1 Friday, 25 January 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning.
6 Madam Registrar, could you call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is the case
8 number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. All the accused are here. I only notice
10 the absence of Mr. Krgovic. The Prosecution, it's Mr. McCloskey and
11 Mr. Nicholls.
12 I think we can start.
13 Who is going to address the Chamber on those three issues that you
14 mentioned, Mr. Haynes, yesterday? Mr. Nicholls.
15 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honour, I've been speaking to my friend
16 Mr. Meek this morning, and for now it will be just two issues, I think.
17 We're going to talk about the issue, it's primarily his interest during
18 the break, and hopefully resolve our issue, and if we can't, at least I
19 think if there is any argument later, it will be shorter because we'll
20 narrow what's in dispute.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: It's all very vague to me for the time being. So
22 who is going first? But are you addressing the Chamber now or after the
24 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm here to respond -- I thought Your Honour had
25 asked them to respond to our motion to add another witness, and that's why
1 I'm here. I think the motion was fairly clear, and I'm ready to respond
2 to anything, and I just ask my friends be mindful about when it might be
3 necessary to go into private session.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Nikolic.
5 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good
6 morning to my learned friends.
7 I would like to say something about our correspondence and our
8 attempts to cooperate with the Prosecutor with regard to the materials
9 that concern the demographics experts or witnesses.
10 I would like to go back and remind the Trial Chamber about the
11 discussion that we had on the 14th of December, 2007, on pages 19238 to
12 19300, about the character of the witnesses Ewa Tabeau and Mr. Parsons.
13 To this very day we are not certain whether these two witnesses
14 come as experts or just ordinary witnesses.
15 Given the fact that we are about to receive the reports, the
16 [indiscernible] report of the ICMP has already been delivered to us on the
17 3rd of January, 2008, and the second report we received on the 7th of
18 January of 2008, whereas the report by Mrs. Tabeau we received on the 11th
19 of January, 2008.
20 In order for us to prepare adequately, from the 5th of December we
21 started corresponding with our learned friends from the Prosecutor's
22 office about the delivery of materials that are necessary to us for all
23 this. We received a very short answer yesterday, saying that they are in
24 discussion with the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was new to us.
25 This was new to us, that any of these documents could be treated as per
1 Rule 70.
2 The second thing that concerns the other information from the
3 Prosecutor's database, yesterday I was briefed in the whole way by my
4 learned friend from the Prosecutor's office. We are going to try and deal
5 with this as soon as possible without the intervention on the part of the
6 Trial Chamber, if possible, but I would like to inform you that as far as
7 preparation for these two witnesses are concerned, we do not have ample
8 material and we do not have good enough cooperation on the part of the
9 Prosecution in order for us to be prepared for these two very complex
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Anybody else wishes to add? Yes, Mr. Meek.
12 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honours, I agree with my colleague,
13 Madam Nikolic. I've also been attempting to get these documents that
14 Mr. McCloskey claims they promised the government of Bosnia they wouldn't
15 turn over, but I don't know any legal basis, actually, and I guess we're
16 still waiting to hear from Mr. McCloskey.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
18 Do you wish to address this item?
19 Yes, Madam Tapuskovic.
20 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I would
21 like to add something to what my friends have stated.
22 All the documentation that we have received so far, with regard to
23 Mrs. Tabeau's and Mr. Parsons' testimony we received only in English.
24 None of the things have been translated, and we have been told that
25 Mr. Parsons' report is still pending. Given the time restrictions for the
1 Prosecution case, we can see that the translation will not be forthcoming
2 in due time for our clients to be informed about the contents of the
3 future testimony of these witnesses.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: One of the conditions of accepting both of you as
5 counsel for your client is that you understand English, so go through it
6 in English and then give the necessary information to your client.
7 Yes, who else? Any further comments, Mr. Nicholls or
8 Mr. McCloskey?
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, just briefly.
10 Mr. President, regarding the demographics material, just to be
11 clear, that is all available to the Defence, always has been. The issue
12 has been, especially from Mr. Meek, their expert is out of town, and so
13 they wanted some of that material to be able to be sent to him, is my
14 understanding, and we identified what particular material they're
15 interested in. And I am now -- and it's a smaller version than, for
16 example, the massive Bosnian census that is a very sensitive document that
17 cannot be sent out. What they want is a smaller list, and so we've now,
18 to try to meet their needs, have gone to Bosnia to say, "Look, this is a
19 smaller thing. What is the problem with giving that to them?" And I'm
20 hoping we'll be successful. But they have it, they can come in and look
21 at it, as all the demographics stuff, but they're trying to send it out to
22 their people, and we're trying to see if we can facilitate that. But of
23 course we have the interests of Bosnia and their confidential concerns for
24 this kind of information in mind.
25 And I don't think I need to remind the Court, but this is our
1 last-minute response to this DNA issue based on their extremely
2 last-minute challenge to Mr. Manning's use of the DNA after this material
3 was not challenged by Mr. -- in Mr. Brunborg's report.
4 So we're really, as you know, caught off-guard here with this
5 last-minute challenge, but we're working together with them and we're
6 trying to get this done, and I hope these witnesses will be very short and
7 not very complicated. Though since it's science, it may be considered
9 JUDGE AGIUS: The other point made by Ms. Nikolic and which is
10 also not clear in our mind until now is whether you're offering these two
11 witnesses as ordinary witnesses or as expert witnesses.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: They have reports, they're talking about science.
13 Their opinions are probably going to be asked for briefly. So they're
14 probably, technically, experts. We have an expert, Brunborg, that's
15 relying on their expert reports, so I think they would be experts. We
16 also have the Parsons report in B/C/S now.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you.
18 Yes, Mr. Meek.
19 MR. MEEK: Very briefly, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please, thank you.
21 MR. MEEK: Whether or not counsel and co-counsel have to speak
22 English, I don't believe that we've had adequate time, on the Parsons
23 report, to even get it to my expert if they intend to call them next week.
24 Number 2, as you'll recall, it was Ewa Tabeau and an unknown
25 person, someone from the IC --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: For some time it was like that and we discussed that
2 on the 14th of December, yeah.
3 MR. MEEK: In addition, I would just add one final comment to
4 Mr. McCloskey's statement, and that would simply be that we really had no
5 idea that the Office of the Prosecutor was relying solely on the ICMP DNA
6 reports for minimum numbers, the MNIs, and not their experts who had been
7 called who he had adequate time to cross-examine until he made that
8 statement during Dean Manning's testimony.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
10 Any further -- yes, Mr. Josse.
11 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, what I have to say relates more to the 65
12 ter witness application, but does apply to the ICMP issue. And let me
13 make it clear, certainly the ICMP issue has nothing to do with my client's
14 case, and the witness clearly directly has nothing to do with his case and
15 probably indirectly has nothing to do with his case.
16 My observation is simply as follows: The Prosecution have filed
17 the confidential motion, but have made no reference to the time issue.
18 Clearly, the first thing, in my submission, this Chamber needs to decide
19 is whether to extend the length of the Prosecution case. At this moment
20 in time, I'm making no submission about that, but what I do contend is
21 that in order to proceed further, that is what the Court really needs to
22 address, because if the Court is not willing to extend the time for the
23 Prosecution case, then all of these discussions are absolutely pointless,
24 a complete waste of time, because we are going to run out of time on the
25 1st of February.
1 So, Your Honour --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: But I think I made myself clear last time that we
3 were not cutting down on the time you requested for the cross-examination
4 of the current witness, but that meant that if we over-spilled over the
5 1st of February, the other dates fixed for the Rule 98 bis submissions
6 were not going to move. So we made that clear.
7 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, forgive me. What I thought is the Court
8 had made it clear that the date of the 1st of February wasn't going to
9 shift. If I misunderstood that, then I apologise, and at this moment in
10 time I'm not addressing the timetabling issue. I might ask to be heard on
11 that at some later point, but clearly the Chamber needs first to decide
12 whether it's going to accede to the Prosecution's application. And I've
13 made my position on that clear. Others are going to address it, and I
14 simply support what they have to say.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it was clear enough, Mr. Josse. We were
16 granting -- granted you all the time, 35 hours that you had requested for
17 the cross-examination of this witness, it would have been humanly
18 impossible to then finish the Prosecution case by the 1st of February.
19 But we also wanted to make it clear that if we went beyond that, the other
20 dates were not going to shift.
21 MR. JOSSE: Indeed. I now understand that. The Chamber is saying
22 that the Prosecution case can go on the week after next; is that what it
23 amounts to?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, I don't know what's going to happen. Maybe
25 tomorrow Mr. McCloskey comes and renounces the next two or three
1 witnesses. How do I know?
2 MR. JOSSE: I see.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: So we'll face that and pronounce ourselves on it at
4 the right moment.
5 MR. JOSSE: Excuse me if I've been impertinent.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, not at all, Mr. Josse. I wish everyone --
7 if that is impertinence, I wish everyone would limit himself or herself to
8 that limit.
9 So any further remarks on this? Yes, Madam Nikolic.
10 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Just two more words, Your Honours,
11 to clarify some things.
12 When Mr. McCloskey says, on page 4, lines 10 and 11, that the
13 material is available to us and it has always been, it is true that it
14 exists in the database of the demographic department of the Prosecutor's
15 office. In order for us to be able to deal with this information, our
16 experts should be able to work in the Prosecutor's office, which is
17 impossible. This material has to be disclosed to us if we're at all given
18 a chance to be prepared for this witness.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So that disposes, for the time being, of
20 one of the issues.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me clarify it.
23 So one is translated already. Well, I told you, Madam Tapuskovic,
24 that you're supposed to know, at least one of you, to be fluent in English
25 and to understand English, and you can -- because the circumstances, are
1 we talking of demographic statistics? There is a time constraint, and
2 we are not to be interpreted as saying that these documents should not be
3 translated. But in the meantime, I mean, just go through them and have
4 consultations with your clients within the shortest possible time.
5 Now, that's okay. Now, which is the other matter that you're
6 coming back to us with after the break?
7 MR. MEEK: It will be an issue regarding Witness -- the next one.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: You said last time that there was a possibility of a
9 stipulation with the --
10 MR. MEEK: That fell through, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: That fell through.
12 MR. MEEK: Yeah. One clarification is that I think my colleague
13 has indicated that there was no B/C/S translation of the transcript, it
14 says in the record, but I think it was the expert report.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, if it's of the transcript, it's wrong.
16 MR. MEEK: But we've not even received it in English. Apparently
17 it is in B/C/S. Our clients can review it. But any other documents they
18 rely on, under the rules, our clients have an absolute right to have that
19 in their language.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: We've never denied that right.
21 Anyway, you check amongst yourselves what you have and what you
22 don't, I mean, and then we take it up from there.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: The reports have been disclosed in English, and I
24 believe both of them now in B/C/S, from what Ms. Stewart tells me, so I
25 don't think we have a problem there.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: So who is going to address the Prosecution motion of
2 the 22nd January to add a further witness? I'm not going to mention his
3 name because I don't know if he will be a protected witness or not.
4 Yes, Mr. Haynes.
5 MR. HAYNES: Well, I can't see anybody else jumping to their feet,
6 so I'll do it.
7 I wasn't, until a few moments ago, aware that Mr. Josse was going
8 to raise the brief submission that he did, and I'm sorry if this is a
9 little bit repetitive, but let's be realistic. There are five and a half
10 working days left before the scheduled close of the Prosecution case, and
11 we're partway into the third of seven substantial cross-examinations of
12 the present witness. There are four witnesses of real substance left to
13 be called, three of whom have been added since the start of December, when
14 the Prosecution knew full well what it had to achieve and in what time it
15 had to achieve it.
16 There are substantial legal issues to be determined within the
17 body of the Prosecution case. These include the outstanding 92 bis motion
18 and the threatened 92 quater motion. Realistically, the Prosecution's
19 case not only cannot finish on the 1st of February, there is every
20 likelihood it will run beyond the scheduled date for the 98 bis
21 submissions. The Prosecution does not seek to extend the deadline in its
22 current or any motion, and the only practical suggestion that appears to
23 be made as to how we should fit things within the time is a repeated
24 suggestion that the cross-examination of Richard Butler should be limited.
25 Since the order of the Court as to the deadline for the completion
1 of the Prosecution case, there appears to have been no efforts made to
2 prune, edit, or comply with the order of the Court. And through the
3 motion currently made, the Prosecution now seeks to prolong, presumably on
4 assumption that the Court will extend the deadline or limit
5 cross-examination by the Defence, and on the further assumption that this
6 is no prejudice to the Defence in any way at all.
