1 Monday, 30 May 2005
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.11 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Registrar, could you call the case,
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-03-68-T, the Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Good morning to you.
10 Mr. Oric, can you follow the proceedings in your own language?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour, ladies
12 and gentlemen. I can follow the proceedings in my mother tongue.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. You may sit down. And good morning to
15 Appearances for the Prosecution.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Good morning, Your Honours, my name is Di Fazio, I
17 appear for the Prosecution together with my colleague, Mr. Doria and our
18 case manager, Ms. Donnica Henry-Frijlink.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you good morning to you and your team.
20 Appearances for Naser Oric.
21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. Good
22 morning to the Prosecutor's team. My name is Vasvija Vidovic and together
23 with John Jones I appear on behalf of Naser Oric. With us are Ms. Adisa
24 Mehic, legal assistant and Mr. Geoff Roberts, our CaseMap manager.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you and good morning to you and
1 your team. Any preliminaries before we bring in the witness? Yes, usher,
3 I'm sorry for this slight delay but it was due to some technical
4 reasons, as I understand it. I don't know exactly what it was but there
5 was a fault with -- I think our monitors or our laptops. I don't know.
6 It has been fixed, anyway.
7 [The witness entered court]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Welcome back. We are going to continue with your
11 cross-examination, which was started by Mr. Jones last Friday and hope to
12 be able to finish today. May I just remind you that you are testifying
13 under oath, pursuant to the solemn declaration that you made last Friday.
14 Mr. Jones.
15 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 WITNESS: SEAD DELIC [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 Cross-examined by Mr. Jones: [Continued]
19 MR. JONES:
20 Q. Good morning, General Delic.
21 A. Good morning, Mr. Jones.
22 Q. Sorry I didn't introduce myself on Friday. My name is Mr. Jones,
23 however, when answering my questions, feel free to in fact address the
24 Court and you can even look at Their Honours, if you prefer, rather than
25 necessarily addressing your questions to me -- your answers to me.
1 Now I take it your familiar with the expression which I think
2 exist in your language and perhaps in all languages, "Rome wasn't built in
3 a day"?
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. Would you agree that following the aggression of Serbia and
6 Montenegro against the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the RBH government
7 had to build up its armed forces from scratch?
8 A. Yes, precisely so. I believed we started from scratch.
9 Q. And throughout 1992 it was a situation of chaos as their attempts
10 to defend against the aggression from the JNA-VRS, first through forming
11 TOs and then later through the ABiH; would that be correct?
12 A. Yes, precisely so.
13 Q. And would you agree that many fighters for RBH, whom I think
14 you've described in your statement as patriots, did not know much about
15 how units should be formed or who should be responsible for which
17 A. Yes, precisely so. Only the professional personnel in the army
18 and some of the reserve officers had some basic ideas about what a given
19 unit is and how it should be formed.
20 Q. And those professional personnel formed a very small percentage,
21 didn't they, of the overall army personnel?
22 A. Looking at the full picture, you are completely correct. I just
23 wanted to add that the Bosniaks were far less represented in the overall
24 amount compared to the composition of the population in the former
1 Q. And would you agree that many of these issues of organisation were
2 not resolved, if at all, until later in the war, in 1993, 1994, maybe even
3 not even when the war ended in 1995 were these issues fully resolved?
4 A. I would fully agree with you.
5 Q. Thank you. Now, I want to deal firstly with the situation before
6 the ABiH Corps were formed in late 1992 and deal with the TO units, and
7 I'd like you to look at a new exhibit which we'll pass up and the ERN
8 number for the record is 01806867 to 01806869. While that's being passed
9 around, this is a decision on forming Territorial Defence units taken by
10 the president of the RBH Presidency on the 27th of May 1992, and the
11 decision was apparently signed by president Izetbegovic, president of the
12 RBH Presidency. Do you agree firstly that the presidency is the organ
13 authorised to establish TO units?
14 A. Yes. The Presidency was the Supreme Command of the Army of the
15 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
16 Q. Right. So TO district staffs were not authorised by law to form
17 TO municipal staffs on their own, were they?
18 A. You are correct. The newly formed TO Staff formed on the 8th of
19 April or the 8th of April 1992, if I remember it correctly. It had
20 competence over municipal TO staffs, and all formations, all units, that
21 were outside the TO were given a deadline until the 15th of April of 1992,
22 until which time they had to be subordinated under the newly formed TO
23 Staff of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That was the deadline set
24 for the units to be put under the new organisational structure of the new
25 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and its new armed forces.
1 Q. Thank you. It was really in terms of the Presidency, though, the
2 RBH Presidency, would you agree that it's necessary firstly to have
3 civilian control over military matters and that therefore the Presidency
4 was the organ authorised to establish TO units and to appoint TO
6 A. Yes. Perhaps I can clarify or I may have misunderstood a part of
7 your question, but the Supreme Command was the Presidency of the Republic
8 of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The professional part in charge was the Ministry
9 of Defence, and that was until the 22nd of May when the TO was
10 restructured, the one given the deadline of the 15th of April. And then
11 until then we had the Republican TO Staff headed by Mr. Hasan Efendic at
12 the time.
13 Q. Okay. Thank you. I think we can take this point quite quickly.
14 This decision is to form 39 Territorial Defence units. I think you'll
15 agree that Srebrenica TO is not listed there.
16 A. Mr. Jones, as far as I can see, that unit is not mentioned.
17 Q. So it would appear from this document that the RBH Presidency at
18 the end of May 1992 took a decision on the formation of TO units but it
19 did not decide to establish one for Srebrenica.
20 A. I don't know that, Mr. Jones. I can only comment what I can see
21 here, and as it pertained to my units mentioned here under items 32 and
22 33. And those are the units that it pertained to. And if a unit does not
23 appear there, one could make the conclusion you made. But apart from
24 that, I don't know anything else.
25 Q. Okay. As far as 32 and 33 are concerned, is that information
1 accurate, as far as you can tell?
2 A. Yes. It is completely correct. These are the units that existed
3 before that and were later confirmed by the Supreme Command, i.e., the
4 president of the Presidency of the Republic of B and H, the late Mr. Alija
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. JONES: I would ask for an exhibit number, please, for this
8 document. Might be D296 but I could be wrong.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. What number.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, it is D296.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: 296. D296.
12 MR. JONES:
13 Q. Now, following on from that?
14 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Jones. [Microphone not activated]
15 He mentioned 32 and 33. I notice that 30 also refers to the third Tuzla
16 Brigade. Can he tell us anything about it? Would any of these, either
17 under 30 or 32 or 33 have incorporated also Srebrenica?
18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness didn't
19 receive interpretation.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Oh, I see. I think I will have to repeat. I
21 understand that there is some problem with interpretation. If you are not
22 receiving interpretation, tell me straight away.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is okay now.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I notice also in this list that apart from 32 --
25 under 32 and 33 which deal with Tuzla, 2nd and 1st Tuzla Brigades
1 respectively, number 30 deals also with Tuzla and that's relative to the
2 3rd Tuzla Brigade. Did any of these three brigades, pertaining to Tuzla,
3 possibly incorporate Srebrenica under them or not?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as I mentioned a while
5 ago, these were the units confirmed by the Presidency, so we took a
6 different order. Instead of issuing an order on formation, when they are
7 being formed which would be logical within the military and civilian
8 system as well as the system of command and control, the Supreme Command
9 instead simply confirmed the situation in the field in this case, in order
10 to reply to your question, not a single unit from Srebrenica was under
11 these formations. These were solely the units falling under the TO Staff
12 in Tuzla.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. That was important to make clear.
14 This will become D296, and thank you, General.
15 You may proceed, Mr. Jones.
16 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you.
17 Q. And following on from that, we have another document which is
18 similar to the one you just looked at which will be passed up and that ERN
19 for the record is 01812247 to 01812248. This is again a decision on
20 forming Territorial Defence units taken by the RBH Presidency on the 4th
21 of June 1992. Again, I would simply ask you to confirm that there is no
22 Srebrenica TO unit mentioned there.
23 A. Mr. Jones, as far as I can see, these are Territorial Defence
24 units from the areas of Sarajevo and Zenica, and a detachment of
25 Territorial Defence in Srebrenik which is a town in Tuzla's environs, to
1 say, 20 to 30 kilometres north from Tuzla, so this is not Srebrenica but
2 rather Srebrenik, a town close to Tuzla.
3 Q. Yes. So there are no Srebrenica -- there is no Srebrenica TO
4 mentioned in that document, of any description.
5 A. No, there is no mention of it.
6 Q. And just for further clarification, do you agree that before the
7 formation of the 2nd Corps, Srebrenica was not one of the municipalities
8 formed in the Tuzla district?
9 A. Yes. That is so.
10 Q. And do you also agree that from the start of the war, until at
11 least late 1993, Srebrenica had no physical connection to Tuzla?
12 A. Yes, that is so as well, and I mentioned that in my earlier
13 testimony. The distance is about 100 kilometres and it was controlled by
14 the enemy forces between Tuzla and Srebrenica.
15 Q. Yes. Thank you very much.
16 MR. JONES: I again just ask for an exhibit number.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: This will become Defence Exhibit D297.
18 MR. JONES:
19 Q. Now, moving now to the formation of corps within the ABiH in late
20 1992, on Friday you were shown a document, it's P -- it was P279, I don't
21 think you need to see it at the moment. If you recall, it was the
22 decision taken by the Presidency on the 18th of August 1992 regarding the
23 formation of corps. You remember that document?
24 A. Yes, I do remember.
25 Q. Now, you agreed today and on Friday that the ABiH had to be built
1 from scratch. Would you agree that the establishment of these corps and
2 units in the field wasn't accomplished in one day? In other words, it
3 wasn't completed on the 18th of August 1992?
4 A. Precisely so, Mr. Jones. In my previous interviews I said, and if
5 I may have the leave of the Chamber, I wanted to say that although
6 everyone realised that we should put the structure in order, but it was a
7 bit of an orphan in the field. It didn't have any influence, it didn't
8 have the financial means, but it solely depended on a commander appointed.
9 Municipalities basically had more power than the corps at the time, and I
10 would dare say it lasted throughout 1992.
11 Q. Would you say that situation lasted in 1993 as well?
12 A. I wouldn't agree with that. As time went by, the situation
13 improved in favour of the corps. It no longer was what it was in 1992,
14 and slowly the relationship between corps and municipal staffs did change,
15 but still it was far worse than 1994 and 1995. Some improvement was made
16 but not to the extent for the corps to be able to function fully as it is
17 required to do.
18 Q. Right. So in fact, would you agree that it took months after
19 August 1992 for the corps to function with its zones of responsibility and
20 units as the decision of August 1992 required?
21 A. We may have misunderstood each other, Mr. Jones. The corps was
22 not at its full strength even at the end of the war. One can create a
23 team comprising of a group of people but it has to be functional, it has
24 to have de facto and de jure possibility to implement its mission. Many
25 things existed just on paper. But in practice it took a while. If you
1 are trying to make something from scratch, then of course a time has to
2 elapse in order for the institution to stabilise and to implement its
3 mission. To cut it short, I believe the corps was fully structured at the
4 end of 1995, but still it was only to the extent of 70 or 80 per cent of
5 its powers because of the insufficient manning strength, professional
6 experience, problems with logistics, the situation in the field that still
7 existed, and so on.
8 Q. Right. Thank you. And in fact as far as the 2nd Corps Command in
9 Tuzla is concerned, you said on Friday that was actually in the vanguard
10 of these developments, in other words it was actually better organised
11 than the rest of the ABiH or large parts of the ABiH, would you agree?
12 A. Yes, that's entirely so. Unfortunately analysing the documents
13 from other areas, I have to say that despite all weaknesses that we had
14 during the time and in that area that we were much more advanced in
15 relation to others.
16 Q. Right. And when I say 2nd Corps command in Tuzla I mean just
17 Tuzla. That excludes Srebrenica. If that's clear, and if you agree.
18 A. Yes, certainly, yes. I agree.
19 Q. Thank you. Now, General, you were also shown Exhibit P129 on
20 Friday and I will be grateful if the witness could be shown that exhibit
21 now. It's dated the 5th of September 1992 so after the decision that
22 we've just seen on establishing the corps. And it's addressed to the
23 Tuzla district Defence Staff. Now, firstly just on that, this is after
24 the decision to form a corps and yet there is still references to district
25 and municipal Defence staffs. That confirms, does it not, what you just
1 told us, that in fact, municipal and district defence staffs continued to
2 exist alongside the corps for some considerable time?
3 A. Yes. In a number of other documents, you will see that the orders
4 were issued but were not implemented for two or three months. The
5 implementation was postponed. For example, when it comes to the area of
6 responsibility of the 2nd Corps, the municipality of Srebrenik and Lukavac
7 kept their municipal staffs for another year after they were abolished.
8 So this is something that was specific for that situation and was caused
9 by the circumstances as they existed at the time, and the same goes for
10 this document as well.
11 Q. Right. Thank you. Now, you see that this document refers in some
12 parts to infantry brigades, for example the 109th Doboj Infantry Brigade
13 as well as infantry brigades in Tuzla, Brcko and other places. I would
14 ask you to look at the part of the document dealing with Srebrenica TO,
15 which is page 4 of the version you have, page 5 of the English. And do
16 you agree that according to this document, there were no brigades to be
17 formed in the Srebrenica municipality?
18 A. It is stated here clearly, Mr. Jones, under A, that the municipal
19 defence staff and support units were established, that the detachments of
20 the armed forces are established, the 1st and the 2nd detachment and also
21 independent infantry companies. No unit above the level of the detachment
22 is mentioned here, and I have to explain to the Trial Chamber that a
23 detachment is smaller than a battalion and larger than a company,
24 numbering between 250 and 300 people.
25 Q. All right. Thank you. That's very helpful. Now I draw your
1 attention to the words which appear in that section, that the war units
2 under A and B are to be set up according to the above organisational
3 order. And so the Municipal Defence Staff is one of those war units. So
4 it's right, isn't it, that this document is ordering the setting up of a
5 Municipal Defence Staff in Srebrenica?
6 A. Well, it could be said so. However, in reality, things transpired
7 differently. They were either established or should have been
8 established. This is an order on establishing these units. However, in
9 1992, as I explained earlier, there were cases where a document simply
10 recognised the existing situation. So there could be two possibilities:
11 Either they were supposed to be established or they had already been
12 established and this order simply recognises the fact. I don't know which
13 case it was here.
14 Q. You've told us there is a difference, obviously huge difference,
15 in 1992 between the position de jure on paper and the position de facto.
