws that were enacted could not be implemented; that
15 communication was difficult with Sarajevo at the time,
16 and one can fully understand that in view of the siege,
17 you would agree with me that these difficulties made
18 Konjic a much more autonomous municipality than
19 normally would be the case, would you not?
20 A. I do not believe that it had a major
21 influence, because I said that there were certain
22 channels that were used by the military, and that a
23 certain amount of communication did exist. The problem
24 at that time was that it was not always possible to
25 react in a timely way. Also, because the official
1 gazette was not always printed on time, there were
2 shortages of paper, the personnel, the staff was
3 reduced, so there was a whole range of problems.
4 However, in the investigation that I conducted and,
5 also, based -- on the basis of certain decisions of the
6 presidency here, it is clear that the Konjic
7 municipality did not sort of strike out on its own and
8 did things on their own.
9 Q. Please do not get me wrong --
10 A. I analysed about 110 laws that were passed in
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You are saying that
13 those factors did not isolate Konjic municipality --
14 they were still not isolated.
15 THE WITNESS: There were 110 laws, which were
16 adopted from the previous period, from the previous
17 legislation, and they were adopted as still in force.
18 I think that another 100 orders were also issued with
19 the force of law and they were about different areas of
20 life, including the humanitarian law provisions,
21 et cetera, so, in that respect, Konjic was not cut off
22 and isolated, including, for instance, provisions on
23 international law regarding war.
24 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honour pleases.
25 Professor, I really do ask you to concentrate
1 closely on my question and give me as concise an answer
2 as possible, just so that we can move on a little
4 You stated in your testimony yesterday that,
5 in Konjic, after the municipal assembly ceased to
6 function, a crisis staff was created; do you remember
7 saying that yesterday?
8 A. I am sorry, can you please repeat?
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, I think that
10 the witness never stated that -- at least I never heard
12 MR. NIEMANN: I heard it with clarity and it
13 could be in the transcript. I am sorry I interrupted.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: I may have been wrong but in
15 my language I never heard this -- I heard war
16 presidency, not crisis staff.
17 MR. NIEMANN: I will clarify it now.
18 Is it not true yesterday, when you were
19 testifying, you said that, in Konjic, after the
20 municipal assembly ceased to function, there was a
21 crisis staff and then there was a war presidency -- you
22 said that yesterday, did you not?
23 A. The crisis staff was set out in the
24 provisions of law, and I think you will have an
25 opportunity to ask the people who were part of this
1 crisis staff and I believe that the Trial Chamber will
2 have an opportunity to hear from these persons
3 directly. So, this crisis staff was provided by law
4 and I do not know about its connection to the war
5 presidency, because the war presidency was established
6 in a situation of the immediate threat of war. That is
7 the basis for establishing --
8 Q. We seem to have a lot of difficulty
9 communicating. It may be the translation process.
10 I think the question I asked you was whether you said
11 that yesterday. I did not ask you whether or not --
12 I did not ask you to go into an explanation. I just
13 wanted to know whether you said yesterday that a crisis
14 staff was created after the municipal assembly ceased
15 to exist -- that is all I asked. Did you say it or did
16 you not?
17 A. No, no, no, I did not say that in that
18 sense. I did not say it in the sense that -- the
19 crisis staff has nothing to do with a session of the
20 17th -- that was the 9th session -- this was the last
21 session of the municipal assembly in peacetime. The
22 crisis staff was not formed before then and it did not
23 exist before the 17th. The crisis staffs were
24 established in the conditions when there was an
25 extraordinary situation, so the crisis staff had no
1 role here as regards the presidency or the municipal
2 assembly which operates in the wartime conditions when
3 the assembly is unable to meet.
4 Q. We will get the transcript during the break
5 professor. In that way, it will be clear for everyone.
6 Professor, you did tell us just a moment ago
7 that the creation of a crisis staff was based in law.
8 Can you tell us what that law is?
9 A. I do not recall that right now. I would have
10 to look into the Statute of the Konjic municipality.
11 MR. NIEMANN: I think we are about to have an
12 adjournment, so perhaps that could be another matter
13 that you might --
14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think it is
15 convenient for us to stop here and reassemble at
16 12 noon.
18 (A short break)
19 (12 noon)
20 (The witness entered court)
21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may continue, and
22 kindly remind the witness he is still on his oath.
23 THE REGISTRAR: I remind you, Sir, that you
24 are still under oath?
25 A. Yes, I take note of that.
1 MR. NIEMANN: Professor, before the break, you
2 said that you would look for me for some documents.
3 Did you manage to find the document that you called
5 A. The document D22, the one that you quoted in
6 English, I did look at it and it has been translated,
7 but it has not been included in this folder. Instead,
8 there is a document relevant to the formation of a
9 commission for the investigation of war crimes, instead
10 of the document that you quoted it has not been
11 included here, or it has been translated by mistake or
12 for some other reasons, I do not know.
13 Secondly, as far as the crisis staff is
14 concerned, that was the other question that I owe an
15 explanation for, I did mention the crisis staff -- it
16 was envisaged in the regulations before the war and
17 those regulations ceased to be in effect when an
18 immediate threat of war was proclaimed on 17 April,
19 when the presidency of the assembly was formed to
20 operate under wartime conditions, or, in other words,
21 the war presidency. Until then, the crisis staff had
22 been envisaged, but, with the new regulations, the
23 crisis staff was not envisaged, but, rather, the war
24 presidency, and that is how I came to mention it as
25 being part of previous regulations.
1 Q. I will come back to --
2 A. The question I owe you an answer to regarding
3 the Red Cross report, I said that I had not seen it,
4 but I remembered watching a TV report from the Celebici
5 prison when doctors were interviewed after the visit of
6 a Red Cross commission and, as I promised I would send
7 it to you, if you need it and if you want it, I can
8 send it to you from Sarajevo to your address, a TV
9 feature in which you see people saying that things are
10 improving in the Celebici prison and this is said by
11 the doctors working there.
12 Q. Just going back to that document D22 that you
13 have explained now, the position, is that a document
14 that you relied on, or was it something that you have
15 seen but was of no merit in terms of your report?
16 A. (Pause).
17 Q. I think you said it is not in your
18 appendices, professor?
19 A. D22 is marked here with a number.
20 Q. Professor, just listen to my question, and
21 I think it might save a lot of time if you really just
22 listened to what I am saying. I am not challenging
23 what you are saying. All I am asking you is for
24 information. All I am asking you is that the document
25 mentioned in the index to appendix D, which is referred
1 to as D22, which you explained, quite reasonably, that
2 was not included, by mistake -- it was an error -- all
3 I am asking you is whether it is a document that you
4 relied on?
5 A. No.
6 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you, that is all I wanted
7 to know. Going to the question of the crisis -- your
8 Honours, I am referring to page 10,209 of the
9 transcript, lines 16 -- just dealing with the crisis
10 staff for a moment before we move on, it is true that
11 yesterday you said that, prior to the establishment of
12 the war presidency, a crisis staff existed for a short
13 while -- you did say that, did you not?
14 A. Yes. Maybe that is what I said, but, in the
15 regulations that were in force until then envisaged a
16 crisis staff, but, after the 17th of April those
17 regulations ceased to be valid and a new regulation
18 came into force on 17 April 1992. Therefore, if it
19 existed, it could have existed for a short time and in
20 emergency conditions.
21 MR. NIEMANN: Precisely. If it existed, it
22 would have existed in contravention of the regulations.
23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: This is a question
24 following up the answers given yesterday?
25 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, your Honour, and today.
1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: And today, a
2 continuation of the questions. If there was a new
3 regulation --
4 THE WITNESS: I am -- what was happening was
5 a change of regulations -- new regulations came into
6 force and they became effective immediately. Those
7 regulations did not provide for a crisis staff but for
8 a war presidency, which took the place of the
9 presidency of the municipal assembly, and it is no
10 longer called a crisis staff nor is such a body formed.
11 MR. NIEMANN: The question that I am asking
12 you is that, whilst that may indeed be the law -- I am
13 not challenging that for one minute -- what I am asking
14 you is would you agree with me that, if a crisis staff
15 continued to exist in Konjic after 17 April, for a
16 short time, that that crisis staff would be contrary to
17 the regulations which required the establishment of a
18 war presidency -- that is all I am asking?
19 A. I did not say that. I did not say that,
20 after 17 April -- I said that, according to the
21 regulations, it could have existed until 17 April, but
22 not after that.
23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What the question is:
24 if it actually did, is it not contrary to the former
25 regulations -- that is all -- not that you said so,
1 but, if it did.
2 THE WITNESS: If it exists after, but it does
3 not exist after the 17th when the new regulations came
4 into effect. It could have existed until the 17th, but
5 not after the 17th, when the new regulations came into
7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think that is your
9 THE WITNESS: On a state of war.
10 MR. NIEMANN: So what you are saying is that
11 you are absolutely certain, beyond any question of
12 doubt, that, come 17 April 1992, in Konjic there
13 definitely did not exist a crisis staff?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you. You indicated yesterday that the
16 practice of having the municipal assembly stopped at
17 the same time -- sorry, the practice of sitting, the
18 municipal assembly sitting, stopped at the same time as
19 the Territorial Defence was transformed into the
20 Bosnian army; do you remember saying that, or words to
21 that effect?
22 A. I do not remember saying that in that way.
23 Q. Perhaps I have not fairly quoted it to you in
24 the way that you did say it. Did you say something
25 like that, and if so, tell us what you did say?
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, I have an
3 objection. The question should be clear. The question
4 is rather unusual for a cross-examination. The witness
5 does not know what to answer.
6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You frame it
7 unambiguously -- let us hear what the question is.
8 MR. NIEMANN: I will try again.
9 The practice of the municipal assembly,
10 sitting as a municipal assembly, did that stop or cease
11 at the same time that the Territorial Defence was
12 transformed into what became the army of
14 A. The conditions for the cessation of sittings
15 by the municipal assembly are conditions of war, which
16 make it impossible for deputies in the municipality to
17 meet and sit in the assembly. In that case, those
18 sittings are not practised, because it is not possible
19 for them to gather, except by exposing them to great
20 risk, or under no circumstances at all, but it is not
21 said anywhere that they cannot meet. If conditions
22 exist they may, but the town was surrounded, and only
23 some people could come -- some people had already left,
24 others had gone somewhere, so the conditions were not
25 normal for the municipal assembly to function, and that
1 is why the law envisaged the formation of a presidency
2 of the assembly, the task of which is to substitute the
3 assembly and, when the municipal assembly meets again,
4 it has to approve all the decisions taken in the
5 meantime. Therefore, the presidency meets when the
6 assembly cannot meet, and, in Konjic, after 17 April,
7 it really could not meet.
8 Q. Thank you, professor. I did not really ask
9 you all that, but, never mind.