7 In any event, the substance of this opposition is this: Every
8 accused person is entitled to know the case they have to face from the
9 outset of the trial, and they're entitled to prepare their and conduct
10 their defence accordingly. And the procedures and the rules of this
11 Tribunal ensure that. The indictment should map out the particular
12 allegations that an accused has to meet. Pre-trial briefs should
13 particularise the Prosecution case, and witness summaries and statements
14 served in support should show the evidentiary basis for each allegation
15 raised in the indictment.
16 You might think all of this is particularly important in a
17 seven-accused case, where each accused is entitled to regard allegations
18 in the indictment and evidence as affecting others and not him. Granted,
19 it is necessarily part of the Prosecution's case that many Serbian VRS
20 military personnel are incapable of belief, but where we are going with
21 this particular corner of the indictment, I simply do not know.
22 I would just remind you of paragraphs 38.1 and 30.10 in the
23 indictment, which, as I read it, does not allege any participation by any
24 member of the Zvornik Brigade at Kozluk on the 15th of July. If there is
25 any ambiguity in those paragraphs, I would simply invite you to look at
1 paragraphs 336 to 338 of the pre-trial brief.
2 At the start of this case, the allegations surrounding the alleged
3 execution at Kozluk was supported by Witness 128, and that was the case my
4 client had to meet. The summary of Witness 128's evidence I invite you to
5 consider. But to draw you quickly to the point, it was said to be
6 relevant only to the cases of Popovic and Nikolic.
7 During the course of Witness 128's testimony before this Tribunal,
8 in fact I think notice of this first came from his proofing note, two
9 further names came to light. I'll be careful not to mention them, because
10 I can't remember which one of the two was a protected witness and which
11 one was not. There was a good deal of excitement about what they might
12 say, but in the event their evidence about who was involved in the
13 executions was neutral, and so the investigative chain went on.
14 Up until this point, I have allowed the evidence about Kozluk to
15 go substantially unchallenged. It was not said at the start of the case
16 materially to affect my client, and the evidence which we heard from the
17 three witnesses who dealt with the subject took the matter no further.
18 Whilst I accept the generality of the indictment, it didn't seem to me
19 that it was or would be the Prosecution's case that Zvornik Brigade
20 soldiers, the security officers, are part responsible for committing
21 executions in Kozluk on the 15th of July. I do not see any application to
22 amend the indictment. What the Prosecution seeks to do through the
23 calling of this witness at the very death of its case is to turn its case
24 in relation Kozluk completely on its head and overturn by contradiction
25 the previous evidence the Court has heard and the allegations in the
1 indictment and the pre-trial brief and the witness summaries which were
2 served at the start of the case.
3 The prejudice lies to my client in my having conducted his case on
4 the basis that I had proper notice of what allegations he faced and what
5 evidence supported them. This of course could easily be cured by the
6 simple expedient of recalling all three of the previous witnesses for
7 further cross-examination who dealt with the question of Kozluk. But as a
8 practical proposition, that is ridiculous. We have only five and a bit
9 days left of the Prosecution case, or a little bit more if you allow it.
10 And so that I'm absolutely clear, I have absolutely no intention
11 of calling Witness 128, Protected Witness 101, or anybody else who has
12 given evidence on this issue as part of my defence case, and it would be
13 utterly unjust to compel me to do so.
14 Being realistic, given the competing interests in relation to
15 Kozluk, it is almost inconceivable that during the course of the Defence
16 case, this issue will not be revisited and provoke -- and provide the
17 Prosecution with the opportunity to call this witness in rebuttal, should
18 they wish to do so.
19 Turning to a further issue, at the start of this case the
20 Trial Chamber made certain rulings about the timetabling of the disclosure
21 of identities and information relating to protected witnesses, and, in
22 general terms, that amounted to this: That their identities should be
23 released to the Defence at least 30 days before they gave evidence. In
24 relation to this witness, I say this: There is no material in the motion,
25 or supporting material, which would support the making of any protective
1 measures. Generally, we've not been obstructive about this, but the
2 request for confidentiality, especially given the tight timetabling
3 concerning this witness's identity, is particularly restrictive and a
4 further ground for refusing the substantive application to add his name to
5 the 65 ter list.
6 It amounts to this: Not only does the Prosecution want to change
7 its case on this issue at the 11th hour and 59th minute, they want to do
8 it in a way that shuts the Defence out forever from investigating the
9 truth and accuracy of what this witness might say. And he might, for all
10 we know, be one of the witnesses who Mr. McCloskey termed at the start of
11 this case a bald-faced liar. There are certainly concerns that many of us
12 have, having listened to the CD of his evidence, as to the sort of person
13 he might be, but as things presently stand the application is that he be
14 here, that we not be allowed to disclose his identity to anybody, even to
15 our investigators, as I understand it, and he be called to give evidence
16 within a matter of a few days.
17 Those are my objections to this application. I submit it's too
18 late and utterly unjust to permit the Prosecution to add this witness at
19 this stage.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you, Mr. Haynes.
21 Do you wish to respond to that, Mr. Nicholls?
22 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down for the sake of the
25 interpreters, please.
1 MR. MEEK: While the issue of this witness doesn't have anything
2 to do with my client, on principle, I absolutely support my colleague
3 Mr. Haynes, absolutely.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
5 Mr. Nicholls.
6 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honours.
7 The issue for Your Honours, I think, to decide, taking into
8 account all of the allegations made by Mr. Haynes and the stage of the
9 case, is whether it would be in the interests of justice for Your Honours
10 to hear this evidence, whether it would help you arrive at a true and just
12 The threshold first, which Mr. Haynes hasn't addressed
13 particularly, and I suppose he concedes it is: Is the evidence probative,
14 is it relevant on its prima facie face value, is it something that would
15 be useful to you? And I think that relying on my pleadings, I suggest
16 that it is completely.
17 As far as the lateness of the application or the time of the
18 application, I could say, I'd like to address that, if I may, in private
19 session, because to address it fully I need to talk about other -- other
20 facts which are -- should be in private session.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session.
22 [Private session]
11 Pages 20435-20436 redacted. Private session
23 [Open session]
24 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session now.
25 MR. NICHOLLS: It can't be said with any credibility, reading the
1 indictment, that this witness changes the case in any significant way.
2 Mr. Pandurevic has always been charged specifically in the indictment with
3 the events in Rocevic and Kozluk. The indictment states that VRS and/or
4 MUP were taking part of -- or taking part in this operation.
5 The --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think it's the right time to go into that,
7 neither on your part, nor on Mr. Haynes' part, what Mr. Pandurevic is
8 charged with, for the time being.
9 MR. NICHOLLS: My point --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: The whole issue is whether there is justification
11 for accepting your application to have this witness added or not.
12 MR. NICHOLLS: Well, that's what I was trying to address,
13 Your Honour, is that there is no prejudice, no significant prejudice, when
14 you're doing your balance of the new information. You have to take, of
15 course, into account the rights of the accused, a very important
16 consideration, and on balance I'll leave it at that. The case has not
17 changed significantly in any way. It's not a complex, new issue, and
18 there is no new charges is what I would say.
19 The second point my friend made about how we've attempted to shut
20 them down and prevent their defence is simply nonsense. It's very likely
21 that the witness we seek to add will ask for protective measures. The
22 Court's recognised before that the protective measures can be completely
23 nullified in advance if that person, who might be a witness, his name is
24 released and spread around. What our motion asks for is simply what the
25 Courts have granted in the past, which is that it not be released to third
1 parties and the public. That doesn't mean investigators. It means
2 nobody, as part of the team, nobody -- their clients, of course, can have
3 that, their team can have it. What it means is we do not want it
4 published to the public. And it's very clear from the motion, which my
5 friend ignored, that we just ask that if there is a reason, a valid
6 reason, why it needs to be released, that they -- that Your Honours are
7 approached and given that. That way, we know that there's been a valid
8 reason, if there's a valid reason to investigate, and that can be done, as
9 we've said before, on an ex parte basis.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: One question. We've had witnesses testify about the
11 Kozluk -- alleged Kozluk executions, and we have had at least one, if not
12 more, one witness testify about Pandurevic's return to Zvornik by the
13 afternoon of the 15th of July of 1995. We have also evidence which
14 identifies several persons that allegedly took part in the Kozluk events.
15 What is this witness going to add?
16 MR. NICHOLLS: May I go into private session, Your Honour?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's go into private session.
18 [Private session]
14 [Open session]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Shall we hear Haynes?
16 MR. HAYNES: I'll respond very quickly.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please, and very briefly, too.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Go into private session.
5 [Private session]
15 [Open session]
16 MR. HAYNES: I believe the first indication that such a source
17 existed was several years ago in the interview of the first witness who
18 gave evidence about this topic. Mr. Nicholls has failed completely to
19 address the question of prejudice, and I do remind you that you set the
20 benchmark for what is fair notice of a witness's identity at the start of
21 this trial; 30 days. And Mr. Nicholls personally has accorded that
22 privilege, I think, certainly to the Nikolic team and others on several
23 occasions throughout this trial when they have complained of lack of due
24 notice of a witness's identity and wish for time to investigate the
25 matter. And I'll pick one example straight out. PW-108 was put back and
1 back and back so that it was seen as fair that the Nikolic team were ready
2 to cross-examine him. This witness, we will get really no effective
3 notice of, and that is a very real prejudice and it simply has not been
4 addressed by Mr. Nicholls.
5 I'll address the issue of probity.
6 The point I made about the indictment is about the probative value
7 of this evidence. I say it doesn't take matters any further, but what it
8 does do is take it in a direction that nobody was expecting to have to
9 meet, and I say that makes it lacking in probity.
10 And those are the three points I wish to make.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Nikolic.
12 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Could we please move into closed session?
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move into private session.
15 [Private session]
13 [Open session]
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Nicholls.
16 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.
17 Very briefly, Your Honour, without going into -- into private
18 session, Mr. Haynes talked about early mention of the source. It's always
19 been followed up as much as possible. What I said in private session I
20 think shows the diligence as soon as there was anything to go on.
21 Many of the names, responding to my friend Ms. Nikolic, mentioned
22 have been talked about before, and now there's been a lot of discussion
23 about whether I've portrayed the facts accurately and whether -- whether
24 this -- I think you should look at the interview to decide whether or not
25 you think this is valuable. I don't know if there's any objection to
1 that - it's about 40 pages - because there's been a discussion of what
2 was in it and what was said and what wasn't said, and it may be useful to
3 you if you feel that way.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll come back to you on both issues at a later
7 point in time.
8 In the meantime, let's bring in Mr. Butler, please, and proceed
9 with your cross-examination, Mr. Bourgon, and conclude it.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Mr. Butler.
12 THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon is going to conclude his
15 WITNESS: RICHARD BUTLER [Resumed]
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon.
17 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon: [Continued]
19 Q. Good morning, Mr. Butler.
20 A. Good morning.
21 Q. I just have a few more questions for you this morning, following
22 which I do not believe it will be necessary to go into the hypothetical
23 which I announced yesterday.
24 At paragraph 5.17 of your revised narrative, you conclude that the
25 removal of the refugee population from Potocari was completed by 2000
1 hours on the 13th of July. Your conclusion was made on the basis of a
2 report which was filed. My question is: Since drafting your narrative
3 more than five years ago, did you come across any additional material or
4 were you given or provided material by the Office of the Prosecution which
5 would lead you to modify this conclusion? Paragraph 5.17, if you have
6 your report with you.
7 A. No, sir, I'm not aware of other documentary evidence which would
8 reflect a different time. I don't know whether or not any witnesses or
9 other individuals may have provided information that it's a different
10 time, so this is the information that I'm aware of. I'm not aware of any
11 contrary information to that effect.
12 Q. Thank you. I move to my next question, and for this one I would
13 like to refer to the existing situation in the Zvornik Brigade on 12 and
14 13 July of 1995. And you will recall at a time when the chief of staff,
15 Major Obrenovic, is the senior officer on the ground and in the absence of
16 the brigade commander. And the situation I would like to refer to, just
17 so we're on the same page, refers to the time when he is getting
18 information from Vukotic, the intelligence officer, as well as from other
19 sources regarding the column or elements thereof which are approaching the
20 Zvornik area. Can you identify the period that I'm talking about?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. On the basis of your analysis of the material at your disposal, I
23 take it you can confirm that during this period, Major Obrenovic is
24 scrambling to organise preparations for the arrival of the column. Would
25 you agree with that?