16 And I think what you're saying is you don't know the situation de facto in
18 A. Yes, that's precisely so, sir.
19 Q. Thank you. Would it be right then de jure that on paper, this
20 document, as of 5 September 1992, is ordering the setting up of a
21 municipal defence staff in Srebrenica?
22 A. Looking at this document, and bearing in mind that I wasn't
23 present and was not familiar with the situation, I would draw the same
24 conclusion you did.
25 Q. All right. And in fact would you agree that given the situation
1 in Srebrenica at the time, Srebrenica being under siege, people starving,
2 et cetera, that this is all highly aspirational in the sense that it's
3 anyone's guess whether a municipal defence staff could be set up in 12
5 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please that's asking for comment on
6 the situation in Srebrenica. He -- how can this witness know if it was
7 aspirational or not? He emphatically and clearly and repeatedly has said
8 that he did not know the situation that applied in Srebrenica. In order
9 to comment on whether the document --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think that's a very fair objection
11 considering the testimony of this witness so far on his knowledge on the
12 situation of Srebrenica. I think this is --
13 MR. JONES: If I may clarify with one or two questions.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course you can. But please try to avoid -- what
15 has been pointed out to you which is fair enough.
16 MR. JONES: Yes.
17 Q. You were aware, weren't you, General Delic, in 1992 that
18 Srebrenica was completely cut off from the rest of the world?
19 A. Yes, certainly.
20 Q. And heard stories that there was starvation in Srebrenica
21 throughout 1992?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you heard that it was a chaotic situation in Srebrenica?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. My question was really in light of those factors, would it be
1 realistic to mobilise a Municipal Defence Staff within 12 hours or is this
2 something of a pipe dream?
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Again it's a same question being asked. How does
4 this witness know? Whatever the situation that applied in -- it might
5 have been aspirational, it might have been completely pointless and
7 MR. JONES: I'm happy to move on.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated]
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
10 MR. JONES: Certainly, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I apologise to the interpreters. I'm sorry. I
12 didn't realise it was switched off.
13 MR. JONES: Since it wasn't activated it will all look like it's
14 my question.
15 Q. Given those factors which you just mentioned being aware of in
16 Srebrenica, General, do you have any comment with respect to the order to
17 mobilise the Defence Staff within 12 hours? And if not, then feel free to
18 mention -- feel free to say that you have no comment.
19 A. My comment would be that the paper will suffer anything.
20 Q. I'm not sure that's entirely clear in English?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not clear to me.
22 MR. JONES:
23 Q. Would you rephrase that sentiment?
24 A. Well, yes. This is an expression that we use in Bosnia, which
25 means that you can put down anything you want on paper. However, whether
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 it comes to implementation, this is where the problems arise.
2 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now sticking with this document a bit longer,
3 please turn to page 2 in both the B/C/S and English and the reference to
4 the Bratunac municipality. My question is simply this: Bratunac had its
5 own Municipal Defence Staff, didn't it?
6 A. Mr. Jones, this is what is stated in this document under 3, in
7 Bratunac municipality, that there should be a municipal defence staff
8 together with headquarters support units, meaning that it was the same as
9 in Srebrenica.
10 Q. In fact the reality is, isn't it, if you're aware, that the
11 Muslims were expelled from the town of Bratunac and the surrounding
12 villages -- firstly, are you aware of that?
13 A. I heard about that event and I heard about the combat in Kula Grad
14 which presided that and as far as I remember, Bratunac was completely
16 Q. And in fact the Defence Staff was set up somewhat in exile, wasn't
17 it, in Konjevic Polje, if you're aware of that?
18 A. I did not know about the staff being based in Konjevic Polje. I
19 did not know that specific detail but I assumed that that's how it was.
20 Q. So it's correct, any way from this document, at least from what it
21 says, that there was a Bratunac municipal TO, a Srebrenica municipal TO,
22 neither of these comes within the other, does it? These are municipal TOs
23 which are on the same level, would you agree?
24 A. Yes, that's precisely so.
25 Q. Okay. Thank you. Finished with that document for the moment. I
1 want to go to the position of the military police, first vis-a-vis the TO
2 and then vis-a-vis the corps. And so with the usher's assistance, if the
3 witness could be shown Defence Exhibit D272?
4 Now, this is obviously a substantial document but firstly are you
5 familiar with this order or with this establishment, this provisional
7 A. I don't remember it specifically but since it involves Municipal
8 Defence Staffs with headquarters support units, this must have reached me
9 as well as the commander of the Municipal Staff.
10 Q. All right. Thanks. I'll give you time to go through this
11 document. Just for the record it's dated, and if you can confirm this,
12 it's dated the 25th of September 1992 and it's an order of the RBH Supreme
13 Command Staff regarding, as you said, Municipal Defence Staff with
14 headquarter support units. The document speaks for itself in that regard.
15 So I just ask you: Do you agree that this concerns the temporary
16 formation for Municipal Defence Staffs?
17 A. Yes, that's precisely so.
18 Q. Do you agree that a temporary formation provides the basis upon
19 which units are brought up to strength and equipped as regulated by the
20 Supreme Command of the armed forces?
21 A. Mr. Jones, something that is temporary is indeed temporary, which
22 means that it exists until the staffs are finally regulated and until the
23 organisational structure of all municipal staffs in Bosnia-Herzegovina is
24 made equal. That is all I have to say.
25 Q. Yes. This establishment is dated 25th September 1992. Are you in
1 fact aware of any other formation which was ordered in 1992, in late 1992?
2 A. I don't know, Mr. Jones. I personally think that municipal staffs
3 stopped functioning back in 1992. There were some individual cases where
4 they continued to exist and that was in the area of responsibility of the
5 2nd Corps, such as Lukavac and Srebrenik, which lasted one year after they
6 had been abolished. However, in this period of time, the so-called
7 operative groups were established, and also the district staffs started
8 coming under the corps responsibility. On the 29th of September, the
9 command of the 2nd Corps of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina was
10 established. Therefore, this is a period of time where the original
11 solutions encompassing municipal staffs were being abolished and they
12 tried implementing new organisational solutions which were supposed to be
13 more favourable for the then-existing organisational structure of the army
14 of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
15 Q. Thank you for that explanation. Basing ourselves on this
16 formation document since we don't have another one, I'll ask to you look
17 at page 7 of this document in the B/C/S version, page 10 in the English,
18 where you'll see there is a chart entitled "Municipal Staff Organisation
19 Chart, types 1, 2 and 3." Seven pages in, in Bosnian.
20 A. I can't find it. The pages are not marked in my document. Or
21 perhaps it's a poor copy.
22 Q. I think it's the second page if you keep counting, -- in other
23 words if the usher brings it over I can find the page and then direct the
24 witness to it.
25 A. Thank you.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: It's the 8th page.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right, I've found it.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: It's the 8th page.
4 MR. JONES: Okay.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Starts with [B/C/S spoken].
6 MR. JONES: Okay.
7 Q. Now, please have a look at that chart and you'll see there is a
8 box for commander, Chief of Staff, assistant for morale, security organ,
9 assistant for logistics, and financial assistant. You see all that?
10 A. Yes, I can see that.
11 Q. Now, I'd ask you to go through this chart and this document on the
12 temporary establishment of the municipal defence staff and ask you if you
13 agree that the military police is not mentioned anywhere as part of this
15 A. Yes, Mr. Jones, that's precisely so. During my previous
16 testimony, I have stated that from one municipality to the next one, the
17 situation was different. I had a platoon or a company of military police,
18 for example, but that unit is not mentioned in this chart, for example.
19 Q. Right. But this chart is issued, is it not, by the Supreme
20 Command Chief of Staff in Sarajevo, so this is at least purporting to
21 regular late how municipal defence staffs should operate throughout the
22 territory, would you agree?
23 A. My comment, Mr. Jones, would be the same as in the previous case:
24 Namely that the situation on the ground was different from what was
25 ordered. I, for example, believe that in a town which had 160.000
1 inhabitants and between 5.000 and 10.000 soldiers, I believe that I needed
2 to have a military police company in that town. Therefore, I chose to
3 continue to have this unit which was later confirmed by the orders that
4 came from the General Staff.
5 Q. We are going to look now at the position in different districts
6 and municipalities with the aid of P123 so you can put that document to
7 one side and with the usher's assistance, if the witness could be shown
8 P123. And this is a report on established staffs, institutions and units
9 of the armed forces from the RBH Tuzla district defence staff to the staff
10 of the Supreme Command of the armed forces in Sarajevo. And it's dated
11 29th of August 1992. So if you look under Tuzla District Defence Staff I
12 think you'll agree that there is a number 5, it's on the first page, a
13 military police company, platoon of military police, and with apparently
14 208 conscripts, correct?
15 A. That's precisely what is stated in that document.
16 Q. If we turn to look at some of the municipal defence staffs, we see
17 that some of them do have military police units. For example, Lukavac
18 municipal defence staff, it's page 3 of the English and I'm not sure what
19 copy the witness has but I did notice that in the B/C/S version. It's
20 page 3 but the heading is a bit unclear.
21 A. Yes. I can see that.
22 Q. All right. Well, do you see then that Lukavac Municipal Defence
23 Staff in that defence staff there is a military police company with
24 apparently 78 conscripts?
25 A. Yes. That's in the fourth row. I don't know if it was indeed a
1 company or perhaps a platoon, and it is stated here that this was the
2 military police company with 78 members.
3 Q. Yes. That would be below strength if it were actually a company?
4 A. Yes, that's right.
5 Q. If we look at Srebrenica Municipal Defence Staff, I think you'll
6 agree that there is no mention of any unit of military police there.
7 A. Yes, I would agree.
8 Q. And the same is true, is it not, of the Bratunac Municipal Defence
9 Staff which is on the second page in the English, probably the second page
10 in B/C/S as well?
11 A. Yes, that's right as well.
12 Q. I'd ask you now to turn to page 4 in the B/C/S, it's towards the
13 bottom, it's page 6 in the English, and it's the units of the Vlasenica
14 Municipal Defence Staff. This is for a slightly different purpose which
15 I'm going to come back to later.
16 A. I found that.
17 Q. Can you confirm that Vlasenica is obviously a distinct
18 municipality from Srebrenica and Bratunac?
19 A. You're absolutely right. That is an entirely different
20 municipality in a totally different location. The second municipality in
21 the second axis, the population had also been expelled from there. I
22 think that its inhabitants were in Kladanj.
23 Q. Its Muslim inhabitants, just for the record.
24 A. I'm referring to the Muslim population which was driven out.
25 Q. Thank you. Now, if you could just confirm that we see there that
1 within the Vlasenica Municipal Defence Staff, there is a Vlasenica TO
2 detachment, a Cerska TO detachment, an Djile TO detachment and a Pobrdze
3 TO company, if you agree?
4 A. Yes, that's right. That's what the document says.
5 Q. Yes. I think Cerska might not have been interpreted but you see
6 there is Cerska TO detachment?
7 A. Mr. Jones, that's under item 5.
8 Q. Thank you. We are going to come back to that later when we look
9 at some other exhibits but I would just ask to you remember that reference
10 to the Cerska TO detachment being under the Vlasenica Municipal Defence
11 Staff. Finally on this document, I draw your attention to the words on
12 the first page, where it says second sentence in the first paragraph, "In
13 connection with item 2 of your order I hereby inform that you we do not
14 have the order to form units for any of the units formed so far from the
15 staff of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces of the Republic of BH."
16 Now do you agree that this formation from the Tuzla District Defence Staff
17 is still awaiting confirmation therefore from the Supreme Command Staff in
19 A. Mr. Jones, that follows from my previous answers. The situation
20 in the field was one thing, and paper work and orders is another matter.
21 People try to find the best possible solution. You have to realise that
22 the General Staff was not manned by professionals. In some cases,
23 municipal staffs, in view of their structure, were stronger than a corps.
24 I can tell you that my municipal staff, if it was not actually stronger,
25 was at least equal to the corps staffs. In terms of human resources
1 sometimes we had better resources. I provided food for them. I provided
2 equipment for them. The units I had, I allocated to them so that they
3 could use it. I gave them engineers so that they could establish the
4 Engineering Battalion. In other words, what I'm trying to say, what is
5 stated in documents is one thing and the situation on the ground was quite
6 another matter. There were changes and nobody was held accountable for
7 the fact that the actual situation differed from what was stated.
8 We had situations, for example, where a battalion was ordered to
9 deblock Bosanski Brod which was 200 kilometres away, and the unit which
10 was quite a small unit, had to go through 200 kilometres held by the enemy
11 in order to accomplish that task, which was ridiculous. People who were
12 there on the ground did what they could. Mr. Halilovic, who was only a
13 few years older than me, and I, were not up to the task. We were quite
14 young at the time. I was 35 years old. When you take into account all of
15 my experience and all of my schooling, I had perhaps 22 years of
16 experience and eight years of schooling. However, that wasn't enough in
17 order for me to properly face the tasks as they existed on the ground.
18 Q. Thank you very much for that answer, General, and in fact that was
19 precisely what I was getting at. And to be absolutely clear, there is no
20 criticism whatsoever that the forces were improvising, struggling in a
21 desperate situation to put together a resistance. It's simply to
22 establish that that was the situation. So I hope that's clear.
23 In fact just finally on that subject, paragraph 2 of this
24 document, on the first page, says the "reforming that is already started
25 was temporarily stopped because of intensified combat operation in our
1 area." So that in fact confirms, does it not, that combat operations, not
2 to mention all sorts of other problems meant that many units were not
3 being properly formed in Tuzla district right through 1992, if you agree
4 with that.
5 A. Yes, I would, Mr. Jones.
6 Q. Thank you. Now, with the usher's assistance if the witness could
7 now be shown Defence Exhibit D273? And while that's being passed up, it's
8 a document of the RBH Defence Ministry, Sarajevo Territorial Defence
9 Staff, signed by the then-commander of the Territorial Defence staff,
10 Colonel Hasan Efendic on the 17th of May 1992. If you see the title order
11 on organisation of military police units, the introduction, I'll just read
12 it for the record, "In order to more effectively and rationally carry out
13 tasks within the competence of the military police of the RBHTO and
14 regional TO staffs, I hereby order," and then, "1, organise TO military
15 police units at the level of the RBHTO staff and regional TO staffs." Now
16 I draw your attention to paragraphs 3 and 4. Paragraph 3 organises, does
17 it not, or provides for the organisation, of MP, military police units, at
18 the level of regional TO staffs, regional staffs; is that correct? With
19 the exception of the Sarajevo District Territorial Defence Staff?
20 A. Yes, Mr. Jones. That is precisely what item 3 states.
21 Q. And then paragraph 4 orders that all TO military police units not
22 organised in keeping with items 1, 2 and 3 or paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of
23 this order should be disbanded? Do you see that?