10 Professor, are you saying that the assembly
11 in Konjic did not meet after 17 April 1992; are you
12 saying that?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. NIEMANN: Professor, are you aware that,
15 under the old laws governing the Socialist Federal
16 Republic of Yugoslavia relating to those -- those laws
17 relating to what happened concerning the governing -- I
18 withdraw that, your Honour.
19 Professor, are you aware that, under the old
20 laws of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
21 relating to the functioning of the war presidency, that
22 the war presidency was a military and civilian body
23 that took over the functioning of the municipality in
24 times of war. My question is: were you aware of that?
25 A. I am aware that the war presidency, this one
1 we are talking about, was not a military body but a
2 civilian organ of authority.
3 Q. Professor, may I interrupt you and tell you
4 that is not my question?
5 A. You are referring to old regulations which do
6 not envisage a presidency in the form in which it
7 appeared on 17 April. I told you that, according to
8 the old regulations, a crisis staff was envisaged,
9 which took over in municipalities in emergency
10 situations and the presidency is a new body which
11 started to be applied as of the 17th, that is, after
12 the 9th session which was the last under wartime
13 conditions -- as from then, there is a war presidency.
14 I am not aware, nor did I study these things
15 particularly in the past, so that I do not know.
16 Q. It may be that you do not know. You talked
17 about the crisis staff. Would I be correct if I said
18 that the crisis staff was responsible for military and
19 civilian matters in the municipality in times of war?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Now, are you aware that the territorial and
22 the police or the MUP chiefs or commanders were part of
23 the war presidency in Konjic during 1992?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And are you aware that persons could be
1 invited to become members of the war presidency during
2 1992 in Konjic?
3 A. I am afraid I do not understand the question
4 -- which persons? Excuse me, could you please repeat
5 the question?
6 Q. I will rephrase the question, which may
7 assist you. Are you aware that the war presidency had
8 the authority and the capacity to appoint persons as
9 members of the war presidency, if it so chose?
10 A. No, there is a regulation about that as to
11 who are the members of a war presidency, but the
12 presidency could, if necessary, invite people to attend
13 meetings, but they were not in the capacity of members
14 of the war presidency.
15 Q. So just to clarify the point, what you are
16 saying is that it lacked the authority or power to
17 appoint persons other than those prescribed as members
18 of the war presidency?
19 A. Membership in the war presidency is
20 stipulated by law and all the people who do not meet
21 those requirements are not members, but they may attend
22 meetings of the presidency, should the presidency need
23 them to clear up something, or to come to an agreement
24 over something, but these are two different things. In
25 that case, such people were invited.
1 Q. You are aware -- I withdraw that.
2 Did the law, in relation to the war
3 presidency, change on 20 May 1992 so far as you are
4 aware -- was there a change to the law?
5 A. There was a change in the law, insofar as the
6 aim was to clearly specify the composition of the war
7 presidency, and it was stipulated that the president of
8 the assembly, representatives of deputy clubs of the
9 various political parties that were legally elected,
10 representatives at the elections, and also to be
11 included in the war presidency was the commander of the
12 Civil Defence, the chief of the public security
13 service, and the chief of defence of the Ministry of
15 Q. In respect of the law that applied before 20
16 May 1992, in relation to the war presidency, did that
17 law provide that the war presidency had
18 responsibilities in both military and civilian matters,
19 or not?
20 A. The war presidency has the competence as a
21 civilian organ of authority to decide on civilian
22 matters and questions of defence or, rather,
23 preparations for defence of the country, but it does
24 not have the competence to issue orders and control and
25 command military units.
1 Q. The law of 20 May 1992, are you aware that,
2 in some municipalities -- indeed, in many -- this law
3 was not implemented for a considerable period of time
4 in 1992?
5 A. In view of the fact that you will be having a
6 military expert here, and an expert report, it is my
7 view that it is up to the competence of that expert to
8 explain and talk about these things.
9 Q. I am not asking you so much a military
10 question, professor; I am asking you about the
11 implementation of the law of 20 May 1992 relating to
12 the war presidency, which you have spoken of at length
13 -- a simple question -- was there a delay in its
14 implementation in a number of municipalities? It is
15 not a question which is exclusively in the domain of an
16 expert on military matters, I would have thought.
17 A. The presidency continues to do its work.
18 This law did not affect the duties and obligations of
19 the war presidency. It is a law on the armed forces of
21 Q. Let me put the question more directly. Are
22 you aware that the law of 20 May 1992 was not in fact
23 implemented in Konjic until October of 1992?
24 A. I am not aware of that.
25 Q. Well, professor, would you take your binder
1 of documents and go to D19? Have you found that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. The first part of that document is a letter,
4 which has an attachment -- it is the attachment that
5 interests me. Can you find the attachment there?
6 A. Yes, it is the first page of the text after
7 the numbers.
8 Q. And, in my English version, it is 354, but
9 I do not know what it is in yours. In that document,
10 349 --
11 A. It is 348 -- 348.
12 Q. What does the decision there represent?
13 A. 349.
14 Q. What does that decision represent to you
16 A. "The presidency of the municipal assembly of
17 Konjic," then it enumerates the members of the
19 Q. Is that not the implementation of the law of
20 20 May 1992?
21 A. I cannot see -- it is not very legible what
22 they are referring to here. Could we please look in
23 the translation?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. I cannot see the preamble here. I cannot
1 read it, because it is a bad copy.
2 Q. Professor, I am not sure how this managed to
3 be translated in view of that, but I will read to you
4 what I have in my English version of the preamble and
5 any part else that you have difficulty reading. It
7 "Pursuant to article -- "
8 Then there is some doubt as to the number,
9 but it would appear to have a 40 in it:
10 " -- of the decree with the force of law of
11 the presidency of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina on
12 defence, official gazette of the Republic of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina number 4/92, the presidency of the
14 municipality of Konjic, functioning as and with the
15 powers of the assembly, at its session on 26 October
16 1992 hereby renders a decision."
17 Can you read from there on?
18 A. Yes, yes, yes. I can read on, if necessary.
19 Q. I do not want you to read it out; I just want
20 you to look at the document and tell me whether or not
21 this document represents a record of the implementation
22 of the law of 20 May 1992.
23 A. Yes. That does not mean that the war
24 presidency did not work. I said, and I still assert
25 that the war presidency sat as of 17 April.
1 MR. NIEMANN: All I am asking you is whether
2 the law of 20 May was implemented and whether this
3 document was the implementation of the 20 May law?
4 A. Yes.
5 JUDGE JAN: But the documents --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
7 JUDGE JAN: -- show that the war presidency
8 had come into existence much earlier -- even the order
9 appointing Mr. Delalic as coordinator, if you look at
10 the heading, it says "War Presidency".
11 MR. NIEMANN: That is true. I am not
12 suggesting --
13 JUDGE JAN: He said the presidency probably
14 existed, although there is an order of October 1992 --
15 MR. NIEMANN: The point I am trying to make
16 is that the actual implementation at law did not take
17 place until October 1992 -- that is the only point I am
18 trying to make.
19 JUDGE JAN: The war presidency existed even
20 before that.
21 MR. NIEMANN: It may well have existed and
22 we do not argue that.
23 JUDGE JAN: His own document shows that.
24 MR. NIEMANN: That is the only point I try
25 to make.
1 You are aware during May and June that the
2 head of the Territorial Defence in Konjic changed some
3 five or six times -- are you aware of that?
4 A. You mean is this in my report? Where did
5 I mention it?
6 Q. I am just asking you whether you are aware of
7 that. You may not be aware of it -- which is fine,
8 just tell us, but I am asking you, were you aware that,
9 during May and June, the head of the Territorial
10 Defence in Konjic changed some five or six times? You
11 may not be aware of it -- no problem if you are not?
12 A. I would not like to answer that question,
13 because it is part of the expertise of the military
14 expert. He followed these changes and he knows about
16 Q. Fine. I will ask you another question. Do
17 you know who appointed -- sorry, I withdraw that. Did
18 you know that it was the war presidency who appointed
19 the heads of the TO, or the command of the TO during
20 this period?
21 A. No, no. The war presidency proposed, on 17
22 April, a commander of the Territorial Defence and the
23 appointment was approved by the supreme command
24 according to the law that you mentioned. Later it
25 changed so that the presidency would no longer propose
1 it, but the commander of the Territorial Defence would
2 be appointed by the supreme command -- not the war
4 Q. So you do know that there were changes, but
5 you did not know how many -- is that what I am to
6 assume from your answers?
7 A. Yes, what I know is what was in regulations.
8 I do not know whether people were sick or wounded or
9 otherwise indisposed and were replaced. That, I did
10 not follow. That would be part of the expertise of the
11 military expert.
12 Q. Let us ask you something that you have just
13 mentioned, so presumably it is in your military
14 expertise. You said that these changes were approved
15 in Sarajevo by the --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. -- head of the military in Sarajevo. Did you
18 ever sight any document that showed the approval of
19 these recommendations or appointments from Sarajevo or
21 A. Again, you are asking these things of me
22 now. I did not deal with this issue, and I did not
23 follow these changes in the Territorial Defence,
24 because this is part of the military expertise.
25 Q. Okay. So, so far as you are concerned then,
1 your position on this is (a), you do not know whether
2 anyone was appointed and (b), if they were appointed by
3 the war presidency, you do not know whether or not that
4 was approved in Sarajevo -- all you know is that that
5 is something that should have happened, according to
6 your understanding of the regulations?
7 A. No, that is not my opinion. The war
8 presidency could not appoint the commander of the
9 Territorial Defence, that is number 1. Number 2, if
10 they changed frequently, then the question is what was
11 the form of the order which was given to Konjic. In
12 principle, the war presidency cannot appoint the
13 commander of the Territorial Defence. This person is
14 appointed by the supreme command, because the
15 presidency is a civilian body and they cannot appoint
16 military commanders.
17 Q. I am not quarrelling with you for one moment
18 on that. I am really trying to find out whether you
19 yourself know, by looking at material or documents,
20 whether you sighted any evidence that Sarajevo -- when
21 I say "Sarajevo", I mean the headquarters of military
22 command, or whoever the body was responsible --
23 actually approved the proposal by the war presidency to
24 appoint Territorial Defence commanders -- that is all I
25 am asking?
1 A. For the third time I am telling you that
2 I did not research these documents and it was not a
3 matter of my expertise.
4 Q. Tell us, professor, how is it then that
5 yesterday you were able to say that, when the municipal
6 authorities ceased to appoint the commanders of the
7 Territorial Defence in Konjic, you stated that, when
8 you were asked that question, you said, "They stopped
9 appointing the command of the Territorial Defence when
10 the old Territorial Defence ceased to exist and the new
11 Territorial Defence was established." How did you come
12 to that opinion?
13 A. Because, when the commander of the
14 Territorial Defence was appointed on 17 April, he was
15 proposed by the presidency -- that means not appointed,
16 just proposed -- and the assembly voted on it and the
17 approval came from Sarajevo, from the command of the
18 staff of Territorial Defence, that is, the republican
20 Q. And is that included in your documents, is
22 A. This was also pointed out in the records of
23 the sitting of 17 April, that this was a selection that
24 has to be approved by the command in Sarajevo.