1 A. Yes, sir, he's actively working to muster whatever remaining
2 military forces there are within the brigade that can be pulled off the
3 front lines, and other reserve forces, in order to put a blocking force in
4 place for the column.
5 Q. And you can confirm that on the basis of your analysis, in part
6 due to the absence of resources deployed with Tactical Group 1, and
7 despite the fact, as you say, that he's drawing resources from the
8 battalions, that at this point in time he is short of personnel and
9 especially short of experienced officers to organise preparations for the
10 arrival of the column; would you agree with that?
11 A. He is short personnel in respect to having experienced combat and
12 infantry fighters, and he is short officers with the battalions, and that
13 as a result he's having to use his own brigade staff operations officers
14 to, in effect, go down and be platoon and company commanders.
15 Q. My question in this regard or my next question deals with your
16 observation, and that is at paragraph 7.9 of your report, and it then
17 appears again at paragraph 10.15 of your revised narrative. I should have
18 said "revised narrative" the first time around. Both paragraphs are from
19 the revised narrative, where you note that on the 13th of July, 1995, at
20 approximately 2300 hours, Drago Nikolic would have been replaced as
21 forward command post IKM brigade duty officer by Major Galic. Do you have
22 this paragraph in front of you?
23 A. Yes, sir, I do.
24 Q. I take it, Mr. Butler, you would agree with me, and I think this
25 has been mentioned before, but I could not find the reference, that the
1 replacement of the brigade forward command post duty officer, especially
2 in the situation that we are referring to here, is a decision which
3 normally requires the approval of either the commander or the senior
4 officer on the ground; would you agree with that?
5 A. Yes, sir, I agree. I mean, it would have required either
6 Colonel Pandurevic or Major Obrenovic to make that decision.
7 Q. Now, although the Defence position has been contrary, looking at
8 your narrative and to some evidence adduced in this trial, it would appear
9 that in fact Major Obrenovic himself would have approved the replacement
10 of Drago Nikolic, and you would not be surprised by this fact, would you?
11 A. No, sir. I believe, from my knowledge of statements that the
12 individual has provided to the Office of the Prosecutor, that he in fact
13 does confirm that he is the person who authorised the replacement of
14 Drago Nikolic at that time.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly pause between questions and answers,
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Did you hear that? Okay.
18 MR. BOURGON: I did, and I apologise, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
20 MR. BOURGON:
21 Q. Now, according to further evidence adduced in this trial, it would
22 appear that Major Obrenovic would have approved a replacement of
23 Drago Nikolic without verifying who was the next officer on the list or
24 who was available, and that in fact he only learned much later that it was
25 Major Galic who would have replaced Drago Nikolic that night. That's the
1 evidence we've heard in this trial, and on this basis -- and of course
2 taking into account your military knowledge and experience, I suggest to
3 you that this is not what you would expect from an experienced VRS officer
4 responsible for a brigade in these circumstances.
5 A. Well, sir, under the context of the circumstances, the fact that
6 Major Obrenovic would have authorised the relief of Drago Nikolic, again
7 that's within his competence to do. Under normal circumstances, the
8 officer who is being relieved has the responsibility to ensure that his
9 relief has arrived prior to him officially departing. Whether or not
10 Major Obrenovic would have specifically designated which officer to go and
11 relieve him or whether or not that is a decision that he would have left
12 to the operations people is a matter of speculation. I mean, it would
13 not -- the circumstances you described are not unusual, in my mind.
14 Q. Mr. Butler, the situation or the part of the question I am
15 referring to is, you said it yourself, that because he was short of
16 experienced personnel, he had to use his own officers and deploy them for
17 combat activities. My question to you is: In such circumstances, is it
18 normal that he will authorise the replacement of Drago Nikolic without
19 even knowing who will replace Drago Nikolic and who is available to
20 replace Drago Nikolic? And I'm asking this in your capacity as -- on the
21 basis of your military experience.
22 A. No, sir. I mean, under the circumstances, I mean, the fact that
23 he had to do that was an anomaly. However, that's, you know, what happens
24 in that particular situation within the shortage of officers. It doesn't
25 mean that Drago Nikolic is still not responsible for ensuring his relief
1 is in place and time.
2 Q. That's not my question, Mr. Butler. My question is very simple.
3 You're supposed to be someone with military experience. Would you have
4 expected Major Obrenovic to verify and to hand-pick whoever was going to
5 replace Drago Nikolic to ensure that he would have the right resources to
6 do the job that he has to do at the time?
7 A. No, sir. I mean, to the first part of your question, I would have
8 expected that Major Obrenovic would have verified that the position was
9 filled. I don't believe that within the context of the operations staff,
10 that it would have been necessary for Major Obrenovic to hand-pick the
11 next duty officer. That could have very easily been a decision delegated
12 to the operations people.
13 Q. And I suggest to you it would have been necessary for him to know
14 who is going so that who is remaining available for his activities?
15 A. I'm sure that as a matter of information, that Major Obrenovic
16 would have wanted to know who it was at some point, yes, sir.
17 Q. And that's all I was looking for.
18 I'm moving to the next question, which deals with the arrival of a
19 large number of prisoners in the area of Zvornik. It would appear, on the
20 basis of evidence adduced in this trial, that Major Obrenovic, in his
21 capacity as senior officer of the brigade at the time, would have been
22 informed of this situation - I'm talking about the arrival of a large
23 number of prisoners - for the first time in the early evening of 13 July.
24 That's the evidence we've heard in this case. And I take it you're
25 familiar that this -- you can confirm this fact?
1 A. Yes, sir. I'm familiar with this as the evidence that has come
3 Q. Again, the next question has to do with your military experience.
4 Pursuant to further evidence heard during this trial, it would appear that
5 during a telephone conversation with General Zivanovic, which took place
6 shortly after being informed of the arrival of a large group of prisoners
7 and being informed that this group of prisoners would subsequently be
8 killed in the area of Zvornik, Major Obrenovic did not mention this
9 situation, nor consider it appropriate to engage his superior on this
10 issue. That's the evidence we've heard.
11 On the basis of your military knowledge and experience, I suggest
12 that this is not what you would expect from an experienced VRS officer
13 responsible for a brigade in these circumstances.
14 A. I agree.
15 Q. I move to paragraph 7.27 of your narrative, in which you conclude,
16 towards the end of this paragraph, and you have your report with you, I
17 believe, I quote - it's one short sentence:
18 "Late on the 15th, all burial activity was completed at the
19 Orahovac site."
20 Do you have this quote?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. My question is the following: Since drafting your narrative more
23 than five years ago, did you come across any additional information or
24 were you given any additional material which would lead you to modify this
1 A. I am aware that in the intervening period, that the OTP has
2 interviewed a number of the engineer operators, but as far as I understand
3 the events that occurred there, the actual burial operations were done by
4 the 15th and that subsequent to that, on the morning of the 16th,
5 equipment was being -- any equipment that was left over was being moved
6 out. I don't have any information that they were still burying bodies on
7 16 July at that location.
8 Q. My next question relates to events which would have taken place in
9 Orahovac on the 14th and 15th of July, and that is as described in your
10 narrative in Chapter 7, pages 63 to 68. So the Orahovac situation in
12 In paragraph 7.6, you conclude, and I quote:
13 " ... That survivor testimony and documents from the Zvornik
14 Brigade indicate that elements of the brigade command, the Engineer
15 Company, the Military Police Company, and elements of (at least) the 4th
16 Infantry Battalion, were all involved in the planning, detention,
17 execution, and subsequent burial of Muslim men at the Orahovac site."
18 I'd like to have in e-court, please, 65 ter 3D133, which is in tab
19 3 in your binder.
20 Are you familiar with this document, Mr. Butler, which is an
21 indictment against four members of the Bratunac Light Infantry Brigade who
22 are charged for participating in the mistreatment, beatings, cruel
23 treatment, and acts causing terror at the Orahovac school on 14 July?
24 A. I believe that --
25 Q. It should be in tab 3.
1 A. Yes, sir, I have it. I believe I have seen an English language
2 version of this, yes, sir.
3 Q. Do you have an English version of the indictment with you in your
5 A. Yes, sir, I do.
6 Q. Would you agree with me that this document confirms the
7 involvement of the Bratunac Military Police Company in the Orahovac
8 events, and that, as such, it could modify your conclusion in paragraph
10 A. Sir, with all due respect, an indictment confirms nothing.
11 Q. I agree, and I will correct the language I've used. It would be
12 an indicator that at least there is some evidence of members of the
13 Bratunac Military Police Company involved in the events in Orahovac?
14 A. Yes, sir, I agree. I believe that information that has come to
15 light in the last couple of years has -- does in fact reflect that members
16 of the Bratunac Brigade military police were escorting prisoner convoys to
17 more than just the location that I identify from documents in Pilica. I
18 believe they've now been identified at both Orahovac and Petkovski.
19 Q. And would you agree, in this regard, that the involvement in the
20 Orahovac events, and maybe more, as you say, of elements from a brigade
21 other than Zvornik, is both a significant and important fact to take into
22 account in analysing these events?
23 A. It's a factor that should be taken into account in analysing the
24 events. The importance of it is entirely dependent upon what their
25 activities were at the time. The fact that -- you know, in the abstract,
1 that a police patrol or group of police individuals, or even soldiers from
2 Bratunac, may have escorted a convoy up does not replace or supplant the
3 involvement of the Zvornik Brigade in that particular crime base. So
4 while it is a factor to be considered, certainly, one would have to look
5 at the actual activities involved to determine how much of a factor it
6 would be.
7 Q. And my point is simply that the fact that this is from an external
8 brigade or another brigade and the fact that these people are military
9 police, these --
10 A. These are factors, yes, sir.
11 Q. I move to my last issue, which deals with Chapter 1 of your
12 narrative, and in this chapter you address the historical background. I
13 refer you to paragraph 1.3. That should be on page 6-7 of the -- of your
14 narrative or revised narrative, where you describe how a conflict erupted
15 in Zvornik in the early evening -- sorry, the reference might be wrong in
16 the transcript. I was referring to pages 6 and 7 and not 67.
17 So paragraph 1.3, you describe how a conflict erupted in Zvornik
18 in the early evening hours of 8 April 1992, and that would be when, as you
19 say, elements of the JNA 336th Motorised Brigade, Arkan's Serbian
20 volunteers -- volunteer guards, and local SDS or SDS-backed TO units,
21 seized control of the predominantly Muslim-populated town.
22 Do you have this paragraph in front of you?
23 A. Yes, sir, I do.
24 Q. According to your description, this attack was preceded by an
25 ultimatum issued several hours earlier to Zvornik SDA representatives at
1 the Hotel Jesero in Mali Zvornik. According to what you say, during this
2 meeting Arkan and local SDS officials demanded the surrender of the town.
3 What I'd like to refer you to is what you say in paragraph 1.3 concerning
4 the presence of Captain Dragan Obrenovic at this meeting, and my first
5 question is: Is this the same Dragan Obrenovic who became the chief of
6 staff of the Zvornik Brigade?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. There are two documents you refer to in support of your conclusion
9 that Dragan Obrenovic was present. Both of them are referred to in your
10 revised narrative. The first one, footnote 7, and you have this in tab 30
11 in your binder. If you can just take a look at this document, and this is
12 document 5D458 in e-court, please.
13 A. Yes, sir, I have it.
14 Q. You have it, okay. Without reading all of it, you recall this
15 document which you footnoted in your revised narrative?
16 A. Yes, sir, I do.
17 Q. The second document was referred to in footnote 6, and that was a
18 letter addressed to General Jankovic, commander of the Tuzla Corps, by a
19 person called Izet Mehinagic who was present at the meeting. That is in
20 tab 47 of your binder, if you can have a look at this, and if I can have
21 in e-court 65 ter number 733.
22 This one is short, and I would like, Mr. Butler, to have you read
23 this one-page letter, and then I will ask you one question on this basis.
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Can you describe what document 733 is, what this letter is, your
1 analysis of this document?
2 A. This particular letter was, as described, a letter from the
3 individual Izet Mehinagic, and I hope I've pronounced that correctly, to
4 General Savo Jankovic, who was at that time the commander of the JNA 17th
5 Corps, requesting protection in some effect by the JNA in order to prevent
6 the conflict that was looming with respect to Zvornik. He lays out the --
7 at least a short version, he lays out the fact that, you know, a meeting
8 occurred in Mali Zvornik and who the participants were.
