Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5400

1 Tuesday, 27 April 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, Mr. Negodic. May I remind you of the

7 affirmation you took at the beginning which still applies.

8 Yes, Mr. Rodic.

9 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.


11 [Witness answered through interpreter]

12 Cross-examined by Mr. Rodic: [Continued]

13 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning to everyone.

14 Mr. Negodic, tell me kindly: On the 6th of December, near the

15 Libertas Hotel, did a member of the Croatian navy, Bruno Glanc, get

16 killed?

17 A. I don't know the details. All I know is that two refugees and

18 three fire-fighters who were putting out the fire at the hotel got killed.

19 Q. Were there any members of the Croatian National Guard, Home Guard,

20 who got killed?

21 A. I'm not aware of that. As I said, they are divided into infantry

22 battalions.

23 Q. You said yesterday that hotels in Dubrovnik were used only to

24 accommodate soldiers and --

25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic --

Page 5401

1 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. -- to feed them?

3 THE COURT: [Previous translation continues]... only in there,

4 which I don't think reflects the evidence. As this was interpreted a

5 moment ago, you said that hotels in Dubrovnik were used only to

6 accommodate soldiers. That doesn't accord with the evidence we have.

7 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I quoted yesterday's

8 testimony of this witness, where the hotels -- where he said that hotels

9 were used only for providing food. And since my question --

10 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues]... of the evidence

11 of yesterday about food was that hotels were a convenient source of

12 providing food, and therefore, they were used for that purpose, the hotel

13 kitchens. It didn't move from there to the proposition you have put, that

14 hotels in the Dubrovnik area were used only for -- to accommodate

15 soldiers, which you put to the witness. There is a great body of evidence

16 that the hotels were used to accommodate refugees, they were used to

17 accommodate the European monitors, et cetera, media, and so on. So they

18 had uses other than for the military purposes of the Croatian forces.

19 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was speaking only

20 about military needs. I did not include the things that you are

21 mentioning now. My question only referred to the standpoint of military

22 needs. I asked whether the soldiers were accommodated in hotels, and the

23 answer was negative. And then I said that from the point of view of

24 military needs, the military only used the hotels to provide food for the

25 troops. I am not going into other aspects of the use of the hotels.

Page 5402

1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: This may be some confusion

2 introduced by the interpreter, who did not manage to finish the sentence.

3 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I would like the usher to help me

4 distribute some documents.

5 JUDGE PARKER: I think we may have an explanation there of our

6 discussion, Mr. Rodic. It seems that you moved too quickly for the

7 interpreters, so what I read and heard was only a small part of what you

8 were saying.

9 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] There are two documents which refer

10 precisely to this issue of use of hotels for military needs.

11 Q. Mr. Negodic, would you kindly look at this document issued by the

12 command of the sector defence of November. It was signed by Lieutenant

13 Colonel Nojko Marinovic and it was addressed to the headquarters of the

14 civilian defence of Dubrovnik; is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. It says that: "For the purposes of accommodation and providing

17 food of members of the armed forces of the sector of Dubrovnik, no

18 provision, no adequate provision, was made, and for that purpose, we

19 order..." So the command of this sector orders; is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. The Neptun, President, Vila Beograd, and Stadion shall continue to

22 be used for these purposes. Are these the hotels?

23 A. Yes. Vila Beograd being a rest home.

24 Q. Does that mean that members of the armed forces of the Republic of

25 Croatia were accommodated in these hotels?

Page 5403

1 A. In the Neptune -- more precisely, in one of the pavilions of the

2 Neptune hotel, and the western side of the Stadion Hotel, where cooking

3 was done for the army.

4 Q. How about the President?

5 A. No, not the President. It was used to accommodate refugees, and

6 there was only the crew of the Maljutka.

7 Q. What about the Stadion Hotel?

8 A. There is a water polo playground, and that's why it was called

9 Stadion. There were only a couple of rooms occupied by refugees.

10 Q. Adriatic, Komodor, and the Ceska Vila used for the needs of the

11 navy and the war refugees?

12 A. Hotel Komodor was a command post for the HRN. Cooking was done

13 there for the army, but it is not true of the Ceska Hotel.

14 Q. Does it say also that other needs need to be specified, especially

15 the quality of services provided to the armed forces? From this we see

16 that hotels were also used to accommodate members of the armed forces of

17 the Republic of Croatia, or are you going to deny this document issued by

18 the commander?

19 A. I am not denying his document, but I gave you a clarification,

20 which hotels were used. We have a lot of hotels.

21 Q. Please do not waste my time. You denied, in answer to my direct

22 question, that members of the Croatian army were accommodated in hotels at

23 all. That was your answer yesterday.

24 A. Yesterday you told me not to take up too much time. I'm only

25 answering your specific questions. If you asked me -- if you had asked me

Page 5404

1 if there were any hotels where accommodation was provided for the army, I

2 would have told you which hotels.

3 Q. Mr. Negodic, we have a record and we can check this.

4 Please look at this document dated 17th November, which the

5 headquarters of civilian defence addressed to the command of the defence

6 of Dubrovnik municipality. It was the commander of the headquarters Kreso

7 Milas who wrote this document; is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Does it say that after the devastation of hotels Minceta, Plakir,

10 and Tirena, these headquarters have the task to provide accommodation for

11 1.500 displaced persons elsewhere, 1.500 expelled persons elsewhere?

12 That's in the introduction.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Does it say that, further on, that the headquarters of civilian

15 defence request from the command to make room in at least one hotel where

16 your forces are accommodated, provided that the facility is suitable for

17 accommodating these expelled persons? In other words, is an appeal made

18 to the command of civilian defence to give one of the hotels to the

19 refugees, one of the hotels currently used by military forces?

20 A. That's his request.

21 Q. Yes. Is this the essence of the request?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like these two

25 documents to be marked as Defence exhibits.

Page 5405












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5406

1 JUDGE PARKER: They will be received.

2 THE REGISTRAR: The one dated 17th of November will be D75. The

3 one dated 9th of November will be D76.

4 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Mr. Negodic, yesterday I was corrected once again, but I checked

6 the record after that. During the first session, on Friday the 24th, you

7 said that the crew commanded by Primic, Zoran Primic, was there on the 6th

8 December. You said: "I know because I gave the orders. They were

9 divided between two positions, SDK and 120 metres to the east of Old Town,

10 to repel or prevent the attack from the site of Dubac." That was in lines

11 4 to 14 on page 4. That is what I repeated yesterday, this distance of

12 120 metres and the purpose of this position, Lazaret. Is it true that

13 Lazaret is 100 metres east of the Old Town?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Was its purpose to prevent an attack from the side of Dubac?

16 A. When it was set up, this position had the main purpose of

17 preventing an attack from the side of Dubac.

18 Q. Very well. When you gave your statement to the investigators in

19 December 2003, under paragraph 32 of your statement, which you later

20 corrected - and I'm emphasising this - which you corrected before your

21 examination-in-chief, in your original statement, you said: "When, at

22 11.30, they stopped firing from the position at Lazareti, four shells were

23 left out of the total of 20 they had at the beginning of the day." When

24 you corrected the statement, it read as follows: "At the position near

25 the SDK, Dubrovkinja, at Gruz, they ran out of ammunition and two men went

Page 5407

1 to the Lazaret position, which was not active on the 6th of December, to

2 bring four shells that were available at that position."

3 These two statements of yours, do they differ in essence?

4 A. I don't know how it was translated. All I know is that I said

5 that at the beginning, at this firing position, there were 20 shells, all

6 but four were used up, and after 11.30, men went to get those four

7 remaining shells from that position, Lazaret.

8 Q. Tell me: In relation to your original statement given in December

9 2003, did you mean to deny that there was activity from the Lazaret

10 position? Because that position was near the Old Town. Answer me with

11 yes or no.

12 A. I can't answer with a yes or no. I need to make a clarification.

13 Q. You explained already. I'm asking you: Was your motivation, was

14 your meaning to deny that there was action from this position?

15 A. On the 6th of December, no fire was opened from that position.

16 Q. Is it the case that four shells could, under any circumstances, be

17 called a storage of ammunition?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Can you tell me, because while giving evidence you pointed out

20 that on the 6th of December you did go to this position by the SDK; is

21 that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Can you tell me at what time you were there, approximately?

24 A. They said that they were without any ammunition. They called at

25 11.30, and when I finished, as I already said, taking the wounded people

Page 5408

1 to the hospital, I returned to the position. I did not find the commander

2 and the deputy commander because they went to get those four shells. I

3 don't know what else I'm supposed to say.

4 Q. All right. Tell me: How long did you stay at that position by

5 the SDK?

6 A. Very briefly. The crew was in the atomic shelter. There was no

7 need for them to be at the combat positions since they had no ammunition.

8 Q. Did you go from that position by the SDK building before Zoran

9 Primic and Zvonko Pilas returned?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Who told you then about the four shells?

12 A. The crew said that the commander and deputy commander went to get

13 the four shells from the Lazaret position.

14 Q. So that is what the rest of the crew told you, the people you

15 found there in that shelter?

16 A. No, sir. Not the rest of the crew, but the entire crew.

17 Q. And what are Primic and Pilas, then?

18 A. Well, you probably phrase your questions in such a way so that it

19 would turn out that the rest of the crew is at the Lazareti position, but

20 I already said that there were no crew members at the Lazareti position

21 and that fire was not opened from there. So the entire crew was at the

22 position by the SDK, except for the commander and the deputy commander.

23 Q. Thank you. You still claim that Bogisica Park was used only one

24 day during the defence of Dubrovnik from the 1st of October until the 31st

25 of December, 1991?

Page 5409

1 A. Yes, sir.

2 Q. I am going to put the following to you, what your commander said,

3 Nojko Marinovic, in the statement that he gave to the investigators, since

4 he speaks otherwise --

5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I object. I don't know whether it is

6 appropriate to put a statement made by another witness who is not even

7 being called right now, this witness.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Are you intending to call that witness, Mr. Rodic?

9 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE PARKER: You can go so far as to put to the witness whether

11 he would agree with certain things. Where you get those from doesn't

12 matter and should not be mentioned. The witness will either agree or not

13 agree. You must accept his answer. That's as far as you can go at this

14 point.

15 Because you can't go further, you may not want to put it at all.

16 It's up to you. But you can put a proposition to the witness whether that

17 is correct or not correct. But if you're not going to call the witness,

18 you shouldn't go into details about where you get the information from.

19 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps we are ultimately

20 going to call those witnesses. These are witnesses who were on the

21 Prosecution list and the Prosecution gave up on them. What I am putting

22 to the witness now is not evidence --

23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic, if you would just put the proposition,

24 if you want to. I'm not stopping you doing that. Just don't ascribe it

25 to a particular person or put a statement to -- show the witness the

Page 5410

1 statement. You can quote a passage from it and say: Is this correct or

2 is that not correct?

3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Your Honour, if I may, just for the record.

4 The Prosecution did not give up on this witness, but due to his health

5 conditions, is compelled to not to call at this particular stage.

6 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, so let me check this once

7 again. Although we had a different practice when Witness Jusic was giving

8 evidence, now, in accordance with your instructions, I can only read out

9 from the statement what I wish to put to the witness but without saying

10 who it was who said it? Did I understand you correctly?

11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Rodic.

12 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Mr. Negodic, do you agree - I'm quoting something to you -

14 Bogisica Park is 300 metres away from Pile Gate, towards the Old Town? Is

15 that correct?

16 A. No, sir. I think it's about 500 to 600 metres. Six hundred.

17 Q. "The weapons were as good as the shells that we got. At first we

18 had JNA shells and instructions for exact calculations made regarding

19 charges. Eventually we started getting Croatian shells, but not

20 instructions for charging. So we were never sure --"

21 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Your Honour, I object. Counsel is reading

22 verbatim from a statement which I think is not exactly Your Honour's

23 ruling. Your Honour's ruling, as I understood, was that the proposition

24 can be put to the witness and then get his comment on it, but right now

25 counsel is reading verbatim the statement.

Page 5411












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5412

1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic, it may appear to be a little confusing

2 to you, but to try and assist you, especially in the early stages of this

3 trial, I relaxed certain rules to try and help. In the interests of

4 trying to ensure that we get through the important matters in the least of

5 time, I am not continuing that relaxed position but bringing it back

6 nearer to the true position.

7 Now, what you might put to this witness, I would suggest, is a

8 series of propositions. Just as examples: Is it true that Bogisica Park

9 is only 300 metres from the Pile Gate? Is it true that you got Croatian

10 shells at some time? Is it true that they didn't have instructions? Et

11 cetera.

12 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I accept that, Your Honour.

13 Q. Mr. Negodic, is it correct that at first you only had JNA shells,

14 and instructions for exactly calculating the charges?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Eventually, did you start getting Croatian shells, but you did not

17 have instructions for charging them?

18 A. Not at all positions.

19 Q. Were there some at some positions?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. How much at which positions?

22 A. I cannot recall that.

23 Q. Because there were no instructions for charging the Croatian

24 shells, is it a fact that you were never sure where a shell would fall?

25 A. There are assumptions to that effect, but again, it could fall on

Page 5413

1 the slopes of Srdj.

2 Q. Because of such conditions, did you have to fire many more shells

3 just in order to engage a particular target?

4 A. If targeting is conducted with one type only, then not that many

5 are necessary.

6 Q. Did the mortar crew have its base in Bogisica Park all the way up

7 to May 1992?

8 A. Bogisica Park is about 200 square metres altogether. It has some

9 pine trees. It is readily visible from Zarkovica. There was no base

10 there. It was a one-off mortar position for the 82-millimetre mortar, and

11 I've explained that several times.

12 Q. All right. But you are denying, or rather, you are saying in

13 response to my question that until May 1992, there were no mortars in

14 Bogisica Park; that's the point, isn't it?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Thank you. On the 6th of December, in the early evening hours,

17 after the shooting abated, did anybody go back, or rather, did anybody go

18 to Bogisica Park? Any members of your unit, I mean, any artillery men?

19 A. I don't know about any such details. I see no reason for anyone

20 to go to that position, that particular place.

21 Q. All right. Was there a warehouse with a few ammunition boxes,

22 ammunition for mortars, near Ploce?

23 A. Are you referring to the Lazareti combat position?

24 Q. No. I am referring to a place right by Ploce. Was there a

25 warehouse there? Or, if it wasn't a warehouse, were boxes of mortar

Page 5414

1 ammunition stored somewhere there?

