1 Thursday, 22 July 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case please, Mr. Court Deputy.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is Case Number
7 IT-02-60-T, the Prosecutor versus Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we hear
9 the witness, are there any matters the parties would like to raise at this
11 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. Hopefully briefly.
13 I just wanted to point out some concerns I had with this witness
14 out of the presence of the witness that have come up before in this case,
15 and that is this witness directly states in his report that the indictment
16 implies that Mr. Jokic is charged with command responsibility as a
17 commander in relation to his engineering jobs and his duty officer job.
18 He specifically states -- the indictment says that. And he in addition
19 states that the Prosecution has argued that. And this was clearly the
20 thrust of the Defence cross-examination as we were going through the
21 Prosecution's case. Because of that, and I'm frankly not clear why that
22 is argued, whether it's just miscommunication or confusion or an attempt
23 to build the Prosecution's case into something it's not so you can knock
24 it down. I don't know. I don't know what it is. But as you may recall
25 in the Rule 98 -- in our Rule 98 response, we very clearly laid out that
1 it is not the position of the Prosecution, it is not in the indictment
2 that we are charging Mr. Jokic as a commander. And we tried to set that
3 record clear. This witness spends much of his report arguing that Mr. --
4 that we say that he is a commander and arguing that he is not. And so
5 it's really not relevant.
6 However, it's a little more complicated than that and I know that.
7 Because we do know and we have acknowledged that there has been some
8 evidence that Mr. Jokic had more authority than would normally be set
9 forth in the rules of the duty officer job and the engineer's job. That
10 notably came from Mr. Obrenovic after his plea, and there is some other
11 evidence indicating Mr. Jokic carried out some authority.
12 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. McCloskey, I got your point but do not argue
13 your case at this moment.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, I'm trying to argue the Defence case, which
15 perhaps I shouldn't either. But what I'm saying is I will not be
16 objecting to cross-examination on that evidence, on that evidence that
17 came out regarding his additional authority. That I think is perfectly
18 relevant. It came out through Obrenovic and that's fine. But I -- why I
19 says it's tricky is there is a difference between us saying he is a
20 commander and having the witness argue all day that he is not and the
21 witness suggesting that he doesn't have the authority. I don't mind, of
22 course, any problem with any material that Obrenovic has said. And so
23 you'll -- I will hopefully be quiet during that part of it. But this
24 additional -- the Prosecution has charged him as a commander is irrelevant
25 and is not true, and I think -- I know the Court understands the subtle
1 differences and of course there are.
2 In addition, I think the Court -- probably everyone noticed that
3 this report spends a lot of time arguing the ultimate issue of -- it reads
4 like a lawyer's trial brief in many respects. It comes out at one point
5 and says that the -- based on the indictment and the evidence presented,
6 the Prosecution has not proved the following beyond a reasonable doubt and
7 is just incorporating all the facts. Now, that is not appropriate, as the
8 Court knows, for an expert to do. And I don't wish to be -- to be in an
9 argument with a witness over the case. Mr. Stojanovic and I will argue
10 over that but -- and again there are fine lines between what an expert can
11 testify and what he can't. But clearly this expert goes well beyond the
12 bounds in his report. It's obviously so clear and I know the Court can
13 recognise it. So I am not suggesting that his report not be admitted in
14 evidence. I think the Court will give it whatever weight it deems
15 necessary. But at this point, at the time of testimony, these are a
16 couple of concerns that I have that I did not want to explain in front of
17 the witness at the time of objections. So I -- and I've had a chance to
18 talk with counsel a bit about this as well. So that's all I wanted to
20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
21 Any response, Mr. Stojanovic?
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.
23 Yesterday afternoon we talked with Mr. McCloskey, and he did indicate to
24 us that before we hear the witness he was going to address you, as he has
1 I would like to thank him first of all for the fact that
2 Mr. McCloskey today for the transcript confirmed that not for a moment
3 does he claim that our client, Dragan Jokic, was in command. However,
4 Your Honour, you know that from day one we have had a problem with the
5 term "control," "rukovodjenje." The term "rukovodjenje," was used
6 literally in every point of the indictment in which Dragan Jokic is
8 Your Honour, according to the rules, there is no control without
9 command. Control is realised through command. And this is the problem
10 that this Defence and in semantics we are encountering. For all this we
11 had the testimony of the witness of the Prosecution, Mr. Obrenovic, who
12 for the first time mentioned that at one point the commander of the
13 brigade transferred the command authority over the engineering unit to our
14 client, Dragan Jokic. That was the problem that we had and which we were
15 facing. We say that Dragan Jokic did not control the engineering unit.
16 In my questions which I have for the expert witness, I will focus on a
17 different line not attempting at any moment to deal or defend that
18 question of command. I hope that you understand me when I say what the
19 problem of this Defence is, because when we defend command we also need --
20 when we defend control, we also need to defend command. There can be no
21 control without command.
22 We will keep in mind everything that you have said, but it was my
23 duty and I was obliged to say what I have said. I also must say that this
24 was a key problem in conceiving the defence of Dragan Jokic, who keeps
25 insisting to me as his Defence counsel in proving the incorrect
1 allegations stated by Mr. Obrenovic. We're using a lot of energy and
2 investing a lot of energy in this fact on which Dragan Jokic is insisting,
3 and we have received a response from the Prosecution now that he is not
4 being charged with command, but this is our problem.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, today we are not debating the legal issues or
6 factual issues whether your client is a commander or not. You know, this
7 is not the subject matter that we are going to discuss about. We are
8 going to discuss -- we are going to discuss about is the matter that the
9 status of the experts that we are going to hear. From the report and from
10 your submissions, we found that there is no clear indication that this
11 expert is, in fact, an expert, although we have received the CV submitted
12 by you yesterday. You know, the actual content of the report is not quite
13 what one would expect from an independent expert. He also has made a
14 number of the comments in those parts that the Trial Chamber may not wish
15 to admit into the evidence. I believe that we have already made a
16 decision concerning of the Prosecution's expert witness dated on the
17 November 7th, 2003. We set out several criteria concerning of the status
18 of the expert. If the coming witness meets those criteria, it could be
19 regarded as an expert witness. But judging from the report of that
20 expert, we somehow believe that he did not live up to that standard.