9 Q. Thank you. Now, my question to you is: On the basis of your
10 analysis of this document, the previous document, which was the one you
11 saw before that at tab 33, as well as any other material you may have seen
12 in drafting your report, were you able to conclude that on that occasion,
13 Dragan Obrenovic was arrested by Arkan in this meeting?
14 A. No, sir. All the evidence that I'm aware of, outside of his own
15 statements, of course, reflects that he was a willing participant in the
17 MR. BOURGON: This concludes, Mr. President, my cross-examination,
18 but I have one clarification I would like to bring, which is: After
19 reading the transcript yesterday, I may have put my question in a wrong
20 way. That was page 3 in the transcript yesterday. And I would just like
21 to read you the question, Mr. Butler, and ask you to clarify whether this
22 is correct.
23 Q. The question at that time was that:
24 "In light of these duties and responsibilities of the intelligence
25 officer, I take it you will agree with me that this officer works, of
1 course, in the Operations Department of the Command Staff."
2 I would just like to confirm. Maybe my question wasn't clear. At
3 least I wasn't sure. But you will agree with me that the intelligence
4 officer, of course, is not subordinated to the operations officer?
5 A. Correct, sir, he is subordinated to the chief of staff.
6 Q. What I wanted to do by this question is to highlight the fact that
7 he was on the operations side of the house. That's what I meant, and I
8 believe that's how you --
9 A. Yes, sir, yes.
10 MR. BOURGON: Thank you.
11 I have no further questions, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.
13 Let's have the break now, 25 minutes.
14 --- Recess taken at 10.24 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: So who is going next? Mr. Lazarevic.
17 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, it's me, Your Honour, and good morning.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you. If you could introduce
19 yourself to the witness, please.
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: Of course.
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Lazarevic:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Butler. My name is
23 Aleksandar Lazarevic. I represent Mr. Borovcanin in this case.
24 Before I start putting questions to you, I would like to tell you
25 first that Mr. Borovcanin's Defence by and large accepts your positions
1 about the resubordination of the police to the VRS Army. However, a
2 certain number of answers to the previous questions calls for additional
3 clarification, and I'm going to ask you questions in that sense.
4 I would like to start with the 14th January 2008 and the answer
5 that you provided on page 19633 to the question as to how cooperation
6 differs from coordination/cooperation, and then you answered this:
7 [In English] "So when you have a situation, for example, where the
8 army staff and the police staff have dictated, you know, how particular
9 units can be used or under what parameters that they can be used, within
10 the framework of those guidance from the senior commanders on both sides,
11 the lower units are going to be expected to collaborate to ensure that
12 they accomplish that mission."
13 [Interpretation] This was your answer, you will remember, I'm
14 sure. I would like to ask you this: Am I right and did I understand you
15 well, that your position that the staffs of the police forces and the
16 staffs of the military forces decided together on how to use the police
17 and military units?
18 A. No, sir. I mean, if you're referring to the staffs of the police
19 forces and the staffs of the military forces at the highest level, the
20 equivalent of the Main Staff and, I guess -- and police had a staff as
21 well, no, they don't coordinate at that particular level. What their
22 function is is once they set the parameters by which the police will be
23 engaged in military operations, for example, by assigning police units to
24 a certain military operation for a certain military time, they're finished
25 with it to that extent. What happens at the lower level is when that
1 particular police unit shows up, it is incumbent upon that lower-level
2 commander to coordinate with the military unit that he's been
3 resubordinated to, you know, in order to be fully integrated into the plan
4 and the larger defence. But -- so, I mean, that's the thrust of what I'm
5 trying to make with that point.
6 Q. Thank you very much. I believe that this clarifies your position
7 fully. With regard to this, I wanted to ask you something else.
8 When you were working on this case and as you were preparing your
9 expert analysis, did you ever come across a situation in which a MUP unit
10 would be superior to a military unit?
11 A. No, sir, I don't believe that I have; certainly not in 1995. 1992
12 was a much more chaotic circumstance, and it may have occurred then.
13 Q. Thank you very much for your answer. Can the witness now please
14 be shown 4D0092.
15 As we're waiting for the document to appear, let me tell you that
16 this is a schematic which was prepared by the Defence and represents the
17 structure of the Armed Forces of the Republika Srpska based on the Law of
18 Defence in case of war or imminent threat of war. Could you please look
19 at the schematic and tell us whether it corresponds to your understanding
20 of the structure of the armed forces in Republika Srpska, which is based
21 on the law -- on the application of the Law on Defence in a situation of
22 war or an imminent threat of war.
23 Would you be happy with a hard copy of the --
24 A. That's fine, sir, and I agree, I think this is an - in a broad
25 framework - accurate reflecting the components of the armed forces and the
1 role of the Supreme Command as the collective decision-making body, but
2 the fact that the RS president is the sole executive authority behind that
3 decision-making process.
4 Q. Thank you very much. We no longer need this document. Now I
5 would like us to look at P00057. You've already discussed this document
6 at great length on examination-in-chief. This is an order by the chief of
7 the police forces. The number is 64/95, and the date is 10 July 1995.
8 For your better understanding, I would like you to have the law on
9 the application of the Law on the Interior Affairs in a situation of war
10 or an imminent threat of war, which is Exhibit number 4D005725, because I
11 would like to put certain questions to you about the extent to which the
12 first document reflects the law and the legal solutions.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: Can I have the assistance of Madam Usher.
14 Q. [Interpretation] The order says that it was passed pursuant to an
15 order of the supreme commander of the Armed Forces of Republika Srpska. I
16 would kindly ask you to look at Article 13, paragraph 1 of the law, which
17 reads that police units participated in combat pursuant to an order of the
18 supreme commander of the armed forces and the Ministry of the Interior.
19 Could you please confirm that precisely Article 13, paragraph 1 of this
20 law provided the president with the authority to issue the order on the
21 use of these forces?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. As we go on, it says in the first paragraph:
24 "In order to break up the enemy force in the protected area of
25 Zenica [as interpreted]."
1 Based on the description in the order, can we then conclude that
2 the unit was sent to combat -- with a combat mission and that this was in
3 keeping with Article 14, paragraph 3, of the law that you have before you?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: A small correction. Zenica is on the record. I
7 just think we should catch that before ...
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologise. I said "Srebrenica." I suggest a
9 wrong interpretation. [Interpretation] Thank you very much. And now --
10 JUDGE KWON: If you could give me the exhibit number again of the
11 law. 4D ...
12 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour. It's 4DP00725.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
14 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. And now can we look at Article 13 of the law that you have before
16 you, which says the Ministry of the Interior rules the police units
17 through the staff of the command of the police forces of the Ministry.
18 Tell me, please, this order, does it also reflect Article 13, paragraph 2
19 of the law, bearing in mind, of course, that at the end you can see who
20 the issuer of the order was?
21 A. And that is what I was looking at is the fact that in this
22 particular context, Tomislav Kovac is noted as the staff commander, which
23 I take to be the police staff commander.
24 Q. Precisely so. And now can we please look at the order that we
25 have before us still, and can we please look at the heading of the order,
1 which shows the addressees. We can see that the order was sent to the
2 commander of the Special Police Brigade, to the staff of the Trnovo Police
3 Forces Command, to the staff of the Vogosca Police Forces Command, to the
4 staff of the Bijeljina Police Forces Command, to the Zvornik Public
5 Security Centre, to the Sarajevo Public Security Centre, and finally to
6 the Jahorina Police Training Camp. Can you see that?
7 A. Yes, sir, I can.
8 Q. I'm interested in three of the addressees. The order was sent to
9 the commander of the Special Police Brigade, it was also sent to the
10 Zvornik Public Security Centre and also to the Jahorina Police Training
11 Camp. Can you confirm that for us?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. Is it obvious that we are talking about three different components
14 within the Ministry of the Interior, judging by the addressees, and they
15 are all within the sector of public security, obviously?
16 A. I think to be accurate, we're talking about three different areas
17 within the public safety realm, yes, sir.
18 Q. Precisely so. Thank you very much. Let us now look at bullet
19 point 1 of this order, which reads a part of the MUP is to be sent as an
20 independent unit to the Srebrenica sector. Can we arrive at the
21 conclusion, if we use the term "independent unit," that this unit was not
22 connected with other MUP units on the ground and that, in practical terms,
23 it was resubordinated to the army?
24 A. Well, in -- at a point in time when it arrives, I agree. At this
25 juncture, though, where you're talking about "detach," you know, I agree
1 that at that point, it's under its own independent command for the purpose
2 of detaching from the front and moving there. At the point when it
3 arrives at its destination, and I guess then Colonel Borovcanin reports
4 to, you know, General Krstic, at that time the army assumes command over
5 that formation.
6 Q. Very well. And now can we please look at bullet point 5 of the
7 same order. You have just mentioned this in your previous answer, but
8 let's connect that with Article 14 of the law, which states as follows:
9 "Police units which pursuant to an order of the supreme commander
10 of the armed forces are sent into combat shall be resubordinated to the
11 commander of the unit in whose area of responsibility they are engaged in
13 Is it what the Article 14 says, and is bullet point 5 exactly the
14 reflection of Article 14 of the law?
15 A. Yes, sir, I believe that's -- that's how I read paragraph 5 of
16 this order in this particular light.
17 Q. As far as this document is concerned, although we have already
18 touched upon that subject, at the very bottom of the document it is
19 stated -- it is stated that the order is sent by the staff commander, so
20 it is beyond dispute that at the time when the order was issued, Mr. Kovac
21 was the deputy Minister of the Interior. However, is my understanding
22 correct when I say that he issued this order as the commander of the
23 Police Forces Staff?
24 A. Yes, sir, that is my understanding, that that is under the
25 authority by which he issued this order.
1 Q. Thank you very much. And now let's look at the Exhibit P00008.
2 This is another order this time issued by Radovan Karadzic, dated 22 April
3 1995. I am interested in the introductory part of the document.
4 As we can see in the heading of this document, the date is 22nd
5 April 1995, which was sent to the Main Staff of the Army of
6 Republika Srpska and also to the Republika Srpska Ministry of the
7 Interior. In the introduction to the order, it says:
8 " ... We were informed about some problems and confusion regarding
9 the engagement of the MUP in combat activities. In order to avoid certain
10 dilemmas or problems, I hereby order ..."
11 And further on, this order explains more precisely how MUP forces
12 may be used for combat. What I wanted to ask you is this: Can we agree
13 that this order, issued by Radovan Karadzic, was obviously a consequence
14 of the former confusion and problems and that the goal of this order was
15 to clarify, in more specific detail, as to how MUP units could be used in
16 such specific situations?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I believe
19 that we no longer need this document, and now I would like to look at some
20 very specific examples of how things worked in practice.
21 I would like to have 4D00087 in e-court. You've already seen this
22 document during your examination-in-chief, and I would kindly ask you to
23 keep the law that we have been discussing, which is 4DP00725.
24 Q. We have a document which is a letter of the deputy rear commander,
25 and it concerns full provisions for the MUP unit monitoring the Srebrenica
1 and Bratunac areas. The date indicated on the document is the 15th of
2 July, 1995. You've already had an occasion to see this document, but now
3 I'd kindly ask you to -- the provision of Article 14, paragraph 5 of the
4 law that you have before you, which says that in the area where combat
5 operations are taking place, the commander to whom the police unit is
6 resubordinated will provide logistical support to the police unit as well
7 as to the other units of the Army of Republika Srpska. Could you please
8 find it?
9 A. I've got it on the ELMO, sir, yes.
10 Q. And would this be precisely a situation of that sort, where
11 certain dilemmas arise as to who is it that should provide food for the
12 police unit, and this is precisely the kind of situation that is provided
13 for by Article 14, in which it is stated that it should be the commander
14 to whom the unit is resubordinated?
15 A. Yes, sir. As a matter of organisation and practice, the police
16 units, while they make, you know, effective combat fighters, they do not
17 have the necessary logistics and other sustainability components of
18 military units that would allow them to remain on their own. In light of
19 that fact, they would, you know, naturally rely on the army to provide the
20 necessary life support over the immediate issue of combat rations,
21 ammunition, medical support, all the other things that a military
22 formation needs in order to sustain itself in combat. So I believe you're
23 correct, what we're seeing here is a natural application of that.
24 Q. Thank you very much. You must have been reading my mind and
25 anticipated my next question, but let's put things in the context of these
1 events. Can we agree that in the area of Bratunac, Potocari and
2 Srebrenica, the -- Mr. Borovcanin did not have his staff or his
3 headquarters, or whatever we may want to call it, he did not have his own
4 logistics infrastructure, command post facilities, or any such thing?