2 A. I've already told you, sir: The only warehouse for mortars was by

3 the firing position of the SDK. That's a warehouse. And what you said at

4 Ploce was actually Lazareti and there were shells underneath the steps.

5 Q. Let's not expand on that. We've heard about that already.

6 Tell me: The commander and the deputy commander of the position

7 by the SDK, Primic and Pilas, on the 6th of December did they bring a few

8 boxes of ammunition from Ploce to the position at the SDK building?

9 A. There is no warehouse, there is no ammunition depot near Ploce or

10 at Ploce.

11 Q. But were there any boxes with mortar ammunition at Ploce?

12 A. No. No. There was only the Lazareti combat position.

13 Q. The mortars behind the SDK building, on the 6th of December, did

14 they fire over 1.000 shells on the 6th of December?

15 A. I don't know the exact number because this was the decisive day

16 when no economising was done.

17 Q. Zoran Primic, as commander of the mortar crew, did he receive

18 orders in September 1991 to fire 82-millimetre mortar shells, 50 to 60 of

19 them, at the village of Bani?

20 A. No, sir. There could be no shooting at the village of Bani

21 because it was from Herzegovina and Montenegro that Bani were targeted.

22 There was no need for our men to target their own area.

23 Q. In the period between the 1st of October and the 31st of December,

24 in Dubrovnik, or rather, under the control of the Dubrovnik forces, were

25 there the following equipment: Four 85-millimetre guns; two ZIS

Page 5415

1 anti-aircraft tanks; 10 anti-aircraft guns, three-barrelled,

2 20-millimetres; and two anti-aircraft guns, 20 millimetres but

3 single-barrelled ones; two mortars of 120 millimetres; and two mortars of

4 82 millimetres; then six mortars of 82 millimetres -- the previous ones

5 were in Brgat, and these six were in Cepikuce. Then two mortars of 82

6 millimetres and two 60-millimetre ones, positioned in Vodovodje. Three

7 mortars of 82 millimetres in Bogisica Park, and two mortars of 120

8 millimetres at the auto camp at Babin Kuk in Dubrovnik? To the best of

9 your knowledge, did these quantities of weapons ever exist in Dubrovnik

10 and were they deployed at these places?

11 A. All the things that you mentioned, sir, require time to be dealt

12 with. Even a tape-recorder would need time to record all of that. These

13 are different commands affecting different areas. As far as I can

14 remember, I said yesterday, and I made a correction, and I know about my

15 area; it wasn't four but it was two 82-millimetres mortars. As for all

16 the rest, I simply don't know about it.

17 Q. Tell me: In the period between mid-October and the end of

18 December 1991, in the town of Dubrovnik itself, were the following

19 deployed: One ZIS cannon at the end of Babin Kuk; three mortars of 120

20 millimetres near the parking lot at Babin Kuk; two cannons of 85

21 millimetres at Lapad; two ZIS cannons near the sport grounds by the Lero

22 Hotel; one ZIS cannon on the Lapad peninsula, to the west of the Libertas

23 Hotel; two anti-aircraft three-barrelled guns at Lapad, west of the Lero

24 Hotel; and three 82-millimetre mortars in Bogisica Park to the west of the

25 Imperijal Hotel?

Page 5416

1 A. No, sir. What I said already means that you can ask me to give an

2 explanation about positions that existed then. But please, as regards

3 such long questions, they are impossible to answer. I have stated several

4 times that the quantities you keep referring to simply do not exist or

5 were not there. Where they went from the area of Dubrovnik, I don't know.

6 But the situation was not as you put it.

7 Q. So these amounts that I read out to you for the period of

8 mid-October until the 31st of December are not correct?

9 A. Yes, sir; they're not correct.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] With the usher's assistance, I would

12 like the following document distributed.

13 Your Honours, we received this document from the Prosecution in

14 the course of cross-examination, so we did not have time to have it

15 translated into English. With the help of this witness, I will ask two

16 questions based on this document, and I believe that will help clarify.

17 And we will provide an English translation in due course.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Rodic.

19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We do not have the

20 document.

21 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Mr. Negodic, is this document issued by the command of the

23 Dubrovnik municipality, dated 19 December, addressed to the operative zone

24 Split?

25 A. Yes.

Page 5417












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5418

1 Q. Please look at paragraph 5.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. It says: "With the purpose of gaining an insight, we give you an

4 overview herewith of the status of ammunition." And then goes a list of

5 weapons and ammunition; is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Please look at the first weapon: "Cannon, 76-millimetres, ZIS,

8 two pieces (without sights)."

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Was that situation -- was that the situation on the 6th of

11 December?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Now look at the item referring to mortars of 82 millimetres, ten

14 pieces.

15 A. Yes, I see it.

16 Q. Can you explain, in relation to those seven mortars of 72 [as

17 interpreted] millimetres that you mentioned regarding the 6th of December,

18 were there another three mortars supplied prior to the 19th December and

19 provided to your forces?

20 A. Yes. And you can see that we were supplied with more ammunition

21 as well.

22 Q. Out of these ten mortars --

23 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Your Honour, there's a transcript error. It

24 has gone down as 72 millimetres, but it should be 82 millimetres.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

Page 5419

1 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Mr. Negodic, is it true that out of ten mortars, 82 millimetres,

3 six lack sights?

4 A. I cannot tell you exactly whether it was five or six.

5 Q. But this was signed by the commander, Nojko Marinovic, wasn't it?

6 A. Yes, it was.

7 Q. I suppose that reports of this kind indicating the state of

8 ammunition were drawn up after gathering data from subordinates.

9 A. Yes.

10 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would appreciate it if

11 this document could be marked as a Defence exhibit as well.

12 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.


14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] With the assistance of the usher, I

15 would like to distribute another document.

16 Q. Mr. Negodic, you see here an overview of symbols designating

17 certain weapons, artillery weapons, and military units. Can you tell me,

18 if you look towards the bottom, the end, the circle with a black edge, it

19 says Bitnica. What is Bitnica?

20 A. It's a battery.

21 Q. Can this symbol be used to designate a battery of cannons, a

22 battery of mortars, a battery of other artillery pieces?

23 A. Yes. A battery is a general term for such a unit, if you can put

24 it that way.

25 Q. And tell me now, looking from the top: The fifth symbol from the

Page 5420

1 top, the abbreviation is OBT. Does it mean coastal gun, 85 millimetres?

2 A. Yes. That's what they called it. It is a cannon dating back to

3 the Second World War, which was used as an anti-aircraft gun and then

4 became -- came to be used as a coastal weapon to be used against ships.

5 Q. Tell me: Are there such guns in Dubrovnik?

6 A. In the relevant period, no, not in the area of the Dubrovnik city.

7 Q. When you mean this period, you mean the 6th of December or you

8 mean the broader period?

9 A. The period we referred to several times, the 10th, 11th, and 12th

10 month. There were no such guns.

11 Q. So there were no 85-millimetre cannons in that relevant period?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Now look at the second symbol from the bottom [as interpreted],

14 this arrow flanked by two dots.

15 A. That's an anti-aircraft cannon.

16 Q. So that is the symbol for the anti-aircraft cannon. Was this

17 symbol used on the P160 map that we discussed?

18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: There's a transcript error. It should be

19 second symbol from the top, not from the bottom.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Yes. We'd managed to find it, but it

21 was -- may be confusing for the future, so it is the second from the top.

22 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. So this second symbol from the top, you interpreted it correctly,

24 it was used to designate an anti-aircraft gun.

25 A. Yes, sir. That's what it says here as well.

Page 5421

1 Q. Apart from the fact that it says here in this list, do you know

2 that it is so?

3 A. I'm not quite sure.

4 Q. Was the same symbol seen on the P160 map that we discussed

5 yesterday? If you remember that sign to the north of the Old Town.

6 A. Yes. That's the same symbol.

7 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to ask that

8 this document indicating symbols be also marked as a Defence exhibit.

9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Your Honour, before that, it might be

10 appropriate to set a basis for this document. Of course, the witness has

11 identified certain symbols, but as to what the source of this document is,

12 et cetera, perhaps it might be appropriate to get that down on record.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Well, it can be approached in two ways.

14 Mr. Negodic, you've been asked to comment on some of the symbols that are

15 on this document. Are the other symbols ones that you are familiar with?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, sir.

17 JUDGE PARKER: And are they correctly identified on this sheet?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not familiar with the assault

19 and landing ship item, but the rest that regards artillery weapons, yes,

20 I'm familiar with these.

21 JUDGE PARKER: And which is the one you're not familiar with?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The one that says Desantni Brod,

23 assault and landing ship.

24 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] If I can be of assistance, it is the

25 fifth symbol from the bottom.

Page 5422

1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Assault and landing ship.

3 JUDGE PARKER: I take it this is not a document that you prepared

4 yourself, Mr. Negodic.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a general document. I don't

6 even know who wrote it.

7 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.

8 Q. Mr. Negodic, can you recognise in this document the signature in

9 the upper right corner?

10 A. I cannot be quite sure, but I think it could be Mr. Marinovic.

11 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document was

12 disclosed to the Defence and it was drawn up by Nojko Marinovic.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Well, it appears that it may be. But in answer to

14 your objection, Ms. Mahindaratne, I think the witness has sufficiently

15 confirmed the correctness of all but one item on the sheet, and as such,

16 its relevance and assistance to the Chamber are sufficiently apparent to

17 justify its reception.


19 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Mr. Negodic, on the 6th of December, you were at the position of

21 the ZIS cannon near the Ivo Vojnovic Street; is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Can you tell me: Why did you place the cannon under the bridge?

24 Was it because you didn't want it to be noticed by the JNA?

25 A. That's one of the reasons. Mostly it was for security reasons,

Page 5423












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5424

1 safety reasons, because it was an earth surface.

2 Q. All right. You said that you fired 170 shells on that day.

3 A. Around that number.

4 Q. Can you tell me, what did you target, which direction?

5 A. For the most part, the Srdj fortress, the Kriz or cross near the

6 fortress, and the cable-car. To a lesser extent, Zarkovica.

7 Q. Do we then agree that the ZIS cannon is an anti-armour cannon?

8 A. Its function is both anti-armour and anti-infantry. It uses two

9 kinds of ammunition. So if you use anti- -- if you use it as an

10 anti-armour weapon, you use an appropriate kind of ammunition. It uses

11 different shells when it targets infantry.

12 Q. Does it have a specific trajectory?

13 A. Not in this case, because it shot, it fired directly at a small

14 distance, at a close range.

15 Q. What range?

16 A. Up to three kilometres. For a cannon that has a range of 13.5

17 kilometres, this is called direct shooting, at close range.

18 Q. Is it true that this anti-armour tank, because it has a direct

19 trajectory, cannot shoot over the old city, because it would hit it?

20 A. You cannot divert its trajectory. It shoots only directly.

21 Q. On that day, the 6th of December, how many shells in total did you

22 have for the 82-millimetre mortar and the 120-millimetres mortars?

23 A. I cannot tell you that precisely. I already explained that after

24 the 6th of December, I was in hospital, so I did not attend the meetings

25 that discussed the total consumption of ammunition and nobody informed me.

Page 5425

1 Q. Can you tell me, when exactly did you go to the hospital?

2 A. In the night between the 6th and the 7th.

3 Q. And before you went to the hospital, that is, before the beginning

4 of action and combat on the 6th of December, did you know what quantity of

5 ammunition for mortars was at your disposal in the defence of Dubrovnik?

6 A. I used to know, but now, after so many years, I have no idea.

7 Q. But after so many years, you seem to remember very well that 20

8 shells and the four shells that you told us about regarding the Lazaret

9 position.

10 A. Yes. That was a special position which was active only once and

11 that's why I remembered it.

12 Q. Can you tell me: How many shells were fired then from the mortar

13 on the 6th of December, and from which positions?

14 A. As I said already, from the SDK position and the Babin Kuk

15 position, shells were fired against three enemy positions, but I do not

16 know how many shells were spent or indeed how many shells there were in

17 the first place.

18 Q. Can you tell us an approximate number?

19 A. Dear sir, I really can't, even though I would like to help you

20 very much.

21 Q. What kind of artillery chief are you if you have no idea how many

22 shells you had before action, how many you spent during the operation?

23 Because you let us know during your testimony that you had good contact

24 with your units and you controlled their positions and activities.

25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Your Honour -- I object to this line of

Page 5426

1 questioning. It's inappropriate for counsel to make this type of

2 derogatory statements against the witness.

3 JUDGE PARKER: I agree it's unnecessary, but please go ahead,

4 Mr. Rodic.

5 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

6 Q. As the person at the top who was responsible for artillery, do you

7 make requests through your command for resupply of ammunition to your

8 artillery?

9 A. We got resupplies of ammunition little by little, by speedboat, in

10 very small quantities. And in all that action, we did not have time to

11 follow the proper written procedure. And now you're asking me, 13 years

12 later, to remember exactly how much I asked for and when.

13 Q. Mr. Negodic, you said that on the 6th of December you were left

14 with 10 per cent of ammunition for artillery weapons, after the completion

15 of combat operations.

16 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.

17 Q. Can you tell me: 10 per cent of which quantity?

18 A. After I returned to the command, when I came back from the

19 hospital, there was discussion to that effect at the command. And later,

20 when I visited the positions, I was told that certain positions ran

21 completely out of ammunition and others had 10 per cent left of the

22 original amount.

23 Q. Did you then ask for a resupply?

24 A. Yes. As you could see from the document, there were two cases,

25 either the 17th or the 19th of November [as interpreted], where it says

Page 5427

1 120 shells for the ZIS cannon, 76 millimetres, and some ammunition for the

2 82-millimetre mortar. That means that between the 6th and the 17th, or

3 the 19th, some ammunition was provided for these weapons.

4 Q. And how did you know, Mr. Negodic, if you did not --

5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Your Honour, there's a transcript error. It

6 has gone down as 17th or 19th of November. It should be December. The

7 document related to December, as I recall.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

9 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Can you tell me, Mr. Negodic: On what basis did you then count

11 the 170 shells fired from the ZIS cannon at the position near the Ivo

12 Vojnovic Street?

13 A. When I said hello to the crew by the cannon, they told me: Mr.

14 Ivan, we fired around 170.

15 Q. You mean the SDK crew?

16 A. No. The cannon crew.

17 Q. That much I understood. But what were you told by the crew of the

18 mortars, near the SDK building?