25 Q. Can you take us to that, please, and show us
1 where it is that you say that exists in your attached
2 materials and just draw our attention to it?
3 A. (Pause). The record of the session of the
5 Q. That is D what?
6 A. (Pause).
7 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps to help you, could
8 I take you to the paragraph immediately ahead of item
9 1, which, if your Honours please, is at page -- it is
10 the back of page 307 -- it is the centre of the page
11 and it is page 4 of the report. If you go there, you
12 can see a reference to the Territorial Defence -- do
13 you see that immediately above item 1?
14 A. Could you just please give me a reference to
15 the page of my report?
16 Q. No, I think our best position is to take you
17 to the document. You mentioned the document. The only
18 one I could find when I studied your material that was
19 relevant was the document numbered D8, and it is the
20 minutes of the meeting of the assembly on 17 April
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The only reference I could find to the
24 Territorial Defence was immediately above item 1, which
25 is on page 4 of the English version of it, but item 1?
1 A. It is on page 2 in my version.
2 Q. Professor, unless there is some difficulty
3 with the translation, I had -- I will just ask the
4 question -- I had some difficulty finding there a
5 reference to that appointment being approved by
6 Sarajevo, as you said just a moment ago?
7 A. This election was not valid until it was
8 approved by Sarajevo. In fact, these elections were
9 confirmed by the higher command in Sarajevo.
10 Q. All I am asking, professor, is please show us
11 that document where that was confirmed in Sarajevo --
12 that is the only thing I am asking. Please take us to
13 that document?
14 A. I did not see this document. The document
15 which arrived from Sarajevo, I do not know in which way
16 it was sent from Sarajevo. It was a wartime
17 situation. If it existed, it will be --
18 Q. You do not even know that it exists, do you?
19 A. I think I said clearly that I did not see it.
20 Q. And, in your opinion, if it did not exist,
21 and it never existed, then this appointment, according
22 to your view, is illegal?
23 A. It would not be according to the
24 regulations. Appointments had to be approved by
25 Sarajevo -- that is a fact.
1 Q. Now, seeing as we are looking at copies of
2 minutes of war presidency meetings, where did you
3 obtain these minutes from? I think I misspoke --
4 I said "war presidency meetings", I think it would be
5 more correct to ask where did you obtain the minutes of
6 the municipal assembly of 17 April 1992 -- where did
7 you obtain them from?
8 A. I believe I received it through the Defence
9 counsel's office.
10 Q. I think you also made reference and included
11 copies of minutes of the war presidency meetings; is
12 that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Where did you get those from?
15 A. These were the minutes of 3 June.
16 Q. What D number is that?
17 A. This is on 18 May, the war presidency, and
18 there is another one from 3 June, from the session of
19 the presidency held on 3 June 1992.
20 Q. Did you attempt to locate any minutes of the
21 war presidency yourself, or did you just rely on that
22 which was given to you by the Defence?
23 A. There are two sources for these documents.
24 One is the Institute for Investigation of the War
25 Crimes and what I was given by the office of the
1 Defence counsel, so, whatever they had, I received and
2 whatever they did not have -- I simply --
3 Q. Are you -- sorry.
4 A. I simply did not have access to.
5 Q. Are you aware of the fact that the Konjic
6 municipality has no record of these minutes?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did you approach the Konjic municipality at
9 all for these records?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What did they tell you?
12 A. I did not receive the record -- I already had
13 it in Sarajevo, so I did not have a need to look for it
14 specifically, this particular one, and I did not
15 receive any other records.
16 Q. Is that because they told you they did not
17 have it, or is it because you just did not pursue it?
18 A. I do not know what the reason is, but I did
19 not receive the records, and so I did not look into
20 them, provided they exist.
21 Q. Apart from the minutes particularly, say, of
22 the war presidency that you have included in your
23 report, did you have access to any other minutes of the
24 war presidency of the Konjic municipality during 1992?
25 A. No, with the exception of what I have
1 included here.
2 Q. Am I correct in saying that your position is
3 this -- and it is something that is important, so
4 I really need to make sure that I have it right -- are
5 you saying that the war presidency was a civilian
6 institution with no authority over the Territorial
7 Defence or the headquarters of the Bosnian army -- is
8 that your position?
9 A. Yes. It cannot control and command the
10 Territorial Defence and the military, that is what
11 I say.
12 MR. NIEMANN: Professor, if a person, who you
13 would expect to be familiar with the events in Konjic
14 at that time, said that the war presidency was in
15 charge of both the civilian and defence matters --
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: Objection, your Honours, to
17 this form of questioning. It is whatever another
18 person may say here before this Trial Chamber, but it
19 is not appropriate to ask the witness that question in
20 this form.
21 MR. NIEMANN: It may well depend very much
22 on who it was who said it rather than anything else.
23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You are comparing what
24 he would say as against what somebody else had said --
25 you can ask him your questions in the way he could
1 answer it himself, whether or not he agrees with that
2 view. He is an expert.
3 MR. NIEMANN: As an expert, professor, would
4 you disagree with a person who would be expected to be
5 familiar with the actual events that occurred in the
6 Konjic municipality at that time and I am talking about
7 1992, if he said that the war presidency was in charge
8 of both the civilian and defence matters, at least as
9 far as the municipality went -- you would disagree with
10 that, would you?
11 A. I answered that question yesterday. I said
12 that the war presidency and the municipal assembly
13 engaged in military matters only insofar as it prepares
14 for the defence of the municipality and that means that
15 it provides the conditions for defence and that is
16 separate from the issues of control and command of the
17 units. There, the war presidency have no role, but, as
18 far as the preparations, it has a constitutional role,
19 in a sense to provide financial materiel and other
20 conditions and that is the duty of the assembly and the
21 war presidency, and so this is provided in the law, to
22 prepare for defence.
23 Q. If that same person, who one would expect to
24 have some knowledge of these matters, was then asked,
25 if the war presidency had any authority to direct the
1 actions of the territorial staff, including its
2 commander, and that that person answered "yes, but not
3 the exclusive authority", you would disagree with that,
4 too, would you?
5 A. No.
6 MR. NIEMANN: You would not agree with it --
7 what is your position -- do you agree that the war
8 presidency had the authority, at least in part, to
9 direct the actions of the territorial staff, including
10 Territorial Defence, including its commander -- do you
11 agree with that statement, or do you disagree with it?
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: Again, the question is not
13 clear, and the witness did answer parts of this
14 question on numerous occasions.
15 MR. NIEMANN: If I may persist.
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Be a little more
17 precise as to what is exactly true or not.
18 MR. NIEMANN: What I am saying to you is
19 this: we are speaking of a person who, one would
20 assume, would know something about what was happening
21 in relation to military matters, the war presidency,
22 and the Territorial Defence in Konjic in 1992. All
23 I am asking you is: if that person were to say that
24 the war presidency had the authority, in part, to
25 direct the actions of the territorial staff, including
1 its commander, would you agree with that as a
2 statement, or would you say that that statement is
4 A. I would not agree with that statement.
5 MR. NIEMANN: Professor, when the Defence gave
6 you all the documents -- the Defence for Mr. Delalic
7 gave you all the documents to review for the purposes
8 of your report, did they give you a copy of his
9 interview conducted between the Office of the
10 Prosecutor and him in the presence of his counsel on 22
11 March 1996.
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Who are you referring
13 to -- who is the "him"?
14 MR. NIEMANN: Mr. Delalic.
15 THE WITNESS: I can only state that, if this
16 happened, this was not in accordance with the
18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That is not the
19 question -- whether the interview which he had was part
20 of the briefing which was given to you by the Defence.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, I read that.
22 MR. NIEMANN: And did you disagree with what
23 Mr. Delalic said in his record of interview?
24 JUDGE JAN: In what respect?
25 MR. NIEMANN: In respect of the question
1 relating to the fact that the war presidency had
2 authority, in part, to direct the actions of the
3 territorial staff, including that of its commander.
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: The witness already said that
5 he did not agree with such a statement. I do not
6 understand why this question is now being repeated.
7 MR. NIEMANN: I am merely following His
8 Honour's request for clarification, so your objection
9 is not to me but to His Honour.
10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: He has clearly stated
11 he did not agree with that view.
12 MR. NIEMANN: If that is a convenient time?
13 JUDGE JAN: In fact both statements can be
14 true, because during war civil functions and military
15 functions get mixed, as one of the expert witnesses
16 said here, so maybe he is also right and he is also
18 MR. NIEMANN: Anything is possible.
19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We are dealing with
20 opinions here. The Trial Chamber will now rise and
21 resume at 2.30.
23 (Luncheon adjournment)
2 (The witness entered court)
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Niemann, you may
4 proceed with the witness.
5 MR. NIEMANN: Professor, immediately before
6 the adjournment for lunch, I made a mistake and I want
7 to correct it and give you an opportunity to respond if
8 necessary. I said it was in a record of interview of
9 Mr. Delalic of 22 March 1996. On reviewing the matter
10 over lunch I made a mistake -- it was in fact 22 August
11 1996, I apologise for that. Does that date make any
12 difference to the answer that you gave at the time?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Professor, you recall we were talking about
15 the powers of the war presidency and its powers to
16 appoint and matters of that nature, particularly
17 concerning military matters; do you remember we
18 discussed that? Yesterday, and I am referring to page
19 10,221 of the transcript, lines 15 to 22, Madam
20 Residovic asked you some questions about the war
21 presidency and she asked you whether the war presidency
22 could have appointed Zejnil Delalic to any military
23 position, and your answer to that:
24 "No, it could not have done so, because the
25 military authorities would make such appointments."
1 Do you remember saying that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you review any documentation, either
4 supplied to you by the Defence or other material which
5 was signed or appeared to be signed by the accused,
6 Mr. Delalic, at the relevant time in which he appears to
7 be performing any of his duties, and I refer to the
8 period of time when he was a coordinator?
9 A. I have read them.
10 Q. Were these documents that were given to you
11 by the Defence?
12 A. I cannot remember who gave them to me.
13 I only have the documents about Zejnil Delalic which
14 I received from the Defence.
15 Q. Did you include all of those in your binder
16 of materials, or did you leave some of them out?
17 A. I did not include all of them, because I read
18 quite a number regarding the interrogation and that
19 sort of thing.
20 Q. If any of them related to the performance of
21 military functions and duties, would you have included
22 those if you had seen them?
23 A. I would not, because that belongs to the
24 military expertise. The documents referring to Zejnil
25 Delalic in any military capacity are probably somewhere
2 MR. NIEMANN: I see. Your Honours, might
3 these documents or group of documents be marked for
4 identification and one copy shown to the witness,
5 please, your Honour. There is a copy for your Honours
6 and copies for the Defence. A copy of these has
7 previously been given to the Defence, your Honour.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecutor document number
10 210, 211, 212 and 213.
