Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 10323

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

15 Greaves.

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

Page 10324

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

Page 10325

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.

Page 10326

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

15 witness.

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.

Page 10327

1 Cross-examination by Mr. Niemann continued.


3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: How soon will you be

4 ready to continue?

5 THE REGISTRAR: It will take about five

6 minutes.

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

17 proceed.


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

Page 10328

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

18 know.

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

Page 10329

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

19 Defence?

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

Page 10330

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,

Page 10331

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

Page 10332

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

Page 10333

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

Page 10334

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.

Page 10335

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

Page 10336

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

Page 10337

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

Page 10338

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

Page 10339

1 process now, we might come back to that -- you can have

2 a look through your papers and come back after the

3 adjournment?

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

20 say:

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

Page 10340

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

12 Mostar.

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

22 not?

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

Page 10341

1 answer.

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,

Page 10342

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

Page 10343

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

5 question.

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

Page 10344

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.

Page 10345

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

9 authorities.

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

18 it?

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.

Page 10346

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

16 proposition?

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.

Page 10347

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

6 coordinators.

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

21 materiel.

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 --

Page 10348

1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Niemann, are you in

2 any case doubting whether such an appointment was

3 made?

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

13 kind.

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

21 appointment.

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,

Page 10349

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,

Page 10350

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

Page 10351

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

13 say:

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

17 prison."

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

Page 10352

1 prison.

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

Page 10353

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

10 necessary.

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

24 necessary."

25 That seems to be in somewhat contradiction to

Page 10354

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

21 it.

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?

Page 10355

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

Page 10356

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

Page 10357

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

7 them?

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,

25 please.

Page 10358

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

Page 10359

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

Page 10360

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,

5 yes.

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

Page 10361

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

11 1992.

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

Page 10362

1 closely on my question and give me as concise an answer

2 as possible, just so that we can move on a little

3 quicker.

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

11 this.

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

Page 10363

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

Page 10364

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.

17 (11.30am)

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.

Page 10365

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

4 D22?

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.

Page 10366

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

Page 10367

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.

Page 10368

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,

Page 10369

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

6 force.

7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think that is your

8 question.

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?

Page 10370

1 A.

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

13 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

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

Page 10371

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

Page 10372

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

Page 10373

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.

Page 10374

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

14 Defence.

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.

Page 10375

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

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

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

Page 10376

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

15 then?

16 A. "The presidency of the municipal assembly of

17 Konjic," then it enumerates the members of the

18 presidency.

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

Page 10377

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

6 reads:

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.

Page 10378

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.

Page 10379

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

15 them.

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

Page 10380

1 it, but the commander of the Territorial Defence would

2 be appointed by the supreme command -- not the war

3 presidency.

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

20 elsewhere?

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,

Page 10381

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?

Page 10382

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

19 staff.

20 Q. And is that included in your documents, is

21 it?

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

Page 10383

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

4 17th.

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

21 1992?

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?

Page 10384

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.

Page 10385

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

Page 10386

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

Page 10387

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

Page 10388

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

Page 10389

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

Page 10390

1 its commander, would you agree with that as a

2 statement, or would you say that that statement is

3 wrong?

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

17 regulations.

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

Page 10391

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

17 right.

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.

22 (1.00pm)

23 (Luncheon adjournment)



Page 10392

1 (2.35pm)

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."

Page 10393

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

Page 10394

1 else.

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.

8 (Handed).

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

23 before?

24 A. No.

25 MR. NIEMANN: These are similar, are they not,

Page 10395

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.

7 Yes.

8 MR. NIEMANN: May I proceed?


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

Page 10396

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

Page 10397

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

7 establish."

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

Page 10398

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

18 214.

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

Page 10399

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

4 reading.

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?

Page 10400

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

5 date.

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?

Page 10401

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

6 authentic.

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

10 authenticity?

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

Page 10402

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

4 document?

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

Page 10403

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

Page 10404

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

21 circumstances?

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

Page 10405

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

Page 10406

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

Page 10407

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

25 profession.

Page 10408

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

13 --

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.

Page 10409

1 JUDGE JAN: Because I thought while making

2 copies for us you might have made a typographical

3 error.

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

Page 10410

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

Page 10411

1 4 o'clock. We will come back here at 4 o'clock.

2 (3.25pm)

3 (A short break).

4 (4.00pm)

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

Page 10412

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

Page 10413

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?

Page 10414

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

21 appears"?

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

Page 10415

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

10 field?

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,

21 professor.

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

Page 10416

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

Page 10417

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.

Page 10418

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

14 beginning.

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

Page 10419

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

22 that.

23 JUDGE JAN: Only the excerpts shown in the

24 court.

25 MR. NIEMANN: As long as it is only the

Page 10420

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

Page 10421

1 was would historians ordinarily rely on them. It is

2 the second component we object to in relation to those

3 documents.

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

11 record.

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.

Page 10422

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

Page 10423

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

Page 10424

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

10 purpose.

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

Page 10425

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.

Page 10426

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

5 that?

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

Page 10427

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?


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

12 purpose?

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,

Page 10428

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

11 purpose.

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

Page 10429

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

5 it.

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

16 witness.

17 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

18 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

19 truth.

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.

Page 10430

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

17 born?

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

21 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

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.

Page 10431

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?

Page 10432

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

16 centre?

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.

Page 10433

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

20 Defence.

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.

Page 10434

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

14 again?

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

23 decorations?

24 A. Yes, during my service in the former Yugoslav

25 People's Army, I received 12 decorations.

Page 10435

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

15 duties.

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

Page 10436

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

7 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

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

13 brigadier?

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.

Page 10437

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

17 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

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

Page 10438

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

15 request?

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

Page 10439

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,

Page 10440

1 what are the sources from which you obtained those

2 documents?

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

11 report.

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

Page 10441

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

Page 10442

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

13 report.

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

Page 10443

1 the reserve force of the army and the Territorial

2 Defence.

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

Page 10444

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

Page 10445

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

5 folders.

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?

Page 10446

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,

12 Brigadier?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. In addition to your expert report, are there

15 annexes 1 to 9 consisting of the documentation that you

16 used?

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

Page 10447

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

Page 10448

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.

Page 10449

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

Page 10450

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

Page 10451

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.

Page 10452

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.