19 A. After that day, after 11.30, when I visited that position, I did

20 not return to that position again. There was no need for me to go there.

21 I only asked about people wounded. They told me that they went to get

22 four shells. I didn't see any reason to discuss the consumption of shells

23 at all.

24 Q. Did Zoran Primic tell you that he had gone to get the missing

25 shells for mortars at the position near the SDK through the Old Town to

Page 5428

1 bring them back?

2 A. The crew told me that Primic had gone to get them. It wasn't he

3 who told me so, because when I came there, he wasn't at the firing

4 position.

5 Q. Did people from the crew at that position tell you that Zoran

6 Primic had gone to get the shells, driving in a white Golf Kedi vehicle?

7 A. It was a passenger vehicle. I don't know which kind.

8 Q. So up to 11.00, when you came to visit the SDK position, all the

9 mortars were out of ammunition?

10 A. After 11.30.

11 Q. So after 11.30, all the SDK mortars were out of ammunition?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. So where did the shooting come from after 11.30?

14 A. Babin Kuk.

15 Q. Mortars by the SDK building, were they the ones that fired the

16 four shells referred to?

17 A. I don't know about that.

18 Q. Do you know whether they were actually shooting after 11.30 on the

19 6th of December?

20 A. Probably in order to fire those four shells.

21 Q. So you're only making an assumption?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. What about the auto camp Solitudo? How many shells were fired

24 from the mortar position there?

25 A. I've said already a few minutes ago that I don't know, that I

Page 5429












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5430

1 can't remember how many shells were fired from each and every firing

2 position, because that's what the situation was.

3 Q. Tell me: And the mortars from the Solitudo camp, where were they

4 firing at?

5 A. The slopes of Srdj and the fort of Srdj and partly towards

6 Strincjera.

7 Q. Did they target Zarkovica?

8 A. I'm not aware of that, but probably yes. On two or three

9 occasions, with the 120-millimetre mortar.

10 Q. What about cannons from Babin Kuk? Did they fire at Zarkovica?

11 A. There was no cannon at Babin Kuk. The other cannon was at Mala

12 Petka.

13 Q. And what was fired at from Mala Petka?

14 A. As far as I can remember, the area of Podbrezje, four shells. So

15 that is the north-western area when viewed from Dubrovnik. I remember

16 that because we had to transfer all the ammunition from that combat

17 position to the firing position I already referred to, underneath the

18 bridge.

19 Q. Let us conclude, Mr. Negodic. Is it correct that you cannot give

20 me an answer about the number of fired shells from your artillery pieces

21 on the 6th of December, 1991, except for the information provided for the

22 ZIS cannon by the Ivo Vojnovic Street?

23 A. Only in part, sir, because I know about two cannons and the rocket

24 launcher and the firing position that was not actually firing. So there

25 were only two more combat positions for mortars that I cannot give you any

Page 5431

1 answers about.

2 Q. If there were only two remaining combat positions for mortars that

3 were very important for your defence on the 6th of December, how come you

4 cannot remember, or how come you will not remember?

5 A. Well, you've started putting some very strange questions. Sir,

6 I've already told you that I was in hospital for two or three days, and I

7 came when the commander had already talked to the commanding officers of

8 particular units. I was spared, if I can put it that way, any big

9 discussions. So I did not know what the quantity of ammunition was for

10 those two combat positions.

11 Q. You said that mortars are unstable on a hard surface; is that

12 right?

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 Q. And tell me: Can -- do mortars move when fired, when they are on

15 your positions?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Is it correct that mortars are moved -- mortars move all the time

18 and that once a shell is fired, equipment has to be used for correcting

19 fire yet again?

20 A. Not necessarily, especially if targeting an area only.

21 Q. Is there any precise targeting without sights?

22 A. Not on a mortar, sir.

23 Q. In your statement, paragraph 30 -- so paragraph 39, actually, you

24 say: "I know that there were no heavy weapons in the Old Town." And in

25 the last sentence of that paragraph, you say: "I only ever saw sidearms

Page 5432

1 in the Old Town, never heavy weapons."

2 When was it that you were in the Old Town? When did you have

3 occasion to see sidearms only and you managed to see for yourself that

4 there were no heavy weapons?

5 A. I already said that in November and December I was not in the Old

6 Town at all, only on the 6th of December. I don't know what the

7 translation was, but all indicators showed that when we would have a

8 meeting at headquarters - and that is what I stated too - I never heard,

9 or no one ever heard or saw that there were any heavy weapons within the

10 walls, and that it was only refugees who brought hunting guns with them,

11 and possibly pistols.

12 Q. When was it that you saw this, Mr. Negodic?

13 A. Perhaps it was not worded properly. "I saw." Perhaps it should

14 have said "I heard." But anyway. I knew that there were no heavy weapons

15 because this was under my command, and I knew where things were.

16 Q. Let's cut this short, Mr. Negodic. I'm going to read this out to

17 you: "I only ever saw sidearms in the Old Town." What does "ever" mean?

18 You actually said every time.

19 A. It is plural, but it was not a question addressed as far as

20 November and December are concerned in particular. It was a general

21 question. So my answer was that every time I was in town, I could only

22 notice this or that. But this is valid also for the month of January and

23 also for before November and December. I already stated here yesterday

24 that I was there for the first time on the 6th of December, when the Old

25 Town was on fire.

Page 5433

1 Q. Did you see only sidearms then too, sir?

2 A. Sir, that was during the night. We came for a different reason;

3 to see if we could do anything to help extinguish the fire. We were not

4 watching people who had rifles or whatever.

5 Q. Well, I'm interested in knowing when it was that you saw only

6 sidearms in the Old Town.

7 A. Well, now you're asking me when. You want me to give a date or

8 something. That is after the 6th of December, 1991.

9 Q. So until the 6th of December, 1991, you did not see anyone in the

10 Old Town with sidearms?

11 A. I could not see anyone or anything when I wasn't there.

12 Q. Did you hear of anyone moving about with sidearms in the Old Town

13 until the 6th of December?

14 A. The police provided information to that effect, that individuals

15 were creating small problems.

16 Q. Did these small problems have to do with weapons?

17 A. Well, not any big weapons. Shotguns. So that was during brawls

18 or things like that.

19 Q. Oh, shotguns.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. In paragraph 24 of your statement, you said that: "At around

22 8.00, the position at Srdj came under combined arms attacks with infantry

23 attacks. We provided fire support for the troops in Srdj as well as at

24 the observation post and at JNA positions in Zarkovica."

25 Were these the two basic directions in which your artillery

Page 5434

1 operated, including your mortars, on the 6th of December, 1991?

2 A. Yes, sir.

3 Q. For the most part, were shells fired at those two positions,

4 namely, Srdj and Zarkovica?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Except for these two positions, did your forces shoot at any other

7 positions on the 6th of December?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Can you tell me briefly which ones?

10 A. Strincjera, the north-western approaches to Dubrovnik, namely,

11 Sustjepan. And as I've already said, four rockets in the Podbrezje area.

12 Q. Did you also say Sustjepan?

13 A. From Sustjepan, the approaches towards Dubrovnik.

14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be given

15 Exhibit P61, tab 30. That is from Mr. Hvalkof's tab.

16 Q. Mr. Negodic, there is a document before you which is a Prosecution

17 exhibit in this case, and it is a diary, a log sheet, rather, of a member

18 of the monitoring mission, the deputy head of the office in Split, Mr. Per

19 Hvalkof. Could you please read the first item pertaining to the time of

20 6.00 a.m. on December...

21 A. You want me to read that?

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. "Shelling from land and sea towards the fortress close to the TV

24 tower and the harbour commenced."

25 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Your Honour, I do not know what the relevance

Page 5435












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5436

1 is in showing an exhibit, Prosecution exhibit tendered through another

2 witness to this particular witness, unless this witness could comment on

3 this document, unless he's familiar with this document.

4 JUDGE PARKER: The object, I'd have thought, was fairly clear,

5 Ms. Mahindaratne. The witness has given some considerable evidence about

6 what his artillery positions fired at that day, and when. And now the log

7 of a European Community observer of that same day's operations is being

8 put to him. We may find there are similarities or there may be

9 differences. We will see.

10 Carry on, Mr. Rodic.

11 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

12 Q. So, Mr. Negodic, I have told you what kind of document this is,

13 and you saw what it says for the 6th of December at 6:00 a.m. Do the

14 monitors establish, inter alia, that fire was opened, or rather, that

15 shelling commenced from land and sea?

16 A. Which part of the sea do they mean? Perhaps Zupska Uvala, where

17 they were anchored, as I already said, but there were no attacks from sea

18 in the town, in the narrow sense of the word, as we already said.

19 Q. But what it says here is Srdj.

20 A. Well, shelling, yes, Srdj.

21 Q. Shelling, Srdj?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Does it say shelling from land and sea?

24 A. Yes, that's what he said.

25 Q. On that morning, was there any shelling from sea?

Page 5437

1 A. The area of town, or rather, Srdj, in my opinion, was not on the

2 6th of December against Dubrovnik. I mean, there wasn't any shelling

3 coming from the sea.

4 Q. Where were you on that morning, if you remember, at 6.00?

5 A. At headquarters, at the Zagreb Hotel, in the area of Lapad.

6 Q. So this information doesn't seem to be right. It doesn't seem to

7 be truthful.

8 A. In my opinion, saying from the sea would not be right.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] We no longer need this document.

11 Q. Tell me: When you spoke about preparing the landing in Kupari,

12 you said that a day before the landing, artillery preparations were

13 carried out at the Rijeka Dubrovacka and Brgat, and that the JNA opened

14 fire from Konavle with far-range artillery; is that right?

15 A. A day before the landing, I said that in the area of Zupa

16 Dubrovacka and Brgat, this took place. There was no need to involve

17 Rijeka Dubrovacka, which is on the opposite side. This was artillery

18 preparation before the landing.

19 Q. All right. Tell me: Did the JNA open fire then in October when

20 preparing this landing from the area of Konavle too by using long-range

21 artillery?

22 A. Mostly it came from the area of Herzegovina, and we assume that

23 multiple rocket launchers were used from the area of Konavle, against the

24 area of Konavle.

25 Q. What about Cilipi?

Page 5438

1 A. Cilipi near the airport.

2 Q. The position by the airport?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Were they operating from there?

5 A. Well, I cannot tell you anything sure for that particular time.

6 Q. So to the best of your knowledge, on the 6th of December, 1991,

7 the Croatian forces only had wounded soldiers? I'm talking about

8 soldiers.

9 A. Yes. I am only talking about artillery, sir.

10 Q. Tell me: Regarding the 6th of December, do you know when the

11 attack started, when the JNA attack started?

12 A. I already stated that this was in the early morning hours. It was

13 not night-time. It was in the early morning hours.

14 Q. Approximately?

15 A. Well, it was a winter day, so, say at 6.30, when it dawns.

16 Q. Did you see this, hear this? Were you informed about it?

17 A. First I heard about it and then I saw it too. I heard about it at

18 the command post, and then I was given orders to go out to the place that

19 I already mentioned, I already said where I was.

20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Negodic.

21 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, following your

22 instructions, I have tailored my questions for today and I have thus

23 concluded my cross-examination. Thank you.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic, thank you very much indeed for that

25 effort. Clearly, you kept your eye clearly on the target and the time,

Page 5439

1 and we've achieved what was desirable.

2 I think that will make this a convenient time for the first

3 morning break, and we will be having the second morning break a little

4 earlier than usual. Apparently that will coincide with a time for a short

5 medical examination of your client.

6 We'll adjourn now for the first break.

7 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.

8 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Mahindaratne. Can we take it that you are

10 likely to finish in this session your re-examination?

11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I hope I could, Your Honours. If it was one

12 and a half hours, yes, I certainly would be --

13 JUDGE PARKER: It won't be that. We'll need to break just after

14 12.00. We will still live in hope that you'll manage to finish in that

15 time.

16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I'll try my very best, Your Honour. Thank you.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

18 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the two maps P159 and 160 be shown to the

19 witness, the two maps that were marked by the Prosecution in the course of

20 examination-in-chief.

21 And while it's being done, I'll ask some questions from Mr.

22 Negodic.

23 Re-examined by Ms. Mahindaratne:

24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Negodic.

25 A. Good morning.

Page 5440

1 Q. Sir, you were questioned in the course of cross-examination as to

2 if 82-millimetre mortars could be considered as infantry weapons, and you

3 agreed with that proposition. Now, were 82-millimetres mortars belonging

4 to the Dubrovnik force under your control during the period 1st October

5 1991 to 31st December 1991?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Would you know if the infantry positions which were -- and I'm

8 referring to your infantry positions, the Croatian infantry positions, had

9 any 82-millimetre mortars, and especially in relation to map 160, if you

10 could indicate that.

11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Could Madam Usher perhaps show the witness the

12 big map.

13 Q. Sir, there are -- your infantry lines are indicated with the

14 orange short lines. Were there any 82-millimetre mortars at those

15 positions?

16 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.

17 Q. Do you know if any other person other than yourself belonging to

18 the Dubrovnik defence force had 82-millimetre mortars under his or her

19 control?

20 A. No, nobody did.

21 Q. Thank you. While the map is before you, sir, could you make a

22 correction. And I'm referring, Your Honours, to the correction I pointed

23 out yesterday. The Maljutka position at position near Hotel President in

24 Lapad, could you mark it with a "D." At the moment the marking is "B."

25 Can you convert that to a "D," please.

Page 5441












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5442

1 A. [Marks]

2 Q. Thank you. Now in the course of cross-examination, sir, when you

3 were questioned with regard to the legend in this map which is placed

4 before you, you stated that the map did not reflect the ground situation

5 as at 6 December, and you even went on to say that that was the case even

6 with regard to the other map, which is the smaller one, numbered with P359

7 [sic]. Now, when I questioned you in Court the previous day - sir, permit

8 me to finish my question - you made certain amendments to these maps. If

9 you take this particular map before you. You drew squares around two

10 positions, marked "B" and "C" and indicated that those positions were not

11 there on 6 December 1991. Isn't that the case, sir?