11 MR. NIEMANN: The first document that I --
12 just look through them for the moment and perhaps
13 copies can be given to their Honours, too.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, these documents
15 have not been tendered by the Prosecutor so far, so
16 I am wondering what are the grounds for the use of
17 these documents for an expert witness on historical
18 issues. Of course, we object to the use of such
19 documents with this type of witness.
20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, what is your --
21 MR. NIEMANN: May I continue?
22 Professor, have you seen these documents
24 A. No.
25 MR. NIEMANN: These are similar, are they not,
1 to the other type of documents that you --
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: Objection, your Honours. The
3 witness has said that he never saw these documents
4 before. I do not know how it is possible to proceed
5 with new questions on the basis of these documents.
6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.
8 MR. NIEMANN: May I proceed?
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes.
10 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you.
11 Professor, do these documents appear to be
12 regular documents and the sort of documents that you
13 saw yesterday and said that they are the type of
14 documents that an historian would ordinarily rely upon
15 and similar to the sorts of documents that you yourself
16 in fact relied upon when you compiled your report --
17 that is right, is it?
18 A. These are documents of a military nature and
19 I did not make any assessment regarding relations in
20 the army, except for those having to do with the war
21 presidency, and its powers, and the defence forces of
22 Konjic. Therefore, on each of these documents, there
23 is a signature, and all the relevant indicators,
24 I would not be so bold as to make any conclusions about
25 them, because I never saw them before and I have not
1 analysed or studied them.
2 Q. Of course, and I am not asking you to do
3 that. What I am asking you to do is to tell me whether
4 they have the same kind of indicia of reliability on
5 them, namely, the stamps, the signatures, the dates,
6 the actual contents, that you relied on in all the
7 other documents that you reviewed?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And as an historian, you would satisfy
10 yourself of those matters, rely on these, too, for that
11 purpose, if you were asked to express an opinion on it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Professor, this is the sort of material that
14 historians would traditionally rely upon for this
15 purpose, would they not?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. NIEMANN: Dealing with the Celebici prison
18 itself, again yesterday in the transcript Madam
19 Residovic asked you about Celebici prison and I am
20 referring, your Honours, to page 10,229, lines 4 to 17.
21 Madam Residovic asked you:
22 "Did your research lead you to conclude
23 anything about the kind of prison that Celebici was"
24 and then she asked you, "was it a civilian or military
25 prison?" And in fairness to you, you said, "To tell
1 you the truth, I am not an expert on prisons" so
2 I think we need to start on that basis, but then you
3 did go on and you said:
4 "But I was not able to establish it --
5 I think there are several agencies that had competence
6 over that prison, so it was very difficult to
8 Then you said for a time it was a civilian
9 prison and then a military one and then you said it
10 came under the control of the police, the army and then
11 the higher court and so forth -- you made those
12 observations. Again, professor, did you study
13 documentation made available to you by the Defence in
14 relation to the Celebici prison in order to determine
15 what type of prison it was and who had control over it?
16 A. In the first place, I did not find a single
17 document on the establishment of the prison. I assume
18 that the first prisoners in Celebici were prisoners who
19 were in police custody and that they could have been
20 transferred to the Celebici prison after 20 April, when
21 that facility was taken over by the Yugoslavia army.
22 Q. Did you ever have --
23 A. Probably then, the police did that.
24 Q. Did the Defence make available to you any
25 documents from the State Commission for the Exchange of
1 War Prisoners -- were any documents from that body made
2 available to you so that you could consider it when you
3 wrote your report?
4 A. No, I did not study those documents.
5 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, I ask that this
6 document be marked for identification, a copy for all
7 parties, including their Honours and might one copy be
8 given to the witness.
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: He has not actually
10 identified it himself. He merely says they are like
11 other documents which he has dealt with -- not this
12 particular one. What is he identifying it for?
13 MR. NIEMANN: This is another document.
14 I am asking for it to be marked for identification.
15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Which document?
16 MR. NIEMANN: A new one.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecutor document number
19 MR. NIEMANN: Professor, could you quietly,
20 to yourself, read through that document?
21 A. (Pause).
22 MR. NIEMANN: Have you ever seen that
23 before, professor?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Do you think it may have assisted you with
1 that issue of determining what sort of prison the
2 Celebici prison was during a particular time of 1992?
3 A. It is hard to tell on the basis of one
5 Q. Of course, I understand that.
6 A. Ad hoc. One would need to really carry out a
7 proper analysis. It is not possible to state, offhand,
8 what I would have done if I had it. I would have
9 probably taken it into consideration, read it carefully
10 and analysed it, but this document would have to be
11 verified, it would have to be checked. I would not
12 accept it before checking it.
13 Q. I understand that, and of course it would be
14 unfair of me to ask you now to opine on the matter on
15 just one very short reading of it, but, professor,
16 putting that aside, do you notice that there is an
17 archive reference to the top of that document -- it is
18 hand-written, I believe?
19 A. "State Commission for the Exchange of
20 Prisoners of War".
21 Q. And then, immediately beneath that, there
22 appears to be a reference by a machine and then
23 immediately below that there is a hand-written
24 reference, is there not, and that is an archive
25 reference -- am I right?
1 A. It was entered subsequently. It states that
2 it is a document of the State Commission for Exchange
3 of Prisoners, and then in handwriting is added the
4 number of the register -- the register number and the
6 Q. It appears to be a telex message, does it
7 not, a typewritten telex message -- the sort one might
8 expect to be sent from one place to another by
9 electronic means?
10 A. Sorry, I am not getting the interpretation
11 into Bosnian.
12 Q. I am sorry?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. I was saying it appears to be the sort of
15 document that is sent by means of electronic telex from
16 one centre to another, does it not -- it appears to be
17 like that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. It appears to be a document that was directed
20 from Konjic to Sarajevo?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And it is the sort of document that you would
23 expect to see, would you not, as an historian,
24 researching into this area, having regard to the events
25 of the time, its contents, the date of it?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. There is nothing about it that looks terribly
3 suspicious, is there?
4 A. No, it does not. With verification of its
5 contents, this document would probably be acceptable as
7 Q. And, professor, if it had been given to you
8 by Mr.s Residovic, would you have accepted it like this,
9 or what would you have done in order to check its
11 A. Any document that may point to the truth,
12 I would verify, and I would accept it if I would be
13 able to confirm its reliability.
14 Q. Professor, I know that you are probably
15 getting tired and I am getting close to the end of my
16 cross-examination, you will probably be happy to know,
17 but there are a few more questions that I would like to
18 ask you, if I can. Do you remember, we had some
19 discussion about you looking at documents from
20 international agencies and, in particular, I asked you
21 some questions about the International Committee of the
22 Red Cross -- do you remember me asking you questions
23 about that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And I think, yesterday, you said in your
1 evidence-in-chief that you had seen the Bassiouni
2 report on the commission of experts in relation to
3 prisons and you found it to be a credible and reliable
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you happen to look at any other documents
7 which were generated by international agencies or
8 non-government organisations in relation to perhaps not
9 only Celebici prison but other prisons that were
10 available from the time?
11 A. I looked at the documents that are used --
12 that have been used in certain international
13 conferences on events in Bosnia and they mostly talk
14 about camps and ethnic cleansing.
15 Q. And did you include any or all of those with
16 your papers, the attachments to your report?
17 A. As far as I recall, no, I did not, except for
18 the material that relates directly to Konjic, and the
19 report of the Bassiouni commission was part of the
20 basis on which I formed my opinions in this report.
21 I think that it is fair.
22 MR. NIEMANN: I ask your Honours the following
23 document be marked for identification and a copy shown
24 to the witness.
25 This is a long document and I want you to
1 glance through it because it is only the last page
2 I want to ask you about, in particular. (Handed).
3 I include all of it for its completeness. Might it be
4 given the next number in order, please.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecutor document 215.
6 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps you might glance
7 through it, professor, but it is the last page I want
8 to go to. (Pause).
9 Professor, this document that you now have in
10 front of you, this purports to be a report, does it
11 not, from the Secretariat of the Conference on Security
12 and Cooperation in Europe and it is dated Prague,
13 10 September 1992?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. NIEMANN: In particular, on the very last
16 page, which in the English version, your Honours, is
17 page 5 and it is the back of page 4, there is a
18 reference there, is there not, to Konjic, Celebici; do
19 you see that?
20 A. Very well, let me turn to that page. Yes, on
21 page 4, Konjic and Celebici are mentioned.
22 Q. And, professor, have you seen this report
23 before -- was it made available to you by the Defence?
24 A. No. I have not seen this document before.
25 Q. And, professor, just looking at it -- and
1 I know it is hard of me to ask you to express too far
2 an opinion on it, but does it appear to be the sort of
3 document that you would rely upon as an historian if
4 you had to write about the events that occurred during
5 this time?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And it contains the sort of indicia of
8 reliability that professional historians like yourself
9 would accept as being an authentic document?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Professor, in relation to the documents that
12 were in fact given to you by the Defence, did you carry
13 out verification checks, on all of them, or just in
14 relation to some of them?
15 A. In cases where I could verify, I did so,
16 either on the spot, or by analysing the authenticity of
17 the document subsequently.
18 Q. And what did you do in those cases where you
19 could not verify them -- there was neither the means,
20 the time or whatever, what did you do in those
22 A. The things that I was unable to verify, I did
23 not include here. I think that all the documents that
24 are included here, with the exception of the last one,
25 which I mentioned, which did not have the proper
1 characteristics that I could rely on, I think that
2 I spoke about those yesterday.
3 Q. Included among the material that was provided
4 to you by the Defence, did you see any media material,
5 be it videos, newspapers, and the like in relation to
6 the accused, Mr. Delalic?
7 A. I saw a videotape about the opening of a
8 railroad line and I saw Zejnil Delalic there -- it was
9 a celebration of opening the railroad line, the train
10 went from Pazaric to Jablanica. That was a very big
11 event for Konjic during the war and also for all
12 communities between Pazaric and Jablanica. I saw some
13 other footage as well, but not those which included
14 Mr. Delalic, but I did review a lot of footage that
15 relates to Konjic.
16 Q. Did you see any videotapes of him dressed in
17 military uniforms and participating in television
18 interviews -- anything like that?
19 A. No, I think I saw him wearing a military
20 uniform, but I did not see others.
21 Q. Did you see him addressing troops -- a
22 video --
23 A. No. That was not part of my expertise.
24 Q. I think that you told us yesterday that, in
25 relation to those documents which are in the nature of
1 certificates that had been provided to Madam Residovic,
2 the Defence, from a number of institutions, but
3 including I think the Konjic municipality, that you
4 relied on those certificates in order to express your
5 opinion; do you remember saying that?
6 A. Yes, I relied on them.
7 Q. Were you told at any stage that on at least
8 two occasions these sorts of documents that have been
9 provided turned out to be false -- I am talking about
10 documents provided by the Konjic municipality -- did
11 anyone ever tell you that?