24 A. It is not clear to me, Mr. Jones, either that or the translation
25 was not correct. In view of the fact of what I said just a while ago,
1 could you please repeat?
2 Q. It's actually paragraph 4 rather than paragraph 3. I think that
3 might have been the mistranslation and in English we have "disband all
4 other TO military police units," which I think is [B/C/S spoken] in B/C/S.
5 A. Yes. Precisely so. And item 4, not 3, it is regulated that all
6 military police units formed at the level of municipal staffs to be
8 Q. Right. So in other words, and it's clearly set out, isn't it, in
9 paragraph 4, that military police units should not be formed at the level
10 of municipalities, according to this order?
11 A. This is another of the absurd situations that took place, to
12 abolish something that was formed in one place and wasn't in another, as
13 if we had formed armed forces and the single centre to regulate it all.
14 But the situation in the field was quite the contrary.
15 Q. Right. But as far as this order is concerned, whether it's absurd
16 or not, it would mean that Srebrenica, being a municipality, was forbidden
17 to have a military police unit?
18 A. Based on the order, yes.
19 Q. If we look at paragraph 9, it says that only officers of the
20 military police shall have the right to exercise the legally envisaged
21 powers of the military police. So that would mean, would it not, that at
22 the municipal level these powers of the military police could not be
23 lawfully exercised?
24 A. Mr. Jones, it states the following here: "The authorities given
25 to the military police by law can implement only the officers of the
1 military police." And there is an addition, "Irrespective of the
2 particular military police unit, as well as the composition of platoons or
3 squads who -- that deal with the issues of forensics and investigations as
4 well as on site investigations."
5 Q. Yes.
6 MR. JONES: Would Your Honours give me one moment?
7 Q. Thank you. I'm going to move to a different document which is
8 P143, which again this is a document, General, which you were shown on
9 Friday. And again, for the sake of the record, this is a document of the
10 Tuzla district Territorial Defence staff dated 14 October 1992, and signed
11 by the commander, Zeljko Knez. You spoke about this document on Friday so
12 I won't ask about it in any detail. Firstly, however t would help if you
13 would clarify one matter. In paragraphs 5, 7 and 8, we see OKSO. Can you
14 confirm that stands for [B/C/S spoken], in other words district defence
16 A. Yes, precisely so, Mr. Jones.
17 Q. Now, looking at paragraph 1 of this order, it refers to setting up
18 military police units in municipal defence staffs, including Srebrenica,
19 but elsewhere as part of -- parts of brigades. My question is: Isn't the
20 right why exceptions are being made for those municipalities firstly for
21 Bratunac and Vlasenica, that as you said the Muslim population had been
22 expelled and that's why the MP units were not to be formed in brigades?
23 A. I don't know what the intention of Mr. Zeljko Knez, who was the
24 commander, was, what was it that he was trying to achieve in the field but
25 I can make the assumption that you made.
1 Q. And Srebrenica, would you assume, then, is an exception because,
2 as you've explained, it was cut off from Tuzla and under siege?
3 A. Mr. Jones, if you are seeking to get a comment on my part about
4 Srebrenica, it would be the following. Mr. Zeljko Knez, who was then the
5 commander of the regional staff and later the corps commander, knew about
6 the situation only to the extent of the information he received through
7 ham radio operators and through some other channels. He tried to work on
8 the situation but whether any of that was actually implemented, I don't
10 Q. All right. Thank you. Really just to clarify this for us, if you
11 can --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I recognise Madam Vidovic.
13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, excuse me, just a
14 correction for the transcript. The witness stated that Mr. Knez was
15 trying to exert some influence on the situation via documents but whether
16 any of that was received or not, and not implemented as it was
17 interpreted, actually what he was trying to say is whether any of it
18 reached Srebrenica.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. General, you heard Madam Vidovic. Do
20 you confirm that?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That was a good correction,
22 and whether any of the orders reached Srebrenica, I don't know. That's
23 what I already stated before.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
25 MR. JONES:
1 Q. Thank you. Sir, if you could clarify this for us, then? Is it
2 right that in those municipalities which are mentioned in paragraph 1,
3 Zivinice, Banovici, Kalesija, Zvornik, Celic, Vlasenica, Srebrenica,
4 Bratunac, and Olovo, they had no established brigades and that's why the
5 commander of the district Territorial Defence -- Territorial District
6 Defence Staff was ordering military police units to be set up and attached
7 to the municipal defence staffs.
8 A. I wouldn't agree with you, Mr. Jones. This is not about brigades
9 but, rather, about brigades as well as municipal staffs, so both. And
10 even we have the specified staffs. Tuzla was not mentioned here, for
11 example, but I did have military police. So I would add to your comment
12 that it included municipal staffs as well. Not only brigades. The units
13 were not formed and hence, Mr. Knez ordered that they be formed. It is
14 possible that none of it existed, neither within the brigade, nor within
15 the municipal staff, and then we have them mentioned here, Zivinice,
16 Banovici, Kalesija, Zvornik, Celic, Vlasenica, Srebrenica, Bratunac and
17 Olovo. We said that Vlasenica and Tuzla did --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters's correction, "Lukavac and Tuzla."
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- did have those units so again we
20 have the confirmation of the situation in the field.
21 Q. I won't stay with this much longer but I think we need to be clear
22 I'll just read the first sentence of the order. "One, form military
23 police units up to the level of a company of 105 conscripts in the
24 municipal defence staffs," and then those places are listed and I won't
25 read them again, "and as part of the brigades in the remaining
1 municipalities," end quote.
2 So my point was this. For those places which are listed, we are
3 talking about military police units being formed in municipal defence
4 staffs and then for the remaining municipalities, we are talking about
5 forming military police units as part of brigades. Would that be correct?
6 A. Yes. One could say so.
7 Q. All right. Now if we go to paragraph 2, or item 2 of this order,
8 it says that the work of the military police units would be controlled by
9 the chiefs of security in the municipal -- municipal defence staff,
11 A. It is incomplete, Mr. Jones. As far as I can see here, [B/C/S
12 spoken], interpretation would be chiefs of security in municipal defence
13 staffs and/or brigades shall control the units of military police in
14 professional terms.
15 MR. JONES: I'm sorry, is my microphone working. Yes?
16 Q. I think we can leave brigades to one side because we are just
17 talking about the situation in Srebrenica now so leaving brigades to one
18 side, I want to remain on this theme for a moment. Isn't it then correct
19 to say that the work of these security chiefs on the municipal level,
20 their work is to be controlled by the chief of security of the Tuzla
21 district staff?
22 A. What is literally translated is what it roughly states in --
23 stated in the document but there are two types of command and control.
24 One is horizontal, team communicates with a team, and then vertically, we
25 have relationships between unit commands.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Yes. I want to come to that in a moment. I first want to
2 establish just what it is actually stated in this order and it's right,
3 isn't it, that in paragraph 2 of this order, there is no mention there of
4 any role of the commander of the municipal defence staff in controlling
5 the work of the chiefs of security in municipal defence staffs?
6 A. Precisely so.
7 Q. And indeed if one looks at paragraph 5 now, this is why I asked
8 you to clarify earlier what OKSO meant, doesn't paragraph 5 provide that
9 the district organs shall regulate the tasks of the military police in
10 their powers in a special book of instructions, firstly?
11 A. Mr. Jones, it states here that the security organ of the district
12 defence staff will perform that function.
13 Q. Right. Thank you. And then in paragraph 7, that sets up a
14 reporting obligation according to which the military police in
15 municipalities have to report to the military police in the district
16 staff. Would you agree?
17 A. Yes, precisely so. This is the horizontal link.
18 Q. I'm puzzled why you describe that as a horizontal link. Surely a
19 security chief on a municipal level when he reports to a security chief on
20 the district level is reporting vertically.
21 A. From your standpoint, that is so. But I have to reiterate, there
22 are two types of relationships. As a municipal staff commander, I had my
23 immediate communication with the commander of the district defence staff,
24 and on a daily basis I sent my reports. And this pertains only to a part
25 of the reports in connection with the activities of the military police,
1 not the complete set. I had a combat report to issue, reflecting the last
2 24 hours.
3 Q. All right. I may come back to that but again still sticking with
4 just what this document states, paragraph 7 does not state any reporting
5 obligation of military police on the municipal level to the commander of
6 the municipal defence staff, does it?
7 A. Precisely so.
8 Q. And before I forget, but on a slightly different matter, would you
9 agree that while there is a stamp here of the Kladanj Municipal Defence
10 Staff or Municipal Assembly, Territorial defence Staff, there is nothing
11 on the document that you have to indicate that it was ever received in
12 Srebrenica? There is no stamp that it was received in Srebrenica; that's
13 all I'm asking.
14 A. This is yet another document which is not set up correctly in its
15 last page. It should have stated "to be distributed to," and then the
16 addressees plus the archives. This document should not reflect the
17 situation as it does, whether something has been delivered to someone or
18 not. I only confirm that I recognise the signature of Commander Zeljko
19 Knez and that I received it and that I worked on it.
20 Q. Thank you. I was just asking about the stamps, though, on the
21 first page. Those stamps from the operations group in Kladanj and the
22 Territorial Defence staff in Kladanj, indicates that the document was
23 received in Kladanj, would that be correct?
24 A. I don't see a stamp with the word "Kladanj." The stamp I have is
25 the stamp of the Tuzla District Staff of the TO. This is what it states
1 within the stamp itself. The Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, District
2 Staff Tuzla, and then in smaller letters, Territorial Defence, and we have
3 our coat of arms. So I don't have the copy that you have, apparently, and
4 there is no mention of Kladanj.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's put the first page of the B/C/S version on the
6 ELMO, please.
7 MR. JONES: It's on the right-hand side.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I don't know what the witness is looking at,
9 Mr. Jones, so I want to make sure first and foremost.
10 MR. JONES:
11 Q. Yes, do you see on the right-hand side, General, the two stamps
12 [B/C/S spoken] and then Kladanj at the very bottom of one stamp and then
13 [B/C/S spoken] Kladanj, and then Kladanj again written at the bottom, on
14 the right-hand side?
15 A. I was looking at the wrong page prior. I was looking at the last
16 page instead of the first one. I see the stamp here. These are probably
17 stamps from registry books of the municipal assembly of Kladanj, as well
18 as the operations group, and the dates are the 23rd of October and the
19 27th of October, but could you please repeat your question?
20 Q. In fact just one question for our benefit, really. Kladanj is a
21 very long way to Srebrenica -- from Srebrenica, isn't it? There was no
22 physical connection between those two places at the time?
23 A. The closest free territory to the municipality of Srebrenica was
24 Kladanj but that's 100 kilometres away.
25 Q. Right. Thank you. Now, just a question on the military security
1 service, the SVB. Isn't it right that within the SVB, there is a special
2 system of subordination which is distinct from the other organs and chains
3 of command within the ABiH?
4 A. Yes, precisely so.
5 Q. And that's what you've been describing as a horizontal
6 relationship; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Would you still describe it as horizontal when we consider in a
9 corps structure, when you have an assistant commander for security in a
10 corps, would you not regard him as a superior to a security officer in a
11 brigade? And further on down to battalions and companies?
12 A. In a way, horizontally speaking, yes. Horizontally, I reiterate.
13 Q. Would you agree that as far as the military security service is
14 concerned, that only the high level commands at the level of the corps
15 commander or higher, had full access to the methods and knowledge of the
16 functioning of the military security organs?
17 A. In principle, a unit commander that has a military police organ
18 should be informed, but I do agree with you that they should have the full
19 picture and information as well.
20 Q. But would you agree that, let's say, a battalion commander or a
21 company commander may well not in practice be informed by the military
22 police, that they would rather report up the SVB chain to the security
23 chiefs in the corps or brigade?
24 A. Mr. Jones, I don't understand the question fully. Are we talking
25 about a military police platoon commander or a battalion commander or a
1 corps commander in general? If we are talking about command
2 responsibilities in general, you are right.
3 Q. I was talking about the SVB reporting chain and that at the lower
4 level, battalion commanders or lower level units commanders, that they
5 would not necessarily be informed by the SVB organs within their unit of
6 their work?
7 A. My reply would be yes, but with your leave, Your Honour, I could
8 explain the functioning of that organ of military security.
9 MR. JONES: My one hesitation, Your Honour, is I'm somewhat short
10 of time in fact as we are going along today.
11 So, Witness, if you could save that answer we may come back to it
12 but I want to move to a new area, given the shortness of time.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Shall we have the break now?
14 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour, this would be a suitable time for a
16 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll have a 25-minute break starting from now.
17 Thank you.
18 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Mr. Jones, and General Delic, please try
21 to keep your answers as concise as possible because we are running short
22 of time and would like to finish your testimony today.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour. In fact this next series of
25 questions will mostly require a yes or no answer but, of course, don't
1 hesitate if you need to elaborate.
2 Q. Now, General, I want to ask you now about the draft combat action
3 sheets which you were shown on Friday and I first have some general
4 questions about the project and I do want to make clear before I start
5 again that there is no criticism if the project wasn't completed or
6 anything of that nature but I need to establish precisely what was done
7 and what wasn't.
8 Now, on Friday you said of these sheets, you said, "This is raw
9 material, it had not been analysed, it was being sent to experts for
10 analysis." Now, would you accept that these combat sheets were drafts,
12 A. Yes. As I've said earlier, this was raw material for the project
13 organised by the General Staff of the Army of the Federation of Bosnia and
15 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I'm not objecting at all
16 but I think that there is a clarification that should be made or we should
17 accept. Mr. Jones used the expression drafts. We have evidence that
18 these documents have been signed off by this witness and other people.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: So --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: They are no longer drafts.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: If they are no longer drafts as I understand that
23 word and if Mr. Jones wants to use that word then we should be absolutely
24 clear from the witness that they are, in the classic sense, a draft, a
25 document prepared before its final state, so to speak.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that's a very valid -- in fact I was going
2 to stop Mr. Jones initially when he referred to the documents as draft
3 combat reports.