21 There were several matters that I would like to mention, because
22 it is clear the expert witness expressed his opinion and draw some
23 conclusions. And some of the conclusions may be unfounded or uncalled
24 for. In general, an expert report is expected to provide an objective
25 view on the facts, but this report states that he knew your client
1 personally. In this case, it might be a problem, and he also draws some
2 conclusions to his knowledge of the character of your client. We believe
3 that it is not that proper.
4 The report also makes some conclusions on the legal issues. For
5 instance, whether the transfer is forced or voluntary, whether the column
6 is a civilian population or not, et cetera. This is the legal problems,
7 legal issues. And also he made some conclusions on the issue of fact. I
8 will not list all those facts, but you may find it in paragraphs 73, 89,
9 and 133.
10 Another matter is that this report draws some conclusions on the
11 state of mind of different people. We were told that he is an expert
12 witness not a psychologist, but he made some assumptions on the state of
13 mind of your client and other people.
14 And last, he draws some conclusions of the judgement. In his
15 report he clearly stated that there is either no or not enough evidence to
16 prove beyond a reasonable doubt about your client's guilt. This is the
17 conclusion. This is the legal matters not from the perspective of an
19 Without a strict description of the specific areas of the
20 expertise of this witness the Trial Chamber may wish to consider not to
21 admit this expert -- this report into evidence. That is, in the Chamber's
22 view there were too many remarks, comments, and assumptions so far that
23 seemed unfounded.
24 So, Mr. Stojanovic, you may call this witness as a live witness,
25 as an ordinary witness, and you could ask some questions, all those
1 questions, to this witness. But in our view, he failed the criteria of
2 being an expert.
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour. I
4 will try through my questions to get from the expert the interpretation
5 for military regulations which regulate this question, and we will not ask
6 the military expert for any conclusions as to the application of the cited
7 regulations, but only what it stated in these regulations.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, just -- if I could suggest -- it's
10 going to be very difficult for this witness to be able to follow a script
11 that is different from the one that he is prepared for. And it might save
12 some time if Mr. Stojanovic had ten minutes to speak to him to tell him
13 what the relevant subject matter is about and that is what he would be
14 asking about. Because I don't think there is any deviousness going on
15 here. I think they've prepared for him to be what he is, which as you've
16 pointed out is improper. But I think if we can now prepare for him just
17 briefly to talk about the appropriate issues, that would save time and
18 hopefully keep me from having to object. Because the witness will not
19 understand suddenly a change in course, I don't think.
20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
21 I see Mr. Karnavas is going to join the debate.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: And I apologise. I don't mean to interfere here.
23 But if I understand the Court correctly, the Court is not satisfied that a
24 sufficient foundation has been laid to deem this person as an expert.
25 That is, having special knowledge in a particular field that would make
1 him an expert. And if I understand the Court correctly, the Court is not
2 saying that he is not necessarily an expert but on its face it is unclear.
3 So if perhaps a proper foundation was laid by Mr. Stojanovic by asking the
4 requisite questions, and assuming that that meets the test, then perhaps
5 he may be able to render certain opinions with respect to some very
6 limited areas to the expertise. I believe that's what I understand the
7 Trial Chamber is saying.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, frankly speaking, we are not satisfied with the
9 report submitted by this expert witness. And the scope is -- in this
10 report is very broad.
11 There are two ways to deal with this matter: One is still
12 regarding him as an expert witness but he will testify on very limited
13 areas; secondly, we should regard him as an ordinary witness. The Defence
14 counsel could ask him some broader issues concerning with his
15 relationship, his judgement about Mr. Jokic and as well as some other
16 things. Because he is just an ordinary witness like we heard before.
17 These are two approaches that we could provide the parties to consider it.
18 But anyway, that report could not be regarded as an expert report at all.
19 The Bench is not ready to admit that report into the evidence.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour. Perhaps, as Mr. McCloskey
21 indicated, a ten-minute break may be appropriate. But getting back to the
22 report, and I don't mean to quarrel. I have read the report. Obviously
23 it does at some points invade the province of the Bench by forming some
24 legal conclusions, but perhaps if -- there may be portions in the report
25 that might be relevant, that might be highlighted. So the report doesn't
1 necessarily have to be thrown out completely. But in any event, I think
2 if Mr. McCloskey's suggestion could be granted, then perhaps the Defence
3 of Mr. Jokic could regroup, and I might be able to provide a couple of
5 JUDGE LIU: Well -- yes, Mr. Stojanovic. We have spent a lot of
6 time. Yeah, please be as concise as possible.
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. If you permit
8 me just a little bit of time so that I could sit down with Mr. McCloskey
9 and so that we can look at those parts of the report which have the nature
10 of an expert report which pertain to the regulations relevant to the
11 topics that we are dealing with. And then we can perhaps redirect and
12 reorganise these questions so that our expert today can then be called as
13 an expert for a limited number of questions which we would put to him
14 today. It would be quite brief then, and it would only be the limited
15 number of questions which we have already provided to the Prosecution.