12 A. No.
13 MR. NIEMANN: I think your position --
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: Excuse me, your Honours, I am
15 not aware of the fact that we have identified any
16 falsified documents from the Konjic municipality during
17 the proceedings.
18 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, this is a matter
19 that we can advise Madam Residovic on, and I take it
20 from her what she is saying is she did not know and
21 I accept if she did not know she could not have told
22 him, but we have been informed on two occasions that
23 two certificates issued by the Konjic municipality were
24 false. If Madam Residovic says she did not know that,
25 I accept that and I accept that this witness could not
1 have been told that if she did not know it.
2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Have you been able to
3 inform the Defence about such an experience?
4 MR. NIEMANN: We were informed by the
5 Defence -- in fact, my colleague Ms. McHenry was
6 informed by the Defence. She knows the details of it.
7 I will ask her to address the court on it when I have
8 finished my cross-examination.
9 I think, professor, your position on all of
10 this is that the view you express on the prison, on the
11 role of the coordinator, on the functions and
12 responsibilities of the war presidency, and such
13 matters that you have written of in your report are all
14 based on the material that you saw, and that that view
15 holds, so long as you are not presented with any contra
16 material -- is that true?
17 A. Probably.
18 Q. I think you said that, I am just asking you
19 if you agree that you said that?
20 A. I said that, in my field of expertise, we
21 have a rule that you write a text based on the material
22 that you have available and that such a piece of
23 writing is good until new discoveries are found. The
24 process never ends and that is at least the case in my
1 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you very much, indeed,
2 professor. That concludes my cross-examination.
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any re-examination?
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, given the
5 length of the cross-examination, I would like to ask
6 for a brief recess so that I can organise my notes and
7 then ask questions in re-examination and then address
8 you on other matters and tender documents for
9 admission. I think, your Honours, that I am entitled
10 to this, because the Prosecutor offered completely new
11 documents during the cross-examination.
12 JUDGE JAN: Mr. Niemann, I want to find out
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, your Honour.
15 JUDGE JAN: At the end of this document you
16 just presented, the word written is "Belalic" -- is it
17 a typographical error or is just one you received from
18 the Bosnian Government.
19 MR. NIEMANN: I have no explanation as to
20 why it is "Belalic" rather than Delalic. I can only
21 assume that some typographical error was made.
22 JUDGE JAN: You cannot make an assumption in
23 a criminal trial.
24 MR. NIEMANN: I was not suggesting that.
25 That is as the document is.
1 JUDGE JAN: Because I thought while making
2 copies for us you might have made a typographical
4 MR. NIEMANN: No, we did not. This is the
5 document as it is.
6 JUDGE JAN: Is "Belalic" also a name common
7 in Bosnian?
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: Yes, such a name does exist,
9 and this document with the identical name was provided
10 to the Defence by the Prosecutor about two years ago,
11 and so the references to this name have nothing to do
12 with my client. It states nothing but "Mr. Belalic".
13 JUDGE JAN: Belalic is a name in Bosnia?
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: It is a possible name in
15 Bosnia -- it is not as common as Delalic, but it does
16 exist, because the name of Delalic exists in many areas
17 -- in Sandzak in eastern Bosnia, in Sarajevo and
18 elsewhere and Belalic is a name, but I do not know how
19 widespread it is.
20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr.s Residovic, in any
21 event we would be having a break at about 4 o'clock.
22 So, we will continue, but I do not know how long you
23 really think you would need merely to re-examine your
24 witness. How long do you think you need?
25 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, I believe that
1 I will not need a lengthy period of time, but given
2 that we just received 10 new documents, I would need
3 about an hour to review them in the light of the entire
4 testimony and then maybe in a very short period of time
5 I could be able to re-examine the witness -- maybe
6 I would need no more than 15 minutes.
7 MR. NIEMANN: I would just like for the
8 record to indicate that we disclosed these documents to
9 Madam Residovic the moment we got them, which was
10 recently, I admit, but she certainly has them, so it is
11 not as though she has never seen them before, and
12 certainly one of them she has had for a very long
13 time. If there is any suggestion that she never saw
14 them before, then either she does not read her mail or
15 she is not exactly stating the position as it is.
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, I did not say
17 that I never saw them -- I said that I had one of them
18 for two years, but I said that they were offered today
19 for the first time with respect to this witness and
20 this is why I would like to review them in the light of
21 the entire testimony, and I would need no more than one
22 hour, and then, within 15 minutes, I will be able to
23 re-examine the witness.
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think it should be
25 possible for you to start your re-examination at
1 4 o'clock. We will come back here at 4 o'clock.
3 (A short break).
5 MS. McHENRY: Good afternoon, your Honours.
6 If I might while Mr.s Residovic is getting settled,
7 Mr. Niemann has asked me to clarify a matter that was
8 raised previously, which is that on two separate
9 occasions the Prosecution has been given from the
10 Defence certificates from officials in the Konjic
11 municipality about what was in the records and the
12 certificates turned out to be false. We are not
13 suggesting for one second that Defence counsel knew
14 about it -- in fact, on one of those occasions it was
15 Defence counsel who first came to us and said he had
16 already discovered the information was incorrect and we
17 should not rely on them. I just wanted to clarify
18 that. Thank you.
19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.
20 (The witness entered court)
21 Re-examined by MS. RESIDOVIC
22 Q. May it please the court, thank you. Before
23 I start with my questions, I should like the witness to
24 be shown again Prosecutor's Exhibit 215. (Handed).
25 Professor, would you please look at that
1 document once again? Will you tell me, please,
2 professor, whether it says on your copy that it is a
3 translation of a document?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Professor, is there a seal, a signature on
6 this document?
7 A. No, there is not.
8 Q. Professor, do you see on this document a
9 source for this report of the Secretariat of the
10 Conference for European Cooperation and Security -- a
11 book, a text book, or any publisher that would indicate
12 the source of this document?
13 A. There is not.
14 Q. I should now like to ask you, professor, to
15 be kind enough to turn to the one but last page of this
16 document. In the translation it is page 60 and the
17 last paragraph -- let us make sure we are looking at
18 the same one -- it starts with "it is not clear" -- is
19 that what you are looking at?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Would you be kind enough to read that
22 sentence, professor?
23 A. "It is not clear which local authority is
24 competent for these two areas, the Croatian Defence
25 Council or the Muslim armed forces. However, the area
1 is being supervised by Muslim policemen."
2 Q. Thank you, professor. I would now like to
3 ask you to turn to page 42 of this translation. It is
4 the continuation of a list of detention centres. At
5 the top of that page, do you see the number 20?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Will you please tell me whether, on your
8 copy, after number 20, it is stated, "Konjic, Celebici,
9 oil warehouse"?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In the third line, which according to the
12 beginning of this list is an indication of the
13 authority in charge of that detention centre. Does it
14 say in the third line, from what we have just said,
15 that is, "Konjic, Celebici" -- does it say the
16 competent authority is Muslim?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Professor, if you as an historian take into
19 account these two facts indicated in the same report,
20 is there a serious contradiction between the statement
21 on page 60 and this statement on page 42?
22 A. There is.
23 Q. Professor, for you as an historian, does such
24 a contradiction in a document detract from the value of
25 the document in terms of reliability?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Professor, let us please re-examine page 60.
3 In the third paragraph from the bottom with the heading
4 underlined, saying "Konjic Celebici", the one but last
5 sentence, does it read as follows in your text:
6 "From neutral or independent sources we have
7 learnt that the holes in the wooden wall are indicative
8 of its bad intentions -- evil intentions."
9 Professor, if you were to hear the testimony
10 of more than 15 witnesses in this court, none of whom
11 spoke of a wooden wall and holes in that wall, would
12 that fact provoke in you as an historian further doubts
13 as to the validity of this report?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Professor, in answer to questions from my
16 learned colleague, the Prosecutor, Mr. Niemann, you
17 recalled that you saw a videotape feature with a
18 conversation with the doctors who were in Celebici.
19 Will you please read the last sentence of the third
20 paragraph from the bottom, beginning with the words "it
22 A. "It appears that a small clinic with medicines
23 was improvised merely for the sake of our visit."
24 Q. If what you saw in that TV programme
25 contained certain facts and if you were to hear the
1 testimony of those doctors in this courtroom, and other
2 witnesses who confirmed that this infirmary had existed
3 throughout the time of the existence of the Celebici
4 prison, would that fact be in contradiction with this
5 conclusion we just read in the mentioned report?
6 A. It would.
7 Q. Would that, professor, be an additional
8 contradiction which would further detract from the
9 reliability of this document for any expert in your
11 A. It would.
12 Q. Professor, in view of only a few answers that
13 you have now given, and bearing in mind that neither
14 you nor I have had time to fully analyse this report,
15 could you, professor, tell me, in view of these
16 contradictions, could such a document be a reliable
17 basis for drawing conclusions and for making an opinion
18 by an historian?
19 A. No.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you very much,
22 I should now like the professor to be shown
23 Prosecutor's Exhibit 214. (Handed).
24 Professor, a moment ago, when the Prosecutor
25 showed you this document, you voiced your opinion about
1 it. Allow me to ask you now whether this document
2 contains a list -- does it contain a signature -- a
3 signature of the person who compiled the document?
4 A. It does not.
5 Q. Is it customary in our country for any
6 official document or a document issued by anybody to
7 bear the stamp of that body?
8 A. It is customary.
9 Q. Does this document bear the stamp of the body
10 which allegedly compiled this document?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Does it contain that stamp?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Professor, I do not wish to repeat, but you
15 have already noticed that this document, in addition to
16 the typed text, has some hand-written notes on it. In
17 view of those facts, I would like to ask you,
18 professor, whether you could tell us whether such a
19 document would be a sufficiently reliable one for an
20 historian and for yourself as a basis for his opinion
21 about certain facts?
22 A. This document, after a thorough verification,
23 I would take into consideration, as I would any other
24 source which needs to be verified and compared -- when
25 we have no choice, then an historian can -- and I am
1 now talking as an historian -- then we take into
2 consideration even those sources which may be of
3 assistance in establishing the truth by comparing the
4 date it contains and establishing its reliability.
5 This document, as well as the previous one, are
6 seriously subject to criticism and doubts as to its
7 contents being reliable -- one would have to adopt a
8 critical approach, because it does not contain all the
9 elements of an authentic or reliable source.
10 Q. When my learned colleague, Mr. Moran, went
11 through the document in your folder, you reached a
12 document which is the statute of the cultural society
13 in Vienna, and you said, at the time, that that
14 document does not contain all the necessary elements
15 and that you did not take it into consideration as a
16 basis for your expert opinion. Professor, this
17 document, which is now before you, is it a document of
18 that kind of nature, that is, with such shortcomings
19 that you could not use it for making an expert opinion
20 regarding the facts it contains?
21 A. Yes.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you, your Honours.
23 I have no further questions.
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That is the end of the
25 examination of this witness.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: I am not getting the
2 interpretation, your Honours.
3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That is the end of the
4 examination and cross-examination and re-examination of
5 this witness.