4 But you followed the discussion. Once you signed these documents,
5 at least one of them, because the other two that we had seen were signed
6 by different persons, would you still consider them as drafts or did they
7 become a final document for whatever it was worth? And for whatever
8 purpose it was meant?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this was indeed initial
10 work material. If you want my opinion, it reflects the events and perhaps
11 the participants of the events, number of people and the result of the
12 operation was something that was to be done by a team at the level of the
13 General Staff or, rather, the joint command of the then Federation army.
14 So they were supposed to finalise this and translate that into final form.
15 Last time, when I testified, I said that we attempted to ensure that the
16 form was filled in, in a uniform manner for all operations. That's why we
17 created teams that were supposed to review this. You know that after the
18 war everybody considers themselves to be victors and we were worried that
19 people would amplify and boost the results of the events. What we know
20 for sure is that the events did happen. We know the losses at the level
21 of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, we don't know what happened
22 on the opposite side.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: We are taking too long on this. So basically let me
24 put it to this -- like this: Once you signed that document yourself, I'm
25 referring to the one which you signed, that -- from that moment onward, no
1 one would redraft that document, but they would process that document
2 together with other similar ones for whatever purpose they were meant, but
3 as far as you were concerned, that document was finalised when you affixed
4 your signature to it?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the fact that it was
6 signed and that it was there on paper does not mean that it was anything
7 but initial material recording the event. The analysis was supposed to be
8 done by a professional team, including both soldiers and civilians.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I think that's clear enough, Mr. Jones.
10 MR. JONES: Well, Your Honour, I do need to pursue this a bit
12 JUDGE AGIUS: As much as you like. Trying to make your life
13 easier, actually.
14 MR. JONES: Thank you. I understand that and it may be semantics
15 whether we call it a draft or not.
16 Q. What I want to establish and if you could answer with yes or no we
17 could get there. You said these sheets were to be sent for final
18 analysis. That final analysis was not carried out, was it?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: If he knows.
20 MR. JONES:
21 Q. If you know?
22 A. As far as I know, no, it was not. At the time I was corps
23 commander, I remained in that post until the 1st of October of 2000 and
24 the project was not completed until that time. It started in 1997 and it
25 went on for three years while I was the commander and it was never
2 Q. So these sheets were not finalised were they, and again, a yes or
3 no, if you can. They were not finalised. JUDGE AGIUS: It's not these
4 sheets because it's -- the exercise for which they were meant was never
6 MR. JONES: That's what I'm seeking to establish, Your Honour, how
7 to refer to these I'm referring to the actual, physical sheets.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: But those -- you shouldn't put it to him that those
9 sheets were not finalised. Those sheets were finalised. It's the
10 analysis that would have followed those sheets which was never completed.
11 MR. JONES: That's precisely it, Your Honour. Let me approach it a
12 different way.
13 Q. The information contained in these sheets in these documents, was
14 not verified in a final way, was it?
15 A. My reply will perhaps be unclear. It was verified by those people
16 who drafted that, who signed it but not verified by the people to whom it
17 was intended and who were supposed to use it as material for final
19 Q. All right. And these were not published, this project did not
20 result in the publication of these documents, did it?
21 A. Yes, you're right.
22 Q. It's right, isn't it, that you cannot personally vouch for the
23 truthfulness of what is contained in these -- in these documents?
24 A. Yes. Precisely so. I told you last time that a group of senior
25 officers who were from Srebrenica and the surrounding area definitely
1 participated in recording the events. However, there was a group of
2 officers outside of that area who were from Tuzla and that area who were
3 also involved in the project and they wrote into the forms what they were
4 able to hear and what they learned.
5 Q. All right. In light of that do you accept that the information
6 contained in these - I'll call them sheets, just for convenience -
7 contained in these sheets which is inaccurate, not necessarily
8 deliberately so, but because it has not been checked and finally verified?
9 Is that something you'd accept?
10 A. Mr. Jones, I agree with your statement.
11 Q. Thank you. Now, you've told us on Friday and again today that one
12 of the reasons for this project is that there might be exaggeration and to
13 show documents in a different light, you said. Now, when you spoke of the
14 risk of exaggeration, did you consider it being part of that risk that
15 commanders in some areas would be credited with the role in actions in
16 which they were not involved?
17 A. Subconsciously, yes, you're entirely right. That was precisely
18 our concern. After the war, everybody likes to declare themselves heroes.
19 Everybody wants to portray themselves in better light than it actually was
20 in reality. Everybody wanted to record forever their roles in certain
21 historical events, and we all knew that it was very important for
22 posterity to ensure that these events were analysed properly. This is why
23 we attempted to control that process by using reviewers, including both
24 professional soldiers and civilian experts. As far as I know, over 20
25 Ph.D. holders were the University of Sarajevo were involved in the
1 project, and they were supposed to give an objective quality to it to be
2 used in future by the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
3 Q. Did you recognise that risk as relating also to commander Naser
4 Oric? That he would be attributed roles in actions in which he had
5 perhaps not been involved?
6 A. I personally never gave that a thought.
7 Q. All right. Just before we look at some of these drafts do you
8 know that the following people were in charge of this project, firstly,
9 Rasim Dupljak?
10 A. Mr. Jones, in the joint command, there were dozens of people, not
11 just Rasim Dupljak who were tasked with that. As far as I know, there
12 were at least five to ten teams of people from various fields, such as
13 logistics, command and control, mobilisation, combat operations and so on.
14 I personally know Rasim Dupljak and know that he was involved.
15 Q. And then for two other names, again you can just say yes or no
16 whether they were involved, Muhamed Sestanovic?
17 A. I don't know that person, no.
18 Q. Okay. Then Salih Jaliman?
19 A. I've heard of him but had not contacts with him.
20 Q. Did you hear of him being involved in this project?
21 A. I've heard that he was a member of one of the teams but I didn't
22 know that that was indeed the case.
23 Q. I'm going to start by asking if the witness could be shown D156.
24 It's a Defence Exhibit, and this is not one of the sheets you were shown.
25 It was P86 at one stage but it was withdrawn as an exhibit by the OTP.
1 Now, if you could firstly have a look at this sheet and I'd ask if
2 you agree that it's in the same format as the other three sheets that you
3 were shown last Friday.
4 A. As far as I can see, these are the same issues and same format.
5 Q. If you turn to the last page, you see that it appears that one of
6 the reviewers was a --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: We can't follow because we don't seem to have it.
8 MR. JONES: It's D156.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: If we could put it -- is it on the ELMO? Okay.
10 It's on the ELMO now. Thank you, thank you, usher.
11 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you.
12 Q. And do you agree that on the last page, it appears that one of the
13 reviewers was a Ramo Hodzic, not sure if that's come out correctly in the
14 English, but in the Bosnian it should be Ramo Hodzic.
15 A. Yes. I can see that. He's a senior Lieutenant or something like
17 Q. Do you agree that it looks like one hand has signed or has written
18 in all the names? Is that something you would agree with, firstly?
19 A. I think that the entire document was written by one person.
20 Q. Shouldn't these forms in fact be filled in, at least signed by
21 different people in order to ensure that the information was carefully
22 checked by more than one person?
23 A. You are right. However, if these people are indeed behind it,
24 then their names could have been written in. This information was
25 probably used by the team so that the team could later on, when analysing
1 this information, call back the people compiling the document in order to
2 establish the relevant truth.
3 Q. Would you agree that there is a purported signature there by Zulfo
5 A. It says here, Mr. Jones, just the name of Zulfo Tursunovic. I
6 don't know what his signature looks like but I assume that this entire
7 document was written by one hand and that this is not his signature.
8 Q. Well as far as Zulfo Tursunovic is concerned, you've mentioned him
9 before, are you aware that he's in fact illiterate?
10 A. I think that that is right, that he is illiterate but I'm not sure
11 about that so perhaps I should rephrase my answer and say I don't know.
12 Q. That's fine. I would ask if the Court would now refer to D157?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. That's a statement, no?
14 MR. JONES: Yes, yes. It's a statement by Ramo Hodzic given by
15 the investigators of the OTP of this Tribunal. I'm afraid since we
16 don't -- I don't think we have a version in B/C/S, so I'm just going to
17 read a part of the statement. It's paragraph 18. And in that statement,
18 Ramo Hodzic says of this document, the one we've just seen, the original
19 of which had the ERN number 02621257, to 02621260, "I've never seen this
20 document previously. I was never involved in the preparation of this
21 document. I was never involved in the preparation of the -- any other
22 documents like this one. In fact I've never been part of the 28th
23 division." Now, you've told us how these were not final products. It's
24 not a criticism, but would it surprise to you learn that people's names
25 had been added as reviewers who were in fact no such thing?
1 A. Well, that's not how it should be but when it comes to Srebrenica,
2 nothing would surprise me. As I've told you before, this project was
3 conducted by a group among whom there were members who were not in
4 Srebrenica, because that group was disbanded, people were demobilised,
5 including many of those who were there originally, and as far as I know,
6 this project went on between 1997 and 2000, or maybe even later, which
7 means that it took place many years after the events in Srebrenica. So it
8 is possible that somebody was included here in the belief that that person
9 was a participant in the events and then that was done in order to be able
10 to call that person later on to clarify things.
11 Q. Right. So the fact that a person's name is listed as a reviewer
12 doesn't mean that he had in fact been consulted at that stage as a
14 A. That's obviously the case, based on this statement.
15 Q. A bit more about this document. This refers to an action which
16 allegedly took place on the 10th of June 1992. It too says that the units
17 involved in the combat action were part of the municipal -- Srebrenica
18 Municipal Defence Staff, Territorial Defence Staff. That's on the 10th of
19 June 1992. Now, we've seen with P129 and you've agreed that there was no
20 Srebrenica Municipal Staff on paper, at least, until considerably after
21 June of 1992. Do you agree with that?
22 A. Yes. It's possible that that's how it was. One of the reasons,
23 potential reasons, was that the later -- that the unit later did become
24 part of the municipal staff and that was the reason why it was treated
25 that way.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Okay. Although the form itself says that that was the -- the unit
2 was in that formation at the time of the execution of the combat
3 operation. So that could be inaccurate information, would you agree?
4 A. You are right. The unit was indeed perhaps later within the
5 municipal staff and perhaps that was the reason why when the document was
6 drafted it was listed as such. What actually happened is that the
7 documents that came later actually recognised the situation that had
9 Q. Just on the same theme, according to P76, which you were shown on
10 Friday, Naser Oric was formally appointed as commander of the Srebrenica
11 TO on the 27th of June 1992. So it would also be inaccurate, wouldn't it,
12 to say that he was the commander of the Srebrenica Municipal TO as of the
13 10th of June?
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Vidovic?
15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, but what
16 the witness said is quite the opposite of what is stated in the
17 transcript. What is stated here is that the document later recognised the
18 situation that existed. What the witness said in fact was quite the
19 opposite, that at the time the situation was different than what it was
20 when the document was written. So could the witness please repeat the
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember that and I will repeat
23 it. I wanted to say that at the time when this was drafted, and this is a
24 uniform form which has certain information that is needed, and it couldn't
25 be avoided. So it is possible that that unit at the time was not a part
1 of that municipal staff. However, at the time when this information was
2 entered, and later on, if the unit was indeed at that point within that
3 municipal TO staff, then that's what was entered into the form. So the
4 actual situation at the time when the combat was conducted was not the
5 same as at the time when this document was drafted. Perhaps that units
6 was originally an independent one but later on it became a part of that
7 municipal staff and this is why this document reflects that.
8 MR. JONES:
9 Q. Yes, and a final clarification on that. When you say perhaps that
10 unit was originally an independent one but later it became part of the
11 municipal staff do you agree that that -- first, the fact that the unit
12 was possibly at the time of the combat operation an independent one but it
13 later became part of the TO staff?
14 A. That's precisely so, Mr. Jones.
15 Q. Now, if we could -- if the witness could please be shown P87 which
16 you were shown Friday, related to Ducice. Now, this concerns an alleged
17 action in Ducice village which began and ended according to this form on
18 the 19th of June 1992. I think you'll see that at paragraph 1 and
19 paragraph 12. And the unit which carried out the action according to this
20 was the Osmace TO and the operation was planned by Mirsad Dudic. It's
21 right, isn't it, that this form does not say that Naser Oric planned the
23 A. Mr. Jones, I've stated that this was a unique kind of an event,
24 namely the unit conducting combat here, actually the units are two TO
25 staffs, TO Staff Osmace and TO Staff Srebrenica. The commander, Atif
1 Krdzic, was undoubtedly the one conducting operations. Naser Oric is not
2 the commander here. He's mentioned under item 4. It says here verbatim,
3 "defence liberating unit conducting the combat." So the Osmace unit was
4 a part of the Srebrenica TO Staff, and the commander of that TO staff was
5 Brigadier Naser Oric. So I could say that you were right, in a way.
6 Q. Yes. In fact to make progress through these forms I would be
7 grateful if where possible you would answer with simply a yes or no, and I
8 take it you've answered my question yes, the form does not say that Oric
9 planned the attack. My next question is, it does not say either that
10 Naser Oric participated in the attack, does it? And again, please, a yes
11 or no.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. As you've explained it simply says that according to this draft,
14 this form, Osmace TO came within the formation of the Srebrenica TO Staff
15 and you've explained that might be at some later stage. Do you agree with
17 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, the unit -- paragraph 4
18 states that the liberation unit -- I know this is not the correct
19 translation but it says that the liberation unit in charge of the
20 operation during its execution and the commander is Naser Oric.
21 MR. JONES: Yes that's my point and this can be taken in
23 If I may, the witness agreed with the last sheet that in fact it
24 might record that a unit was within the Srebrenica TO Staff event though
25 it wasn't at the time of the combat operation.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: I see, I'm sorry.
2 MR. JONES: And I'm putting it to the witness that that --
3 MR. Di FAZIO: I withdraw my objection.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
5 Go ahead, Mr. Jones, please.
6 MR. JONES:
7 Q. You've accepted the possibility that even though these forms state
8 that a unit is within the Srebrenica TO Staff it might be that they later
9 came within the staff and were not so at the time of the combat
11 A. Yes. Exactly. Or perhaps they acted together in the course of
13 Q. Now again if you could just answer the following questions with a
14 yes or no, if possible. According to paragraph 4, Naser Oric had no rank
15 during the combat operations, correct?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. Now on Friday, you described Naser Oric on several occasions as
18 Brigadier Oric. He didn't in fact become a brigadier until July 1994, did
20 A. I don't know the exact date. I assume that you're right because
21 approximately at around that time, all of us were promoted.
22 Q. Okay. Now if you look at paragraph 8 of this sheet, do you agree
23 that it sets out there a military objective for the combat operation,
24 namely to crush enemy forces, extend the free territory and create
25 conditions for further defence of the country, cut the linking of Chetnik
1 units along Fakovici, Ratkovici, Brezani? Ratkovici didn't enter the
2 record. Ratkovici, Fakovici, Brezani. You see that?
3 A. Yes, yes, I see that.
4 Q. Would you understand, then, from this document that at least from
5 the 19th of June 1992, there were Chetnik units, or in other words Serb
6 military forces, deployed and linked together in Fakovici, Ratkovici, and
8 A. That was certainly so.
9 Q. And you'd also understand from this form, wouldn't you, that the
10 combat action had the task of seizing as much materiel and technical
11 equipment and supplies as well as food, in other words war booty, and of
12 killing the enemy. That's in paragraph 8(2).