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
17 Mr. McCloskey. Very short.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. I, of course, will speak to
19 Mr. Stojanovic, but I'm hoping that we can -- that you will release him to
20 speak to the witness as well, because that's the key thing.
21 But there is also one other -- I think an important detail, and it
22 may just be a translation issue, but if it is it is an unfortunate one,
23 because Mr. Stojanovic has just mentioned that the key crux of their
24 concern here was the term "control," as used in the indictment. We've
25 just looked at it. The term "control" is not used in reference to
1 Mr. Jokic in the indictment; it's used in reference to command of
2 authority of Mr. Obrenovic. And the word "direct" is used in the area of
3 the staff officer. So perhaps there's a translation issue, but we can try
4 to sort that out as well, but it seems so fundamental to what they're
5 saying that it needs to be sorted out, I believe.
6 JUDGE LIU: Well, the indictment has been issued for about four
7 years and the trial has been going on for more than one year, then
8 suddenly we find some problems. I'm surprised to hear that. I hope that
9 issue could be ironed out, out of Court.
10 Well, are there any other matters that the parties would like to
12 Could we go to private session, please.
13 [Private session]
12 Pages 12115 to 12120 – redacted – private session.
17 [Open session]
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. We're working on that trying
20 to develop whether we have evidence for rebuttal. Right now there are a
21 few small points that we are interviewing some witnesses on and that we
22 hope will be able to come in through 92 bis, because they are small
23 rebuttal issues, and not many, frankly.
24 And as for major issues of rebuttal, I don't see any major
25 witnesses. The one witness that stands out as an issue for scheduling
1 would be Witness 130. And that witness, while it has some rebuttal
2 qualities to it, it would largely be a motion to reopen the case as we've
3 discussed before. And I think there was differing views on the Defence
4 part. But we are continuing to work with that situation and that witness
5 to determine the best possible way to go on it. And I certainly expect to
6 have something resolved, I hope, before the summer break, but we're --
7 it's a complicated issue. And -- but I believe we will be moving to
8 reopen our case to have that witness testify. That's the direction we're
9 going in. And -- but as I say, it's complicated. But that is our general
10 plan right now.
11 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. If you have any motion for
12 evidence in the rebuttal, I believe that the deadline will be the 26th of
13 August, 2004, Thursday.
14 As for the reopening of the case, that's another situation and you
15 have to inform us as soon as possible if you have made up your mind, but
16 no later than the 26th of August.
17 Mr. Karnavas, do you have any --
18 MR. KARNAVAS: I just have one matter to raise with respect to the
19 reopening of their case. The whole purpose - I assume - that they want to
20 reopen the case is so that they can then say now you have to reconsider
21 your judgement from the 98 bis motion. That's why I think it would be
22 improper to ask for the reopening. The reopening would be only if they
23 intended to go into areas that they failed to go into earlier. It would
24 seem to me from reading 130's testimony that much of it is for rebuttal.
25 So of course he has some additional information. We would not be
1 objecting to that additional being introduced during the rebuttal phase,
2 but I don't see that as a reason for reopening the case and then inviting
3 a whole new set of motions as to the Court's reconsideration of its 98
4 bis. So I just want to say that.
5 Secondly, Witness 130 mentions one particular individual who
6 happens to be in custody in the United States waiting -- because of
7 immigration problems. I spoke with the lawyer yesterday. I'm trying to
8 make arrangements to see whether I need to go there and actually meet with
9 this particular person, this individual, who is being held in custody to
10 determine whether we're going to have to bring him in to rebut the
11 rebuttal witness, 130. So I'll keep in touch with Mr. McCloskey on these
12 issues, but that's going to be critical for us as well. I haven't made
13 any concrete steps to meet with the gentleman, but I have spoken with his
14 lawyer, and I know that the person is in the federal prison system in
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, I tend to agree with you
17 concerning the reopening of the case or rebuttal procedures, because the
18 two procedures have two different practice and meanings of that. If it
19 could be used as a rebuttal rather than reopening, that will be the best,
20 but we'll let the Prosecutor decide. And if you have any rejoinder
21 evidence, the deadline is September 2nd, Thursday, a week later.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay.
23 JUDGE LIU: The same is true for Mr. Stojanovic. If you have any
24 rejoinder submissions, the same deadline will apply to you, too.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE LIU: Well -- and I believe that during the week of
2 September 13th, 2004, if there is any rejoinder and rebuttal evidence,
3 we'll begin the hearings. And all those witnesses in the rebuttal and
4 rejoinder process should be very limited. It is not certainly the
5 reopening of the case; it's just to certain areas or issues that the party
6 has some problems with, but not the overall presenting your evidence.
7 The final brief will be due on the 21st of September, 2004, for
8 both parties. I would like to remind the parties that according to the
9 rules the maximum length is 200 pages in total, including - including -
10 the footnotes.
11 On September 26th, Monday, we'll hear the closing arguments by the
12 parties. I hope the closing arguments will be limited to one day for each
13 party, because everything is there in the closing statement. And 30
14 minutes for each party for the rebuttal or rejoinder argument, if there
15 are any. The Chamber will make a written decision to this aspect.
16 There are two issues that still remain undecided. The first one
17 is the time for Mr. Blagojevic's testimony, if there is any, if there is
18 any. (Redacted)
20 If there is nothing else, we'll make a break and we'll resume at
22 --- Recess taken at 9.55 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 10.17 a.m.
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey. I think I should ask
25 Mr. Stojanovic first, but since you already are standing up you may have
1 the floor.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: I apologise. I was just spoken to by a
3 representative of the translation booth, and apparently there has been a
4 discussion about the proper translation of the terms "direct"
5 and "control," and apparently there may be a difference between the
6 Defence thinks it should be interpreted and the way the booth does.
7 That's all I know about it, but again I don't know what was said with
8 translations by the Defence. But perhaps they can clear it up. Because
9 this witness will be using these sorts of terms and the translation needs
10 to be correct.