6 MS. RESIDOVIC: Yes, your Honours, I would
7 just now like to repeat my offer regarding the
8 tendering of evidence, if I may. But I must say that
9 I am not hearing the Bosnian interpretation of what you
10 are saying, and I am trying to understand you from a
11 distance as much as I can. It is fine now, thank you.
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Your application is to
13 tender the evidence which you indicated at the
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: Yes, I will be more precise,
16 your Honour. I should first like to tender into
17 evidence the report marked as D135/1 -- the Prosecutor
18 had no objections regarding the report yesterday.
19 MR. NIEMANN: No objections, your Honours.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: I should also like to tender
21 into evidence the maps marked D137/1 and again the
22 Prosecutor had no objection yesterday.
23 MR. NIEMANN: No objections, your Honour.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: Documents D136/1 and annexes
25 1A to C and the Prosecutor yesterday also had no
1 objections regarding these documents and I would also
2 like to tender documents from the annex D with the
3 limited purpose as documents contained in this folder
4 but which were a valid basis for the compilation of the
5 report and for the testimony of this witness in court.
6 I should also like to tender for the same
7 purpose and in the same way, and within the framework
8 of our same requests, the three videotapes marked as
9 D138/1, D139/1 and D140/1, which this witness said he
10 used as a basis for his expert opinion. That is only
11 within those frameworks, and within that meaning.
12 Yesterday we already admitted into evidence a
13 certain number of excerpts from those tapes.
14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Within the limits of
15 the application, has the Prosecution any objections?
16 The Defence has spelt out the purposes for which the
17 exhibits are being tendered.
18 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, your Honour, firstly
19 dealing with the videos, so long as they are being
20 tendered in relation to the excerpts that we have
21 seen. We were given videos which were much longer than
23 JUDGE JAN: Only the excerpts shown in the
25 MR. NIEMANN: As long as it is only the
1 excerpts, we have no objection. Certainly we confirm
2 that the documents, through annex A to C, we have no
3 objection to being tendered. Our position with respect
4 to the documents in annex D is that, with respect to
5 documents -- all the documents except D31 through to
6 D39, our position on that is that we do not object to
7 them being tendered as documents that were relied upon
8 by the historian when he compiled his report. We have
9 no objection to that. Our position is we do not accept
10 that they are valid documents which an historian, duly
11 qualified, would traditionally rely upon.
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: The Defence has not
13 made any claim outside -- it is relying on him as his
14 expert opinion.
15 MR. NIEMANN: We do not quarrel with the
16 fact that he relied on them. We are saying if it is
17 sought to say an historian in the profession of an
18 historian would ordinarily rely upon such material, we
19 would argue with that.
20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Considering even the
21 contents themselves, there is no way he could have used
22 it for any other purpose other than for his opinion for
23 what he is saying.
24 MR. NIEMANN: He was asked to express two
25 opinions. One was would he rely on them and the other
1 was would historians ordinarily rely on them. It is
2 the second component we object to in relation to those
4 MR. MORAN: I am going to join in moving the
5 admission of some of these -- I think there is no
6 evidence before the Trial Chamber that they are
7 anything but documents which people in that profession
8 would rely upon. That is an entire exercise we went
9 through yesterday afternoon, and I do not think that
10 Mr. Niemann's objection to that is founded in the
12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I do not see him making
13 any objections to any claims other than what you have
14 said, except you extending it beyond any opinion on
15 which the historian has founded his reports. Then
16 perhaps that may be a problem.
17 MR. MORAN: I think his objection was that
18 they would be the type of documents that historians, in
19 general, would rely upon.
20 MR. NIEMANN: That is quite true. Let me
21 say that against Mr. Moran's client I have no objection
22 whatsoever to any of these documents being admitted in
23 his case, if that is his application.
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: He is not the one
25 tendering them.
1 MR. NIEMANN: If he seeks to tender them in
2 his case against his client I am merely indicated we
3 have no objection to that.
4 JUDGE JAN: I am not sure you can break up
5 evidence like that -- admit it in respect of one
6 accused and exclude it in respect of the other
7 accused. If the evidence comes, it comes as a whole
8 and can be used against or in favour of any accused.
9 MR. NIEMANN: I am pleased to hear that.
10 I thought there would be considerable debate about what
11 evidence could be used against whom, but I am delighted
12 to hear your Honour say that.
13 JUDGE JAN: In certain matters probably the
14 argument would be valid. For example, the statement of
15 an accused in which he implicates another accused, that
16 can only probably be used, his own statement, against
17 him. Then you would have to draw the distinction.
18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think your
19 application is granted.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, you said very
21 well we have tendered the evidence in connection with
22 the testimony of this witness. How future historians
23 may deal with the documents tendered, it is up to
24 them. I should also like to ask not only the excerpts
25 from the tapes to be admitted, because they were
1 admitted yesterday, but that the tapes that I showed
2 yesterday to the professor and he said that the
3 contents of those tapes, which he received from the
4 Institute for War Crimes and from television, that it
5 was also something that he used in making his
6 conclusions and his comparisons with the other
7 documentation he had. Therefore, for this same limited
8 purpose, I tender all three videotapes into evidence.
9 JUDGE JAN: To the extent the excerpts that
10 were shown in the court -- certain excerpts from the
11 videos which were shown in the court, you only want
12 those portions to be admitted?
13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Which are relevant to
14 his opinion for the purpose for which they are being
15 shown, I think that is all you want.
16 JUDGE JAN: This is what Mr. Niemann said.
17 One video is of two hours duration. You do not want
18 the whole of the two hours videotape to be admitted
19 into evidence but only the portion that was shown in
20 the court.
21 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, I understood
22 that you admitted those excerpts yesterday, but since
23 some of the tapes are in English, this witness said
24 that he had relied upon those videotapes as well, and
25 I think that we have admitted into evidence in a
1 similar way a large number of documents, not for the
2 truth of the contents or for the authenticity of those
3 videotapes, but for the purpose that he relied on them,
4 and I think that we admitted many tapes on the basis of
5 your ruling that we never saw -- we maybe only saw two
6 or three minutes of them. So I think the totality of
7 the material that this witness has offered to the court
8 and which served as a basis for his written report
9 should be admitted. Of course, that is for a limited
11 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.
12 I think that is the end of this witness's questioning.
13 MR. NIEMANN: May I respond to what Madam
14 Residovic said? These videotapes go on for hours. She
15 is seeking to tender the whole lot. Presumably
16 everybody else and your Honours will have to sit down
17 one day and listen to them all. I object to that.
18 I have no objection to matters which are being shown in
19 court and which the witness has commented upon at all.
20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It is already in
21 evidence and it is for the Trial Chamber to use it when
22 it wants to.
23 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, I move the
24 admission of Prosecution Exhibits 210 to 215 as
25 documents which the Prosecution showed to the witness
1 for the purposes of impeachment.
2 JUDGE JAN: That is the purpose of it?
3 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, your Honour.
4 JUDGE JAN: Not as substantive evidence?
5 MR. NIEMANN: No, your Honour -- at this
6 stage, I might say.
7 JUDGE JAN: You are not impeaching him --
8 you are just showing him certain documents.
9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You never impeached his
10 credit at any stage.
11 JUDGE JAN: You are not questioning his
12 credibility with respect to these documents.
13 MR. NIEMANN: It is in a negative sense
14 impeachment, in this sense: if there was a range of
15 material available on a particular point, and the
16 witness could have seen it, because the party that
17 called him could have made it available but did not,
18 then, in my submission, your Honour, it is not
19 impeachment in the sense that it is not the witness's
20 fault, but it goes to the issue of the material which
21 was made available to the witness in order for him to
22 express an opinion. It may well be that -- and it will
23 be our subsequent argument -- that if the witness had
24 seen this material, he could well have formed a
25 different opinion.
1 On that basis it is impeachment, in my
2 respectful submission, and should be admitted for that
3 limited purpose.
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Have you any reply to
6 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, first of all,
7 I object to the admission into evidence of these
8 documents tendered by the Prosecutor now, especially in
9 view of the re-examination that I did on the basis of
10 those documents -- the witness did not identify them,
11 many of them cannot be a reliable source for anyone and
12 especially not for a scholar and historian.
13 As for the second question, may I be allowed
14 to ask the witness just one question before I answer
15 Mr. Niemann -- may I do that?
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I do not think you can
17 do that.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: Very well. Your Honour,
19 I object of course to this second submission, because
20 we have also heard a distinguished professor of London
21 university, Professor James Gow, who had at his
22 disposal a part of the documentation given to him by
23 the Prosecutor's Office and we feel that it is in order
24 and ethical that the witness should base his views on
25 the documents given to him by the party that has called
1 him and it is up to him to choose among those documents
2 those that he considers to be relevant and that is why
3 I object to the proposal made by the Prosecution.
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We have reached a
5 conclusion. You are still making a submission then?
6 MS. RESIDOVIC: No.
7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You are opposing the
8 application for admitting the documents for the
9 purposes of impeachment, because, as you argued, if
10 I hear you correctly, that the documents themselves are
11 not those which ought to be considered for that
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, I have
14 completed my submission. I have nothing more to add.
15 May I go back to my seat?
16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, you may.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: And can we release the
18 witness and thank him for his testimony?
19 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, this was a
20 practice that has been adopted right throughout the
21 Prosecution case, that in cross-examination witnesses
22 were impeached on all range and manner of issues, and
23 at the end of it, there was never any objection raised
24 to the -- well, perhaps I should not say "never", but
25 the documents were put in for that limited purpose and,
1 in my respectful submission, the situation really is no
2 different here -- it is slightly different in the sense
3 of how it may have arisen from case to case, but it
4 does go to that question and I submit, consistent with
5 that approach, they should be admitted.
6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think we will admit
7 it for that limited purpose -- whether the impeachment
8 itself is effective or not is a different matter. If
9 there is sufficient background basis for admitting
10 those documents, I think we will admit it for that
12 Thank you very much, professor. It has been
13 very pleasant having you and we thank you very much for
14 your time, patience and erudition in explaining many
15 areas which would have ordinarily remained obscure.
16 (The witness withdrew)
17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Can we have the next
18 witness now?
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, before my
20 calling the next witness, I would just like to remind
21 you that this morning I responded to the issue raised
22 by Mr. Niemann regarding the change of the military
23 expert. However, if we had made a mistake for not
24 asking of you specifically the name change, we did
25 notify both the OTP, which had no problems with it, and
1 the Registry and they had no objections. I am now
2 turning to you and asking whether we ought to have
3 asked for a separate permission to call this witness.
4 If we did, our apologies, because we were not aware of
6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much --
7 definitely, under the Rules themselves, you should have
8 had leave to do that. I think we will tend to ignore
9 it the purposes for which we are having this hearing.
10 We can accommodate you and you can carry on.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you, your Honours.
12 I would like now to call the expert witness for the
13 military affairs.
14 (The witness entered court)
15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Kindly swear the
17 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
18 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may take your seat.