5 A. Yes, sir, I agree.
6 Q. I have another fact that I would like to put to you with regard to
7 the document that we have just been looking at. The MUP unit that is
8 mentioned in this particular document, and we have to bear in mind that
9 this was on the 15th of July, was not the 1st Company of the PJP Zvornik,
10 it was not the 2nd Detachment of Special Brigade Sekovici, because those
11 two units at that time had already been engaged in the combat in the
12 Baljkovica sector, which is outside the territory of either Srebrenica or
14 A. I think in the context that Colonel Sobot is discussing, he's
15 discussing all of them. At the time this order is issued, and I believe
16 we're talking about roughly, I mean, 10 -- there's a time notation of
17 around 10.00, so I'm not sure exactly when this order was sent and drafted
18 to the Main Staff. But it was at that time that the decisions were made
19 and that those two MUP formations were being sent from the road up to the
20 Zvornik area. So I think in that context, he's talking about obviously
21 supporting all of the MUP forces that are down there, although I can't say
22 that he is aware that, you know, at this purpose, those two units are now
23 going from one position to another.
24 Regardless, you know, it's still the zone of the Drina Corps, and
25 as a result the Drina Corps still, regardless of whether they're in
1 Bratunac or Zvornik, is still going to have to support them.
2 Q. Yes, I understand your answer. However, are you contesting the
3 fact that on the 15th, the 1st PJP Company and the Sekovici Detachment
4 were already in Zvornik and in the Baljkovica sector?
5 A. No, sir. I believe that those formations, I mean, their unit
6 commanders were present at Zvornik around noon, where they were at
7 Standard, and I believe the bulk of the formations were in the Zvornik
8 Brigade area by approximately 1500 hours on 15 July.
9 Q. Thank you very much. While we were looking at the previous
10 documents, on several occasions the term "Police Forces Staff" came up.
11 I'm asking you, during the analysis of documents, did you come by other
12 documents where the staffs of the police forces were mentioned? Please
13 just say "yes" or "no," and then I'll have my next questions for you with
14 this regard.
15 A. No, sir, not during the construction of the report, I did not have
16 access to that.
17 Q. Very well. I suppose that this may reduce the need for some
18 questions that I was going to ask you, but let me ask you this: Are you
19 familiar with the staffs, as such, at what level of the MUP, if they
20 existed, and if you know that they did, and what was their purpose and
21 function? Can you answer that?
22 A. I -- only in the broadest sense that we've just discussed. It was
23 not an area of my particular expertise, to go into the inner workings of
24 the Ministry of the Interior of the RS. My concern, in looking at their
25 involvement, was only with respect to this particular operation and the
1 determination that on the ground level, who the MUP would be responsible
2 to within the context of the crime scene. So I don't believe I have the
3 expertise to go into the broader areas of how the MUP staff works.
4 Q. You know what, in that case I will only have one more question,
5 and I'm putting to you that in the course of 1995, the staff of the police
6 forces of the MUP did function and did exist. However, I'm interested in
7 something else. At least as of 20th March 1995, up to August 1995, there
8 was also the staff of the police forces in Zvornik with the Public
9 Security Services Centre. I'm putting this to you and I'm asking for your
10 comment on that.
11 A. Well, I am aware, if we're talking about the same things, that
12 within the structure of each CSB, to include Zvornik, there was a small
13 staff that was -- whose job it was was to prepare and, where necessary,
14 deploy the municipal police and manage the activities of what we know as
15 the PJP police companies. That was part of every CSB, as far as I'm
16 aware, if that's what we're talking about.
17 Q. I will no longer insist on this question. You said it clearly
18 that this was not part of your expertise, so I will move on to another
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Can Exhibit number P002204 be put
21 on e-court, please. [In English] It's the wrong number. I apologise.
22 It's P00204.
23 Q. [Interpretation] While we're waiting for this exhibit, let me tell
24 you that this is an order by Colonel Krstic from the Drina Corps of May
25 1995. I would like to look at the part which says or which indicates who
1 the addressee of the order were. And it says: "To the Command of the 1st
2 Podrinje Light Infantry Brigade, the 65th Motorised Protection Regiment,"
3 and so on and so forth, and the last is the Zvornik Public Security
4 Centre. Can you confirm that for us?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. And now can we go to page 3 of this document, bullet point 3,
7 paragraph 3. Here we have a minor problem with the translation, I
8 believe, and that's why I would like to read the original version in
9 B/C/S, which reads:
10 "The MUP company is attached ..."
11 3, bullet point 3:
12 " ... to the 1st Vlasenica Infantry Brigade, and it is engaged on
13 the attack axis of the 1st Vlasenica Infantry Brigade," and so on and so
15 Can you please confirm this, now that you have heard the
16 interpretation into English.
17 "The MUP company is attached to the 1st Vlasenica Brigade."
18 A. Yes, sir, I mean given the context of the rest of the paragraph, I
19 believe the phrase "attachment" would adequately describe the
21 Q. And it says further on that it shall be engaged according to the
22 ideas of the commander of the 1st Vlasenica Brigade. This is what it says
23 here, is it not?
24 A. Yes, sir. Roughly, it basically notes the fact that, you know,
25 the MUP will be employed, you know, in the manner that the commander of
1 the Vlasenica Light Infantry Brigade wants it to be employed on the
2 battlefield. That's a fair reading.
3 Q. And let's just elaborate a little. Can it be concluded, from this
4 order, that the brigade commander was the one who made decisions on how to
5 use a company at the moment when it was attached to his unit?
6 A. Yes, sir. Within the confines of the guidance that he has already
7 received, and certainly in this context, I mean, that's what it implies.
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Now I would like us to have a look
9 at P00205 [Realtime transcript read in error "P00025"].
10 Q. Then Colonel Krstic signed this document. The date is the 16th of
11 May, 1995, and that is a supplement to the order that we saw previously.
12 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologise. There is again one mistake in
13 transcript. The number of the document is P00205.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Lazarevic.
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. In relation to this document, I'm interested in two things. First
17 of all, if you look at the addressees, you will see that there is no
18 mention of CSB Zvornik among the addressees. Can you confirm that for me?
19 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
20 Q. And in paragraph 2 of this order, we can see mention of the MUP,
21 that is to say, the 1st Vlasenica Infantry Brigade with a MUP company, so
22 on the basis of that we can infer that they're still within the
23 Vlasenica Brigade or, rather, they had been attached to the Vlasenica
25 A. Correct, sir, yes.
1 Q. Now I would like us to move on to P00208. This is a further
2 elaboration of that order, so generally the situation is the same.
3 However, can we first command -- I beg your pardon. Can we first
4 establish, when we look at the addressees up here, that again there is no
5 reference to the Public Security Centre of Zvornik?
6 A. I'm sorry. Are you connecting this particular document with the
7 ones that we talked about in May, because this one has a date of July
9 Q. No. What matters to me is the substance of this document or,
10 rather, the one that we had occasion to see previously.
11 A. Well, I agree, in the header data there is no reference here to
12 CSB Zvornik.
13 Q. Now I would like us to have a look at paragraph 1 of this
14 document, so the Command of the Vlasenica Infantry Brigade, the 2nd
15 Romanija Motorised Brigade, the 1st Birac Infantry Brigade in cooperation
16 with the MUP in their areas of responsibility shall take all measures of
17 combat support, control of territory, detect, block and disarm all
18 infiltrated groups. In case they are not able to do so, at the expense of
19 endangering the lives of our troops while disarming them, crash and
20 destroy the groups and do not allow them to link up with the forces active
21 at the front."
22 Have you had a look at this?
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. The 20th of July, this MUP company is still attached to the
25 Vlasenica Brigade, as we can see here; isn't that right?
1 A. No, sir, I don't read it at all that way. I read this particular
2 paragraph as a direction by General Krstic that the commands of the
3 Vlasenica Brigade, the 2nd Romanija Brigade and the Birac Infantry
4 Brigades will cooperate -- or with the cooperation of the MUP SJB forces,
5 will secure their areas.
6 Q. My mistake. I'm sorry, I made the wrong suggestion to you. In
7 relation to this document, I wanted to ask you something else. I do
8 apologise. This does not have to do with the previous matter. I do
9 apologise. I made a mistake.
10 However, what you saw just now, does it show that from the moment
11 when the MUP unit was attached to the military unit, in this specific case
12 this brigade, this military formation commands the unit and no longer
13 informs the MUP about the use of such a unit, up until the moment when
14 this unit returns to the MUP establishment, of course?
15 A. Yes, sir, I agree, there would be no requirement, once the MUP
16 formation was attached, to continue to keep the parent formation involved,
17 again the assumption being that the MUP was, in fact, continually employed
18 within the scope and the intent of the initial order. So in that respect,
19 unless the local MUP commander were going to notify his superior, the
20 military would not have a requirement to do so.
21 Q. Thank you very much. That was my question, and I do apologise
22 once again if I misled you.
23 Now I would like to move on to another topic. During the
24 examination-in-chief, you gave comments with regard to a few reports --
25 Dragomir Vasic from the Zvornik Public Security Station. Do you remember
2 A. Yes, sir, I did.
3 Q. Can you confirm for me that not a single one of these telegrams
4 that we looked at was not -- was sent either to Mr. Borovcanin or the
5 Special Brigade of the police? Can you confirm that for me or would you
6 like to have another look?
7 A. There are about five or six documents, so I can't be 100 per cent
8 sure, but I don't believe that Vasic sent copies of these reports to the
9 Special Police in Bijeljina. I think -- I could stand to be corrected,
10 but I believe you're -- you're right.
11 Q. Yes, precisely, that is my own assertion, but now I just want to
12 confirm that the MUP didn't send this to Borovcanin. Did you see any one
13 of these telegrams containing Mr. Borovcanin as an addressee, these
14 telegrams sent from Mr. Vasic from the Public Security Station?
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. There were several documents and there
17 were references to Borovcanin in at least one of them, so the question is
18 misstating the evidence and it, in order to get a proper answer, needs to
19 be seen, all of the documents.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Lazarevic.
21 MR. LAZAREVIC: I was just referring to the documents --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have a specific document in mind?
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: -- that were used during the examination-in-chief
24 of this witness.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: There was a number of them, and perhaps we can cut
2 it short. I would tend to agree that they are not addressed to him, but
3 as you know, that's not where the story stops, and so the question is
4 slightly misleading in that regard.
5 MR. LAZAREVIC: Precisely my question, whether they were addressed
6 to Borovcanin.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think if you have in mind a specific
8 document, you can go straight to that document and perhaps rephrase your
9 question, but I think that we can safely go ahead.
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. So in order to do away with any dilemma, did you see any telegram
12 sent from Vasic that had been sent directly to Mr. Borovcanin?
13 A. They would not have been addressed to him, given he didn't have
14 the material ability or lack of a command post to receive them. Like I
15 said, I don't believe any of the documents that are attributed to Vasic,
16 you know, specifically list him as an addressee.
17 Q. Thank you very much. That is what I had wanted to ask you. Also,
18 you don't have any examples to the contrary; namely, that Mr. Borovcanin
19 submitted some kind of reports to Vasic. You didn't come across any such
20 documents, Borovcanin sending documents to Vasic, or, rather, reports to
21 Vasic, sorry?
22 A. No, sir. I mean, I don't -- I'm not aware of any documents which
23 reflect Colonel Borovcanin reporting in a formal text manner or anything
24 to Mr. Vasic.
25 Q. So between the two of them, there is no relationship based on
1 subordination and a superior position, not in any sense?
2 A. In the context of the events and the resubordination, you know,
3 certainly during the period of 12, 13 and 14 July, and even on 15, when
4 they move up to Zvornik, there is not a document that I'm aware of where
5 Colonel Borovcanin is subordinated to Dragan Vasic, or vice versa, for
6 that matter. Only those units that were already previously designated
7 from the CSB, which would be Vasic's people, to the command of Colonel
8 Borovcanin, those are the only documents I'm aware of.
9 Q. Thank you very much. That was my question. During your testimony
10 here, namely, on the 16th of January, 2008, and the page is 19814 of the
11 transcript, when you gave your comments on Mr. Vasic's telegram, you said
12 that on the 12th of July, 1995, before the meeting with the UN forces --
13 before the third meeting, I do apologise, a meeting was indeed held of
14 several VRS and police commanders. You used the plural here when you
15 talked about commanders of the police. And on that occasion,
16 General Mladic and General Krstic gave certain tasks to the units. Do you
17 remember that part of your evidence?