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes. But no matter how it is translated, if we have
12 the agreement of the meaning of the word, I think it's all right.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: I just want to say I have absolute faith the
14 translation booth has got it right, but apparently there may be a concern
15 that the Defence has. I've heard that. I don't know.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
17 Yes, Mr. Stojanovic, first of all you have to tell me about your
18 discussions with the next witness. Secondly, you know, about these
19 terminology issues. Yes.
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We have spoken
21 to our military expert. Before that, we agreed with Mr. McCloskey on the
22 areas to be covered by this expert, namely military regulations. And we
23 also raised this issue. I do not wish to exaggerate or to labour a point
24 or to waste your time, but I have to tell you, Your Honour, that we have
25 been dealing with this issue since we first objected to the indictment.
1 This may be a semantic issue, but it may also go to the essence of the
2 case. My knowledge of English is not good enough, so I may be wrong. But
3 I will try to explain this very briefly. The concept -- I don't think I
4 will have a problem, Your Honour, with respect to interpretation.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, my suggestion is that after the sitting you
6 might have contact with the translation booth and discuss this issue in
7 detail. As you said, it may be just a matter of translation and it might
8 be related to some substantial issues. But I hope that we could have this
9 issue solved before your case is over.
10 So could we have the witness, please.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] By your leave, Your Honour, while
12 the expert is being brought in I wish to say something because this issue
13 might come up during the expert testimony. I know that my defendant is
14 not charged with command. This is not mentioned in the indictment. In my
15 language there can be no command without "rukovodjenje." In my language
16 the word "direction" cannot exist without implying control. In one of the
17 indictments we received, Your Honours, the Prosecutor explained what they
18 understand by the term "rukovodjenje," direction. And in count 46.4, or
19 rather, paragraph 46.4 of the indictment it is stated that under
20 rukovodjenje, that is direction, the Prosecution implies planning,
21 monitoring, organising, and execution. These are all segments of command
22 and therefore of "rukovodjene," direction. This is our problem, but I
23 hope that it will not be an issue today. Thank you.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think your position is registered in the
25 transcript, and I will repeat what I said that after the sitting you might
1 have a meeting with the interpreters, if possible, as well as with
2 Mr. McCloskey on these issues, yes. But we have a witness waiting and
3 could we have the witness, please.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE LIU: Good morning, Witness.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration in
8 accordance with the paper Madam Usher is showing to you.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
10 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 WITNESS: DRAGOSAV LACKOVIC
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. You may sit down, please.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Stojanovic, we are very flexible with the breaking
16 time. Now you may begin.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Examined by Mr. Stojanovic:
19 Q. Good morning, sir. Can you hear me?
20 A. Good morning, Mr. Stojanovic. I hear you very well.
21 Q. Would you please tell us your first and last name.
22 A. My name is Dragosav Lackovic, a colonel of the Army of Serbia and
24 Q. Mr. Lackovic, would you please spell your first and last name for
25 the record, because we have a problem with one letter of your name.
1 A. My name is D-r-a-g-o-s-a-v without an "l" in it. My last name is
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lackovic. Would you please tell us when and where
4 you were born.
5 A. I was born on the 25th of September, 1961, in Bogatic in Serbia on
6 the territory of the present state of Serbia and Montenegro. This is near
7 a larger town called Sabac in the geographical region known as Maceva
9 Q. Would you tell us briefly what your education and career was.
10 A. Yes. I completed primary school in the village of Klenje, which
11 is close to Bogatic where I was born and where my parents live. On
12 completing elementary school, I was admitted to the secondary school for
13 army in Sarajevo. I went to school in Sarajevo for two years, and after
14 this when I opted for engineering I continued my education in Karlovac.
15 In 1980 I completed the military secondary school.
16 After this, I was admitted to the military academy which I
17 completed in 1983. And by my own wish, I was assigned to the engineering
18 units of the then-air force and anti-aircraft defence. My first post was
19 in the Ladjevci garrison near the Ladjevci airport near Kraljevo. In this
20 unit, in engineer's battalion, I remained there until 1995. From that
21 unit I applied and was accepted for schooling in the Command Staff Academy
22 of the Yugoslav army, which I attended and successfully completed from
23 1994, with some interruptions because of the wartime events in the
24 neighbourhood, until 1996. In this unit, I'm referring to the engineering
25 battalion in Ladjevci, this was an independent engineering unit, I assumed
1 all the duties ranging from komandir of the engineers' platoon all the way
2 up to deputy commander of the independent battalion.
3 After graduating from the command staff school, due to the needs
4 of the service, I was reassigned to the Pancevo garrison, where I spent
5 commanding the independent engineering battalion. I stayed there until
6 1998. From 1998 until 2001, due to the needs of the service, I was chief
7 of engineers in the command of the air force corps. In 2001, again
8 because of the needs of the service, I was reassigned and became the
9 commander of the 305th Engineering Brigade, and this is the highest level
10 such unit in the Army of Serbia and Montenegro. At the same time I was
11 the commander of the Sabac garrison, and this was a special pleasure for
12 me, because it is, conditionally speaking, my native town.
13 In 2002 -- there's a technical problem? In 2002 I applied and was
14 accepted to the National Defence School, the highest school in the
15 military education system in Serbia and Montenegro. I graduated with
16 honours in 2003, and after this, due to the needs of the service, I was
17 assigned to the duty of deputy commander of the Belgrade military
18 district. And I am still holding that post today.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lackovic. Does this mean that practically your
20 entire professional military career has been spent in the engineers?