12 A. It is.

13 Q. And then you included three positions. Near Mala Petka you put a

14 cross and indicated that the position depicted within the square marked

15 with "C" was in fact at this new position marked with a cross and "C"; is

16 that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. You also indicated where the rocket launcher was on 6 December

19 1991, which was at -- close to Hotel Libertas, which is now marked on this

20 map with a cross and "A"; is that right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And then you also indicated where the Maljutka was on the 6th of

23 December, 1991, which was at Hotel President in Lapad, which you marked

24 with a cross and now it's depicted with the letter "D"; is that right?

25 A. Yes.

Page 5443

1 Q. Subject to these amendments, sir, would you say as to whether the

2 ground situation with regard to artillery, mortars, and anti-aircraft

3 weapons reflects the ground situation as at 6 December on this map,

4 subject to those amendments?

5 A. Yes. With the corrections made.

6 Q. And likewise, sir, in the other map too, you made certain

7 amendments. You indicated three positions with squares as not being there

8 on 6 December 1991 and two positions with circles as being there on 6

9 December 1991. Subject those amendments, do the positions in map bearing

10 Prosecution number P159 reflect the ground situation as at 6 December

11 1991?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. So when you said, in response to the Defence -- learned Defence

14 counsel's question that these maps did not reflect the ground situation as

15 at 6 December 1991, what you meant was prior to those amendments, the

16 situation did not reflect the ground situation. Is that what you meant?

17 A. Yes, that is so.

18 Q. But that situation has now been corrected with your own

19 amendments?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. In reference to map bearing P160, do the other symbols, that is,

22 the symbols that indicate the shelters and the mines and the infantry

23 lines, do they reflect the ground situation as at 6 December 1991?

24 A. I cannot be sure about the details.

25 Q. I'm not asking for the details. Would you be able to give a

Page 5444

1 general idea as to whether the other -- you don't have to go through each

2 and every -- perhaps I will withdraw that question, Your Honour.

3 With regard to the legend on this bigger map, P160, at the top

4 left-hand corner of the map, does it -- and I will rephrase the word. It's

5 not the legend, it's a chart indicated at the top left-hand corner. Does

6 it reflect the situation as at 6 December 1991? I'm referring to that

7 chart at the top left-hand corner, sir.

8 A. This was drawn by operative workers, and they probably did it

9 based on the information from scout groups regarding firing positions and

10 observation posts in the area of the map that you mean.

11 Q. No, sir. My question to you is: The chart at the top left-hand

12 corner. I'm referring to the chart. Could you just place your point on

13 the chart. No, sir. Top right-hand corner. I'm sorry. I got my sides

14 wrong. Beg your pardon, Your Honour.

15 Does that reflect the situation as at 6 December 1991?

16 A. As for the details, because this encompasses the infantry and the

17 navy and everything, if you're asking me about the artillery, I can answer

18 that.

19 Q. I will not go into those details now, Mr. Negodic. Thank you.

20 In reference to a question with regard to that chart, you stated

21 that you had not used this particular map in the Dubrovnik defence

22 headquarters, and you went on to say that it was because this legend

23 indicated that the map would have been used at the level of the commanders

24 of the town defence. In stating that, was it your position that you had

25 not used this map with this particular chart or was it your position that

Page 5445

1 this is not a headquarters map of the Dubrovnik defence? I ask that, sir,

2 because in examination-in-chief, you did identify this map as a

3 headquarters map.

4 A. Yes. That's the map of the commander of the city defence, and

5 there was no need for me to work with this map. I had my own map, with

6 only my firing positions drawn in, and the targeted sector.

7 Q. So this map is in fact a Dubrovnik defence headquarters map?

8 A. Yes. Although it was not signed by the commander, Nojko

9 Marinovic; it was signed by Mirko Katanic instead.

10 Q. And sir, while we are -- no. I withdraw that. Sorry.

11 A. If you allow me a brief explanation. This overview was typed

12 above the signature of General Nojko Marinovic. I would like to confirm

13 it, but otherwise I don't know.

14 Q. What you're saying, sir, is that the chart has been superimposed

15 on the map and if that chart on the top right-hand corner was not there,

16 one would be able to see the signature of General Marinovic? Is that what

17 you just indicated?

18 A. Yes, of course.

19 Q. Mr. Negodic, when you were questioned about the anti-aircraft

20 weapon position depicted in this map to the north of the Old Town, you

21 said the position was by a cable-car. Now, could you indicate with your

22 pointer where the cable-car would be.

23 A. [Indicates]

24 Q. And is that also the position where the head of that symbol, the

25 weapons symbol, is?

Page 5446

1 A. No. That is a little further to the right and above.

2 Q. And according to your knowledge of the ground situation, is it

3 according to your knowledge of the ground situation that you said that

4 generally this weapon was located at the cable-car, to the north of the

5 Old Town? Is it on the basis of your knowledge that you said so?

6 A. At the meeting of their command, when the air defence commander

7 got the floor, he said that he would place there an anti-aircraft weapon,

8 either Igla or Strela 2-M, and to the right, one of these two weapons, so

9 that he would have an alternative position to the west of the Old Town for

10 the area of Gradac. That's what I stated and that is a fact.

11 Q. And when was that meeting, sir?

12 A. I cannot remember the date.

13 Q. Could you approximately give the distance between the cable-car,

14 the location where the anti-aircraft weapon was generally positioned, to

15 the walls of the Old Town? What was approximately the distance?

16 A. I think 130 or 150 metres perhaps.

17 Q. Thank you. You were cross-examined about your response given in

18 the course of examination-in-chief with regard to positioning of weapons

19 and in the context of symbols. That is your response that in the case of

20 anti-aircraft weapons, the position is indicated at the head of the

21 symbol, as opposed to the symbol depicting mortar weapons, where the

22 position is generally at the middle. Now, it was put to you that there

23 were no military rules which governed this. Was your response based on

24 the general practice utilised in map drawing or was it based on some

25 military rules?

Page 5447












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5448

1 A. The operative staff, as I already stated a couple of times,

2 charted the maps, and as you can see, and as I responded to questions from

3 the Defence, when you look at this firing position we are discussing now,

4 and when we go east of this firing position to another firing position, it

5 is evident that the exact place of this mortar position directly by the

6 sea is not drawn in. I suppose the operative staff member also failed to

7 indicate the top of that marking --

8 Q. Sir, if I may interrupt you. My question was: Was your response

9 based on general practices involved in map drawing or was it based on a

10 military rule? That was my question. When you said about positioning of

11 weapons and indication thereof by symbols, were you referring to general

12 map drawing practices or were you referring to military rules? Which of

13 these? For example, your indication that in the case of mortars, the

14 position is at the middle of the symbol. Was it based on general map

15 drawing practice or was it based on military rules? That was my question.

16 If you could respond briefly which of these two.

17 A. Yes. That was the prevailing practice. I said we should draw

18 mortars that way, and that's the way mortars are drawn, and as far as air

19 defence weapons are concerned, I think they are indicated by the tip of

20 the arrow.

21 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, you just said so also and you said even in

22 the course of cross-examination, that the mortar position to the east of

23 this anti-aircraft weapon we just discussed about is not exactly where it

24 should be. Could you with your pointer indicate where exactly it should

25 be.

Page 5449

1 And if I may have the assistance of Madam Usher to -- no. I think

2 the area is on the -- shown on the ELMO.

3 Where exactly should that position be?

4 A. [Indicates]

5 Q. Could you give an indication in terms of distance to -- and the

6 direction to the position where it is now indicated.

7 A. [Indicates]

8 Q. Now you are pointing to a position to the south of where the

9 position is depicted. And in terms of distance, can you give

10 approximately how much it is?

11 A. This firing position was drawn in, as far as I can see, 50 or 70

12 metres above the firing position, which was in place on the 6th of

13 December. So it should go down to be below the road, because it was 15 to

14 20 metres away from the sea, in the park, actually.

15 Q. So what you're saying is that position should in fact be below the

16 position where it is indicated, closer to the coastal line?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. You were also questioned on the differences in the symbols

19 indicating anti-aircraft weapons. Notwithstanding the symbols, because

20 you were extensively examined on certain differences in dots, et cetera,

21 are you in a position to state that the weapons positioned you indicated

22 to be anti-aircraft weapons were in fact anti-aircraft weapons and not

23 mortar or artillery positions? And I'm referring to the four positions,

24 anti-aircraft positions that you indicated on this map. Do you understand

25 my question, sir?

Page 5450

1 A. Yes. In the locations where I think anti-aircraft weapons are

2 drawn, in that territory, they were indeed located, and only the mortar

3 should be drawn below what is indicated here.

4 Q. Now, when you were questioned as to towards which targets your

5 weapons fired on 6th of December, 1991, you said that you directed fire

6 also at the cable-car, and you said Srdj and you used the word

7 "cable-car." Now, when you said the word -- used the term "cable-car,"

8 which position are you referring to?

9 A. The cable-car emerges, if we look from the sea, to the right of

10 Srdj, to the terrace, where part of JNA troops later emerged, and some

11 paramilitary forces. And that's why I used this term "cable-car." We

12 could also add --

13 Q. If I may interrupt you. Is that the same position, the cable-car

14 position where the anti-aircraft weapons positioned to the north of the

15 Old Town were supposed to have been?

16 A. No. The cable-car comes out of the Srdj fortress, whereas the

17 firing position of the anti-aircraft weapon is at the starting point of

18 the cable-car which goes to Srdj, which is to the north or to the

19 north-east, 120 metres away from the Old Town. That is the firing

20 position of the anti-aircraft weapon. Whereas we were shooting at the

21 ending point of the cable-car, which is east of the Srdj fortress.

22 Q. And which also indicates that at that position, the cable-car

23 position, there were JNA troops, and that's why your forces were firing at

24 these positions?

25 A. Yes. We got a report from the Srdj fortress that at the ending

Page 5451

1 point of the cable-car and at the terrace, JNA troops had emerged and that

2 we should open fire, targeting that point.

3 Q. Sir, you were questioned as to whether a ZIS cannon could be used

4 as an anti-armour weapon and you said it could be used as an anti-armour

5 weapon as well as an anti-personnel weapon. Is a ZIS cannon a direct-fire

6 weapon or an indirect-fire weapon?

7 A. The ZIS cannon is a direct-fire weapon. It could not be used as

8 an anti-tank weapon if the trajectory had an elevation. That means that

9 you use direct fire to shoot at a target.

10 Q. So when you use the ZIS cannon and fire at Zarkovica, you have a

11 direct line of sight to Zarkovica and you can observe the fire impacting

12 on Zarkovica from the position of the ZIS cannon?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So there is no issue about the projectile, the trajectory or the

15 projectile going over the Old Town?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Could you please indicate -- use the other map, sir, which is much

18 clearer. Could you generally take your pointer cross from the ZIS cannon

19 position at Gospino Polje to Zarkovica and show the part of the

20 trajectory.

21 A. [Indicates]

22 Q. And as such, sir, does the part of the trajectory go over the Old

23 Town?

24 A. Not in my view.

25 Q. And what would you say is the distance from the wall of the Old

Page 5452

1 Town, the northern side, to the part of the trajectory, according to the

2 scale of this map?

3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may. I would

4 kindly ask, since we are left without a trace of something that was very

5 obvious to all of us here, I would kindly ask my learned friend to ask the

6 witness to draw a line, so then, when we have a line across the map, we

7 will be able to see whether it goes across the Old Town or not. In this

8 way, we have seen nothing. And it is obvious that the northern part of

9 the Old Town is encompassed and is located below the trajectory. So I

10 would like to have this drawn in. Thank you, Your Honour.

11 MS. MAHINDARATNE: No, Your Honour. I would not want to do that,

12 for the simple reason this map has already been subject to markings and we

13 have already reproduced numbers of maps. And perhaps the Defence, if they

14 wish to do that, could possibly do it with the Defence witnesses.

15 JUDGE PARKER: We don't need, I think, to bother about all those

16 possibilities, as long as the firing point is clear. Zarkovica itself is

17 clearly located, and anybody looking at the two can decide whether or not

18 the trajectory goes over a part of the Old Town or not. So just make sure

19 that the firing point is clear, if you would.

20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, sir.

21 JUDGE PARKER: And we can all do the rest after that.

22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.


24 Q. Mr. Negodic, could you please, very clearly, point out to the

25 Trial Chamber where exactly the firing point of the ZIS cannon at Gospino

Page 5453












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5454

1 Polje is.

2 A. [Indicates]

3 Q. And can you now, please, point out where Zarkovica is.

4 A. [Indicates]

5 Q. And you just indicated that -- no. I withdraw that, Your Honour.

6 Could direct-fire weapons be used without sights, Mr. Negodic?

7 A. Yes, ma'am. That's what was done.

8 Q. And can you explain as briefly as possible as to how direct-fire

9 weapons could be used without sights, in order that firing errors would

10 not occur.

11 A. At such small distances, the man who manned the cannon shot

12 through the barrel.

13 Q. So the person who operates the weapon can see the target clearly?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Can he also observe the impact of fire?

16 A. Yes, and with the naked eye.

17 Q. Can mortars or indirect-fire weapons be used without sights?

18 A. No.

19 Q. In the course of the period 1st October 1991 to 31st December

20 1991, were any indirect-fire weapons which were there within your force

21 used without sights?

22 A. No. One optical sight was combined -- was used for several

23 mortars.

24 Q. Can you please describe what a sighting equipment looks like in

25 terms of size.

Page 5455

1 A. The size of a fist, maybe two fists, or a palm of a hand,

2 depending on the weapon.

3 Q. And how is it used to fix the coordinates, firing coordinates?

4 Can you please describe the procedure as briefly as possible.

5 A. You measure the distance from the target, using a map, and you add

6 the elevation, above or below, and then you detract from the distance the

7 altitude of the firing position in relation to the target. You use the

8 angle-measuring device and you calculate the angle on the sights on the

9 appropriate devices.

10 Q. And can you explain us in detail as to how you dealt with the

11 inadequacy of sighting equipment for weapons? How was it moved and how

12 did you ensure that the accuracy in firing was not affected by the

13 movement of sighting equipment? When you said that sighting equipment was

14 moved from weapon to weapon, how was it used? Did you not need a sighting

15 equipment at a weapon constantly? Could you explain this, please, in

16 detail perhaps.

17 A. Well, approximately one optical sight was used for two weapons, if

18 you are satisfied with that answer.

19 Q. Yes, but when one weapon -- the sighting equipment is used with

20 regard to one weapon, can you say how it's used, as in once you fix the

21 coordinates, does the weapon stay in place and you do not need the

22 sighting equipment to continue with the firing with regard to the same

23 target continuously, or how is it used? Could you please bear in mind

24 that we are laypersons and therefore you have to give us an idea as to how

25 it was used.