13 A. Yes, sir. That's what is stated in 8(2).
14 Q. These are all perfectly legitimate military objectives, as far as
15 the regulations you were referring to on Friday were concerned, aren't
17 A. Based on this, yes, that's what follows.
18 Q. And then we see at paragraph 9 --
19 MR. JONES: I should just explain for Your Honours that in the
20 original various paragraphs are circled and in the English they appear not
21 to be.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
23 MR. JONES:
24 Q. Isn't it right, General, that we see at paragraph 9 that the
25 operation had tactical importance and according to paragraph 17(3), in
1 fact, had great tactical importance compared with other actions carried
2 out by those units. Do you agree?
3 A. Yes, I agree.
4 Q. Now, paragraph 13, it appears that units involved in this action
5 used a white band around their head to distinguish each other. Now, would
6 you understand from that, that fighters, persons properly engaged in this
7 action, wore white bands around their head?
8 A. Yes. When it comes to members of the then Territorial Defence.
9 The band around the head or around the arm was a way to make a distinction
10 between us and enemy soldiers. That's how it was.
11 Q. Because at the time there were very few uniforms, correct, so
12 there had to be a way of recognising one's fellow combatant?
13 A. That's precisely so. That was the case almost throughout 1992,
14 because both sides had almost identical uniforms.
15 Q. So it follows from this form, doesn't it, that a person not
16 wearing a white band was not a participant in these operations, as far as
17 this is concerned?
18 A. All of those who were in battlefield and took part in combat and
19 did not have the bands, either around the head or around the arm, were
20 considered to be enemy soldiers and as such were targeted.
21 Q. Right. Thank you. And if this form is accurate in any respect,
22 it's correct to say, isn't it, that looking at paragraph 20.7, a number of
23 light weapons and some heavy weapons, from a 60-millimetre mortar and two
24 82 millimetre mortars were captured from the enemy Serb forces?
25 A. I apologise. I don't think we are referring to the same item or
1 section. Could you please repeat your question because the text -- my
2 text doesn't say what you read out.
3 Q. Paragraph 20.7?
4 JUDGE AGIUS: You have to turn the page because it seems that 20.7
5 is repeated twice. Or at least that's how it was understood by whoever
6 translated. You need to refer to the page, General, which at the top,
7 right-hand corner has the following reference number, 02621344. And there
8 you see 20.7, [B/C/S spoken].
9 MR. JONES: Yes, that's losses suffered by occupying aggressor
10 forces --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, I see now.
12 Q. That refers to Serbian forces, doesn't it, "occupying aggressor
14 A. Yes. I can see it now. I would like to thank Your Honour for
15 pointing me in the right direction.
16 Q. All right. Now as someone who was in the armed forces during this
17 period and as someone involved in these forms would you understand from
18 20.7 that the Serb forces had lost or had captured from them 60-millimetre
19 mortar and two, 82-millimetre mortars, apart from other things, apart from
20 light weapons?
21 A. Yes. It is clear here that they seized not only two mortars of
22 82-millimetre calibre but as well one piece of 6-0 millimetre mortar, so
23 three mortars altogether.
24 Q. And you're very familiar with this equipment, aren't you? We are
25 talking about heavy weapons which can inflict a lot of damage on people
1 and property within range, correct?
2 A. Yes, you're right.
3 Q. I'd like to move on to P88, which concerns Kravica. This is out
4 of chronological sequence but it's in exhibit sequence so that's why I've
5 taken that order.
6 Now, this concerns an action in Kravica which according to this
7 form began and ended on the 7th of January 1993, according to paragraph
8 12, correct?
9 A. Yes, you're right.
10 Q. To see which unit carried out this action we actually need to look
11 at the Bosnian because I think there is a mistake in the English. Would
12 you agree that at 2 it says, first, [B/C/S spoken]?
13 A. Yes, Cerani detachment.
14 Q. In other words that's the first Cerska [Microphone not activated]?
15 A. Yes. And according to this document, this was a detachment that
16 was with the Territorial Defence Staff of Vlasenica.
17 Q. That's just -- so, for the English?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: So where we have "Cerani" in English, that's a
19 mistake. It should read "Cerska."
20 MR. JONES: Exactly "Ceranski" means "Cerska," as this witness has
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you agree with that, Mr. Di Fazio?
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Sorry, Your Honour I've been distracted by e-mails.
24 I apologise. Would you just give me a moment?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, I direct to you paragraph 2 in both versions,
1 the English and the B/C/S. If you look at the original, the B/C/S
2 version, paragraph 2, line 1, handwritten you find number 1, [B/C/S
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: That was translated for us as 1st Cerani detachment.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: It's being suggested and it seems that the witness
8 agrees that Ceranski should never be translated Cerani but it should read
9 Cerska, Cerska, Cerska, 1st Cerska detachment.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, it takes me by surprise. I can't comment
11 because I'm not a native speaker. I think it's probably a matter for
12 the -- for the interpreter's booth or --
13 MR. JONES: I will just ask this witness again to confirm it.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: If the witness knows, I don't know if it's idiom or
15 whether in the language you can get Ceranski from Cerska. That's what I
16 don't know.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know either.
18 MR. JONES: Your Honour, I think this is become being
19 unnecessarily complicated. Can I just ask the witness?
20 Q. General, do you understand [B/C/S spoken] to refer to the 1st
21 Cerska detachment?
22 A. Yes, that is the same. It is just differently put.
23 Q. Thank you?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, let's move.
25 MR. JONES: Yes.
1 Q. Now, you agreed that this detachment -- well, as stated on this
2 form, comes within the Vlasenica TO, we saw that on P123 as well. And you
3 agree that the Vlasenica TO is obviously a different TO from Srebrenica
5 A. Yes, that is so.
6 Q. And the officer who it is stated was most responsible for planning
7 the operation, or the action, was Ferid Hodzic, who as we would expect is
8 the commander of the Vlasenica TO; is that correct?
9 A. Yes. That's precisely what it states.
10 Q. So according to this form, the attack on Kravica village -- sorry,
11 put it this way: It was units in the Vlasenica TO which planned and
12 participated in this action on Kravica on the 7th of January 1993?
13 A. This is what can be read from this document.
14 Q. Now, then we see the familiar box 4, saying which formation the
15 unit was within, and here as we saw rather than referring to Srebrenica
16 TO, it says the joint armed forces of the subregion. My question to you
17 is this: When you were a commander in the TO in Tuzla, or even a 2nd
18 Corps commander, you never heard of any properly formed unit called the
19 joint armed forces of the subregion, did you?
20 A. No. Joint armed forces or the forces that participated could have
21 only been formed in 1994 or 1995 when we formed the liberation units by
22 which we would join a couple of corps if necessary to assign some units
23 that could bear a similar name. But as for the armed forces of the
24 subregion, I have never heard of that.
25 Q. Thank you. Paragraph 9, we see a reference to the Kamenica
1 detachment. Kamenica is in Zvornik municipality, isn't it, if you know?
2 A. Yes, that is so.
3 Q. And again if you can just answer with a yes or no, according to
4 this form, or this form doesn't state that Naser Oric either planned or
5 participated in the attack on Kravica.
6 A. Precisely so.
7 Q. Again I want to take you to the information listed in other
8 paragraphs, and again if you can confirm the following, firstly paragraph
9 8, again it appears from this form that there was a military objective for
10 this operation which to summarise involved taking territory to enable
11 contact between the free territories of Srebrenica and Konjevic Polje and
12 to take enemy weapons. Do you see that and do you agree that that's what
14 A. Precisely so. It is defined in 8.1.
15 Q. Right. And again, these are perfectly legitimate military
16 objectives, are they not, as far as the ABiH regulations you referred to
17 on Friday are concerned?
18 A. Yes, that is so.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please I'm not objecting, I'm
20 asking for an elucidation. This is the second time that Mr. Jones has
21 asked the witness about ABiH regulations referred to on Friday. I think
22 we should know which particular regulations Mr. Jones and the witness --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: We saw, too.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: Exactly.
25 MR. JONES: I'd have to check the transcript. I was referring in
1 general to the provisions of obeying the laws of war which were referred
2 to the witness. I don't know if I need to be more specific than that.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, it's only for the purposes of any
4 re-examination, if any, and I was particularly concerned about the
5 legitimate material being legitimate war aims. That was in the earlier
6 reference to -- made by Mr. Jones so --
7 MR. JONES: Well, it was partly also the reference to war booty
8 which the witness referred to on Friday. I think without stopping and
9 looking at the transcript on Friday I couldn't be more specific. I can
10 undertake in the next break to have a look, otherwise, I'm happy to --
11 MR. DI FAZIO: I would appreciate that because --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I understand that, Mr. Di Fazio. Thank you. Let's
14 MR. JONES:
15 Q. Again we can take these points quickly. Paragraph 9, apparently
16 the operation had tactical importance. Coupled with 17.3, great tactical
17 importance. Would you agree?
18 A. Yes, that is so.
19 Q. And then if we look at the forces engaged, paragraph 18, it says
20 that the enemy were about 500 Chetniks. Would we understand from that
21 that that's referring to 500 members of the Serb military, 500 Serb
23 A. Precisely so. We made a distinction between Chetniks who were
24 Bosnian Serbs fighting the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the JNA, which
25 actually, as a military formation would come from Serbia to participate in
1 combat activities. When we would say Chetniks, these were formations that
2 were either individually or a part of the larger force who were fighting
3 the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
4 Q. All right. Thank you. So we are certainly not talking about
5 civilians there?
6 A. Yes, you're right. There were tens of thousands of Serbs in Tuzla
7 and no one ever called them Chetniks.
8 Q. Thank you and you would understand, would you not, from paragraph
9 18.1.2 that these 500 Serb soldiers had APs, that's machine-guns, Zoljas
10 and, stopping there firstly, you see that?
11 A. I can see it. It also states one tank, one howitzer. So those
12 are heavy -- that's heavy weaponry.
13 Q. And Zoljas are incendiary grenades, aren't they, they are grenades
14 which have a propensity to cause fire?
15 A. No. Zolja is an anti-tank device but it could also be used to
16 destroy enemy forces once -- if they were fortified.
17 Q. Okay. And when we see 20 heavy weapons as well? 18.1, 2, B?
18 A. Yes, that's what it states here.
19 Q. Would you agree, again this is -- well, would you agree that this
20 is a huge amount of weaponry and a very strong opponent considering that
21 on the government side, we are looking at 250 soldiers?
22 A. Your assertion is correct. This is a battalion of Chetnik forces,
23 an expanded battalion, rather, and when we are talking -- we are talking
24 about two aggressor companies and in order to fight that unit, the
25 attacking unit should have been at least three times stronger.
1 Q. Is that perhaps why at 8.2 we see that the task was to launch
2 surprise attack because in fact they were outnumbered two to one,
3 according to this form, by the Serbs? If you can't comment, don't worry;
4 we can move on.
5 A. It was the only way to see such a task through.
6 Q. Thank you. Now, according to paragraph 20.7, it says "losses
7 suffered by occupying aggressor forces, 60 light weapons, five heavy
8 weapons, and 10.000 pieces of ammunition. Now you would understand this
9 to mean that all these things were captured from the Serbs in the action
10 on the 7th of January 1993; is that correct?
11 A. Not from the Serbs but from the Chetniks, from their armed
12 formations. That is correct.
13 Q. So this would appear to have been a very successful military
14 operation, would you agree?
15 A. Yes. I would agree.
16 Q. Just on the last subject, your answer concerning Chetniks, is it
17 right on the front page where you see SCA written by hand, on the front
18 page, the first page of this, that refers to Serbia and Montenegrin
19 aggression, SCA?
20 A. Later on, when the documents were used, this abbreviation was used
21 for the Serb-Montenegro aggression or aggressor, which I think is more
23 Q. So that would distinguish these records from, say, sheets relating
24 to combat with the HVO, for example?
25 A. I believe you to be right.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Thank you. If we could turn to P89 now which is the action sheet
2 relating to Bjelovac, if the witness could be shown that? Now, first, and
3 again for the record, can you confirm that this concerns an action in
4 Bjelovac which apparently started on the 14th of December 1992 and
5 apparently ended on the 18th of December 1992?
6 A. Yes, that's what it states in item 12.
7 Q. From your experience of reviewing these sheets and just your
8 experience generally, would you agree that an action lasting four days
9 would usually mean that it was one that was met with a lot of stiff
10 resistance from the enemy?
11 A. Yes. That must be so.
12 Q. Again we can take these points quickly. You've confirmed or the
13 form itself states that the unit in charge was Skenderovici Battalion
14 commanded by Senahid Tabakovic, and it is not stated on this form, is it,
15 that Naser Oric participated in the attack on Bjelovac?
16 A. You are correct. Item 2, with all the data contained from 2.1 to
17 2.9 is precisely what you said.
18 Q. All right. It does say, paragraph 3, that Naser Oric was
19 according to this, the officer most responsible for planning the BD, the
20 [B/C/S spoken] combat actions. It also says, doesn't it, at paragraph
21 3.3, that during the planning, Naser Oric was a member of the Srebrenica
22 military intelligence service, VOS. My question is this: That does not
23 fit, does it, with any information which you have about Naser Oric, that
24 he was in the military intelligence service?
25 A. Mr. Jones, I don't know whether we are looking at the same
1 material. In my item 3, what is mentioned is the officer most responsible
2 for planning, and then his data.
3 Q. Yes. And then in paragraph?
4 JUDGE AGIUS: It's 3.3 that you have to look, three lines further
6 MR. JONES: Yes, paragraph 3.3, according to the English
7 translation, Naser Oric was a member of the Srebrenica VOS military
8 intelligence service. Is that -- is that information which you can verify
9 or is it false.
10 A. Your Honour, I see paragraph 3. I have a rather bad copy and
11 under 3.3 it states "during the planning of the combat activity, the
12 person was a member of Srebrenica," and then there are some letters, I
13 don't know whether that is VOS. It is insufficiently legible for me to
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I would agree with HIM, Mr. Jones.
16 MR. JONES: Yes, well, the interpreters have had a stab at it. I
17 can move on from that.
18 Q. Now, in 4, we see again this and annotation that according to this
19 draft, the Skenderovici Battalion was, at least at some stage, within the
20 formation of the Srebrenica TO. Now, earlier I asked you about the
21 establishment of corps in September 1992. This draft relates to events in
22 mid-December 1992. And here we are still speak of the Srebrenica TO, not
23 of any unit or did I advice of the ABiH, correct?
24 A. I already commented on it and I believe the previous document had
25 the same thing.