21 A. Most of my professional military career was in the engineers. I
22 have already pointed out that I held all command posts in the engineers
23 ranging from platoon commander to commander of the engineering brigade.
24 There is no higher ranking duty in the engineers.
25 In parallel with this, I also held several staff posts, both in
1 the engineering units and in the command of the air force corps while I
2 was chief of engineers in the staff of the air force corps command.
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lackovic. At the moment when we first met and when
4 I asked you to write an expert report on the regulations which regulate
5 the duties of the chief of engineers in a brigade and the duties of the
6 duty operations officer in a brigade, that is the regulations which were
7 in effect in 1995. Would you say that the regulations of the former JNA
8 were applied in June 1995 in the Republika Srpska army?
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: There's no foundation that this witness has any
12 knowledge of the Republika Srpska army. We have seen other evidence
13 regarding that, but this witness is not been -- there's been no foundation
14 that he knows a thing about the VRS.
15 JUDGE LIU: Well, we have heard some evidence on this aspect. I
16 believe that all the persons who is working or serving in that army have
17 some knowledge about that. We'll allow this question.
18 You may proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Mr. Lackovic, let me just repeat. The regulations of the former
21 JNA, according to your knowledge and according to your experience, were
22 they applied by the Republika Srpska army?
23 A. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic. As far as I know all the regulations that
24 were used by the former JNA were also applied by the units of the Army of
25 Republika Srpska. There were some more specific documents which,
1 according to my knowledge, were based on the original documents which were
2 then in use by the JNA. There were some internal recommendations and
3 guidelines which came about because there was a need to explain some of
4 the rules that dealt with the issues that existed in the JNA.
5 Q. Thank you. I wanted to deal with some issues today, those issues
6 refer to the application of the regulations that concern the duties of the
7 duty operations officers and the chief of engineers. In other words, I
8 wanted to ask you several questions regarding the regulations regulating
9 these duties.
10 Mr. Lackovic, we have often met with the term "resubordination"
11 here. Can you please tell us: Is this a military term? What does it
12 refer to? What does it imply, bearing in mind the regulations that were
13 in effect in the Army of Republika Srpska. When we use the
14 term "resubordination," what does it mean?
15 A. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic. Resubordination is a customary military term
16 which may be often heard. Its explanation can be found in a military
17 lexicon and a military encyclopedia. Resubordination, in simple terms,
18 could be explained as taking parts of one unit and joining that part with
19 some other unit which is under the command of the same officer, and this
20 is done specifically for the execution of a specific mission or task.
21 In order to be more precise and more clear, let me illustrate this
22 by an example. When we say "resubordination," we imply such a procedure
23 by which the brigade commander takes people from one battalion, takes one
24 company from one battalion, and joins it to another battalion for the
25 execution of a specific task.
1 So this company is added to that battalion in order to perform a
2 task. In that, this unit, the unit which was taken from the original unit
3 and added to the other unit as a rule, is at least one grade lower than
4 the unit to which it is resubordinated. Resubordination in legal terms
5 also means the transfer of command duties to a different, to a new,
6 commander. And this new commander has the right to command this newly
7 attached or resubordinated unit. The only thing that he can't do is carry
8 out personnel changes in that unit. On completion of that task, the unit
9 goes back to its original battalion from which it was taken and attached
10 to a different unit unless there is a different order, an order to a
11 different effect.
12 Q. Let me interrupt you for a moment. Can you please explain what
13 you mean when you say that a new commander - and I repeat, a new
14 commander - has the right to command the resubordinated unit? What do
15 you mean when you say "new commander"? Who is the one who is -- who has
16 the right to command this resubordinated unit?
17 A. As I've already said, from the moment a unit is resubordinated -
18 and I will explain, I will explain the moment when that happens - the
19 commander to whom this unit is resubordinated has the right to command
20 that unit. And I am referring to the commander of that battalion.
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: I object to the relevance of this. I'm not aware
23 of anything in this case where this is an issue, really with commanders
24 and units now. If this is in the context of the duty officer, then I
25 think that's relevant. But all this other stuff I don't see the relevance
1 of at this point.
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
3 Yes, Mr. Stojanovic, maybe you could ask some questions to this
4 witness to establish the relevancy of his testimony to this case.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Should you
6 believe that this is not up to this expert to explain this and that he is
7 talking about facts, I will do that.
8 Q. Mr. Lackovic, we have heard a lot of testimonies here about the
9 situation in which Dragan Jokic as chief of engineers of the Zvornik
10 Brigade sent members of the engineering company together with a vehicle to
11 the civilian protection of Zvornik. And he himself returned to Bratunac
12 on the order of civilian protection, and there again on the order of
13 civilian protection, he performed duties which according to the
14 Prosecution incriminated him. In keeping with the regulations that you
15 were referring to, at the moment when the equipment and the troops of one
16 brigade are attached to the civilian protection or any other unit and when
17 they receive orders from that other unit, as you have just explained, are
18 they resubordinated or are they not? Who is it who directs or commands
19 the equipment and the troops that have left one brigade to be attached to
21 A. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic. From the moment when an individual reports
22 to a certain officer or a commander of a unit to which troops were sent to
23 reinforce that unit or to be resubordinated to it, from that moment
24 onwards their engagement, their work, their disciplinary and other
25 responsibility is something that is the responsibility of the officer to
1 whom they have been resubordinated until the moment when this
2 resubordination is finished. That is when that group of soldiers returns
3 to their original unit.