18 A. Yes, sir, I believe that is -- my testimony in that regard is a
19 direct lift from a Vasic document. I think it's dated about 12 July at
20 8.00 in the morning, if I recall correctly.
21 Q. Yes. It was in the context of your answer related to that
22 document. However, this is my following question: While preparing your
23 expert reports and while you analysed documents, did you find anywhere
24 information to the effect that Mr. Borovcanin was present at that meeting?
25 A. I don't recall if he's listed in that particular document or not,
1 and I'd like to see the document again, if I could. I mean, I don't know
2 that he is or isn't.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we get clarification on "meetings"? I think
4 there were a few meetings that day.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. McCloskey.
6 MR. LAZAREVIC: Can we have P00059.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Can you see any reference to Mr. Borovcanin here,
8 in terms of his attendance at this meeting?
9 A. No, sir, I do not, and at present I don't recall whether, in his
10 statement to the Office of the Prosecutor, whether or not he indicated
11 that he was present at this meeting or not, so I don't -- the answer is I
12 don't have any information.
13 Q. Very well. Thank you very much. Just one more question in
14 relation to this, and then we're going to move on to another topic.
15 Did you come across any information, in the documents that you
16 reviewed, to the effect that in the period between the 11th and 13th of
17 July, Mr. Borovcanin was present at any meeting with the higher officers
18 of the VRS there in the field?
19 A. Well, in the context of any information, the way I would answer it
20 is that given that he was required to coordinate his activities with the
21 military and that he has acknowledged receiving instructions, you know, in
22 his statement to the OTP from, at least on one occasion, General Mladic as
23 to where his forces needed to be, he was looped into the information
24 process with that regard. Now, whether it was actually within the context
25 of a formalised meeting or meetings, I don't know the answer to that.
1 Q. Very well. I was interested in specific meetings, but I am
2 satisfied with the answer that you gave.
3 Now I would like to move on to another topic. During your
4 testimony, you said that due to the fact that the army was at a completely
5 different location and due to the fact that there weren't sufficient
6 combat forces in the field, on the 12th of July, certain MUP units were
7 sent along this road. And the page reference is 19816, dated the 16th of
8 January, 2008. Do you remember that part of your testimony?
9 A. Yes, sir, I remember talking about that.
10 Q. Mr. Butler, I prepared a large number of documents and a lot of
11 material that I'd like us to go through with respect to certain facts.
12 However, since my time is limited, first I'm going to suggest certain
13 facts to you. And if we agree on them, then there will be no need to go
14 through all of these documents.
15 Now I would like to have a look at document 4D141.
16 MR. LAZAREVIC: Can I ask for the assistance of Madam Usher.
17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Butler, this document is a map that involves
18 the Bratunac-Konjevic Polje road as well as Mount Udrc, the broader area.
19 In order to make it easier for you to find your way, there are red
20 markings on this map of the command post and positions and movement of VRS
21 and MUP RS units. What I have to say, for the sake of precision, is that
22 there is an omission on this map. A military police squad that was in
23 Konjevic Polje at the time has been omitted, it is not marked here. Also,
24 blue arrows were used to denote the movement of the movement of the 28th
25 Division of the BH Army as stated in Ramiz Becirovic's statement, and
1 dotted blue arrows denote expected movements on the basis of the
2 intelligence that the Drina Corps had at the time.
3 As you can see on the map, it is the 12th of July, 1995.
4 A. Yes, sir, I see the date on the map.
5 Q. Very well. These markings on the map, are you familiar with them?
6 A. I've never seen the map before, but I am familiar with the -- with
7 what the markings represent.
8 Q. Yes, thank you very much. Of course, you could not have seen this
9 map this way, because it was prepared by this Defence over the course of
10 the past few days. But now I would like to ask you something else.
11 During your testimony, you said that you were familiar with the
12 direction of movement of the 28th Division of the BH Army, and when you
13 look at these markings, when you look at where they're going, these are
14 the circles denoting the area of disposition of some brigades, this is the
15 area of Mount Udrc, the arrow there, does this precisely depict the route
16 taken by the 28th Division towards Udrc?
17 A. From my information, I believe that it is an accurate
18 representation of the routes and the crossing points, yes, sir.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we get precisely who did this map so we know
20 something more about it?
21 MR. LAZAREVIC: We did it, it was --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, as I understood Mr. Lazarevic, they did.
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: It was prepared by the Defence.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: That's what he said.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's not very precise. I would like to know, is
1 it a military expert, is it a lawyer, you know, who is it?
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: Do you want me to --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, if you want to give the information. It's
4 being asked of you.
5 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, I think I can provide information, based on
6 certain documents that we had in our case, in consultation of course with
7 some military person, and of course in cooperation with our client, we
8 made this map all together.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I think that suffices.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, thank you. That was -- that was my point.
11 Obviously, it's going to be offered into evidence.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: No, you're right, Mr. McCloskey.
13 Let's proceed.
14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
15 Q. [Interpretation] This second dotted blue line that goes in the
16 direction of Kuslat, do you see that?
17 A. Yes, sir, I do.
18 Q. Can you agree with me that this was the assumed line that the 28th
19 Division was supposed to take on the basis of information contained in
20 document P111, dated the 12th of July, 1995? If you wish, you can have a
21 look at that document.
22 A. I would appreciate that, sir, yes.
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Can we then see P111, please.
24 Q. This document is a document of the Intelligence Department of the
25 Drina Corps Command, dated 12 July 1995, and I found it very interesting
1 to draw this map, and I'm referring to the last part in B/C/S where it
3 "While able-bodied formations started breaking towards Tuzla,
4 probably across Ravni Buljin, Purkovica, Kusleta and further on across
5 Udrc, Kozjak, Kamenica, Crni Vrh, Nezuk."
6 Would that be the axis that reflects what is written in the
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: It could help us -- if Ravni Buljin is noted on
9 the document, that might help him. I don't see it.
10 THE WITNESS: I was just -- I'm just kind of lacking reference
11 points between the first point in Kuslat, so I have no way of knowing
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't see Jaglici, Susnjari, so tough question
14 to ask him with a map that's missing key points.
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Very well. I will not insist on
16 this question. Maybe we'll have an occasion to see some other maps later
18 Q. What I would like to put to you at the moment, which you can also
19 see on the map, is that the forces of Mr. Borovcanin arrived at the road
20 only in the evening of the 12th of July, which means around 2000 hours or
21 after that time; would you accept that?
22 A. I don't know that I could accept that completely. My
23 understanding is that at least one company of the Jahorina Training Centre
24 was at Konjevic Polje on 12 July earlier than that. I am aware that other
25 formations that were down as far as Potocari were redeployed later that
1 day, but I -- but I have information that indicates that there were
2 members of at least the Jahorina -- one of the Jahorina police companies
3 at Konjevic Polje earlier than that.
4 Q. In any case, you can confirm that the 1st Company of the PJP and
5 the 2nd Detachment of the Sekovici Brigade did not arrive before 2000
7 A. I know that by the early evening hours, they were ordered up
8 there. I can't tell you exactly when they would have arrived by.
9 Q. Very well. One more question that arises from this. I'm also
10 putting it to you that the MUP units under the command of Mr. Borovcanin
11 arrived -- or came in contact with the 28th Division of the BH Army only
12 on the 13th of July, at 4.00 in the morning, in the Sandici-Konjevic Polje
13 sector when one or two people were killed and two or three wounded. Would
14 you accept that, as I put it to you?
15 A. I'm aware that there was at least one police officer who was
16 killed up on the road during the evening hours of the 12th. I don't
17 recall whether he was a member of that or whether he was part of one of
18 the other PJP companies operating outside of Colonel Borovcanin's control.
19 Certainly by about 3.00 or 4.00 in the morning, those police companies
20 would have been encountering lead elements of the column. So that would
21 be 0304 in the morning, they would have been in contact with the column,
22 yes, sir.
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: I believe I have to correct the transcript.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: So --
25 MR. LAZAREVIC: On page 19 -- on page 62, line 19, it should read
1 "on the 13th of July at 4.00 in the morning."
2 JUDGE AGIUS: That's lines 19 and 20.
3 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, that's right, Your Honour.
4 Yes. And in further, in line 20, same page, it should read
5 "Sandici-Konjevic Polje sector."
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Lazarevic. Please proceed.
7 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at P00062.
8 Q. You've already seen this document. Can we now look at the first
9 paragraph, where it says:
10 "In the early morning hours of 13 July 1995 (at about 0400
11 hours), the 1st PJP Zvornik came in contact ...," and so on and so forth.
12 Isn't this precisely what I suggested to you, i.e., that at around
13 4.00 in the morning, that unit had their first contact with the enemy
15 A. Yes, sir, that location, the 1st PJP Company, yes, sir.
16 Q. Thank you. And now can we look at another map, which is
17 Exhibit number 4D00142, and again this is a map that was prepared by the
18 Defence. Basically, it's the same map as the one that we had before, with
19 the only difference being that this one bears the date 13 July 1995. The
20 participants are the same, the locations are the same. Can you please
21 briefly look at the map, and then I'm going to have some questions for
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. Now, when you compared the map depicting the previous date, the
25 12th of July, with the map depicting the 13th of July, can we then say
1 that the blue circles around "Kamenica" represent the remains of the
2 28th Division and also one part at the foot of Udrc Mountain in the left
3 part of the map, would that correspond to the information that you had?
4 A. I am aware that the lead elements of the 28th crossed the road the
5 late evening of the 12th, the early morning of the 13th. Your blue symbol
6 there to designate the remnants and the arrow that they're pointing is a
7 little bit too vague for me to comment on.
8 Q. Very well. Just a few more things about this map I would like to
9 clarify with you.
10 The red arrows in the lower part of the map, the wide arrows,
11 indicate the direction of scouring the terrain in that part which was
12 carried out by the 1st Milici Infantry Brigade [Realtime transcript read
13 in error "1st Military Brigade"] and the Bratunac Brigade on the 13th of
14 July; would that be correct, sir?
15 A. I'm not sure if they were actually that far from the operations
16 orders, but those were -- at least the general axes were projected sweep
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me. Could we get another question? "1st
19 Military Brigade," I don't think that's what you said, so if that could be
21 MR. LAZAREVIC: It's Milici Brigade. I apologise.
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's how I heard it.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you both, Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Lazarevic.
24 Mr. Lazarevic, just for the record, you confirm that this map was
25 prepared in the same circumstances as the previous one?
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: By all means, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
3 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. And now can we clarify one more thing. Can we look at P00245 in
5 order to do that.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel.
7 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. This document bears the date 13 July 1995. Under bullet point 2,
9 it says:
10 "The main forces of the Bratunac Brigade continue to scour the
11 terrain in the ordered direction of Ravni Buljin-Zvijezda-Siljato Brdo.
12 Some of the forces are engaged in crushing enemy forces which have
13 retreated to the aforementioned sector."
14 Does this description help you to locate the Bratunac Brigade on
15 the map?
16 A. I am generally aware where the Bratunac Brigade was, but as I've
17 noted, my understanding is that while those were planned axes of advance
18 with respect to Bratunac, that they had not achieved certainly the far end
19 of those lines. They didn't wander very far away from their initial
20 trench positions. It wasn't until the 14th when you will get a subsequent
21 order that, in much greater detail, defines that sweep operation, giving
22 them -- giving them more detailed objectives. So, I mean, the axis is
23 clear, but I think we're a day early on the actual implementation.
24 Q. Let's just confirm one thing, please, and I'm talking about
25 Konjevic Polje here. If you've looked at the map bearing the date 12th of
1 July, the unit that was in Konjevic Polje was the 2nd Company of the PJP,
2 apparently. This time around, it is the 5th Company of the PJP. Can you
3 just confirm for us that the 2nd PJP Company on the 12th retreated from
4 Konjevic Polje and went to Srebrenica, where they were tasked with
5 establishing the police force?
6 A. I believe, if I recall the particular document in question, two
7 platoons were withdrawn and sent to Srebrenica and one platoon remained in
8 Konjevic Polje.
9 Q. At any rate, the 5th Company is the one that took over, right,
10 replaced it, the 5th Company of the PJP, of course?
11 A. I'd like to see the document. I don't recall that, that
12 particular fact. It may very well be in place, but I just don't recall it
13 right now.
14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, can we have an early break and
15 continue later?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: By all means. Are you on track? Are you on track,
17 time-wise? All right.