Page 5456

1 A. As I've already said, in order to set an objective, I have to

2 point out that it cannot be a target that is say 50-square metres. We

3 were targeting areas, and then this is how we operated: We only engaged a

4 specific target, like the observation post of Zarkovica. You have to see

5 how effective each mortar can be, and you need to have a sight for that.

6 However, for several mortars that targeted only the area around Srdj,

7 towards Bosanka and Strincjera, it is not necessary for them to be that

8 precise, so they did not require sighting equipment non-stop.

9 Q. So would it be correct to say that once you use sighting equipment

10 and fixed the firing coordinates of a weapon, unless the direction of fire

11 needs to be changed with regard to that weapon, you don't need to resort

12 to that sighting equipment again? Is that what you're saying?

13 A. Yes. If we look at a given point in time, or rather, a given

14 period, we can see whether there were any changes.

15 Q. So once the equipment is used and the target -- the weapon is

16 directed towards the particular target, you could move the sight equipment

17 to another weapon and you don't need the sight equipment for that original

18 weapon unless you need to change the direction of fire. Is that correct,

19 Witness?

20 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, objection.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Rodic.

22 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I think that already in relation to

23 the previous question, the witness said what he had to say about a sight

24 that is mounted and that is used subsequently, and I think that this now

25 is a leading question, dealing with it yet again, or rather, putting the

Page 5457

1 answer into the question that is being put.

2 JUDGE PARKER: I think on balance, Mr. Rodic, what counsel is

3 attempting to do is to summarise what had gone before.

4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE PARKER: But, really, it's labouring the point. We could

6 move on, you know.

7 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, sir, Your Honour. I will move on.

8 Q. Would you just respond, though, to my question, Mr. Negodic,

9 before I move on, with a yes or no.

10 A. Yes. Yes. If one would be used, then it would be transferred to

11 the other.

12 Q. Thank you, sir. Did you have forward observers for your mortar

13 and artillery positions in addition to yourself observing the fire

14 missions and issuing directions?

15 A. For combat positions with two mortars, they do not have a visible

16 target in that sense. So I was the observer from the firing positions of

17 two ZIS cannons and one rocket launcher. They can see the target for

18 themselves from their own position, and they can correct their own fire.

19 Q. But my point is: For -- in direct-fire weapons, where, for

20 instance, in the case of mortars, where they could not see the targets,

21 were forward observers utilised to observe fire and correct the firing of

22 the particular weapons?

23 A. No, madam. I was the only one who could have been in that

24 particular function.

25 Q. So were you in a position, then, to observe fire of all your heavy

Page 5458

1 weapons positions and to correct the firing? Could you do that?

2 A. Madam, that was for two firing positions. A 120-millimetre shell

3 was supposed to fall 200 metres left of Srdj, then I would give a

4 correction of 200 metres, and from their firing position it is no longer

5 on the right-hand side like it is my right-hand side. On the map, they

6 make corrections, and for them, it would be, let's put it that way, 200

7 metres more. So when I gave a correction to the first mortar, then they

8 continued to deal with it in that way, namely, that they introduced the

9 corrections by dealing with the elevation and the direction on the

10 sighting equipment. The mortars are one next to the other. In our case,

11 the required military set-up was not observed, because the terrain would

12 not allow it either. So the distance between the mortars was not as

13 prescribed usually. That can be reflected in terms of 20 or 30 metres in

14 the area. Since we were targeting areas, that was negligible.

15 Q. So you said you had to observe fire and correct fire with regard

16 to two positions. What are those positions, please? Could you name them?

17 A. The firing position of mortars from auto camp Solitudo and the

18 firing position for mortars by the SDK building.

19 Q. And the other weapons that were active on 6 December 1991,

20 according to what you indicated so far, were all direct-fire weapons,

21 isn't it?

22 A. Yes. Yes.

23 Q. In this context, sir, who directed the fire mission, or who acted

24 as the observer and the person who corrected the fire during that 40

25 minutes time when you were absent from the position? That's the time when

Page 5459












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5460

1 you drove to the hospital. I think you did indicate a name. Could you

2 just say as to who replaced you during this period.

3 A. That job was taken over by the command, by Mirko Katanic, in the

4 following way: They established direct contact with Fort Srdj and the

5 crew from Fort Srdj had the role of defender but that of observer at the

6 same time in order to be able to guide fire from Srdj to headquarters and

7 then to the firing position.

8 Q. Did you have the opportunity to discuss afterwards with this

9 person, with Mirko Katanic, as to what had transpired during these 40

10 minutes that you were absent? Do you know if during this 40 minutes

11 whether there had been any firing errors from -- on the part of your

12 forces?

13 A. Yes, very briefly, and then I took over again. There were no

14 indications of any mistake having been made.

15 Q. Thank you, sir. You were questioned as to the movement of mortars

16 in the course of firing. Isn't there something called a base plate fixed

17 to the end of the mortar weapon? And could you, in terms of the base

18 plate, describe to the Trial Chamber how a weapon settles into the ground

19 with firing and we should avoid movement of the weapon in the course of

20 firing. And bear in mind, sir, that we are laypersons, so could you just

21 describe the process.

22 A. A mortar is dug into the ground, depending on the surface

23 involved, using a particular angle. However, if a mortar is placed

24 properly, after several firings from a mortar, if the surface is soft,

25 then it acts partly as a shock absorber and partly not. That is why I

Page 5461

1 said a while ago that after a few shells are fired, the sights have to be

2 used again and the base plate has to be lifted so that this could be

3 adjusted accordingly. So once a mortar is placed on the ground, it

4 doesn't mean that the mortar will stay in place. After a few rounds are

5 fired, it slowly sinks into the ground.

6 Q. In that way, doesn't the base plate dig into the ground and

7 doesn't the weapon get settled in position after firing several rounds?

8 A. Yes. It is dug into the ground at a particular angle so that the

9 surface would play a proper role. However, the more rounds are fired, the

10 mortar itself pushes the earth, and especially if the earth is soft or

11 moist, after a few shells are fired, the mortar starts sinking in. So

12 again, the sights have to be used for making a correction and the mortar

13 has to be placed properly.

14 Q. Sir, you were questioned about a detachment of armed boats in the

15 Dubrovnik defence. With what weapons were these boats armed? First and

16 foremost, would you indicate as to how many such boats were there.

17 A. I know details involving ammunition supplies for the artillery.

18 As for speedboats, there were some weapons on them, but I cannot explain

19 which kind. I know that they called it the detachment of armed boats. In

20 my opinion, it wasn't really the Croatian army; it was volunteers. Now,

21 what they called it and who gave approval for that is something that I

22 really don't know.

23 Q. What was the type of boat that was used? You indicated

24 speedboats. Is that all you had or were there other types of vessels

25 involved?

Page 5462

1 A. No. Just speedboats, as far as I know.

2 Q. And about approximately how many were used?

3 A. I know of three.

4 Q. Were they deployed on 6 December 1991?

5 A. I don't know about the details. My opinion is that they were in

6 the bay of the island of Kolocep. This bay is on the western side of the

7 island.

8 Q. So as at 6 December 1991, wasn't there a full maritime and also --

9 I'm sorry, full maritime blockade established by the JNA around Dubrovnik?

10 A. I'm sorry, but I didn't understand the question.

11 Q. Was there a complete blockade from the sea in place as at 6

12 December 1991, a blockade established by the JNA?

13 A. Yes. As I've already stated, all ships of the Yugoslav navy were

14 in the area between Cavtat and Kupari. That is the bay of Zupa, Zupska

15 Uvala.

16 Q. Were there JNA vessels around Dubrovnik as at 6 December 1991?

17 And I'm not asking whether they were firing, I'm asking: Was there a

18 presence of JNA vessels around Dubrovnik to ensure that there was no

19 breach of the blockade? I'm not asking about vessels firing, but presence

20 of vessels.

21 A. What I said just now, that is immediately nearby, perhaps a

22 kilometre from the road leading from Dubac to Dubrovnik. But they were

23 not in front of Lapad or something like that, if that's what you have in

24 mind.

25 Q. Were your speedboats free to move about without being detected by

Page 5463

1 the JNA vessels? And I'm specifically referring to 6 December 1991.

2 A. No. As far as I know, they were anchored where I said. As far as

3 I know, there weren't any actions going on, although amongst ourselves we

4 were sort of laughing about the expression they had coined, this

5 detachment of armed boats.

6 Q. Could you explain why you found it funny. As briefly as possible.

7 A. Well, because there was perhaps a light machine-gun on it or

8 something like that, and what can that do to a war ship? It was along

9 those lines.

10 Q. Is that why, when I asked you in examination-in-chief, as to

11 whether the Dubrovnik defence had a naval force, you responded in the

12 negative? Is it because of the inadequacy of this alleged force, naval

13 force, that you say that you -- that the Dubrovnik defence force did not

14 have a naval force?

15 A. Well, meaning that part of the navy, with a command post in the

16 hotel of Komodor, it only secured a very narrow belt by the coastline.

17 Q. Thank you, sir. You were questioned with regard to confrontation

18 lines of the Croatian forces, and at one point a question was put to you

19 to this effect, whether a new defence line was set up between Orsula - and

20 pardon my pronunciation - Srdj Hill, Nuncijata, Sustjepan and along the

21 coastline from Babin Kuk to -- through the Old Town -- not through, to the

22 Old Town. Now, was there ever a defence line - and I mean in terms of

23 infantry lines or confrontation lines - by the Old Town, in close

24 proximity to the Old Town?

25 A. West of the Old Town, there is an area called Gradac. As far as I

Page 5464

1 know, there was a group there of 10 or 15 infantrymen which would prevent

2 entry into a very small harbour which is here on the map, where there's a

3 church. So that is to the west of the Old Town. You can see the marking

4 for a church and a beach. And it's only that group of men that was there.

5 Q. And what is the distance to that position from the walls of the

6 Old Town on the western side?

7 A. Two hundred fifty metres, three hundred, approximately.

8 Q. Sir, the ZIS cannons that your forces had, they were 76

9 millimetre, isn't it? And I ask that because in the record at certain

10 times it has gone down as 66 millimetre. You had only 76-millimetre ZIS

11 cannons?

12 A. Yes. 76.

13 Q. And there were only two positions, as at 6 December 1991,

14 containing ZIS cannons, which were at Mala Petka and Gospino Polje?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You were questioned about an alleged clash between a unit of

17 military police on 6 December 1991, and you said that you had in fact

18 heard about it afterwards. Did you have any information that in the

19 course of this alleged clash, there were any -- as a result of it, any

20 persons were killed?

21 A. No. As far as I know, no. It was a clash that was due to the

22 influence of alcohol only, I think.

23 Q. And what type of a clash was this? Was it a very major type of

24 clash with firing of weapons, heavy weapons, or was it just a minor

25 quarrel between soldiers?

Page 5465

1 A. If it had to be characterised very precisely, and I already have

2 said that it was under the influence of alcohol, I think that this answer

3 will do.

4 Q. Which is? I'm sorry, sir. Which answer will do? Is it -- was it

5 a minor quarrel or was it a major fight, as such?

6 A. Not everybody takes drink the same way. Probably somebody, one of

7 them, took out a pistol and fired two or three bullets, and they probably

8 quarreled, and that's the only explanation I can give you.

9 Q. Thank you. Now, in the course of cross-examination, at two points

10 you -- your response has been recorded as this, and I'll read it to you:

11 "I said during the first day when the lady was putting her questions to

12 me, I cannot say that there were only hunting guns there." This is a

13 reference to what was present within the Old Town. Did you mean to say:

14 "I cannot say that there were only hunting guns there," or did you mean

15 to say: "I can say that there were only hunting guns there"? Which of

16 these is correct?

17 A. What I wished to say was that I think that only hunting guns or

18 pistols, so personal weapons, were in town. There weren't any artillery

19 pieces, either on the walls or within the Old Town itself.

20 Q. Thank you, sir. And also in the same vein, you go on to say, I

21 will quote it to you verbatim: "As far as I know, no, because the

22 explicit order issued to all commanders was to convey to the soldiers not

23 only for them to remain within the Old Town but that at all costs they

24 should avoid being even close to it."

25 Did you mean to say that the order was not to remain within the

Page 5466

1 Old Town? Is that what you meant to say? Because it has been recorded as

2 "not only for them to remain within the Old Town." Which of these is

3 correct?

4 A. The order was sent to the commanders to convey to their soldiers

5 that not a single person had any business whatsoever within the Old Town.

6 Are you satisfied with this?

7 Q. Yes, sir. Thank you.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, not everything was

9 interpreted, everything that should be interpreted. He said that not a

10 single uniformed person had any business whatsoever within the Old Town.

11 The word "uniformed" is missing from the transcript, so could it please be

12 included.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.


15 Q. Sir, considering that you said that during this time, most of your

16 soldiers did not have uniforms, what orders had you received with regard

17 to soldiers who were not in uniform being present within the Old Town?

18 A. At the level of the command, since we had professional people,

19 professional officers, of course what they wrote in their orders was

20 persons in uniform, and then it was up to us to convey to each and every

21 unit commander how to regulate this, namely, that each and every one of

22 them should know that this pertained to their entire crews, regardless of

23 whether they were wearing uniforms or not. Perhaps I should repeat this.

24 A professional soldier of the former Yugoslavia could not write in an

25 order that civilians in civilian clothes would not be allowed to enter the

Page 5467

1 Old Town. So I assume that that is the explanation that should be given.

2 Perhaps I should just add something else, very briefly.

3 Q. I think we have reached the time.

4 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I note the time, Your Honours.

5 JUDGE PARKER: You can have another five minutes, if you need it.

6 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I do need perhaps 15 minutes. I wonder whether

7 I could seek Your Honours' indulgence, perhaps, during the next session,

8 to take another 15 minutes.

9 JUDGE PARKER: We'll carry on for a little while now.

10 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Q. Mr. Negodic, I'm under time constraints, so I'd really appreciate

12 it if you could respond as briefly as possible where possible, sir.

13 You stated that on 6 December, your fire was concentrated on Srdj,

14 the fortress and the slopes and Zarkovica. Now, clearly by your evidence

15 Croat units were positioned at the fortress at Srdj. So could you explain

16 very briefly as to the objective of the fire directed at Srdj. How did

17 you eliminate any possibility of your own forces positioned at Srdj not

18 being affected by this fire?