4 Q. Thank you. Within the context of what you have just been talking
5 about, according to the indictment Dragan Jokic on that day, the 14th of
6 July, was the duty operations officer --
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. Now we're going into specific facts in
9 the indictment. We have no objection to the evidence of subordination,
10 though I don't think he dealt with it in his report nor do I have any
11 indication that it was going to be dealt with in his testimony. But it's
12 a standard subordination. We agree. There's no -- nothing contested
13 about that. How this Court may apply it to the facts that it's aware of
14 is, you know, is fine, but to go -- to start quoting the indictment and
15 have him judge the facts in the indictment in particular, that is not
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, I agree with you on this point.
18 Mr. Stojanovic, you may put your question another way. Maybe take
19 a hypothetical example on that aspect.
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Mr. Lackovic, let me ask you this: According to the regulations
22 which were in effect in the Army of Republika Srpska, was it possible for
23 a duty operations officer in any brigade to issue any type of orders to
24 the members of that brigade about the use of that unit or for that unit to
25 be sent to the area of responsibility of another unit?
1 A. No, Mr. Stojanovic. According to the regulations that were in
2 effect then and are still in effect, duty operations officer was not given
3 the authority to command or to decide on the combat use of either unit or
4 their part.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, at this point we're going into that
7 area that I spoke of. Nowhere in the Prosecution's case are we suggesting
8 that he duty officer is a commander and initiating orders. The case is --
9 JUDGE LIU: I understand that.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: So now we're going off into this area which is an
11 area that is not -- it's not relevant.
12 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think --
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: And it's not the area that he was supposed to be
14 speaking about.
15 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think there's no problem for the questions
16 because the Defence asked the question that according to the regulations,
17 what's the role of the duty officer? As an expert in the military sense,
18 I think this witness will be capable to answer that question and which
19 will be helpful to this Bench.
20 You may proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. With
22 your leave, just one digression and then I will continue. The military
23 analyst of the Prosecution has answered all these questions, and I want us
24 to have the identical rights. Should I overstep that with our today's
25 military expert, I will withdraw the questions. But these are the same
1 and identical questions that the military expert that the Prosecution has
2 called answered when he testified before this Bench.
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Perhaps the witness should leave the room, Your
5 Honour, but I feel very strongly about this issue. Mr. Butler never
6 suggested a duty officer is a commander, and this is what this issue is
7 going into. It's confusing. It's absurd.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stojanovic [sic], we are not going to argue
9 that issue in front of the witness. Here I believe Mr. Stojanovic just
10 wants to tell us by asking some questions to this witness the role of the
11 duty officer, at least in the interpretations of this witness. The
12 questions in this area is allowed.
13 You may proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Mr. Lackovic, let me ask you this: Which regulation regulates the
16 duties, tasks, and authorities of the duty operations officer?
17 A. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic, these issues are regulated by the rule of
18 service in the armed forces.
19 Q. What do the rules that were in effect in July 1995 in the
20 Republika Srpska army say? What do the rules say about the duties and the
21 authorities of the duty operations officer?
22 A. I'll try without quoting the rules to say briefly what the rules
23 of service say about that issue. The rules of service regulate the way
24 how the internal organs are appointed, how they're prepared for duties,
25 how they're supposed to perform their duties, and very specifically what
1 those duties are. I don't know what other specific things might interest
3 Q. According to the rules of service, is there a situation in which,
4 in case there was no commander in the brigade command, the duty of command
5 [as interpreted] would ever be taken by the duty operations officer?
6 A. The regulations do not prescribe that the command role should ever
7 be assumed by the duty operations officer. Whether this is hypothetically
8 possible, whether this could happen in hypothetic terms, we're still in
9 the realm of a hypothesis if such a thing should hypothetically happen. I
10 would corroborate my opinion if you could allow me by showing you my
11 position, and that is that experience and less experienced officers are
12 appointed to be duty operations officers in the command. So it may occur
13 that the duty operations officer for the day is an assistant commander,
14 but also it can be a lower ranking officer in the command.
15 Q. Allow me just this question: If there -- if the commander is not
16 in the brigade command, according to the rules who stands in for him?
17 A. This is clearly regulated. When the commander is absent from his
18 unit, his duties are assumed by the highest-ranking officer in the
19 command, which is the Chief of Staff. If the Chief of Staff is not there,
20 then it is the next officer, again the highest-ranking officer, who is
21 there at the time. And that is one of the commander's assistants. In
22 practice - and this has been supported by certain solutions that I could
23 explain - it is most often the assistant command for logistics, because in
24 the command hierarchy this officer is the third ranking officer in every
25 command. Maybe we could illustrate this by saying that during the command
1 [as interpreted] duty and the command of battle operations in the area of
2 responsibility of one brigade, command posts are established. This is
3 regulated by the instruction on the work of command staffs. Those command
4 posts can be the basic, the reserve, the forward command post, and the
5 rear command post. I'm saying this to corroborate my position that the
6 assistant commander for logistics as the third ranking person in the
7 command also has these duties established by the rules, because depending
8 on the situation in the area of combat operations - and in this specific
9 situation, in the area of the defence of the brigade - every of these
10 command posts [as interpreted] can have more or less significance. It can
11 be more or less important.
12 Q. Let me just interrupt you for a brief moment. Mr. Lackovic, we
13 have heard a number of military personnel and military experts who have
14 testified and who have said that within that system the position of the
15 chief of education [as interpreted] would be the third ranking position in
16 the command. What is your position once you have familiarised yourself
17 with the rules that regulate this issue?
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Sorry. We must have a translation issue because
20 it got translated of chief of education, and I'm not aware of any such
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I also have some problems with this terminology.
23 Mr. Stojanovic, would you please repeat that word.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. It must be an
25 interpretation problem.