1 Q. Yes. So would we understand from this form that in December 1992
2 in Srebrenica, a TO structure was still in place?
3 A. I don't know that.
4 Q. I'm asking on the basis of there norm which we have in front of
6 A. Yes. On the basis of the form, yes, but I don't know what the
7 real situation was.
8 Q. And again, we can deal with these points quickly. According to
9 this, Naser Oric had no rank during the combat operations?
10 A. Yes, that's what one can read from it.
11 Q. And again if we look at the military objective which is set out in
12 paragraph 8, to summarise, the aim was to crush Serb military forces to
13 liberate Bosniak villages which had been taken by the Serbs. Would you
14 agree that that's a fair summary of 8.1?
15 A. Yes, that's precisely what it states.
16 Q. As far as 8.2 is concerned, is the task to seize war booty if I
17 may put it that way, and also important features, in order to prosecute
18 the war effort. My question is, would you understand important features
19 there to refer to, say, hills or other positions of tactical importance?
20 A. Yes, I believe it to be so.
21 Q. If those positions were to be seized, that would mean that they
22 were in the hands of the Serb enemy, correct?
23 A. That must be so.
24 Q. So would you understand from this that in December 1992, Serb
25 military forces were located in the area of combat operations, namely in
1 the Bjelovac area?
2 A. Yes. I'm certain of that.
3 Q. And finally, paragraph 9, would you agree the operation had
4 tactical importance and again according to 17.3, great tactical
5 importance, compared with other actions carried out by those units?
6 A. Yes. You're correct.
7 Q. And then finally I have -- well, two more subjects on this form.
8 Paragraph 13 we have the reference to the yellow ribbon. You've provided
9 an answer already on this subject. But may I take it then that
10 participants in this action wore yellow ribbons?
11 A. That was the same comment. Your Honour, you should know that
12 those ribbons changed from one action to another and they were never the
13 same and they were never worn in the same place once it would -- it was
14 around the forehead, then on another occasion it would be on the upper arm
15 and on -- or on some other part of the body because we wanted to avoid the
16 possibility of the enemy having the same ribbons in the same place, which
17 could cause great damage or consequences for both sides. That's why we
18 try to change from one action to another.
19 Q. All right. So according to this and according to what you've said
20 if you weren't wearing a white -- wearing a yellow ribbon in Bjelovac, you
21 weren't a participant in the action?
22 A. It would mean that you didn't belong to that part of the armed
23 formations. Hence, you were an enemy and as such a legitimate target.
24 Q. Or it could mean equally couldn't it, that you were, let's say, a
25 civilian who just happened to be in the area or who had wandered into the
2 A. I didn't understand your question. I'm sorry, Mr. Jones.
3 Q. That's all right. I think your answers are clear. I may come
4 back to it.
5 Now, finally, again because we are short on time, paragraph 20.7
6 refers to losses suffered by occupying aggressor forces. Would you agree
7 that the Serbs had in fact occupied this area of the combat operations, in
8 other words this area along the Drina, in the area of Bjelovac, Zaluzje,
9 Voljevica, if you know?
10 A. Mr. Jones, if one is to find two tanks in that area that were
11 seized as well as two armoured personnel carriers and four anti-aircraft
12 gun of large calibre, then this is a formidable enemy force. It could not
13 have been a company or even a battalion. It must have been greater. One
14 cannot have a tank and a civilian in one place.
15 Q. Thank you. It was really also in relation to paragraph 20.3 and
16 20.5 where we see "liberated temporarily occupied territory, L Rijeka,"
17 which I don't think there is no dispute is Loznicka Rijeka, "Bjelovac,"
18 Voljevica, I think it should read. Should we understand from that that
19 these are areas which -- in which Bosniaks lived which were occupied by
20 the Serbs and which had been liberated during the course of these -- of
21 this action?
22 A. I must admit I don't know that region. I never went there, and I
23 don't know what the ethnic composition was and who lived there. But you
24 could perhaps check the data as to what the population composition was. I
25 would presume there were Bosniaks there.
1 Q. And as we saw you've signed this form and it's no criticism that
2 you didn't check all the information, but you agree therefore that forms
3 were signed by the commander even without necessarily all the information
4 being checked as accurate?
5 A. Mr. Jones, at the moment this was put together, maybe they did not
6 have an opportunity to verify, so in my view, this is just a basis,
7 material, or starting point for any consequent analysis. That's why they
8 recorded the names of the people who took or wrote down the data and the
9 revisers. These are the people who should consequently testify on the
10 sources. And it wasn't up to me as a commander to check and verify the
11 data. It was supposed to be done by the team, I mentioned.
12 Q. All right. Thank you. We have two more or two new exhibits which
13 are --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Jones.
15 JUDGE ESER: Just before we live this exhibit I wanted to ask one
16 question with regard to the ranks not mentioned with regard to Naser in
17 number 4, I realise that there are no ranks mentioned also with other --
18 with regard to other people mentioned here, with one exception, in number
19 5.1, Mirsad Dudic, second Lieutenant before war. Now, is there some
20 explanation why no ranks are mentioned with regard to these people except
21 a position before the war.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is an explanation, a clearer
23 one, Your Honour. I as commander of the municipal staff and later on as a
24 commander of the operative group was addressed either as commander or as
25 major because in the former JNA I was a major and that was carried on.
1 The orders on appointments and ranks arrived later and depending on the
2 establishment post, and where the commander was, the ranks were appointed.
3 First they were appointed to the people who were in the General Staff, and
4 later on operative groups, brigades, and lower formations. So at the time
5 when these combat operations were conducted, at that time Mr. Naser Oric
6 did not hold a rank.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.
8 MR. JONES: Yes.
9 Q. In fact just on that subject according to 3.6 and 3.7, he had no
10 rank before the war either, either as an active officer or as a reserve
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that's an established fact which is not
13 contested by anyone.
14 MR. JONES: Thank you. Yes we have these two. We will start with
15 the new document.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Which new document, because which document are you
17 referring the witness to now, please?
18 MR. JONES: It's a new document which will be passed up --.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Oh, I'm sorry.
20 MR. JONES: -- and the ERN number 02621361 to 02621362. And just
21 to explain, it concerns an alleged action in Magasici on the 21st of June
22 1992, and unfortunately as we discovered these yesterday, we don't have an
23 English translation so I'll just have to ask the witness a few brief
25 Q. Firstly, do you agree that in concerns -- firstly, do you agree
1 that this is in the same form as the other ones we've seen?
2 A. Everything I have seen so far is on the same form, yes. Same
3 document, including this one.
4 Q. It concerns an alleged action in Magasici on the 21st of June 1992
5 as we see from numbers 1 and numbers 12. Now looking at item 2, does it
6 not appear that the unit which conducted the combat operation was a
7 company of the Pale Battalion? I'll ask you that because the "C" in front
8 of the battalion Pale, that refers to Ceta, doesn't it, or does it?
9 A. Yes, you're right. The unit which conducted combat operation was
10 a company from the Pale Battalion. Why it was called Pale, I don't know.
11 Perhaps the battalion was from that town or perhaps from municipality of
12 Pale, but I'm not sure.
13 Q. Yes. And then if we look at 3, we see that there is the Pale
14 battalion which was involved in planning the operation. Now --
15 A. Yes. This is the same commander who was company commander and who
16 planned combat operations. This is Mr. Smajo Mandzic.
17 Q. All right. Now we've seen in two of the forms, P87 and P89, that
18 the units were said to be part of the Srebrenica TO. In this draft in
19 paragraph 4 we do not see such an entry, do we? We see that the units
20 participating in the action were only in the Pale Battalion and it's --
21 that battalion is not said to be part of a greater TO formation, would you
23 A. Yes. I agree with you. This was an independent battalion that
24 was engaged here which was not within any TO, either Srebrenica or
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. JONES: I'd ask for an exhibit number for this document. I
3 think it's D298.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: So this document will become Defence Exhibit D298.
5 MR. JONES: Then we can deal rapidly with the next one which is
6 another of these forms. For the record the exhibit number is 02621249 to
7 02621252 -- sorry, did I say exhibit number? I meant ERN number.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
9 MR. JONES:
10 Q. And would you agree, general, that this concerns an action in
11 Spat, in fact Cela Spat, village Spat?
12 A. Yes, that's right.
13 Q. Would you agree that it's apparently on the 8th of August? And
14 that's looking at paragraph 12. 8th of August 1992.
15 A. Yes, that's right. Yes, that's right.
16 Q. All right. Now looking at item 2 it appears that the units which
17 conducted this action was the Srebrenica unit under commander Hakija
18 Meholjic. Can you confirm that?
19 A. Yes. That's right.
20 Q. And it appears in 3, item 3, that he planned the attack, correct?
21 A. Yes, that's right.
22 Q. And that according to 4, that unit, the Srebrenica unit, under
23 Hakija Meholjic was not within any other formation, including the
24 Srebrenica TO?
25 A. Yes, that's right.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. JONES: I'll ask for an exhibit number, D299.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: This will become Defence Exhibit D299.
4 MR. JONES: Thank you.
5 Q. Moving to another area that I think we have 15 minutes still until
6 the break?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, yes.
8 MR. JONES:
9 Q. And it -- I think we need to move briefly into private session
10 because it's the document we dealt with on Friday in private session?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly, Mr. Jones. Let's move into private
12 session for a while, please.
13 [Private session]
11 Page 8750 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 8751 redacted. Private session.
9 [Open session]
10 MR. JONES: Sorry.
11 Q. You were making comments about a multi-ethnic RBH. In this trial,
12 the Prosecution has repeatedly referred to the Muslim army. I think we
13 need to clarify that. Can you confirm for us that the RBH, Republic of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina, was not a Muslim entity but the government of a
15 sovereign state recognised by the UN and the EU, firstly?
16 A. Your Honours, I personally am offended when somebody refers to me
17 as a Muslim or Bosniak commander and soldier. Firstly, I was a Muslim and
18 Bosniak commander and soldier but I was also a commander to everybody
19 else, to the Serbs, Albanians and other ethnic minorities. If I were to
20 tell you that within the first unit that I established in April and May of
21 1992, I had an almost proportional ethnic makeup in the sabotage
22 reconnaissance unit then it will become clear to you that we wanted to
23 tailor our state to a citizen, meaning not a Bosniak, not a Serb, not a
24 Croat, but we wanted to tailor it to a citizen and that our main
25 orientation was the state within its centuries-old borders. So let me
1 conclude, I'm offended as a person whether somebody refers to me as a
2 "Muslim soldier." I have stated to some of the investigators that I
3 would refuse to speak to them because this is something that offends me
4 and it does not offend me only as a person but also because of others who
5 under the same flag were killed and whose graves are scattered throughout
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. I know that in a unit, 90 per cent of members were
7 Bosniaks but if there is a single Croat member, then he should also be
8 taken into account. Let alone if there are ten or 20 per cent of such
10 Q. Thank you very much for that. Now, if we look at page 3 of this
11 document, I won't mention the names of people who made these comments,
12 just in order to preserve some confidentiality. We see reference there to
13 clashes among the people in the army authorities, police. Do you see
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did you understand from this meeting and also from other
17 information when were you in Tuzla, that there was in Srebrenica at this
18 time at least three entities, the army, the authorities, the police, and
19 that there were clashes among them and power struggles?
20 A. Your Honours, last time I had said that I became corps commander
21 just 20 days before the interview. What Mr. Jones is saying is exactly
22 how it was. This is how I took it. I wanted to provide as much
23 information as possible about that territory or my area of
24 responsibility. That was only 100 kilometres away. I wanted to find out
25 how I could affect the situation in order to improve things, to improve
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 the atmosphere, and this is exactly how I took what you said.
2 Q. Thank you. And your information included, didn't it, that Naser
3 Oric and Zulfo Tursunovic, were in a conflict, that there was a clash
4 between them?
5 A. That's what I heard from Mr. Ken Biser. I heard about the
6 conflict between the police, or rather these three entities, civilian
7 authorities, army and police. That was the topic of the conversation.
8 And when Mr. Ken Biser asked to meet with me as a commander, this is what
9 we discussed. We did not go into details, and I asked him to verify all
10 that information and to provide it to me later. We did not elaborate on
11 any of those conflicts. I didn't know any of these people. I have only
12 heard about Naser Oric but have never seen him before. The same goes for
13 Hakija Meholjic. I didn't know any president of a municipality. They
14 perhaps knew about me but I didn't know them. And I have lived in Tuzla
15 for 28 years. However, when the new government came, I wasn't present and
16 that's how this came about. I personally didn't know them.
17 Q. Okay. Finally on this document, and I'm looking at -- in the
18 English it's the bottom of page 3 where there is reference to the food
19 problems, that there are attempts to bring food in from Zepa, it says
20 ambushed, several smugglers were killed, wounded, were put in the
21 Srebrenica hospital. Two of the killed ones were 13 years old. Did you
22 understand from this and from other information that even then in December
23 1994, there were still grave problems with food and people smuggling food,
24 including 13-year-olds, were getting ambushed by the Serbs and killed?
25 A. That's definitely how it was, Mr. Jones. That situation existed
1 in Tuzla as well, and it was a much-larger liberated area than Srebrenica,
2 and in such a limited area, that was definitely even more so. This is the
3 kinds of problems that the inhabitants faced.
4 Q. Thank you. I'm about to move to a new exhibits and a new area.
5 So it probably is a good time for a break?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: As you wish, Mr. Jones. We'll have a 25-minute
7 break starting from now. Thank you.
8 --- Recess taken at 12.26 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.
11 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you. Can I mention two matters briefly?
12 One is just during the break I did have a word with my learned friend and
13 it was the reference to booty as set out in a brochure and what was
14 included in that that I was asking about.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
16 MR. JONES: Secondly, I think if I go quickly, I can probably be
17 finished in 15 to 20 minutes. I know we are all keen to finish with this
18 witness today. On the other hand if it looks like he's going to be coming
19 ban tomorrow I would prefer to take my time. So it depends a bit on the
21 JUDGE AGIUS: We have some questions ourselves but I wouldn't
22 imagine -- and what -- how much time do you require?
23 MR. DI FAZIO: I have a few topics but I won't be lengthy, not at
24 this stage.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: So we'll try -- yeah, but again, how much time?
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Ten minutes.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Ten minutes, and you have 15, 20.
3 MR. JONES: 20 minutes maximum.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Go ahead.
5 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you.
6 Q. General, I would be grateful if you would look at a new exhibit we
7 are going to pass up. The ERN number is 01824931 to 01824958 and this
8 transcript of the meeting of the 292nd session of the RBH Presidency on
9 the 11th of August 1995. And to go straight to the important parts, we
10 see on page 2 of the English and the B/C/S that a Durakovic refers to
11 visiting commander Delic in Tuzla. Firstly do you see that and secondly
12 do you agree that that would be a reference to you? It's on the --
13 A. Yes, I can see that.
14 Q. Do you recall that Mr. Durakovic, and I think I'm correct in
15 saying it's Nijaz Durakovic, visited you in Tuzla?