18 We'll have a 25-minute break starting from now. Thank you.
19 --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 12.53 p.m.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: So Mr. Lazarevic.
22 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Butler, we shall continue where we stopped.
24 But just briefly, prior to that, can we go back to map 4D141 showing the
25 situation as on the 12th of July.
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: Can I have the assistance of Madam Usher.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Butler, I shall ask you just a few short
3 questions now, because you have already had occasion to see this map.
4 These questions concern the disposition of forces.
5 Can you confirm that in the right-hand lower corner, the positions
6 of the Bratunac Brigade are indicated?
7 A. The positions of the headquarters of the 4th Battalion and the 1st
8 Battalion correspond to locations that I know them to be. Yes, those are
9 their headquarters locations.
10 Q. Yes. And then further on to the left from the positions of the
11 Bratunac Brigade is the position of the Milici Brigade, is it not?
12 A. Yes, sir, to the left and, map-wise, to the southwest, is the zone
13 of the Milici Brigade, yes, sir.
14 Q. And just another thing. The 28th Division practically passed
15 through the positions of the Milici and Bratunac Brigades, according to
16 what is indicated here with the arrow, and continued along this axis that
17 you have already pointed to?
18 A. Yes, sir. The -- the column actually did go out in an area that
19 corresponded with the brigade boundaries, so it kind of cut the seam.
20 Q. Exactly, exactly. I shall just put another two or three questions
21 in this connection to you.
22 Can you confirm that a battalion of the military police of the
23 65th Protective Regiment was located at Nova Kasaba, which is to say
24 exactly as indicated on this map?
25 A. Yes, sir. I mean, I understand that the battalion headquarters
1 was located in the school at Nova Kasaba, yes, sir.
2 Q. Thank you very much. At the crossroads in Konjevic Polje was the
3 5th Engineers Battalion, was it not?
4 A. Yes, sir. The 5th Engineer Battalion of the Drina Corps, their
5 headquarters was located in a facility. It may have been the school, I'm
6 not exactly sure, at that location.
7 Q. And the 2nd PJP Company is also there at that same location as
8 drawn in on the map, the Zvornik PJP, of course?
9 A. There -- there's a notation of them there. I don't know if that's
10 their actual -- you have them listed right along what's the Cerska River
11 and valley. I don't know if they're actually holding a chunk of line
12 there or whether they're up further on the road. I mean, I see where you
13 have the notation. I just can't confirm on the ground that that's where
14 they actually were.
15 Q. All right, very well. If you can't, you can't.
16 Now may we look at document P00377, please. This is a note of the
17 operative on duty of the Zvornik Brigade. I should like to see page 114
18 in B/C/S and, in English, the page bearing the ERN number 0293-5732.
19 I can read it out for you while we are waiting, but here, it has
20 appeared on the screen. Let me just check whether it is the right page.
21 No, it's not.
22 MR. LAZAREVIC: It's page 5 of the English translation. That's
23 okay, that's okay, sorry. No, it's not the wrong page. It's page 5, I'm
24 sorry. In B/C/S, it's page 117 of the document. Maybe I should read the
25 English ERN: 0293-5731. It's page 5 of the document. Or we could
1 simplify things and post the English translation on the ELMO.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: That's a better idea. I think that's a better idea,
3 Mr. Lazarevic.
4 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Can you see this portion that has been marked:
6 [In English] "The Konjevic Polje-Bratunac road is not safe
8 A. Yes, sir, I can.
9 Q. [In English] "1955: Troops are close to the village of
10 Kamenica-Pavlovica. The Praga is working already."
11 And then within brackets:
12 "Troops from Sekovici and the civilian police have not arrived
14 [Interpretation] This is the grounds upon which I'm suggesting to
15 you that the troops from Sekovici and the civilian police have not arrived
16 by 1905 -- 1955 to the road. Does this correspond to what you know?
17 A. Well, sir, as I indicated, I mean, I'm aware that there was one
18 company of the Jahorina police unit at Konjevic Polje at the time. This,
19 again it appears to be -- it appears to be a verbal report that they've
20 received from their 8th Battalion, which of course corresponds to the 4th
21 Battalion of the Bratunac Brigade, and their knowledge of the fact that
22 the troops have -- or are supposed to be going up there. You know, it may
23 very well be that, you know, they're not aware that the troops from
24 Sekovici, and for argument's sake I'll agree that that's the 2nd Sekovici
25 Detachment, and the civilian police haven't arrived yet. I mean, that's
1 their awareness of the situation.
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] All right. Can we now move on to
3 map 4D142 that we looked at before the break. Can we take another look at
4 it now?
5 Q. Mr. Butler, what I wish to deal with you, in connection with this
6 map, is the following, and you already had occasion to see it. We contend
7 that it was sometime around 1900 hours that the 2nd Detachment of the
8 Special Police Brigade set off in the direction of Konjevic Polje and that
9 in -- spent the night between the 13th and the 14th in the Konjevic Polje
10 area. Does that correspond to what is your knowledge in connection with
11 that particular element of this case?
12 A. We're talking -- I understand "13 July," I'm just trying to --
13 we're talking where the 2nd Police Detachment was from its prior location.
14 It is your assertion that at 1900 hours, they left that position of the
15 line and then moved towards Konjevic Polje.
16 Q. Precisely.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry, I'm not clear. Are we talking about
18 the 12th or the 13th? It's not clear from the question.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know, it may not be clear from the question,
20 but the document refers to the 13th of July. The map, the second map,
21 refers to the 13th of July.
22 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour, it is the 13th we are talking
24 THE WITNESS: No, sir, I disagree, and I think that -- and again
25 I'm referring back to the testimony in a prior trial of one of the
1 individuals. I believe it was Miso Stupar, that indicated that the unit,
2 if I'm remembering correctly, that most of the 2nd Sekovici spent a good
3 chunk of the evening hours in and around the old village of Kravica on the
4 13th of July.
5 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. All right. As we have other different testimonies which I assume
7 you have not had occasion to check, let it stand at that. I should like
8 to ask another thing.
9 If you remember, and we had the directional movement of the
10 28th Division, we saw it on the map, would the movement of that detachment
11 from Sandici towards Konjevic Polje, would it, in principle, have been
12 actually following the direction of the -- of movement of the 28th
14 A. Technically speaking, it would make sense for them to put that
15 particular unit as well as mass most of their units around that particular
16 location, the Konjevic Polje to Nova Kasaba line, because that was the
17 funnel point by which all of the forces were crossing the road to move
18 northwards. So it would make sense for them to want to mass their forces
19 there, once they had identified that that was the choke point, for lack of
20 a better word.
21 Q. Thank you very much. Now if you look on this map, in the upper
22 part, where there is a red circle marking, that is a place which is called
23 "Drinjaca." Can you confirm that in the evening of the 14th or the night
24 between the 14th and the 15th, members of the 2nd Detachment of the
25 Special Brigade were indeed in Drinjaca? Can your investigations confirm
2 A. I don't know. I have no information one way or the other. Off
3 the top of my head, I don't know that.
4 Q. Very well. Let me just ask you this: As you can see on this map,
5 we have the mountain Udrc indicated there, drawn in there, and the
6 28th Division unit marked in blue. Do you have information that on the
7 13th of July, parts of the 28th Division that had already passed through
8 were returning back in order to establish contact and communication with
9 the parts that were lagging behind?
10 A. No, sir, I'm not aware of that.
11 Q. Very well. Just another couple of questions in this connection.
12 Does the name "Ramiz Becirovic" ring any bells, does it mean anything to
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. And of course you know that we are talking about the chief of
16 staff of the 28th Division who, in the absence of Naser Oric, was in
17 charge of the 28th Division, including in the military breakthrough; you
18 are aware of that, are you not?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Thank you very much. I should just like to say this to you:
21 During the construction of this particular map, the Defence used inter
22 alia a statement given by Ramiz Becirovic immediately after the events in
23 Srebrenica. Do you know -- are you aware of the existence of such a
24 statement given to the security organs by Ramiz Becirovic?
25 A. I may at some juncture have read that, if such a statement was
1 turned over to the OTP and translated. It wouldn't surprise me that there
2 would be one, but I don't recall any specifics of it.
3 Q. Very well. This is a quite lengthy statement, and if we were to
4 go through it point by point, the cross would take two weeks, probably.
5 But we shall now move on to another subject.
6 In your testimony of the 16th of January, 2008, on page 19841 --
7 841, you stated that the Ministry of the Interior of the Republika Srpska
8 had three components; public security, special police units, and state
9 security. Do you recall that answer of yours, sir?
10 A. Yes, sir. I mean, those are my understanding of what the main
11 components are.
12 Q. But you know, you have already told us that you were no expert on
13 the subject, that you did not in particular study the structure of the
14 MUP, of the Ministry of the Interior, so if I told you that according to
15 the legislation and rules then in force, and specific regulations
16 governing the matter, the Special Brigade of the police was under the
17 Public Security Department and that the MUP only had in fact two
18 departments [as interpreted], that of public security and that of state
19 security, what do you have to say to that?
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: It says "two departments" and I believe it's "two
21 components" on page 73, line 4. Pages 73 -- no, it's not "two companies,"
22 it's "two components." "Components." I'm sorry for my pronunciation.
23 THE WITNESS: That may be the case, but my understanding, from
24 reading various statements of individuals, is that they viewed it as three
25 separate ones and that the Special Police Brigade was a separate
1 component, it was not folded under the broader public security. So, I
2 mean, while it may be the case, and I certainly could stand to be
3 corrected on that if you show me the material, that's not my
5 Q. [Interpretation] Very well, but that would certainly mean that we
6 have to take a look at evidence 4D00136. This is the Law on Internal
7 Affairs, revised text, published in the Official Gazette of the Republika
8 Srpska on the 18th of August, 1995. We do not have the English
9 translation, at least not an official one, so that the Defence has
10 prepared a draft version, a draft translation version, which I should like
11 to show to Mr. Butler.
12 [In English] If I can have the assistance of Madam Usher, and I
13 have enough copies for all the participants.
14 [Interpretation] I should like us to look at Articles 14 and 18 of
15 this law.
16 Q. You see the Article 14 of the law regulates or, rather, says to
17 discharge work and duties of public security in the Ministry there exists
18 a Department of Public Security as a specifically-organised department.
19 That is Article 14. And Article 18, paragraph 2, says to discharge work
20 and duties of state security, in the Ministry there is a Department of
21 State Security as a specifically-organised department.
22 A. Yes, sir, but it doesn't specifically note in here your assertion
23 that, one, those two departments are exclusive in total and doesn't
24 discuss anything about the Special Security Brigade, is the first matter,
25 of course. And, second, it's probably not something I would have
1 reviewed, given the fact that this law post-dates the events that I was
2 investigating with respect to Srebrenica 1995.
3 My understanding of how they were organised is based off of
4 interviews of individuals who were discussing the context of July 1995.
5 So I don't dispute your fact, but I don't see it evident in this law, and
6 I don't know that it wasn't changed. So ...
7 Q. In order to make this clear for you, the date of this law, which
8 is the 18th of August, 1995, is the time when the revised text of the Law
9 on Internal Affairs was published, so this is the date when all the
10 amendments to that law were actually published, with that date inclusive.
11 And you can see in the heading that it incorporates different amendments
12 from 1992, 1993, 1994. That is just to clarify this matter.
13 Is this of any assistance to you in order for us to actually
14 establish that it was a law that was applicable and valid at the time?
15 A. Sir, I hold open the possibility. However, before I could really
16 definitively take a look at it, I would need to see the base laws.
17 Q. Very well. We shall not pursue the matter further. We still have
18 two topics to go through.
19 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Can P01140A, the exhibit of that
20 number, be shown to the witness. This is an intercept of the 13th of
21 July, 1350 [as interpreted] hours.
22 I apologise. The transcript says "1350". It's actually 1530.
23 Q. [Interpretation] You see, Mr. Butler, you have already given
24 testimony here about this intercept, do you recall that, and you said that
25 the concept "Utucac" [phoen] was unfamiliar and that you weren't sure that
1 this intercept concerned Ljubomir Borovcanin or any other Borovcanin, for
2 that matter.
3 THE INTERPRETER: This is on pages which the interpreter could not
4 catch. Could the counsel kindly repeat the pages. It was said too
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Did you hear what the interpreter --
7 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, yes, yes.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
9 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] 19893 are the pages and 19894. I
11 Q. Can you tell me, first and foremost, do you recall that portion of
12 your testimony?