1 Q. Mr. Lackovic, we have heard that the position of chief of
2 operations and training is the third ranking position. What do military
3 regulations say?
4 A. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic. The duty of assistant of the commander for
5 the operations and training in the brigade is the duty that you, I
6 suppose, are talking about. It is correct that this duty is extremely
7 important and that the department for operations and training and its
8 chief are very important in the command structure, because by definition
9 and according to the rules the complete analytical process based on the
10 information received by the command is carried out in the department for
11 operations and training. And it is not impossible to foresee a situation
12 that the assistant commander for operations and training, in the absence
13 of the first, second, and the third person, or the two persons - I'm
14 referring to the commander and the Chief of Staff - so it is not
15 impossible to foresee a situation in which this person could assume the
16 command duties in the brigade. Because that person would obviously have a
17 lot of information that might be of assistance to him to perform the
18 command duties successfully.
19 However, it is not very probable if there are any other assistants
20 in the command, because this is what the rules say. The rule of the
21 combat use of any unit amongst which the rules for applicable to the
22 command say that the brigade commander is replaced by the highest-ranking
23 officer in the brigade on the condition that the commander did not
24 expressly appoint a different person that would stand in for him in the
25 case of his absence.
1 Based on the rules and regulations, I claim that -- more
2 specifically in the command of the Zvornik Infantry Brigade, in the
3 absence of Lieutenant Colonel Pandurevic and Major Obrenovic, according to
4 the rules of the brigade, the highest and the most senior officer in the
5 brigade was captain first class assistant commander for logistics.
6 Milosevic was his name.
7 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to focus on a couple of questions
8 pertaining to the functioning of the forward command post. A little bit
9 earlier you mentioned this term "forward command post." What do the
10 regulations say? When is such a post formed, and is there a duty officer
11 at the forward command post and do the duties of the duty officer in the
12 command of the brigade and the forward command post overlap?
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. That's a multi-part and really
15 impossible for the witness to answer it like that.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes. It's a compound question.
17 You may break your question piece by piece, Mr. Stojanovic.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Q. Mr. Lackovic, could you please tell us: When is a forward command
20 post formed and what is it?
21 A. Yes. I've already said that according to the rules, principally
22 in the manual for the work of command staffs and the rule on the use of
23 the brigade, define or allow for the possibility for the commander to
24 decide and to form a forward command post. Which conditions should be
25 there or the combat situation in order for a forward command post to be
1 formed, that depends on the assessment of the commander. But in any case,
2 if the combat situation in the defence area of the unit is such that it
3 calls for immediate and direct participation and monitoring of the
4 situation on the ground directly on the location where everything is
5 happening, then a forward command post is formed as a rule closer to the
6 units which are involved in combat.
7 Q. Mr. Lackovic, based on the documents that you analysed, do you
8 know if in the area of the Zvornik Brigade in mid-July 1995 - and I'm
9 specifically interested in the 14th and 15th of July, 1995 - there was a
10 forward command post that was established?
11 A. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic. In the area of defence of the Zvornik
12 Infantry Brigade, a forward command post was formed or established in the
13 sector of Kitovnice. And I'm saying this based on the information that I
14 acquired based on the research.
15 Q. Is there a duty operations officer function at the forward command
17 A. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic. The forward command post has an internal
18 service that is organised in the same way that it is organised at the
19 command post. This includes all the other organs of the internal service,
20 but until it is established it's a little bit reduced in size. In any
21 case, it includes the duty officer.
22 Q. Are the authorities and the tasks of the duty officer at the
23 forward command post identical to those of the duty officer in the brigade
25 A. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic. The duties are identical, and they are laid
1 down in the rules of service.
2 Q. In an -- in a forward command post that has not been established
3 yet is the internal service being formed?
4 A. Yes, it is formed. An internal duty service is formed whose task,
5 amongst other things, is to provide -- or to secure the actual command
6 post and to prepare it for its full operations whereby it would have fully
7 operational organs. So they are an organ of preparation. So when the
8 need arises, then the forward command post can become operational
9 immediately without any other preparations. The necessary communications
10 are set up in order to command the units along the depth as well as other
11 elements are set up which are believed to be essential once this becomes
12 necessary. The elements are inactive, though, up until the time the
13 command post becomes functional and begins to carry out its tasks.
14 Q. Thank you. For those of us who are not soldiers, sometimes it is
15 difficult to understand what it means to take up a forward command post.
16 From which point on can we consider the forward command post to be taken
17 up? When does it begin to function?
18 A. Mr. Stojanovic, it is believed, according to the rules, that the
19 command post is taken up at the point when the line of command is started
20 to the subordinated units. From the point in time when the commander
21 arrives at the forward command post -- it is assumed that he will not
22 arrive by himself but he will come with certain equipment and personnel
23 which are essential for him to carry out his function of command. So from
24 that point on it is considered to be a forward command post that is
25 active, that is taken up. Until they begin to work from that forward
1 command post, the command post is not functional, it is not taken up.
2 Q. The next question follows on logically. From which command post
3 is the command carried out once the forward command post is taken up?
4 What is the central point from which direction is carried out? So where
5 is the place where the direction is actually carried out?
6 A. Mr. Stojanovic --
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Vague, Your Honour. I mean, in what context?
10 We're talking peacetime, we're talking wartime, we're talking a campaign,
11 a non-military campaign. I -- it's such a massively broad question and so
12 fact-specific I would think, depending on the situation on the ground that
13 I don't see where we're going with this in terms of relevant area.
14 JUDGE LIU: Well -- yes, Mr. Stojanovic, I'm not a military
15 expert, so I have some difficulties to understand your question. So you
16 maybe have it rephrased or be more specific in your question.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 Q. Mr. Lackovic, let's go step by step. According to your research
19 at one point in 1995 was a forward command post taken up within the
20 command of the Zvornik Brigade, in July 1995?