16 A. Yes, I do recall but as far as I can remember, he wasn't by
17 himself. He was accompanied by some members of the War Presidency, and I
18 believe Mrs. Tatjana Ljujic-Mijatovic was a part of the delegation as
20 Q. Now, in order for this to be clear, there is a reference to Delic
21 in these minutes. Given this is a meeting of the RBL Presidency, do you
22 agree that that would probably be Rasim Delic, Supreme Commander of the
23 ABiH, and not you?
24 A. Mr. Jones, I would have to go through the contents and then I
25 could be more precise. I cannot be certain. I can presume that it did
1 concern Mr. Rasim Delic as the commander of the General Staff.
2 Q. Okay. In itself it's not -- it's not terribly important. What I
3 want to direct you to, and this is a discussion among other things of the
4 fall of Srebrenica and the somber question of how many people were killed.
5 And I'd like you to look at what the president of the Presidency,
6 President Alija Izetbegovic, says about the situation as it had been in
7 Srebrenica, and it's page 4 of the English and also page 4 in the B/C/S.
8 It's actually 01824953 in the top right-hand corner.
9 I won't ask you to read the whole thing because obviously that
10 will take sometime. I'd like to direct your attention to the following
11 passage in the second paragraph. It starts by saying, it's about a dozen
12 or so lines down, "The problem was the relation between the civilian and
13 military authorities. There were clashes between them. We tried to
14 resolve this. It went so far that one or two men were killed in those
15 clashes. Furthermore the civilian authorities, there was collaboration
16 with the other side." And we see as it goes on that it's referring to
17 Srebrenica. My question is this: Would it be right to understand from
18 this passage that the president of the RBH Presidency was saying that in
19 Srebrenica the civilian and military authorities were distinct from each
20 other, that they clashed with each other, and that as for the civilian
21 authorities, there was at least some collaboration with the Serbs? Would
22 that be correct?
23 A. One could conclude that from this document.
24 Q. And was that also information which you received in Tuzla?
25 A. I received the same information from Mr. Ken Biser. Of course, as
1 it was stated in the original, without any additional explanations.
2 Q. Thank you. And then President Izetbegovic goes on to talk about
3 propaganda by Milosevic's supporters, and he says "the propaganda was very
4 strong, often there was starvation, then a convoy comes and there is a
5 little food, then starvation again for 15 to 20 days, so there were high
6 and low tides in that respect and the mood changed accordingly. Naturally
7 there was propaganda." Have you seen that passage in the Bosnian? It
8 followed from the --
9 A. I'm sorry, could you direct me as to the page?
10 Q. It's page 4 still, it's the passage which follows the passage we
11 just saw.
12 A. 54?
13 Q. Page 4, and if you look in the top right-hand corner it should be
15 A. 54, yes, tape 6-1, if that's it.
16 Q. If you take the document you have, and you turn -- my apologies
17 actually, maybe?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not page 4.
19 MR. JONES:
20 Q. It's page -- my apologies, it's 4954, correct. And it says at the
21 top, [B/C/S spoken] and then about 15 lines down, you see it says, [B/C/S
22 spoken]. You see that?
23 A. Yes, I see it.
24 Q. Just read to yourself that -- that sentence, referring to
25 starvation and then propaganda. My question is just this: Do you recall
1 that there was very strong Serb propaganda at the time regarding the
2 situation in Srebrenica? When I say at the time, I'm referring to --
3 referring to the whole period in fact from 1992 to 1995.
4 A. Yes. One could say so. And not only the propaganda but they even
5 used poison gas and they tried to prevent the salt arriving from
6 Srebrenica and to cause the shortage of iodine and they were trying to put
7 forth the information that that part will go to Serbia anyhow, that it was
8 given away as part of the arrangements and that the people shouldn't
9 actually fight but rather leave.
10 Q. And when you referred to attempts to prevent salt arriving, and I
11 think it's probably iodine, did you see that as deliberate attempts to
12 destabilise in effect the mental health of the population? Is that what
13 you were getting at?
14 A. Yes, precisely so.
15 Q. And isn't it right that there was a lot of Serb propaganda against
16 Naser Oric personally?
17 A. I believe one could make such a conclusion.
18 Q. And would you agree that the Serbs hated Oric, if I can put it in
19 those terms, because he fought back against the Serb forces?
20 A. If we have an enclave which is 100 kilometres away from the free
21 territory which they couldn't actually deal with and be rid of, then I
22 would say that your conclusion is correct.
23 Q. Yes, what I meant is he was resented for fighting back, rather
24 than surrendering.
25 A. Mr. Jones, I believe that you are mistaken, then. They disliked
1 everyone who was not a Serb, and they disliked everyone who was not in
2 favour of Greater Serbia. That would include a child or my elderly
3 parents who were completely unfit for war but they were killed
5 Q. Thank you. I'll move on to what Delic there says, and it's page 5
6 of the English. If you could turn to 4955 in the Bosnian. And it's a
7 description of how things worked or did not work in Srebrenica. And you
8 see there, if you see the passage which starts off, [B/C/S spoken]. Do
9 you see that? In English, "We did what we could. Now it turns out that
10 command and control do not function in this unit. They close the
11 commander. They said you're going to be an intelligence operative as of
12 tomorrow. The thing is that they are still at the year 1992 level." Now
13 my question, then, if we can take this shortly, you were in Tuzla during
14 this time. Can you explain how you understand that comment referring
15 to --
16 MR. DI FAZIO: I object to the question, if Your Honours please.
17 If there is any -- either the document speaks clearly to us from the face
18 of the document, the words themselves, or if there is any confusion about
19 it, only Mr. Delic, not this witness, can tell us.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: But this witness is being asked what he understands
21 from this comment here. What's wrong with that?
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Because --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Because the other Mr. Delic who said these words
24 allegedly knows precisely what he had in mind.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: But it doesn't -- it doesn't mean that any other
2 person reading this cannot try to understand.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Any other person such as yourselves will have to
4 read it and try to understand.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: But this is what the witness is being asked to do.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: If there any ambiguity about what is written
7 there --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Who is suggesting that there is ambiguity?
9 MR. JONES: It's based on what the witness knows from being in
10 Tuzla, from being a commander. Obviously it's not just what any of us
11 might make of those words. Based on his experience.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: He's the person who is best placed from all of us
13 here, with perhaps the exception of the accused, who was in a position to
14 understand that three- or four-line paragraph.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Let him explain it or how he understands it at
18 MR. JONES:
19 Q. Yes, if you could go ahead, general, please.
20 A. Your Honour, it is precisely as it is stated. The command and
21 control system was not functioning, and we concluded that as part of our
22 analysis of the genocide against the people of Srebrenica that was
23 conducted after July 1995, and I believe to the large extent the situation
24 was as it is stated and that's why Mr. Rasim Delic, who was the commander
25 of the General Staff, ordered that a group of officers be flown by
1 helicopter out of Srebrenica in order to train them on how the system
2 should function within the enclave, and I would agree with what my
3 commander stated.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Yes, Mr. Jones.
5 MR. JONES:
6 Q. If I can move to page 7 of the English, you see General Delic
7 and I think it's accepted now that that is Rasim Delic, referring to a
8 "Naser Horic" as it is written?
9 JUDGE AGIUS: That's a mistake in -- let's proceed.
10 MR. JONES: Yes, we are happy for that to be Naser Oric. And he's
11 describing his position, quote, "However, my information now when he came
12 here and when the army came he did not have much influence on his brigade
13 as a commander. He was not a commander who had command over the situation
14 in the division. He had command over his own brigade and another one. He
15 had no influence over the others. So the level of military organisation
16 in this area was low. We tried to bring as much influence to bear as we
17 could in writing, by orders, and summoning all commanders. Regretfully,
18 it did not work." So I think there might be a problem with the
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Ms. Vidovic?
21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since the witness has
22 the Bosnian original, it was misinterpreted to him when it was said that
23 the level of education was very high instead of very low. So I'm kindly
24 asking the general to verify against the original.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is page 6/4 or, rather, page
1 01824957, if that is the comment.
2 MR. JONES: Yes.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Vidovic. And I think message
4 received and the witness can answer the question.
5 MR. JONES:
6 Q. Yes. My question is this: Wasn't that also the information you
7 received in Tuzla that from the start of the war, right through to 1995,
8 that the level of military organisation in Srebrenica was low and that
9 there was this lack of influence, lack of command, on the part of the
11 A. I can comment this from two points of view. There is a sentence
12 by Mr. Zulfo Tursunovic that we discussed about breaking of the siege of
13 Srebrenica. He said that he could live over a month in Srebrenica and
14 that he didn't decide to go, and this is a very telling statement. It is
15 my opinion that the local commanders had the necessary influence on --
16 over their units and that they decided what and how will happen, but I
17 will decline to comment because I really don't know the extent of
18 influence of Brigadier Naser Oric. I would presume that he did have some
19 influence with some people, not all, though.
20 MR. JONES: I'd ask for an exhibit number for this, please.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: This will become Defence Exhibit D300.
22 MR. JONES: Since we are running short on time I just have two
23 areas I want to deal with as quickly as possible. First, can the witness
24 please be shown P233? This is another subject altogether. And perhaps I
25 can even -- I'll ask the witness to look at the document but I might be
1 able to cut it short by asking this.
2 Q. Do you agree that in Tuzla, there was a Srebrenica TO in exile, if
3 you like, in other words, a sort of Territorial Defence Staff calling
4 itself the Srebrenica TO staff but which was actually physically in Tuzla
5 in 1992?
6 A. Yes. And there were some other municipalities with similar
7 examples, such as Zvornik and Bijeljina.
8 Q. So whether we see on I believe it's page 2 of the English, in any
9 event, "commanding cadre of Srebrenica Territorial Defence in Tuzla,"
10 those people, Gadzo, Hadzo, and others, those officers were in fact based
11 in Tuzla and receiving orders and communicating as the TO staff
12 Srebrenica. Would you agree with that?
13 A. I believe you to be right.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 A. I don't know what the real situation was, but reading this
16 document I think you're correct.
17 Q. I'll direct you to page 3 of the document you have, and you'll see
18 a stamp on a hand written page. You need to turn it, I think sideways,
19 and it says "Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, District Staff, Territorial
20 Defence, Tuzla." Do you see that stamp, in the bottom left-hand corner of
21 the third page?
22 A. Yes, I can see it, Mr. Jones.
23 Q. Does that confirm to you the communication which went between the
24 Srebrenica TO Staff which was based in Tuzla and the Tuzla District Staff?
25 A. This stamp on the left side of the document bearing page number
1 01828367 says that the District Staff of Territorial Defence in Tuzla
2 received the document.
3 Q. Thank you. I have four final questions. I trust Your Honours
4 will indulge me.
5 Firstly, general, you've described how you were very young, 35
6 years old, to be in such a position of influence. You agreed that Naser
7 Oric was made a brigadier in 1994. You'd agree that he was in fact just
8 27 years old when he was made a brigadier in 1994.
9 A. Yes, that is so.
10 Q. And in the former JNA, to be a brigade commander under the age of
11 40 would be impossible, wouldn't it?
12 A. Mr. Jones, all of my marks and grades were excellent, and yet I
13 was promoted only twice, and in 1992 I was supposed to reach the level of
14 brigade commander, but -- and still I was at least four to five years
15 younger than my peers at that level so one would have to have at least
16 30 -- 40 to 45 years' experience to become a brigade commander.
17 Q. And then finally --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, 40 to 45 years of age,
19 not experience.
20 MR. JONES: All right.
21 Q. So to be a brigadier at the age of 27 would be extraordinary?
22 A. It only happens in a war.
23 Q. Finally, you told us how you had regular meetings with Naser Oric
24 in 1995, you said nearly every day. We have one final exhibit which we
25 would like to pass up. And just to explain, it's from the United Nations
1 Detention Unit in response to our letter dated 4th of May 2005. I'd ask
2 you just to have a look and tell me if you agree -- look at the last page
3 actually which is the Bosnian, very last page, whether you agree from your
4 encounters with Naser Oric that his height was as recorded there, 180
5 centimetres or thereabouts?
6 A. Thereabouts, yes, I think so.
7 Q. Would agree that when you knew Naser Oric, he didn't have blue
9 A. As far as I can remember, he doesn't have them even now.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. JONES: And we'd ask for an exhibit number, please.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. This will be D301.
13 MR. JONES: Thank you. No further questions.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
15 Mr. Di Fazio, re-examination, please. And try to leave us a
16 little bit of time for ourselves.
17 Re-examined by Mr. Di Fazio:
18 MR. DI FAZIO:
19 Q. To become a brigadier at the age of 27, given all of the evidence
20 that you have just moments ago told us about, regarding career paths, you
21 would normally expect that to occur only in a man of some considerable
22 talent, wouldn't you say?
23 A. Mr. Di Fazio, Your Honours, I have a comment. The ranks were not
24 assigned based on intelligence or the necessary skills and training. They
25 were assigned based on the position held by the person at the time when
1 the rank was assigned. Therefore, there were some illogical situations.
2 For example, a former JNA colonel who is above a brigadier was in the
3 position of a major or lieutenant colonel which was lower than the rank
4 previously held by him in the former JNA. Therefore, to conclude, the
5 ranks were assigned based on the establishment position and those who did
6 not have appropriate professional skill would be assigned a rank one step
7 lower. So, for example, the person who held a position of a general would
8 be assigned a rank of a brigadier. So the ranks were not assigned based
9 on professional skills, education, and particular military talents but,
10 rather, based on the establishment position that was in force at the time.
11 What was important was the position held by a person and not their
12 skills, abilities, and so on.
13 Q. Do I take it that you can't tell us what particular skills or lack
14 of skills or what particular attributes the 27-year-old Mr. Oric had that
15 resulted in his appointment to the rank of brigadier?
16 A. No, Mr. Di Fazio. I personally believe that what I told you
17 reflects the actual situation, meaning that regardless of skills and
18 military education, if a person held a position of a commander of a
19 municipal staff, then that person would receive a certain rank. For
20 example, I was assigned a rank of a brigadier general, which was one step
21 above than what I held previously. So when it comes not just to Mr. Oric
22 but to myself and anybody else, the position was the only thing that
23 mattered. Had I, for example, held a position within the Federation army,
24 I would have been assigned a rank of general immediately.
25 Q. Fine. You said -- you were asked some questions about Serb
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 propaganda, and it was suggested to you, probably quite accurately, that
2 the Serbs hated Mr. Oric. You recall those questions a few moments ago?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber if the Serb propaganda commented on
5 the position, the role, of Mr. Oric in Srebrenica in that time that you
6 heard any Serb propaganda?