19 A. As I have already told you, madam, and as I have told the

20 gentleman from the Defence too, it is a fortress built by Napoleon and it

21 is solidly built. I said we were targeting the Srdj fortress and the area

22 around it, and the eastern part of the cable-car, that is, the terrace.

23 When the members of --

24 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

25 A. Yes. Thank you. As I was saying, when we're talking specifically

Page 5468

1 about Fort Srdj, I mean the eastern part of the Fort Srdj, which is

2 connected with the cable-car. And of course, we were supposed to target

3 the fortress itself, namely, its eastern part. Any overshoots, any

4 projectiles that would not hit the fortress, would fall in the area where

5 the infantry was. And even if we overshot across the fortress, we would

6 still be hitting the area where the infantry was advancing towards us. I

7 hope this answer is sufficient. If you need additional explanation, I'll

8 provide it.

9 The area from the Bosanka --

10 Q. And as such, what you were targeting on Srdj were approaching

11 units of the JNA, the units that were approaching the Srdj fort?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. In the course of cross-examination, you made a correction to your

14 testimony by stating that on 6 December 1991, the naval forces of the JNA

15 did not attack. Now, in the course of my questioning to you in

16 examination-in-chief, you spoke of certain details of JNA vessels firing.

17 Could you just indicate the time frame you are referring to then. What

18 was the attack you were talking about then? Since it was not 6 December

19 1991, when was that attack carried out, the attack you described in the

20 course of examination-in-chief?

21 A. It was almost on a daily basis that shelling occurred. I would

22 say that in the month of November, it was the 9th, 10th, 11th.

23 Q. So the reference to firing from naval vessels in your statement

24 also refers to this time frame, then?

25 A. Yes. But I corrected myself and I said that it was not the case

Page 5469

1 on the 6th of December.

2 Q. Do you know at which targets the Maljutka near President Hotel in

3 Lapad fired on 6 December 1991, since you indicated that there were no

4 naval forces firing at you from the JNA side on that day?

5 A. Yes. It was not in operation that day. It was meant to act

6 against ships and it had no target at the time. And there were no

7 adequate targets for that type of weapon from that firing position.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 A. If you allow me one more thing. I'm not feeling very well

10 health-wise, and I am asking you kindly to speed this up, or I don't know

11 how to put it. I'm not feeling very well.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Would it help if we had a break now, Mr. Negodic?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it would. Thank you.

14 JUDGE PARKER: We will break now and resume, and you can have

15 another five minutes after we resume.

16 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.

18 --- On resuming at 12.36 p.m.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Ms. Mahindaratne.

20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: May the witness be shown document D77, please.

21 Q. Mr. Negodic, are you feeling all right now? Are you in a position

22 to perhaps answer a few more questions?

23 A. Yes. Thank you for asking.

24 Q. Sir, you were shown this document by the Defence. Could you

25 indicate the date of this document, please.

Page 5470

1 A. 19th December 1991.

2 Q. And do you know as to when the equipment, the ammunition or

3 weapons that I indicated there, were delivered to the -- to your forces?

4 And you don't have to give an exact date. Was it after 6 December 1991?

5 A. Items such cannon, rocket weapon Pauk 9211, mortars, et cetera, is

6 the situation up to the 6th of December, and what is indicated here is 120

7 grenades. That was brought after the 6th, that is, between the 6th and

8 the 19th. I would not be able to tell you more.

9 Q. So after the 6th of December, 1991, did your forces receive

10 additional ammunition and equipment? And I'm referring to the period

11 after the 6th of December, 1991.

12 A. Yes, madam.

13 Q. So the contents of this document refers to a situation which was

14 after 6 December 1991?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 A. As it is indicated here, the 19th of December.

18 Q. Thank you. Now, you indicated that your positions at Bogisica

19 Park and Lazareti fired only once in November 1991 and that the position

20 at Ivo Vojnovic Street in Gospino Polje fired only on 6 December 1991. My

21 question to you is, sir: Now, did the fact that your forces were subject

22 to limitation of ammunition have any impact on the number of times

23 particular firing positions were active?

24 A. Yes, madam. The shortage of ammunition and the impossibility of

25 regular resupply.

Page 5471

1 Q. Sir, you were questioned about certain hotels in Dubrovnik and in

2 the wider area of Dubrovnik providing food to the soldiers of the

3 Dubrovnik defence force, and you were shown, in fact, two documents, D75

4 and D76. My question to you is: Were there any hotels within the Old

5 Town of Dubrovnik, within the Old Town, which had any form of military

6 activity or which provided any military support to the Dubrovnik defence

7 force within the period 1st October 1991 to 31st December 1991?

8 A. No, madam.

9 Q. You were asked about several hotels by name, for example, Neptun,

10 Stadion, President, Adriatic, Komodor, and some other hotels. Now, where

11 were these hotels located? You don't have to give the exact positions.

12 Was it in the wider area of Dubrovnik?

13 A. It's in the area of Lapad. Only Stadion Hotel is in the area of

14 Gruz. These hotels indicated here represent only a part of all hotels

15 located in that territory.

16 Q. What was the hotel which was closest to the Old Town which

17 provided food to the forces of the Dubrovnik defence force? I'm saying

18 what was the hotel which was closest to the Old Town in terms of

19 proximity?

20 A. All these hotels are far from the Old Town. The closest one to

21 Gruz is the Stadion Hotel.

22 Q. And approximately how far is it in terms of kilometres from the

23 walls of the Old Town?

24 A. A kilometre and a half, approximately. I cannot say precisely. I

25 mean as the crow flies.

Page 5472

1 Q. Thank you, sir. You said that you had heard from the police that

2 there were sling guns and shotguns within the Old Town. And when you said

3 sling guns and shotguns, the presence thereof, was it in terms of a

4 substantial quantity or were you talking about individuals having their

5 individual weapons within the Old Town?

6 A. I cannot say anything about the number, but they were held by

7 civilians, refugees from Konavle and other places, who were accommodated,

8 put up, in the Old Town. I suppose that there were some shotguns also in

9 hotels, where refugees were put up, again from the locations I indicated.

10 Q. So what you're talking about is the individual weapons belonging

11 to the civilians?

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

13 Q. Sir, in conclusion: Who was in charge of the artillery and mortar

14 sector -- I'm sorry. I rephrase it. You said in evidence that you were

15 in charge of the artillery and mortar sector of the Dubrovnik defence

16 force for the period 1st October 1991 through December 1991. Now, my

17 question was: In such circumstances, were you in a position to know

18 exactly what weapons your force, the Dubrovnik defence force, had during

19 this period in terms of artillery and mortars?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Thank you, sir.

22 MS. MAHINDARATNE: That concludes the re-examination, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Ms. Mahindaratne.

24 Mr. Negodic, you'll be pleased to know that that brings to an end

25 the need for you to be here. Thank you very much for coming and for the

Page 5473

1 time that you've spent with us and the assistance you have given us. And

2 you are now free to return to your home.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 [The witness withdrew]

5 JUDGE PARKER: Is it Ms. Somers?

6 MS. SOMERS: Yes, Your Honour, it is, and I'd just like to inquire

7 of the usher if the next witness is in fact ready to be brought in.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Wait a moment for the usher to return.

9 THE REGISTRAR: I will go and check.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

11 MS. SOMERS: The Prosecution calls Mr. Davorin Rudolf.

12 [The witness entered court]

13 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon, Mr. Rudolf. Would you be kind

14 enough to take the affirmation on the card that is handed to you now.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.


17 [Witness answered through interpreter]

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

19 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Please be seated.

21 Yes, Ms. Somers.

22 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much, Your Honours.

23 Examined by Ms. Somers:

24 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Rudolf.

25 A. Good afternoon.

Page 5474

1 Q. Would you please, for the record, give your entire name, your date

2 of birth, your place of birth, and your ethnicity.

3 A. [No interpretation]

4 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Rudolf. Could you give, please, a bit of

5 your educational background, your higher education, that is, professional

6 degrees, if any.

7 A. I graduated from the law school. I have a Ph.D. in law and I

8 specialised in international law at Princeton and New York universities in

9 the United States. Is that sufficient?

10 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Rudolf. Are you currently still working?

11 A. No, not professionally. But I do lecture at the university to

12 postgraduate studies, the subject being international relations, but I am

13 not a full-time lecturer.

14 Q. Did you serve in the former JNA?

15 A. I did.

16 Q. Could you tell us, please, when and what your particular task or

17 obligation, rank was and where you served.

18 A. In 1957 and 1958, I graduated from the school for reserve

19 officers, the quartermaster's service, and my latest rank in the Yugoslav

20 People's Army was junior lieutenant.

21 Q. And where did you serve in the course of your time in the JNA?

22 A. The first six months I served in Sarajevo, and another six months

23 in Sinj, which is a small place near Split.

24 Q. During the period of the year 1991, the entire year, did you

25 belong to any political party?

Page 5475

1 A. No, not in 1991. I was not a member of any political party.

2 Q. Since the end of 1991, had you ever become a member of a party?

3 If so, what party; and for how long did you remain, if you left it?

4 A. From 1993 to 1999, I was a member of the Croatian Democratic

5 Union.

6 Q. During the course of your career, have you authored any works that

7 are in the public domain?

8 A. In the public domain, that is, disregarding my professional

9 papers, I wrote a book about the 1991 war, titled "The War We Did Not

10 Want." Croatia, 1991.

11 Q. Have you written other works concerning your professional

12 interests?

13 A. Yes. I wrote a number of books dealing with the permanent

14 neutrality of Austria and Switzerland, I also wrote a textbook about

15 international maritime law, an encyclopedic dictionary of international

16 maritime law, another book about the economic zone, and I also wrote a

17 book titled "Epicontinental Belt," and of course a number of specialist

18 articles.

19 Q. Is maritime law an area of particular interest or perhaps

20 specialisation?

21 A. I specialised in international law, and within international law,

22 there is one segment called the international law of the sea, which was a

23 natural choice for me because I live on the coast, in the town of Split.

24 Q. Have you ever served in a cabinet position for the government of

25 Croatia, whether during socialist times or subsequently?

Page 5476

1 A. In 1990, in July 1990, I became a minister in the Croatian

2 government, minister for maritime affairs.

3 Q. And how long did you hold that ministry?

4 A. I held that post until August 1992, and in the meantime, for a

5 while, in 1991, I held the portfolio of minister of foreign affairs at the

6 same time when I was minister for maritime affairs.

7 Q. Did you hold the position of minister of maritime affairs during

8 the time period 1 October -- or let us make it 1 September 1991 through 31

9 December 1991?

10 A. Yes. Yes.

11 Q. As a member of the Croatian government in your ministry position,

12 did you or were you asked by your government to take part in various

13 aspects of negotiations concerning the conflict in Croatia in 1991?

14 A. Yes. On behalf of the Croatian government, I negotiated and

15 signed an agreement with General Cad in Rijeka on the withdrawal of the

16 Yugoslav People's Army from that area, and of course a cessation of all

17 combat activities, and that agreement pertained to the area from the

18 Slovenian border to the town of Crkvenica. In the night between the 8th

19 and 9th November, 1991, that agreement was signed.

20 Later, in Zitnic, a small place near Knin, I negotiated and signed

21 another agreement with General Vukovic, who was at that time the JNA

22 general for that area, and that concerned the withdrawal and cessation of

23 hostilities from Crkvenica to the place called Ploce, in the valley of the

24 Neretva River. And later, in Cavtat, together with another two ministers

25 in the Croatian government, I signed another agreement, on the 7th

Page 5477

1 December 1991, with General Jokic. That is, we represented --

2 Q. Did you say General Jokic? Was that the --

3 A. I'm sorry, he was Admiral Jokic. He was actually vice admiral.

4 And we signed that agreement with Vice Admiral Jokic, covering the area

5 from Metkovici to the Montenegro border.

6 Q. We'll return to the 7 of December agreement shortly. Where were

7 you based that you were tasked by your government to handle all these

8 various negotiations with officers? And can you confirm -- I'm sorry. I

9 want to make sure -- you have confirmed that the generals Cad and Vukovic

10 were JNA generals. Two questions there. Where were you based? And I'm

11 just confirming that your negotiations were with JNA senior officers.

12 A. Regarding the first two agreements, I was based in Zagreb, and

13 from there I travelled to Rijeka, and later to Zitnic, twice. Zitnic was

14 then under the control of the Yugoslav People's Army. We first travelled

15 to Split, and from there to Zitnic. I went to Zitnic twice.

16 And regarding the third agreement signed with Admiral Jokic, I was

17 based in the town of Dubrovnik.

18 Q. Did any of the negotiations that you were involved in and have

19 just discussed also involve areas which were under a naval blockade?

20 A. Yes. This third agreement that we concluded in Cavtat for the

21 area of Dubrovnik, it included the area around the town of Dubrovnik that

22 was under a naval blockade.

23 Q. Were any of the other areas that you were involved in at any time

24 also under a -- if they were areas where appropriately naval blockades

25 might apply, were they under blockade?

Page 5478

1 A. Yes. The Yugoslav People's Army had placed a blockade on the

2 entire sea, on the entire coastline of the Republic of Croatia. For

3 example, when I went to Dubrovnik, that area in front of the town of

4 Rijeka was also under a blockade. There was a war ship off the coast.

5 However, later, the blockades were lifted, but the blockade for the town

6 of Dubrovnik remained.

7 Q. As of the 1st of December, was Dubrovnik the only port that

8 remained under naval blockade?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. During this time period of, let's say, 1 October through 31

11 December, what had happened in Vukovar? I'm sorry. Let me put the year

12 in. Of course 1991. When I refer, it's 1991, unless I otherwise state.

13 A. Vukovar was under siege and under constant attack from the

14 Yugoslav People's Army. For -- only just before we came to Dubrovnik,

15 Vukovar had fallen. That is the vocabulary we used. And there were

16 terrible casualties and destruction.

17 Q. Are you able to give an estimate of the percentage of Croatian

18 territory which had been, let's say up to the time we're talking about,

19 under occupation?

20 A. Approximately 27 per cent, around 27 per cent.

21 Q. Was there a point in time where the government of Croatia, as part

22 of a larger international effort, saw the need to undertake the peaceful

23 withdrawal of the JNA from its territory?