21 Muhamed VEJZAGIC
22 Examined by MS. RESIDOVIC
23 Q. Will you please state your name to the court
24 -- please indicate your full name?
25 A. My name is Muhamed Vejzagic.
1 Q. Mr. Vejzagic, before I ask questions to you,
2 with respect to your expert opinions, I would just like
3 to point to a technical matter. In order for the Trial
4 Chamber to be able to follow your testimony, that is my
5 questions and your answers, and in order for all this
6 to be able to be taken down in the transcript,
7 everything that I ask of you and everything that you
8 tell me has to be interpreted. Next to you to the
9 right you will find another headset and you will be
10 able to hear an English interpretation coming through
11 them. When you hear the voice from that headset
12 finishing, that would be the end of the interpretation
13 of my question and then please proceed with the
14 answer. Did you understand me, Mr. Vejzagic?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Mr. Vejzagic, can you tell us when you were
18 A. I was born on 17 March 1923.
19 Q. Mr. Vejzagic, where were you born?
20 A. I was born in Livno, Republic of
22 Q. Where do you live currently, Mr. Vejzagic?
23 A. I live in Sarajevo.
24 Q. What is your professional status currently?
25 A. I am a retiree.
1 Q. Could you tell me, what was your profession
2 during your active years?
3 A. During my active years, I was an officer of
4 the former JNA and then an officer of the army of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina -- that means that I was a
6 professional soldier.
7 Q. Mr. Vejzagic, can you tell me when was it that
8 you first became a soldier?
9 A. I first became a soldier in 1942.
10 Q. To which army did you belong or to which
11 forces and in which period of time?
12 A. In 1942 I was a member of the Partizan units,
13 which fought the fascism.
14 Q. How did your military career develop after
15 the war?
16 A. During the wartime, I went to the Soviet
17 Union and attended military schools there.
18 Q. How long did this training last?
19 A. It lasted two years.
20 Q. Did you continue to perform military duties
21 after your training period?
22 A. After I completed training, I continued with
23 my professional service in the former JNA.
24 Q. In this period, did you continue to receive
25 education as an officer of the JNA?
1 A. Yes, as a professional soldier, I continued
2 my education. I completed a course for infantry
3 officers which lasted for six months, this was in
4 Sarajevo. I then attended various different courses --
5 one was for handling the nuclear weapons.
6 Q. What duties did you perform in the Yugoslav
7 People's Army?
8 A. During my service in the Yugoslav People's
9 Army, I performed a range of duties starting with the
10 company commander to the detachment commander.
11 Q. Did you also engage in teaching during this
12 service period?
13 A. Yes, I was also the head of the -- the chief
14 of the school for the infantry officers.
15 Q. Were you also a professor at such a training
17 A. Yes, during this period, I also had other
18 duties and I was also a professor in this school.
19 Q. What is the highest rank that you acquired in
20 the former Yugoslav People's Army?
21 A. In the former Yugoslav People's Army, I had
22 the rank of a colonel.
23 Q. Mr. Vejzagic, when did you become a colonel in
24 the JNA?
25 A. I became a colonel in JNA in 1972.
1 Q. On which duties were you as a colonel in the
2 former JNA?
3 A. As a colonel of the Yugoslav People's Army,
4 I was transferred to the Territorial Defence, to the
5 republican staff of the Territorial Defence, where
6 I was the chief for programmes for training of officers
7 for Territorial Defence units.
8 Q. In which republic of the former SFRY were you
9 assigned to the Territorial Defence department?
10 A. It was in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
11 Q. Mr. Vejzagic, when did you retire as a colonel
12 of the JNA?
13 A. I returned at the end of 1980.
14 Q. Mr. Vejzagic, did you reactivate yourself at
15 some stage -- some later stage?
16 A. Yes, as soon as the war broke out in
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina, I considered it my duty to become
18 active again, to join the ranks of the army of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina, which at first was Territorial
21 Q. Mr. Vejzagic, what duties did you perform in
22 the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
23 A. In the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina I performed
24 -- I mostly performed the duties in the republican
25 staff in the operations body.
1 Q. Did you also engage in teaching during this
2 period as you did while you were an active officer of
3 the JNA?
4 A. Yes, during my service during the war, there
5 was a need for training the officers' corps for war
6 duties, and there was a need to organise an officers'
7 training centre, a school and that was my duty. I was
8 to organise the operations of the officers' school, to
9 set up the programme and to train the officers who were
10 at the level of company and battalions.
11 Q. Where was this school located?
12 A. This school was located in Zenica.
13 Q. Mr. Vejzagic, since when are you retired
15 A. I was retired again in 1996.
16 Q. Mr. Vejzagic, by performing duties in the army
17 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, did you acquire a rank?
18 A. Yes, during my service in the armed forces of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina, I received the rank of Brigadier.
20 Q. Brigadier, during your military career in the
21 former JNA, and later in the army of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina, did you ever receive any military
24 A. Yes, during my service in the former Yugoslav
25 People's Army, I received 12 decorations.
1 Q. Brigadier, as a soldier in World War II, did
2 you directly participate in military operations and do
3 you have personal combat experience?
4 A. In World War II, I was a soldier from the
5 start and I do have combat experience -- I did
6 participate in military operations. This kind of
7 experience, a guerrilla type of warfare -- it was
8 within the Partizan units.
9 Q. Brigadier, after you were reactivated in
10 1992, during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, did you
11 directly participate in combat operations?
12 A. During this war of 1992, until the end, I did
13 not directly participate in fighting as an officer --
14 I was attached to the staff and I was on those staff
16 Q. You just said that you were a person who,
17 over a period of 50 years, took part in two wars, so,
18 Brigadier, apart from your military experience and your
19 experience in the war, do you have sufficient
20 experience to be able to form opinions on matters of a
21 military nature?
22 A. I can just say that, in both cases, during
23 both wars, these wars were wars against civilians,
24 especially the second one. The first war in which
25 I took part was not as brutal towards civilians as the
1 later one. There were two enemy forces and the
2 fighting went on between the two of them, and so fewer
3 civilians were casualties. However, the development of
4 technology in the intervening period contributed
5 significantly to increasing civilian casualties and we
6 saw this happen in the towns and in protected zones in
8 Q. Brigadier, tell me -- a question for you
9 again. When did you retire again?
10 A. I retired at the end of 1996 -- sorry, not
11 towards the end of 1996 -- in April 1996.
12 Q. So now we can say that you are a retired
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. Brigadier, even after your retirement, have
16 you actively participated in the matters that relate to
17 the development and strategy of the Bosnian army?
18 A. Yes, the general staff of the army of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina approved an analysis -- a military
20 analysis relating to the experiences of the war in
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995. It is a
22 project that involves a large number of contributors.
23 There were prominent experts; four Ph.D.s and three MA
24 candidates are involved in that, a number of generals
25 and high officers are involved.
1 Q. Did this group cooperate with prominent
2 members of other world armies, that is, experts in this
3 field in preparation of this project?
4 A. For the most part we did not cooperate with
5 foreign experts, because we thought that we were doing
6 the analysis for the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina based
7 on what happened on the ground in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
8 However, I also worked on another project, which was
9 within the "train and equip" programme with gentlemen
10 from the US and I was working on a strategy of defence
11 of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the period
12 of 1996 and 1997 and I spent a full year working on
13 this project.
14 Q. Brigadier, even though you are a retired
15 Brigadier, you are still active in the research of the
16 military affairs in the territory of
18 A. Yes. Yes, I am studying the problems that
19 contributed to the dissolution of Yugoslavia and
20 I believe that this is a project that will take a while
21 to finish.
22 Q. Is this long-term research project also
23 involving other aspects besides the military ones?
24 A. This project comprises all areas that relate
25 to the military activities and that is economic aspects
1 and psychological ones in addition to the military
2 ones, the historical ones -- we have 16 parts and there
3 are three chapters of this project. I would not like
4 to elaborate much on this project -- I think it is
5 going to take two or three years to complete it and we
6 would like to gather all relevant notions about the war
7 which we waged for four years, so the military experts
8 would be able to find everything that is relevant about
9 this war.
10 Q. Brigadier, could you tell me whether, towards
11 the end of last year, the Defence counsel of Mr. Delalic
12 addressed you with a request to testify in this case?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did you immediately accept the Defence's
16 A. I was unable to accept immediately, before
17 thinking over my role, and before reviewing the area
18 which was to become the question of my testimony and
19 then I had to study also my possibilities, whether
20 I would be up to such a task.
21 Q. Is it true, Brigadier, that, at the end of
22 January, or rather the beginning of February, you
23 finally accepted to be an expert witness in this case?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Brigadier, will you please tell us what did
1 you rely upon in preparing your expert report, or,
2 rather, what will you rely upon for your testimony in
3 this court?
4 A. My expert opinion is mainly based on my
5 familiarity with the facts as a professional officer,
6 that is, my expertise, my long-standing career in the
7 former army, and the experiences I gained in this war.
8 Secondly, I relied on materials,
9 publications, that I gained access to in the course of
10 my research in preparation for this expert testimony
11 relating to this last war.
12 Thirdly, I relied on documents that I was
13 able to gain possession of while working on this task,
14 that is, the documents from the former Yugoslavia --
15 that is part of the documents -- and then also
16 documents that were compiled -- rather, the normative
17 acts of the former Yugoslavia, those relating to
18 Defence drafted by the State of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
19 Then, also, all other materials that I had access to
20 from various symposiums, publications that also dealt
21 with this war and this time period from 1992 to 1995.
22 Q. Brigadier, could you please tell me who was
23 it that made it possible for you to gain access to the
24 documents that you have just mentioned, and which you
25 reviewed before compiling your expert report, that is,
1 what are the sources from which you obtained those
3 A. Let me say first that it is partly the
4 archives of the general staff of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
5 then the archives of the Institute for the
6 Investigation of War Crimes, then also all other
7 materials that I was able to collect in the municipal
8 staff in Konjic, documents that I obtained from the
9 court in Mostar. That is more or less the sources from
10 which I drew data for the preparation of my expert
12 Q. Brigadier, is it true that the office of the
13 Defence also placed at your disposal a certain number
14 of documents that you may have used or not, but you
15 gained insight into them when compiling your expert
16 opinion and report?
17 A. Yes, I omitted to mention that -- that is
18 true, I also used those materials.
19 Q. General, did you, too, engage in certain
20 research in the territory of Konjic, or in the
21 institutions that exist today in Konjic?
22 A. Yes, I studied in all the institutions that
23 exist in Konjic today any materials relevant to this
24 case and, also, any information I could obtain from
25 other witnesses, but I do apologise, I am not a
1 general, please -- let me correct you.
2 JUDGE JAN: Brigadiers do like to be called
3 generals -- brigadier-general.
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: Yes, perhaps that could be a
5 rank, because this is a new rank in our army which we
6 did not have before, and, in view of all that you have
7 said about your knowledge and experience, maybe that
8 title would suit you better, but I will call you
9 correctly and I apologise for my mistake.