7 A. Believe it or not, this is something for Mr. Ripley, but there is
8 a stream in Tuzla running through Tuzla called Jala and it was rumoured
9 that there were Serb corpses flowing down that stream and the stream is so
10 shallow that it wouldn't carry a sheet of paper. That's how shallow it
11 was. And this just shows how bad the propaganda was, especially when it
12 comes to senior commanders, officers, or persons that they could not deal
13 with. I'm sure that you have documents confirming this. You can find
14 them in the media. It would be sufficient just to take and analyse the
15 newspaper articles. Goebbels was an incompetent compared to their
16 propaganda. You know that they had TV and radio transmitters under their
17 control. The whole system was in their hands and they could do whatever
18 they wanted to do in relation to the international community as well.
19 Q. I think you misunderstood me. I understand all of what you say
20 and I'm not asking you to tell us everything that the Serb propaganda did
21 and everything that they said about Mr. Oric. What I'm asking you is
22 simply this: In the course of what you heard of Serb propaganda about
23 Mr. Oric, did they ever present him as holding or having a particular
24 position within the Srebrenica enclave? I don't want to hear everything
25 chapter and verse but just about what the Serb perception of him was, what
1 he was doing there, who he was and what he was doing there, his role?
2 MR. JONES: Sorry, it's changed to the Serb perception. We were
3 talking about propaganda a moment ago and think he just stated
5 MR. DI FAZIO: As expressed in the propaganda.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly, you're right, Mr. Jones. But I think
7 the question is clear enough.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've told you, Your Honours, during
9 my previous testimony that I didn't have much time to follow the
10 propaganda and all the rest. Everything that was said was phrased -- put
11 in darkest terms. They threw flyers from the planes and did various
12 things aimed at lowering the morale of the civilians and the army. Now, I
13 couldn't tell you the exact stories that were rumoured about Naser Oric,
14 but I can tell you that there were rumours about all of us and that they
15 were very strong.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll leave that.
17 Q. Can you --
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown D297, please?
19 Q. You've already looked at this document. And under paragraph 2 of
20 the document, it says that the Ministry of Defence shall assign senior
21 officers to commands and the staffs of these units and will issue
22 detail -- more detailed orders. Presumably, then, the Ministry of Defence
23 was going to -- or as it says on the face of the document issue more
24 orders in respect of these particular TO units; is that correct?
25 A. Mr. Di Fazio, in Bosnian language, in my native language, it
1 appears that something else is stated here and that your translation is
2 not all right. This is the decision on establishing Territorial Defence
3 units, and on the last page, under item 14, the following is stated, at
4 least in my language: "Minister of Defence shall assign senior officers
5 to commands and the staffs of said units, and shall issue more detailed
6 orders on the strength and weapons assigned to the formed units." This is
7 what is stated in the original, in my language.
8 Q. Thank you. All right. Perhaps we'll just move to other parts of
9 the document. If you look at the document, is there any way it purports
10 to provide an exhaustive list of Territorial Defence units that are to be
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I think he answered that question earlier. He said
13 this is limited to Zenica, Sarajevo, and incidentally includes also
15 MR. DI FAZIO: If that's the case of the evidence then that's
16 entirely the point.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: He said it. You can go into the transcript and this
18 is how he started it.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Fine. In that case I've finished with the
20 document. Would Your Honours just bear with me for a moment? I do
21 apologise. If Your Honours would give me just one more moment. I may be
22 able to avoid asking the questions that I wanted to, or that I thought I
23 needed to.
24 Q. You were asked -- you were asked by Mr. Jones, wasn't the
25 information that you received in Tuzla that right from the start of the
1 war, right through to 1995, that the level of military organisation in
2 Srebrenica was low and that there was a lack of influence, lack of
3 command, on the part of the commander? You then went on to say, it is --
4 you then spoke about speaking to Mr. Zulfo Tursunovic. You discussed
5 breaking the siege of Srebrenica. He said that he could leave over a
6 month in -- live over a month in Srebrenica and that he didn't decide to
7 go. Then you said it is my opinion that the local commanders had the
8 necessary influence on -- over that -- their units and that they decided
9 what and how will happen. But I will decline to comment because I really
10 don't know the extent of influence of Brigadier Naser Oric. I would
11 presume that he did have some influence with some people, not all, though.
12 And I assume when you said some people you were talking about commanders.
13 How do you reconcile that answer with your evidence in chief that at the
14 very end of your evidence in chief, where you said that you had -- you
15 were unable to comment on the relationships between individuals and
16 entities in Srebrenica?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.
18 MR. JONES: I just had one point and perhaps it is in effect the
19 question that is being asked but Mr. Di Fazio decided to presume that it
20 referred to commanders. Well, it didn't. He said that -- "influence
21 with some people," so I see no warrant for that presumption. He didn't
22 speak about Mr. Oric's influence over other commanders. Over some people.
23 As far as the question is concerned you think it can remain but I think it
24 needs to be clarified.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: That's fair enough but I think the witness can
1 answer your question.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
3 Q. You understand my question, general?
4 A. Your Honours, I think I understood the question of Mr. Di Fazio.
5 During my previous testimony I clearly stated that in 1992 through 1994,
6 that's a period of time that I'm less familiar with, less than an ordinary
7 citizen. That's what I stated. My first information about Srebrenica and
8 the situation there were a result of the conversation I had with Mr. Ken
9 Biser. Naturally, the stories that were second-hand or third-hand and so
10 on were not that significant. I was quite frank and I gave you my
11 position. However, that doesn't mean that that was necessarily true. It
12 was a lie to say that Mr. Oric had no influence over anybody there. I
13 think that Mr. Oric was a person who had influence over part of the
14 population and part of the commanders, especially in 1994 and 1995, when
15 in Srebrenica there was an attempt to establish and round off the system.
16 At the end of 1994, a reorganisation of the BH army was conducted,
17 including Srebrenica. The broader area of Srebrenica, where some
18 reorganisation was done and some where some light brigades were
19 established, numbering 900 to 1200 people. That was done somewhere on
20 paper only and somewhere in reality. I just gave you an example of a
21 commander which was affected by the lack of action on the part of the
22 international community, and prompted by the situation in Srebrenica, he
23 decided to leave it. If I were to tell you that I learned about their
24 movement -- direction of movement only four days after they had set out,
25 they -- the original intention was for them to go from Srebrenica to Zepa,
1 which was much more favourable in military terms, the original idea was
2 not for them to go to Tuzla.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Any further questions, Mr. Di Fazio?
4 MR. DI FAZIO: No.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Judge Brydensholt?
6 Questioned by the Court:
7 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: I understand that in Tuzla you had a prison
8 where civilian and military prisoners were kept. I understand also that
9 you, in the same prison, would have some prisoners of war. Is that true?
10 A. Your Honours, in Tuzla, there was a military prison, as well as a
11 civilian one. However, I have to tell you that in 1992, my soldiers were
12 in the same prison as the captured enemy soldiers because that was the
13 only facility that we had and sometimes they were even placed in the same
14 room. However, as the time passed, we separated the facilities and then
15 we had a military prison and a civilian one.
16 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Did you ever inspect, you in person ever
17 inspect the military prison where the prisoners of war were also kept?
18 A. Your Honours, there is a book detailing that inspection. I
19 visited the prison only two to three times, three times at the most.
20 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Were there any other officers, military
21 officers, who were obliged to inspect this military prison, as part of
22 their duty?
23 A. Your Honours, in Tuzla, for example, the Military Police Battalion
24 was there in the military prison and elsewhere, naturally, during those
25 periods of times when those civilians were under the jurisdiction of the
1 military command. Later on, when they were turned over to civilian
2 authorities, they were not in the hands of the army any more and the army
3 did not decide their fate any more.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Judge Eser?
5 JUDGE ESER: May I just follow up with this problem of military
6 police? We saw a document, it has been shown to you, it was P123, where
7 we have seen that two district defence staffs, Tuzla and Lukavac, had a
8 military police company. There is no mention of other places where you
9 had a military police company. Now, what does it mean? For instance, if
10 there had been suspicions that certain violations of the law happened, who
11 would report this or where could this be reported, or to put the question
12 different: If there was no special military police company, would that
13 mean that you would not be obliged to report at all? Or if you have to
14 report, to whom and by whom?
15 A. Your Honour, a consequence of such a situation was chaos that
16 existed on the ground. I told you on Friday that my commander, my Supreme
17 Commander, commander of the General Staff, General Halilovic, was never in
18 Tuzla. He never communicated with me, even when I was the corps commander
19 and commander of the operative group. That means that all locations
20 organised themselves to the best of their abilities.
21 To answer your question specifically, a unit was supposed to take
22 action if the violations were made by their soldiers and if they had the
23 ability to do so. If there was no military police, then I could have
24 ordered a commander to take action. However, once the military police was
25 established, the jurisdiction became clearly divided in certain fields
1 under its jurisdiction. Therefore, what you are asking me is a result of
2 the situation on the ground. I definitely myself committed an offence
3 when, for example, I did not have a protection company, and I needed to
4 have it. The person above me didn't know that I needed to have it. They
5 thought that the system was well organised and was functionally properly;
6 however, that wasn't the case.
7 JUDGE ESER: Another question with regard to the Territorial
8 Defence. I must say it's still a little bit unclear to me. You have been
9 shown a Defence Exhibit 296 and -- where you had "some Territorial Defence
10 units shall be formed and you may remember that Srebrenica was not among
11 them." Now, does this mean that you had soldiers, say, TO-free areas
12 within Bosnia-Herzegovina.
13 A. That's definitely the case. There were much such areas, such as
14 Bijeljina, Banja Luka, Doboj, and so on. Everything that was occupied by
15 the former JNA, even before the aggression, or perhaps locations where the
16 Serbs had a majority in Bosnia-Herzegovina, they did that together with
17 the JNA. However, there were also certain municipalities in exile. For
18 example, from Zvornik, people came to Tuzla, from Srebrenica and some
19 other places, people came to Tuzla, and established their own civilian
20 authorities which tried to establish military units that would enable them
21 to go back to their areas. In this order on the establishment of corps,
22 you will see that it says the establishment of the Banja Luka Corps and
23 Banja Luka is some 300 kilometres from Zenica, if not more. So the plan
24 was to organise the refugees into units and to send them to liberate their
25 areas. This is how it was conceived. However, it was not always
1 practically implemented in this way. So it is possible that in some
2 places there was no Territorial Defence.
3 Then there was another order dated the 8th of April 1992, ordering
4 all units to be united into Territorial Defence, meaning the Green Berets,
5 the Patriotic League and so on. All of them were supposed to unite in a
6 part of armed forces which would be known as the Territorial Defence of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, this is something that was not implemented
8 in all areas.
9 The same goes for the abolishment of municipal staffs in some
10 places, they were, and in some places they weren't. There were certain
11 areas where there were great conflicts in the staff itself. In Lukavica,
12 for example, there was just one brigade and the Territorial Defence staff,
13 and the brigade was resubordinated to the TO staff which created major
14 problems within the command and control system. Later on, the situation
15 changed and it was vice versa. And that again created animosity between
16 these two commands.
17 The situation on the ground was followed. On Friday, as I told
18 you, it was on some occasions simply verified or recognised. In some
19 instances they recognised the shortcomings, the mistakes, and adopted
20 solutions which later on proved to be quite positive. This is why the
21 military police platoons and companies were established.
22 I would have to add the following. When it comes to horizontal
23 links, the idea was to take as much power as possible.
24 JUDGE ESER: I have an additional question. Almost at the same
25 time when we had this order by the Republic of Bosnia for the Presidency,
1 almost in the same time in 27th of June, Exhibit P76, you have been shown
2 from the Territorial Defence Staff of Sarajevo that Naser Oric was
3 appointed commander of the Srebrenica Municipality TO, Territorial
4 Defence. Now, am I correct in assuming that this Territorial Defence was
5 something different from what you had described before? Or was it the
7 MR. JONES: Your Honour, may I?
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.
9 MR. JONES: It's been described as almost the same time. We are
10 speaking about a month later and I think we are all aware of the evidence
11 that the Serbs occupied Srebrenica until May 1992 and so I think this --
12 the witness is going to be misled if there is a suggestion that -- I'm not
13 sure what Your Honour's suggestion is, but there is a month later, this
14 other document, and if an open question can be put to him, then that's
15 fine. But we wouldn't want any suggestions.
16 JUDGE ESER: My question is very simple. I just wanted to know
17 what Territorial Defence meant. I mean, we have a document --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: In this document.
19 JUDGE ESER: This document of the 27th of June 1992, Naser Oric
20 was appointed commander of the Srebrenica Municipality TO/Territorial
21 Defence Staff.
22 Now, my question is: What is meant by the term Territorial
23 Defence staff? Is it different from what you had described before or is
24 it almost the same or what else?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Just try to answer it as briefly as possible,
1 please, general, because we have already overstayed and this courtroom
2 needs to be made ready for 2.15, and they need half an hour for that.
3 A. Your Honours, the TO staff is a military term for command and
4 control of the TO units in the territorial structure at the level of the
5 municipality. However, in 1992, not a single municipality had identical
6 conditions to another one. Not only in Srebrenica but elsewhere in
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina. The municipalities neighbouring Tuzla had a situation
8 that was radically different from the one existing in Tuzla, both in terms
9 of human resources and everything else.
10 JUDGE ESER: May I conclude from this that the municipalities may
11 have had their own sort of Territorial Defence?
12 A. You are correct. In principle each municipality had their own TO
13 staff, any larger municipality, and I believe in Bosnia-Herzegovina that
14 was any and every municipality, and it comprised units, level of brigade
15 or lower.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: That's the end of your testimony, General. We
17 managed to finish today, with just under ten minutes over the time
19 On behalf of Judge Brydensholt and Judge Eser on also on my own
20 behalf I should like to thank you for having come over to give testimony
21 in this case. You will receive all the assistance you require now to
22 facilitate your return back home at the earliest and on behalf of everyone
23 present here I wish you a safe journey back home. Thank you.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Tomorrow we start at 9.00, I think in this same
2 courtroom. You have that witness. How long -- who is going to --
3 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't have the honour of taking that particular
4 witness, if Your Honours please. But I gather that he won't be long.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: I gather it will be -- one hour?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: One hour on paper.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: One hour, possibly less.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.55 p.m. to
11 be reconvened on Tuesday, the 31st day of May, 2005,
12 at 9.00 a.m.