24 A. I'm talking from my own personal experience now. The government

25 of Croatia made efforts all the time to prevent and stop the war.

Page 5479

1 Unfortunately, this is neglected by the public, but I'll give you an

2 example. In mid-1991, the Croatian government offered an official

3 proposal to have a type of confederation, an alliance of sovereign states.

4 At that time, I was minister of foreign affairs and, if you will, I was

5 the one who drafted the document. I can just tell you that I had contacts

6 with all the republics at that time, and we also sent this draft to the

7 European Community, nowadays the European Union, in Brussels. And then

8 also to all the main capitals, that is to say in the United States of

9 America and all other centres of power. And with the representatives of

10 all the republics, including Montenegro, we agreed, in principle, that

11 such an agreement would be useful and it could have prevented any further

12 warfare in Yugoslavia. It is only in Belgrade that this proposal was not

13 accepted.

14 Of course, these agreements were made after agreements in

15 principle were reached at international conferences. I'm referring to a

16 particular one in Geneva, namely, to have the JNA withdraw from the

17 territory of Croatia. If I remember correctly, this was the 23rd of

18 October, 1991. That's when this agreement was reached. But perhaps we

19 could double-check the exact date at this point in time. This had to do

20 with the withdrawal of the JNA from the Republic of Croatia.

21 Q. I was looking to ask you about the end of November and whether

22 there were, in fact, international agreements, conferences, that were

23 dealing with this issue, particularly out of Geneva.

24 A. Yes. In Geneva and right here in The Hague. In the preamble of

25 this agreement that we signed in Cavtat, there is reference to an

Page 5480

1 agreement of this nature.

2 Q. Now, can you categorise how high a priority the arrangement, the

3 negotiation of the peaceful withdrawal of the JNA from the territory of

4 Croatia was for the Croatian government, and particularly by the end of

5 November.

6 A. Of course this was very important for the Croatian government.

7 The priority of Croatia at that time was certainly to bring the war to an

8 end, to stop the war, to stop the destruction, the casualties. I can tell

9 you that we in the government also thought about how to stop major

10 destruction in the towns of Croatia. So one of the motives for the

11 agreements related to Rijeka and Split and Dubrovnik later was to stop

12 destruction in major Croatian towns and cities. Of course throughout

13 Croatia, but you can imagine what Croatia would have looked like if the

14 big cities were destroyed. Even Zagreb, a European metropolis, had been

15 shelled from the occupied territories near Knin, to the north of Knin.

16 Q. Are you aware of negotiations on a local level, or perhaps a

17 series of negotiations on a local level in the Dubrovnik area that had

18 been taking place since, let us say, beginning of October through, let us

19 say, late November?

20 A. Yes. Negotiations were conducted with local representatives, of

21 course, between the representatives of the JNA and the representatives of

22 the town of Dubrovnik. And I even know that there were negotiators from

23 the town of Dubrovnik and that one of them was Mr. Obuljen. However,

24 regrettably, these agreements were not honoured. One of the reasons that

25 led us to finally stop these wars and destruction was to have agreements

Page 5481

1 concluded between the government of Croatia and the top leadership of the

2 Yugoslav People's Army, the General Staff.

3 Q. When you say the government of Croatia, are you talking about a

4 level higher than local negotiators?

5 A. I'm talking about the highest level. The government of Croatia,

6 to my mind, is the highest level. And on the other side, it is the

7 General Staff, or rather, the supreme command of the armed forces, that is

8 to say, the Yugoslav People's Army.

9 Q. And were you and the other ministers you referred to earlier part

10 of that highest level of the Croatian government involved in negotiations

11 in December about Dubrovnik?

12 A. Yes, yes. I think so, yes.

13 Q. [Previous translation continues]... names of your two colleagues,

14 the other ministers who also were involved, please.

15 A. Mr. Petar Kriste, his nickname is Pero, who was minister of trade

16 at the time [Realtime transcript omitted the words "who was minister of

17 trade at the time], and Ivan Cifric, who was minister of the environment

18 and housing in the government of the Republic of Croatia.

19 Q. Now, I would ask for a moment. Did you work with monitors from

20 the European Community Monitoring Mission in the course of your work in

21 all areas? Not just Dubrovnik, but generally in the course of working

22 with the government of Croatia to try to orchestrate the withdrawal of the

23 JNA, among other matters?

24 A. I beg your pardon. The transcript only says Mr. Petar Kriste but

25 it doesn't say that he was minister of trade. So could that please be

Page 5482

1 corrected.

2 So yes, we were in contact with the European Community in Jakar

3 [phoen], Zitnic, and Dubrovnik. We were in touch with them in Dubrovnik

4 also when this agreement, this final agreement, was being discussed. And

5 as a matter of fact, the representative of the European Community

6 co-signed the agreement. I can't remember his name now. I don't know if

7 I can pronounce his name properly. He was a Dutchman. He was the deputy

8 of the main representative of the European Community for the entire area

9 there.

10 Q. The -- was there a JNA officer in Zagreb who also served as a

11 liaison officer to the European Community Monitoring Mission?

12 A. I don't know who was exactly in charge of liaising with the

13 monitoring mission, but the liaison officer between the government and the

14 Yugoslav People's Army was General Andrija Raseta.

15 Q. May I have --

16 A. We communicated with him.

17 Q. May I ask, please, that the document from tab 5 of your binders be

18 provided or looked at.

19 MS. SOMERS: For Your Honours' information, this is not a

20 composite exhibit, the binder. It is to facilitate looking at individual

21 items therein.

22 Q. This document, which has already been tendered into evidence --

23 can I ask you, please, Mr. Rudolf, is the English okay or do you want a

24 copy in your own language as well? I think -- are we looking -- excuse

25 me.

Page 5483

1 A. English version. The English version is fine. As a matter of

2 fact, I think that the English version is sometimes better than these

3 translations of ours into the Croatian language.

4 Q. [Previous translation continues]... what you have is from tab 5.

5 It looks to me like it's a shorter document. I'm looking at one that has

6 been tendered earlier. Thank you. We're just correcting that, Mr. Rudolf

7 and Your Honours.

8 Just to ask you to take a quick you look through it, please, and

9 indicate whether you're familiar with the content of the document.

10 A. No. I have not seen this document until now.

11 Q. [Previous translation continues]... content of the document I'm

12 going to --

13 A. Yes, yes, yes, the content, yes.

14 Q. Now, this --

15 A. However, the document, as a document, I see for the first time.

16 Q. Right. I'm asking you now what is contained in it. And are you

17 familiar with -- first of all, it is dated 24 November 1991, and it makes

18 reference to, among other things, the need to find -- in the second to the

19 last paragraph -- practical solutions to the direct and acute problem

20 facing cities like Vukovar, Osijek, and Dubrovnik while the blocked JNA

21 units are leaving and The Hague Peace Conference remains suspended.

22 Does the general situation depicted or set out in this document

23 reflect, in your view, what the situation was when you were tasked to

24 negotiate the Dubrovnik situation?

25 A. I cannot read all of this very carefully now, but I think it's

Page 5484

1 about right. I would have to read it very carefully in order to give you

2 a very accurate answer.

3 Q. What I'd like to ask you, if perhaps I can, in the interests of

4 time, just direct your attention to the points which suggest that one of

5 the considerations, at the end of the second to last paragraph is -- it

6 says: "Either a separate agreement is reached, which in essence will give

7 Dubrovnik a status apart, or hostilities will resume and justify the fait

8 accompli of a breach of cease-fire and further destruction of the ancient

9 city."

10 Was a concern for the continued security or perhaps lack of

11 security a motivating factor as well, if you recall your own mandate.

12 Security in Dubrovnik, the situation, the dangers that were there, was

13 that a concern in Zagreb as to negotiating the agreement on the --

14 A. I'm sorry. What do you mean when you say lack of security or

15 continued security or dangers? I mean, Dubrovnik was totally surrounded

16 by Yugoslav People's Army units from land, and there was a naval blockade

17 on the sea. So Dubrovnik was in an exceptionally difficult position. Of

18 course, this caused great concern among us, if that is what you meant by

19 security. And we made every possible effort at that time for this brutal

20 situation to be resolved. The people of Dubrovnik were suffering: They

21 had no electricity, they had no water, it was very cold, and there were

22 these constant attacks.

23 Q. When you say "attacks," Mr. Rudolf, are you -- was the government

24 aware of the use -- the presence and use of heavy weaponry by the JNA?

25 A. My goodness, yes. It was attacked from land and sea. I think you

Page 5485

1 have authentic recordings of attacks on Dubrovnik. I was minister of

2 maritime affairs and --

3 Q. Thank you very much for clarifying that. The mandate that you got

4 by your government to go to Dubrovnik, can you give us, please, a

5 chronology, at least in terms of what happened first, how were you brought

6 into this negotiation, where were you, from where did you go, how did you

7 go? And may I first ask: Did you have contact at the federal level of

8 the former Yugoslavia about these negotiations?

9 A. The Prime Minister of Croatia, Mr. Greguric, told me, I think on

10 the 28th or 29th of November, that I would be going to Dubrovnik together

11 with two ministers. And on the 29th, we received instructions in writing

12 to travel to Dubrovnik straight away on behalf of the government. What

13 was most important was to attain two objectives, first and foremost; to

14 stop hostilities in the area and to have the JNA withdrawn in accordance

15 with the agreements that we signed for the Rijeka and Split regions. We

16 were also charged with the task of representing the government in

17 Metkovic, on the island of Korcula, to work on resolving problems of

18 supplies, refugees, to establish contact with the representatives of the

19 European Community, but, of course, our most important task was to achieve

20 a deblockade of the port of Dubrovnik, a cessation of hostilities in the

21 area, and the withdrawal of the Yugoslav People's Army. Immediately --

22 Q. Excuse me. Would you -- was this, then, a comprehensive set of

23 negotiations that would have covered cessation of hostilities when you

24 discuss the multiple things -- set of this negotiations as a comprehensive

25 set?

Page 5486

1 A. Yes. Later on we conducted these negotiations. Actually, this

2 was the last agreement that was supposed to resolve all these questions,

3 from the river of Neretva all the way to the Croatian-Montenegrin border,

4 or rather, the border between Croatia and Yugoslavia at that time. May I

5 proceed now?

6 Since Dubrovnik was under blockade and the talks there were

7 supposed to be agreed upon, I cannot say exactly, but twice or three times

8 I talked to General Raseta. He had his office at Ig Hotel [phoen] in

9 Zagreb and we agreed straight away that negotiations should be held. I

10 particularly insisted on having them give us safe conduct, because the

11 question was how we could reach Dubrovnik. Also, I asked for them to

12 vouch for our personal safety and security and that there should be no

13 armed operations going on during the negotiations. He agreed on all of

14 that in principle, and he told me that finally this had to be resolved at

15 a high level, because these negotiations between local Croatian

16 authorities and the Yugoslav People's Army were not very effective. He

17 told me on that occasion that I would be negotiating in Dubrovnik with

18 General Strugar. I asked to have this in writing, but he could not give

19 me any guarantees in writing.

20 The following day, we took a car down to Split. It was very hard

21 to get even to Split.

22 Q. Before we leave Zagreb, did you have any opportunity to reach

23 anyone in Belgrade about this set of negotiations?

24 A. Not that day. Not that day. We travelled to Split. Because it

25 was hard even to get to Split. Part of the road near the town of Zadar

Page 5487

1 was open to attacks, possible attacks from the Yugoslav People's Army, so

2 it was very hard to go there. So we were there with three cars, and we

3 had to go one at a time. So we reached Split the next morning. And from

4 the office of the president of the Executive Council of the town of Split,

5 as it was called at that time, I called the office of Admiral Brovet in

6 Belgrade. I think that Admiral Brovet was the highest-ranking official in

7 the Yugoslav navy. I talked to the people who worked in his office. I

8 repeated all these things that I asked from Mr. Raseta. I reiterated

9 these requests and I received guarantees verbally that everything would be

10 all right, but I didn't get anything in writing.

11 Otherwise, I live in Split, so when I came home, my wife told me

12 that she got a telephone call from General Raseta's office - I forgot the

13 name of the officer who made the telephone call - stating that we had

14 guaranteed passage to Dubrovnik and personal safety. So I asked Belgrade

15 for this kind of permission and in the evening we had talks with General

16 Mladenic about the departure of the JNA from Split. There was a very big

17 naval base called Lora, and also in Divulje, a small place near Split,

18 there is another naval base, so we were discussing the withdrawal of the

19 Yugoslav People's Army from there. Also I asked for Admiral Kandic, who

20 was commander of the navy for the entire naval district, as it was called

21 at the time, that he should also give me guarantees for safe conduct. Mr.

22 Mladenic, or rather, General Mladenic, told me that Admiral Kandic's

23 message was that we could pass through there but I never got anything in

24 writing. The following day --

25 Q. Can I just ask you: Were you working also at the time with

Page 5488

1 representatives of the European Community Monitoring Mission, with the

2 ECMM? Were they also part of this group, if you recall, once you were in

3 Split? If you don't recall, that's fine.

4 A. I can't be sure. I'm not sure.

5 Q. How did you come to leave Split for Dubrovnik?

6 A. In the morning, we left Split on a ship of the coastal -- of the

7 Port Authority, about 20 metres long. We were travelling to Dubrovnik,

8 and when we came close to Dubrovnik, the captain of this vessel tried to

9 establish contact with the Yugoslav navy and contact was established.

10 Right in front of Dubrovnik there is a small islet called St.

11 Andrija, and we were told from the Yugoslav warship to go around that

12 island and there we saw an anchored war ship. We approached it, stopped

13 by the ship, and an officer came down from the ship to our boat, made a

14 very superficial inspection, and allowed us to go on. We arrived in

15 Dubrovnik on the 3rd in the evening, at the Gruz port, where we were met

16 by representatives of the town. I remember Mr. Poljanic, the man number

17 one of Dubrovnik, was there.

18 Q. Can I ask you, please: When you travelled from Split to Dubrovnik

19 -- well, first of all --

20 A. I'm sorry. I lost the interpretation. I can't hear anything.

21 Can we turn it up a little?

22 Q. Is that okay?

23 A. It's fine now.

24 Q. Do you -- are you familiar with the name Hvalkof, Hvalkof?

25 A. Yes, certainly. That is -- I was not sure about my pronunciation.

Page 5489

1 That is the representative of the European Community who was present when

2 we signed this agreement, and I believe he was the deputy --

3 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

4 A. ECMM monitors, observers, were travelling with us. I'm not sure

5 that he was with us, but he was with us in Dubrovnik.