10 So, Brigadier, will you tell us, when
11 compiling your expert opinion, did you review any
12 videotapes in the possession of TV stations?
13 A. Yes, I did. I reviewed videotapes,
14 especially those relating to Konjic, from which one
15 could see quite well the situation in Konjic,
16 especially the shelling of the town, the casualties
17 among the population. I also saw the suffering of the
18 prisoners in prison. I saw inhabitants waiting in line
19 to receive humanitarian aid. I saw an empty
20 supermarket with nothing on the stalls, et cetera,
21 thank you.
22 Q. Brigadier, after all that you have told us as
23 being the basis of your research and studies, could you
24 tell this Trial Chamber that you did collect sufficient
25 reliable information and documents for you to be able
1 to give a complete and impartial opinion and testimony?
2 A. One could say that one can never have enough
3 research, but I do think that I collected sufficient
4 evidence to be able to be impartial and testify about
5 what I have included in my expert report.
6 Q. We should now, Brigadier, go to discussing
7 the issues dealt with in your expert report and to
8 tackle directly the problem of greatest interest to
9 this Trial Chamber, that is, the events in
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Konjic in 1992. With a view
11 brief questions, let us refer to the short period that
12 preceded that time for a better understanding of your
14 Could you, Brigadier, please, explain to us,
15 in concise form, the organisation and structure of the
16 armed forces in the former Yugoslavia?
17 A. The armed forces of the former Yugoslavia
18 consisted of the Yugoslav People's Army and the
19 Territorial Defence. These were two components. The
20 Yugoslav People's Army, as the armed force, in the
21 doctrine of use, was intended to be used at the
22 beginning of an aggression to prevent incursions. It
23 was technically well equipped with state of the art
24 equipment and its task was to take upon itself the
25 first blow and thereby to ensure the mobilisation of
1 the reserve force of the army and the Territorial
3 According to the concept of the defence of
4 the country, a new structure was set in place as of
5 1962, that is, after the events in Czechoslovakia and a
6 Territorial Defence was formed. Conceptually it was
7 designed as being on the ground and in collaboration
8 with the armed forces of the army, to participate in
9 the country's defence. Thank you.
10 The substance of its very existence was that
11 we had envisaged that we would not be able to resist a
12 technically superior power of modern armies, so the
13 possibility was envisaged for the Yugoslav People's
14 Army to abandon territory up to a certain point and the
15 Territorial Defence remains in the rear and its task
16 was to engage in struggle behind the enemy lines, to
17 prevent communication, to prevent supplies, to inflict
18 losses on the enemy, and in any event such a conception
19 of the country's defence was such that regardless of
20 the fact that the operational army abandoned territory,
21 that territory would not remain empty -- where the army
22 had left a part of the forces would remain and those
23 were the Territorial Defence forces.
24 Q. Thank you. With this question, you have
25 conveyed the initial statements contained in your
1 report. May I ask you now, Brigadier, after this
2 research, did you compile a written report and send a
3 copy to the Defence?
4 A. I did.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: May the witness now be shown
6 his report? Before that, is your report accompanied by
7 documents that have been put into three volumes of this
8 kind (indicating)?
9 A. Yes.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: I would first like to ask
11 these volumes to be marked for identification. This is
12 folder 1 -- there are sufficient copies for the witness
13 and the court and then, together with the witness, we
14 can identify this material of his so that we can all
15 follow his testimony (Handed). This is volume 1, could
16 it be the first to be marked for identification and
17 given to the witness and the Trial Chamber.
18 Could a copy of number 1 be given to the
19 judges -- the Prosecutor has already been served with a
20 copy, and could I have the number that the exhibit has
21 been marked with?
22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You mean the report
23 itself is in three volumes, is it, or are they annexes
24 to the report?
25 MS. RESIDOVIC: No, your Honours. The first
1 volume in the front is the report itself and this is
2 followed by annexes, and there are nine of them, so the
3 expert witness will first examine his report and
4 identify it and then the annexes contained in these
6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I suppose that is my
7 own conjecture, too, that she should have his report
8 and then followed by the annexes -- thank you.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: That is why I asked this
10 first volume to be given to you, because at the
11 beginning of that volume is the expert report, which we
12 will have identified first, and it is followed by
13 annexes starting from number 1 onwards. That is why
14 I am not distributing the second volume until the
15 expert witness identifies his expert report.
16 THE REGISTRAR: This has been marked
17 exhibit D143/1.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: Brigadier, can you please
19 open this binder? Will you tell me, please, whether,
20 at the beginning of this folder, you find the expert
21 report compiled by you after completing the research
22 you have told us about?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Will you please tell me whether you have in
25 your copy a Bosnian version of the report?
1 A. No.
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: To facilitate the task of the
3 witness, because we have given copies to the court in
4 English, may I ask you, your Honours, to be permitted
5 to give the witness a part of the same report in the
6 Bosnian language, because of course he could not bring
7 his own copy into the courtroom.
8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, you have the leave
9 of the Trial Chamber to do that.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you. (Handed).
11 Is that the expert report that you compiled,
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In addition to your expert report, are there
15 annexes 1 to 9 consisting of the documentation that you
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is it correct to say, Brigadier, that you
19 used, in preparing this report, a part of the documents
20 of Dr. Calic, who was an expert witness before this
21 Trial Chamber, and that, accompanying your report, you
22 indicated which of those documents you had used and
23 included among your own documents from Dr. Calic?
24 A. Yes.
25 MS. RESIDOVIC: Since the witness has
1 recognised his report, and as it will serve as the
2 basis for his testimony, I should like to tender it
3 into evidence immediately, and I assume that you will
4 make your ruling after the examination.
5 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, I do not expect
6 -- my application is that it be moved into evidence at
7 the end of cross-examination, because of the
8 difficulties that we have explained earlier.
9 Certainly, there is no problem with it being used and
10 referred to throughout the course of the testimony of
11 this witness. I do not envisage any difficulties, but
12 I do see it as being more efficient if we are given the
13 time to fully study it and then come back to the
14 Chamber and then possibly reduce any objections to an
15 absolute minimum. I think it would be a far more
16 efficient process. That may be what Madam Residovic
17 has just said -- I am not sure that she is actually
18 moving its admission now, just making that observation.
19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think the witness can
20 continue to refer to his document as we go along. It
21 will not affect it being used for the purpose of his
22 evidence. He can use it.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you.
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It has not been
25 formally tendered, but it does not mean he cannot refer
1 to it. He is allowed to refer to it.
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: Brigadier, is it true that
3 this first volume entitled "one" and has now been
4 marked by the court contains, in addition to your own
5 finding, annexes with documents marked as annex 1, 2
6 and 3?
7 A. Yes.
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: I should now like to ask that
9 the other annexes be also marked for identification, so
10 that they may be used during the testimony.
11 THE REGISTRAR: This has been marked
12 volume 2, D144/1, and volume 3, D145/1.
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: Is it true, Brigadier, that
14 this second folder of documents that you relied upon
15 when compiling your opinion contains annex 4, annex 5A
16 and annex 5B?
17 A. Yes, that is correct. It contains annex 4, 5
18 and 5B.
19 Q. Is it correct, Brigadier, that the third
20 volume contains documents marked as 5B -- 5D, annex 6,
21 7, 8 and 9?
22 A. Yes, it contains all these annexes.
23 Q. Since your expert opinion has been marked
24 together with the supporting material, we can now move
25 to the questions contained in your expert analysis.
1 Since you told us what the organisation and
2 the structure of the military in the former Yugoslavia
3 was, can you please tell us how the JNA was organised
4 as relative to the federal constitutional arrangements
5 in the former Yugoslavia?
6 A. Parallel with the State structure, the army
7 was organised into armies, which were based in the
8 republics. Each republic had its own headquarters of
9 the army in its capital.
10 Q. Did a change occur at some point in time in
11 the army organisation?
12 A. Yes, the organisation of the army was changed
13 towards the end of 1988.
14 Q. What happened then, Brigadier?
15 A. The armies were abolished then and army areas
16 were introduced.
17 Q. Was there general agreement for such a
18 reorganisation of the army into army districts?
19 A. So, instead of the armies, four military
20 districts were formed -- Zagreb, Belgrade, Split and
21 Skopje. With the abolition of the armies, Slovenia and
22 its State leadership opposed this, believing that, by
23 moving the headquarters of an army from Ljubljana was
24 not a good idea, and that is why they intervened with
25 the general staff and with the political structures and
1 the central authorities in Belgrade, but they were
2 unable to change anything.
3 Q. Prior to the events that we will be
4 discussing, were there any military reasons for such a
5 reorganisation of the army, or were political plans
6 behind it?
7 A. For such a reorganisation of the armed
8 forces, there certainly were no military reasons,
9 because no danger threatened Yugoslavia and no
10 particular improvement in defence was achieved by this
11 reorganisation, but there were political gains behind
12 it all.
13 Q. Did such an organisation of the army
14 strengthen the military and political influence of some
15 of the centres in the former SFRY?
16 A. During the army reorganisation, the real
17 motive was for the army leadership, that is, the army
18 commands, to escape -- to be drawn outside the
19 influence of republican leaderships, so that, should
20 the need arise, the republican leaderships could have
21 no influence over the command of the army and its
22 possible use.
23 Q. Brigadier, in view of your duties in the army
24 and in the Territorial Defence, could you tell me
25 whether the Territorial Defence was a significant force
1 within the armed forces of the former Yugoslavia?
2 A. The Territorial Defence as a component of the
3 armed forces was, in those days, when it reached a peak
4 somewhere in 1985, it was a highly developed armed
5 force. For example, in the Republic of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina, it was almost three times as
7 numerous as the Sarajevo army. It numbered about
8 320,000 men, mostly under arms. However, in its
9 structure, the equipment was not so developed as it was
10 in the operative army. The army had three branches --
11 the ground forces, the air force and the navy. Within
12 the framework of the ground forces, in addition to the
13 infantry, there were the armoured mechanised units, the
14 artillery; in other words, all the latest forms of
15 equipment were represented.
16 The Territorial Defence was something else --
17 it had a predominantly infantry composition, with some
18 logistic support, that is light artillery, mostly
19 mortars, recoiler guns, because, by the nature of its
20 use behind the enemy lines it could not use heavy
21 artillery -- it did not have any armoured units or
22 vehicles, its manoeuvring was carried out mostly on
23 foot, and on horseback, so that the aim of this
24 component of the armed forces was never intended to
25 have heavy artillery.
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, I would now
2 move on, but perhaps this is a good time to adjourn for
3 today, so that we can resume work tomorrow.
4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much, we
5 can adjourn now and resume at 10 a.m. tomorrow. The Trial
6 Chamber will now rise.
16 --- Whereupon the matter adjourned
17 at 5.30 p.m., to be reconvened on
18 Thursday, the 2nd day of April 1998,
19 at 10 a.m.