13 A. Yes, sir, I do.
14 Q. If you do remember Exhibit 4D142, the map that we had occasion to
15 see, do you remember that the Mount Udrc was drawn in on that map, and it
16 was drawn in as the place where the forces of the 28th Division were on
17 the 13th of July?
18 A. I see where you have -- where it's on the map, yes, sir.
19 Q. Would you agree with me that on the 12th of July, the column was
20 moving along the [indiscernible] and so on direction and then through Udrc
21 towards Kozluk and on; that was the direction?
22 A. Towards Kozluk? I mean, I --
23 Q. Towards Nezuk. I apologise.
24 A. Yes, sir, the general axis of the column was through that
25 particular area, Udrc towards Nezuk. At least the lead portion of the
1 column was going towards that direction. If I recall correctly, their
2 initial -- after breaking out of the southern area, their initial assembly
3 area was at Udrc, or that it would then set the stage to begin the next
4 part, which would be towards the Nezuk area.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Lazarevic, you have already exhausted the two
6 hours that you had asked for. Will you bring your cross-examination to an
7 end as soon as possible, please.
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour, I'll do my best. However, these
9 are highly relevant issues. I was really trying my best to speed up
10 things, but with some documents it's simply not possible. And the only
11 issues that I need to cover with the witness are intercepts which are
12 relevant for our case.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Then go quickly through that and try and finish.
14 And we need about five minutes at the end for ourselves.
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Butler, with regard to the conversation that we have just
17 had -- seen, if in this case the person in question is
18 Mr. Ljubomir Borovcanin, would you allow for a possibility that somebody
19 is sending Mr. Borovcanin to Udrc, to the mountain, in order to engage in
20 a battle with the 28th Division column which at that moment was advancing
21 towards Zvornik?
22 A. Are we talking -- we're talking 13 July; correct, sir?
23 Q. Precisely so, yes, and the time is 1530 hours.
24 A. No, sir. I mean, I have no information whatsoever that would
25 substantiate that or could be used to lend weight to that theory. The
1 information that I'm aware of places them and keeps them on that road on
2 13 July, so I can't agree.
3 Q. I didn't put it to you that he actually did it. I was putting to
4 you that somebody might have asked from him to send those forces towards
5 the mountain, towards Udrc, in order to engage the 28th Division. Does
6 that make any military logic at all?
7 A. As I've testified, because this conversation is so fragmentary,
8 that I really can't make any assessment on what it does or doesn't mean.
9 Would it make sense in the abstract that they would want to engage the
10 column there? Yes. Would it -- would the logical unit in my mind be to
11 send a particular police force out in the middle of nowhere, with no
12 connection to anybody else's line, let alone a military force with no
13 connection to anyone's line? I don't believe that that would have been a
14 sound tactical practice under the VRS, that they would have kicked those
15 people out there in isolation.
16 Q. Very well. And now can we go quickly through something else. We
17 have two more intercepts, and my time is rather limited. And could you
18 please limit your answers to "yes" or "no," if possible at all.
19 Now I would kindly ask you to look at P01148, P01148A and B. The
20 intercept is dated the 13th of July at 1945 and involves unknown persons,
21 X and Y.
22 A. Yes, sir, I see it.
23 Q. You've already testified about that. In this intercept, the
24 person asking for Ljubisa is not General Krstic, but somebody else who is
25 by General Krstic, at the same place?
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. And that person is asking for Ljubisa to report to him personally,
3 to that other person, rather than to General Krstic; wouldn't that be
5 A. It says: "Have Ljubisa call me at General Krstic's." I don't see
6 that as reporting in person, but ...
7 Q. And you obviously don't know who that person is. You don't know
8 who is it who is asking Ljubisa to call him?
9 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
10 Q. And besides your indirect conclusion based on the facts that these
11 are the MUP forces, you can't be sure that this is Mr. Borovcanin because
12 the family name Borovcanin is not mentioned at all anywhere?
13 A. No, sir, you're correct, it's an indirect connection because of
14 the context of MUP forces.
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
16 P00993, the intercept dated 13th July at 2040 hours. And the number, once
17 again, is P00993A and C.
18 Q. Do you have it before you? So let us establish certain things
19 about this document. This intercept allegedly took place an hour after
20 the previous conversation. The previous one took place at 1945, and this
21 one is at 2040; is that correct?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. Furthermore, if you look at the very beginning of this
24 conversation: "Hello, this Krstic," you will see that Krstic is the one
25 who is calling the other party, who is actually dialing the number, and it
1 is not Borovcanin who is replying, but Krstic is the one who's calling?
2 A. I don't know that as a fact, because as a matter of their
3 intercept policy, a lot of the switchboard conversation related to who's
4 initiating what call and the route that it's going is not part of the
5 intercepts that they kept because they weren't relevant for the
6 intelligence value. So I don't know that as a fact, who's calling who.
7 Q. Very well, very well. Furthermore, if you look at the course of
8 the entire conversation, in the body of this text it is not specifically
9 stated that the person is D. Borovcanin from the Special Police. There's
10 no reference to the Borovcanin from the Special. He doesn't introduce
11 himself as, "This is Borovcanin from the Special Police"; is that correct?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you better move to a more substantial --
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well.
14 Q. My next question about this document: Let's for the time being
15 ignore the comment by the person who recorded the intercepted
16 conversation, where it says: "Borovcanin from the Specials," and if we
17 look at the conversation itself, you cannot conclude from the conversation
18 whether this Borovcanin was from the Specials or another Borovcanin, for
19 example, the Borovcanin from the 2nd Romanija Brigade. The body of the
20 conversation, the text, is rather vague. Can you please look at it and
21 see what you think?
22 A. If I were to ignore all the other surrounding information that I
23 had, which does in fact put Mr. Borovcanin in the Bratunac Brigade
24 headquarters at this time, I could see in abstract where it could be
25 another Borovcanin. Having said that, I -- I believe this is
1 Ljubomir Borovcanin. I mean, I have to look at it in context of all of
2 the other information that I'm aware of.
3 Q. Very well. And now just for an assumption's sake, let's assume
4 this is a conversation between General Krstic and Ljubomir Borovcanin.
5 You don't know whether, in the course of the 13th of July, there were
6 maybe some other conversations between these two persons, i.e.,
7 Ljubomir Borovcanin and General Krstic; there are no other intercepted
8 conversations that would make you draw that conclusion?
9 A. That's correct, sir, I am not aware of any other intercepts
10 between General Krstic and Mr. Borovcanin or Colonel Borovcanin on the
11 13th of July.
12 Q. There is no other intercept, either, in which Ljubomir Borovcanin
13 might be involved in any way; isn't that correct? I'm not only referring
14 to the intercepts between himself or a conversation that he might have
15 with General Krstic. I am referring to a conversation between
16 Mr. Borovcanin and anybody else on that day. This is what I'm putting to
17 you, and that's very important.
18 A. No, sir, I agree with you, I don't believe there are any
19 intercepts on that day.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 A. Or other intercepts, I should say, than this one.
22 Q. And just a few more questions and I believe that I will be able to
23 conclude my examination today.
24 In the course of your examination-in-chief, you first said that
25 Mr. Borovcanin, in July 1995, was colonel, and then you corrected yourself
1 and you referred to him as "Mr. Borovcanin." Do you have any reason to
2 correct yourself? Do you have any information about his rank in the
3 police in July 1995, whether there were any ranks in the police at the
4 time? Why did you correct yourself, on what basis?
5 A. I see your point exactly. In -- I think it might have been in
6 either late August or early September of 1995, the MUP established a
7 formal rank system to give it some kind of correspondence with military
8 ranks, and at that point in time Borovcanin was given the rank of -- I
9 believe he was colonel. Now, before that, they did not have a formal rank
10 system and he's always referred to as "Mr."
11 My understanding, of course, in talking to individuals in the
12 post-war environment about this, they always refer to him by the military
13 rank, but of course I'm aware that prior to that August declaration, which
14 established a formalised ranking structure, he didn't hold that as a rank.
15 So I apologise for any confusion that I -- I caused by alternatively
16 referring to him one way or another.
17 Q. Well, that's perfectly understandable. I just wanted to clarify
18 this. I have just one more question for you at the end.
19 When you were analysing the documents and as you were preparing
20 your expert reports about the Zepa operation, you did not come by any
21 proof about the participation of any units under the command of
22 Mr. Borovcanin or his participation in the Zepa operation; is that true?
23 A. Yes, sir, I have no information pertaining to Mr. Borovcanin's
24 role in what we would call the Zepa operation.
25 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Butler. I have no
1 further questions for you.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Lazarevic.
3 I think, Mr. Butler, we'll continue with you on Monday. Have a
4 nice weekend.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: So we are going to decide first the Prosecution
7 confidential urgent motion to add one witness to its 65 ter lists and
8 request for protective -- for a protective order, a motion which was filed
9 on the 22nd of January, 2008, and with which we are seized.
10 We have received oral arguments from the Defence and an oral reply
11 from the Prosecution in the course of today's sitting.
12 The broad test to be applied in these circumstances is whether it
13 would be in the interests of justice to allow the Prosecution to add the
14 witness at this stage of the trial. As we have stated on many occasions,
15 in exercising our discretion, we must balance the Prosecution's duty to
16 present the available evidence to prove its case, with the right of the
17 accused to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence and to
18 be tried without undue delay.
19 We are satisfied that the proposed evidence of the witness is
20 prima facie of probative value and relevant to the matters in the
21 indictment. Further, we believe that the Prosecution has diligently
22 pursued the evidence and has disclosed it as soon as practicable. In
23 essence, the application has been brought at this late stage because the
24 Prosecution has only recently located and interviewed the proposed
1 The central issue, therefore, is the possible prejudice to the
2 accused arising from the late stage of the proceedings and the short time
3 they will have available to prepare for cross-examination of the witness.
4 Based on the summary that we have received, we do not agree with
5 the arguments advanced by the Defence, that the proposed evidence changes
6 the nature of the Prosecution case. As to what the indictment does or
7 does not charge, that is a matter for another day.
8 Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that given the short time for
9 the completion of the Prosecution case, there is a real risk that the
10 accused will be prejudiced because of the lack of time to investigate and
11 prepare for the cross-examination of this witness. For this reason, on
12 balance, we feel that it would not be in the interests of justice to grant
13 the Prosecution motion in this respect.
14 However, in the particular circumstances, we believe that this
15 evidence may be ultimately of value to the Trial Chamber. Therefore,
16 following on from the acknowledgment made by one of the Defence counsel
17 earlier on today, the Trial Chamber would give favourable consideration to
18 a Prosecution application to adduce it on rebuttal. To that end, the fact
19 that this evidence was discovered shortly before the close of the
20 Prosecution case will not be considered to the prejudice of the
21 Prosecution if any such application is made in the future.
22 Finally, given the nature of the proposed evidence, we do see
23 validity to the Prosecution's request for a non-disclosure order, provided
24 it is restricted in nature. We therefore order that the contents of and
25 information contained in the interview must not be disclosed in whole or
1 in part to any third party without an application first being made to the
2 Trial Chamber. The third party, however, clearly does not apply to any
3 member of the Defence team, and that includes the investigators of each of
4 the Defence teams who are entitled to receive this information.
5 And that disposes of the said motion.
6 Now, we discussed also earlier on this morning the question of
7 the -- I call them the ICMP or DNA witnesses. We have had discussions.
8 We stand by our previous decision on the Prosecution motion to add two
9 witnesses who have been identified. We're talking of Mr. Parsons and
10 Ms. Tabeau. We have a further decision, however, to communicate to you,
11 and this is as follows:
12 The evidence of these two individuals will be heard in one single
13 day, one single sitting. The Prosecution is to confine itself to the
14 filing or the tendering of the reports or documents of -- or statements of
15 these two witnesses, and we'll have at your disposal a maximum of 30
16 minutes in the case of each of these two witnesses to put any relevant
17 questions that you may feel necessary. In respect of each of these two
18 witnesses, the Defence will have an hour and a half. That's the -- all of
19 you put together. You're free to decide how you are going to allocate
20 that time amongst yourselves, but you will not have a minute more.
21 We feel that the way this need for these two witnesses originated
22 will also leave unprejudiced any interest that you may have to bring these
23 witnesses as your witnesses later on, as Defence witnesses, if you so
24 wish, but that is our decision.
25 We'll deal with other matters depending on what progress we make
1 in the course of next week. Thank you.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Monday, the 28th day of
4 January, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.