6 Q. Okay. Now, when you got to Dubrovnik, where was your

7 accommodation? Where were you staying?

8 A. When we arrived in Dubrovnik, we were met, as I said, by the

9 representatives of the town, and we were driven to Argentina Hotel, which

10 is located to the south of the Old Town. And there is a small annex to

11 the hotel where we were accommodated, together with the representatives of

12 the European Community. There was a UN representative, Mr. Stephan Di

13 Mistura, and as soon as we got there, representatives of the city

14 authorities informed us of the situation.

15 Q. Excuse me one second.

16 [Prosecution counsel confer]


18 Q. The Hotel Argentina -- the location of the Hotel Argentina

19 generally -- are you from Dubrovnik?

20 A. No. I'm from Split.

21 Q. Is this the same Hotel Argentina where all the -- where the

22 monitors and other internationals had been housed or situated during much

23 of the conflict, as far as you know?

24 A. Yes. There in that annex building there was a bar, on the

25 right-hand there was a restaurant, and they had a separate room on the

Page 5490

1 left-hand side. They were all there together with us. There was even --

2 Q. I'm sorry. Is this the same hotel that is to the south-east of

3 the Old Town? The same Argentina that is south-east of the Old Town?

4 A. South-east, east, all right, yes. Maybe it's south-east.

5 Q. [Previous translation continues]... same hotel. Thank you very

6 much. I'd like to ask you please --

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. -- from tab -- excuse me one second. I'll make sure I have the

9 right tab. The last tab 40 -- sorry -- tab 17. It does not an

10 accompanying English translation, at least not in my binder. And I

11 apologise, I just wanted to ask you about this particular document.

12 Are you familiar with the -- this -- the contents of this

13 document, which is dated 28 November 1991? And it comes from the command

14 of Dubrovnik municipality. Are you familiar with the content?

15 A. You see, lots of these documents passed through my hand at the

16 time.

17 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

18 A. Yes. When we were discussing -- in fact, when we were presented

19 with a situation in Dubrovnik, when we were apprised of the situation, we

20 were told at the same time that incidents like this, sniping incidents,

21 also occurred. We were told this by representatives of Dubrovnik, Mr.

22 Poljanic and Mr. Sikic, who was president of the Executive Board at the

23 time, but this document, such as this one from the command of the defence

24 of Dubrovnik, was one of the many we received while I was down there.

25 MS. SOMERS: I will ask at this point just to have it marked for

Page 5491

1 identification, please, and I will turn to it.



4 Q. Sorry to have interrupted the other train of thought. I just

5 wanted to see about the types of communications, the span of

6 communications that you had been kept abreast of.

7 Now, when you got to the Dubrovnik area, was there generally a

8 cease-fire in effect? Was there generally an act of hostility going on

9 upon your arrival?

10 A. You mean when we arrived there?

11 Q. Yes.

12 MS. SOMERS: I'm sorry. It occurs to me that I asked for it to be

13 marked and I did not get a number, and I apologise. 161. Thank you.

14 Q. Sorry.

15 A. I'm sorry. Dear madam, you mean when we got down there to

16 Dubrovnik?

17 Q. Yes.

18 A. We arrived on the 4th, in the evening. And when we got out onto

19 the coast, it was quiet. Then the mayor showed us around and explained

20 the situation. Dubrovnik is a town behind which there is a hill called

21 Srdj, and on top of that hill there is an old fortress. Imperijal, it's

22 called. That's a very well-known fortress on Srdj hill. He said: There

23 are the units of the Croatian army; and to the left and to the right, that

24 is, to the east and west, units of the Yugoslav People's Army are

25 located.

Page 5492

1 When you get out and when you see this -- Dubrovnik is a small

2 town, you know. The blockade was complete from land and sea, and it was a

3 very difficult situation. When we got to the hotel, they gave us more

4 details about the situation, and we established contact on the same day

5 with the liaison officer, whose name was Sofronije Jeremic. He was a JNA

6 officer. And we agreed with him to start negotiations on the next day, on

7 the 5th of December, in Cavtat.

8 Q. [Previous translation continues]... liaison officer for which

9 forces? Sofronije Jeremic was the liaison officer for -- I mean JNA or

10 Croatian?

11 A. JNA. When I say "liaison officer," he was the man with whom we

12 were constantly in contact. I don't know if "liaison officer" is the

13 right term. He was an officer, and I don't know his precise rank.

14 So we agreed with him that the next day, on the 5th, in the

15 morning, we would go to Cavtat, in the morning - Cavtat is a small place

16 to the east of Dubrovnik- and that we would hold negotiations there with

17 the admiral of the Yugoslav navy, Admiral Jokic.

18 Q. May I ask you, please: We're going to go through some documents

19 and so we're going to try to focus a bit. And tab 3, for Your Honours and

20 Mr. Rudolf, looking at a document of multiple pages that we have referred

21 to for shorthand as "the harbour master's log," but it is called -- in

22 your language, what is the title of the document, please, that you see?

23 The very first page of the document in the Croatian language, what is the

24 title of the document, please?

25 A. Radio log, Radio Nemik [phoen].

Page 5493

1 Q. And does it indicate that the area, for example -- is there

2 anything to indicate if it has to do with the naval or land-based

3 communications, or what else does it say on the front, if you can read it,

4 please? What else is written on the front of that besides Radio Nemik?

5 A. What's written here is not legible. There's something written,

6 and below that a date indicating when the log was started, and I can see

7 some text. In larger naval towns, there are naval radio stations.

8 Dubrovnik had one of them.

9 Q. Okay. I'd like --

10 A. It was --

11 Q. [Previous translation continues]... turn --

12 A. -- within the ministry for naval affairs of the Republic of

13 Croatia.

14 Q. When you say "naval affairs," are you referring to maritime

15 affairs? Is it the ministry of maritime affairs?

16 A. Yes, I mean the maritime affairs, communications between ships

17 and with ships, within the port authorities.

18 Q. Can you look at the next page, please, which has -- it has at the

19 top -- it has some numbers printed it on, and the numbers are 01067001.

20 At the bottom of that page, by the date, there is what appears to be a

21 seal. Can you see that, a seal?

22 A. Yes. Port Authority of Dubrovnik.

23 Q. And what ministry is listed on that?

24 A. Ministry of maritime affairs.

25 Q. Is that the ministry over which you were minister at the time?

Page 5494

1 A. Yes, madam.

2 Q. And are communications of your ministry, or communications that

3 concern matters which fall under the competence or jurisdiction of your

4 ministry, are some of those communications logged or entered into this

5 type of document as a matter of practice or regulation?

6 A. Yes. That is under the jurisdiction of the ministry for maritime

7 affairs. However, you have to bear in mind that there are several such

8 port authorities: Rijeka, Split, Dubrovnik, in all larger places.

9 Q. Does this particular document refer to the Dubrovnik local

10 representative of the ministry of maritime affairs, what we're calling the

11 harbour-master, as it were?

12 A. Yes. The port authority was headed by the head of the port

13 authority, the captain, and there were other officers below him. And

14 among other things, they had their own radio stations. Such radio

15 stations were used when ships set off or set into a port. Communications

16 with mainland, and between ships, and between mainland and ships, all that

17 was carried out using these radio stations.

18 MS. SOMERS: I would ask that this document be admitted into

19 evidence, please.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in principle, the

22 Defence has no objection to introducing this document into evidence.

23 However, it is incomplete. It contains only the first 10 pages, whereas

24 the total number of pages is 196. And if my learned friend wants this

25 tendered into evidence, then the Defence would kindly ask that the entire

Page 5495

1 document be introduced. Because this also refers to another potential

2 exhibit which we will discuss later today or perhaps tomorrow.

3 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, we're happy to give the entire

4 document. We thought that what was relevant from it would be the most

5 appropriate part to seek to introduce here. But if the Defence wishes

6 that a copy -- or if the Chamber wishes to have the entire document, which

7 is lengthy, we're happy to do so. I think that for purposes of relevance

8 and authenticity, we would be on solid ground to ask for the admission of

9 this portion of it.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Can I leave it to counsel to discuss what parts of

11 the document are relevant to this case, and could we expect agreement

12 between counsel for those parts to be extracted and then tendered? So

13 we'll wait for that agreement and that tendering. I think if each of you

14 want a particular part of the document, we should be able to get that. It

15 seems far more practical than to have a document of nearly 200 pages, of

16 which only one or two pages is of relevance.

17 MS. SOMERS: It is my understanding, Your Honour, that the entire

18 document has been disclosed to the Defence, and so if perhaps by tomorrow

19 morning we might be able to hear from them as to what parts, we're

20 perfectly happy to have those sections in.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. We will reach

23 an agreement, I believe, very easily regarding this document and the other

24 one as well.

25 JUDGE PARKER: As in all matters, Mr. Petrovic?

Page 5496

1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, Your Honour, certain

2 things do not lend themselves to agreements until the end.

3 MS. SOMERS: I would like to ask you, please, to turn your

4 attention to the part of this document -- well, if I can ask for an

5 exhibit number, an identification number, it would be helpful and I'll

6 refer to it.

7 JUDGE PARKER: We will receive what comes to be agreed under an

8 exhibit number which will now be given by the court officer.


10 MS. SOMERS: Thank you.

11 Q. Looking at what has been identified or marked for identification

12 as P162, I'd like to ask you to look -- I'll refer principally to the

13 English, but the pages numbers are the same from translation purposes, or

14 for translation purposes, in Croatian. If you look at page 1, page 1, in

15 English - at the top is L0095757 - do you see a reference, at the time of

16 8.15, to the Argosy II? Do you see a reference there? Yes.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And could you -- would you be kind enough just to indicate what

19 the reference -- what that particular entry says about the Argosy II.

20 What was the Argosy II with reference or with respect to what you were

21 doing in Dubrovnik?

22 A. What it says here is that Argosy II set out at 8.15. That was the

23 ship we used to travel to Cavtat for negotiations with JNA

24 representatives. This is authentic, I believe. It says that the ship

25 also carried EC representatives, but we were there as well. It

Page 5497

1 was -- there was a discussion with the captain about the flag, that it

2 should be white or blue. And indeed, we took this ship to travel to

3 Cavtat. There were two ships, actually, Argosy I and Argosy II, and we

4 will probably have more occasion to discuss them.

5 Q. Had this ship been a ship that was used in the Dubrovnik area for

6 both official functions for the monitors, as well as for other functions?

7 Do you know? Was it -- what was the purpose of this particular ship?

8 A. I don't know whether it was used --

9 Q. [Previous translation continues]... to look at page 10 of P162 and

10 take a look at the entry for 10.00. Again, the entry indicates: "We ask

11 you to grant the Argosy II free passage on Monday, 9 December 1991 to

12 provide Cavtat with food and medicines," et cetera, et cetera.

13 Is that the same vessel, the Argosy II, that you were travelling

14 on, as far as you know?

15 A. Look, page 10, I don't see that text on page 10. And anyway, I

16 don't know these details.

17 Q. [Previous translation continues]... Yes. It says -- it says under

18 the --

19 A. Yes. It says "European Mission." Page 10, you say?

20 Q. In English it is page 10.

21 A. Is this the English version? I'm looking at the Croatian

22 version.

23 Q. [Previous translation continues]... probably a bit easier in the

24 English version.

25 JUDGE PARKER: I'm afraid you have numbers at the top which are

Page 5498

1 3, and at the bottom which are 10. You're successfully confusing --

2 MS. SOMERS: Oh, sorry, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE PARKER: -- many of us.

4 MS. SOMERS: I apologise. I'm looking at the bottom one. I

5 apologise to all of you. I'm sort of fixed on the --

6 JUDGE PARKER: 95759.

7 MS. SOMERS: Yes. That's the ERN, but the actual page number, I

8 apologise to all --

9 JUDGE PARKER: I'm trying to help the court officer find the page

10 for the witness.

11 MS. SOMERS: Right. At the bottom there will be a page 10. I'm

12 sorry to Mr. Rudolf as well.

13 Q. Do you see it now, Mr. Rudolf? Do you see the entry that I just

14 mentioned, where it talks about the -- asking to grant the Argosy II --

15 A. Yes, I can see that. But that is the 9th of December, when the

16 agreement came into force.

17 Q. My question to you, however, is -- at this point we're not talking

18 about an agreement, but just an entry in this particular log which refers

19 to the Argosy II for transportation of food and medicines. Is that the

20 same Argosy II?

21 A. I don't know, because both ships, Argosy I and Argosy II, were

22 sunk on the 6th of December.

23 Q. This is on the 5th -- this is an entry for the 5th of December.

24 A. There were two, as far as I know.

25 Q. This entry is on the 5th. It talks about a future for the 9th.

Page 5499

1 Talking -- it's written on the 5th, but it talks about the 9th. A future

2 use of -- a future use. Is that the same Argosy II?

3 A. In that case, yes.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Speakers are overlapping.

5 MS. SOMERS: I realise we're out of time for the day.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, you are, Ms. Somers, and we must, I'm afraid,

7 call an end to today's hearing because the next session --

8 MS. SOMERS: Yes.

9 JUDGE PARKER: -- will start soon.

10 Now, I'm afraid, Dr. Rudolf, that we are going to be not as easy

11 to fit in with as we would like to be tomorrow and Thursday. Some time

12 ago we arranged special hearings for tomorrow and Thursday. We have

13 videolink evidence coming in from the United States, in particular,

14 tomorrow morning. We commence sitting at 8.00 to receive that. And at

15 10.00 tomorrow morning we have your ambassador from Croatia coming to put

16 submissions to us about an aspect of the case. That means that tomorrow

17 we will not be able to continue with your evidence until sometime between

18 10.45 and 11.00. Unfortunately, tomorrow we must also finish at about

19 12.20, which means it will be a short session and your evidence will

20 certainly not finish. We're sorry for that inconvenience, but these

21 things had been arranged some time ago. And the pattern will be somewhat

22 similar on the day following, Thursday. We hope somehow out of

23 all of this that we will manage to conclude your evidence as quickly as

24 possible and as coherently as possible.

25 We will adjourn now, to resume tomorrow.

Page 5500

1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.51 p.m.,

2 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 28th day of

3 April, 2003, at 8.00 a.m.