21 A. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic.
22 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that the commander or the person
23 substituting for him at that point was practically situated and directing
24 the unit from the command post?
25 A. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic. That is the function of the forward command
1 post, and that person is at the forward command post. And that command
2 post is the main command post.
3 Q. Mr. Lackovic, at that point in time do orders and the direction of
4 subordinated units flow from that forward command post?
5 A. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic --
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: [Previous translation continues]... about the
9 facts of the case. I think this witness is not qualified to say where the
10 commander was and where orders were coming from, especially with such a
11 general case where the command post -- well, I won't get into the facts.
12 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think this is an issue that the Chamber is
13 interested to know. If you have some objections or questions concerning
14 this aspect, you may raise it in your cross-examination.
15 You may proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Q. Mr. Lackovic, which command post becomes the central point for the
18 direction of operations and combat operations?
19 A. The central or the main command post is the one post where the
20 commander is or the person representing the commander when he's absent
21 from the combat operations zone.
22 Q. I would now like to take you back to a, let's say, theoretical
23 question. Do the duties of the duty operations officer in the brigade
24 change then? Does the level of his responsibilities and duties change?
25 Is it increased or reduced?
1 A. No, Mr. Stojanovic. His duties remain unchanged, but his
2 responsibility in any case in that context can be diminished because the
3 scope of his duties can be reduced. But in any case, his responsibilities
4 remain the same.
5 Q. Would orders to subordinate units then, or the use of subordinate
6 units, the direction of subordinated units, go through the duty operations
7 officer in the brigade or through the duty operations officer at the
8 forward command post?
9 A. According to the rules, Mr. Stojanovic, the information first goes
10 to the place where the commander is and then to all the other subjects in
11 the process of command. So information about the situation and the course
12 of combat operations go to the commander if he's at the forward command
13 post, if the forward command post is taken up. They go there first, to
14 the place where the commander is.
15 Q. Thank you. In that sense I will be finishing with that topic.
16 This information coming to the commander as a central figure, did they
17 have to come via the command post of the brigade and the duty operations
18 officer who is conveying all this information to him, or are there any
19 other systems for the commander to receive information?
20 A. I've already said, Mr. Stojanovic, that the forward command post
21 has all the communications that the command post itself has, as well as
22 some other facilities required for the direction of units during combat
23 operations. So I think that the answer to your question would be that all
24 information flow to the forward command post through those channels of
25 communication. In practice, it is the case - most often - that most of
1 the information does not go to the main command post, because that is not
2 essential for the command and control of combat operations. But it is
3 also possible that some of this information goes through other means of
4 communication to the other organs of the command, primarily to the
5 department for operations and training of the command of the brigade which
6 can be at the basic or main command post as well as the forward command
7 post. These are all parallel systems of communication. When we're
8 talking about these systems of communications, the most important ones are
9 the systems of command communications and the system of communications of
10 duty operations officers. So the command line and the duty operations
11 line. These two lines should not be mixed up.
12 Q. Thank you. I would now like to move to another topic where I
13 would like to ask for your help. We have often encountered the term here
14 mobilisation of materiel facilities or means from the business community
15 or the civilian community. As an expert in that area, could you please
16 tell us which rules regulate the question of requisition.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. There's been no foundation that he has
19 any expertise in this area. I'm sure a couple of questions could get us
20 there, but there should be at least a couple. I mean, what experience
21 have you had in the mobilisation of materiels in your career. I mean,
22 something. We don't even know if this man has any combat experience yet.
23 He's talking about combat. So we need a few foundational questions.
24 There's been no foundation.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Mr. Stojanovic, you may ask some foundational
1 questions to this witness.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Mr. Lackovic, when describing your career at one point you said
4 that during the wartime events and the attacks of the NATO air force
5 against Serbia and Montenegro you performed command duties in an
6 engineering unit. Is this correct?
7 A. What period exactly are you referring to?
8 Q. 1998, 1999.
9 A. Yes. When preparing for defence from the then-imminent threat of
10 intervention by the NATO pact against the then-federal Republic of
11 Yugoslavia, I was the commander of an engineering unit, but as of October,
12 late October or early November, I was already in the staff of the air
13 force corps. I performed both duties. During the NATO aggression, I was
14 the chief of engineers in the corps. So that during the preparations I
15 was the commander of an independent engineering battalion.
16 Q. And did these preparations imply the need to requisition certain
17 equipment and materiel which the army did not have at one point?
18 A. Certainly, yes. Especially while preparing to take up a scattered
19 disposition over the territory and we did not have sufficient transport
20 capacity to do this.
21 Q. When preparing for this expert testimony, did you come across
22 regulations that were in force in the Army of Republika Srpska in 1995
23 regulating requisitioning?
24 A. Yes. These were for the most part the same regulations applied in
25 the former SFRY, later adopted by the SRY and the Republika Srpska. There
1 are no material differences in the manner of carrying out mobilisation of
2 manpower and requisitioning of equipment and materiel.
3 Q. Could one say that you have both theoretical and practical
4 experience in applying these regulations in the area of mobilisation and
6 A. I am familiar with the regulations, and I have personal experience
7 to the extent I have described as the commander of a unit until October
8 1998, not later than that.
9 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us what the procedure is when
10 requisitioning materiel for a unit if the unit does not possess a certain
11 type of machinery or equipment or other types of materiel.
12 A. My Stojanovic, by way of introduction to my response to your
13 question, I would like to draw a clear distinction. Something like this
14 happens very rarely because mobilisation and requisitioning is a process
15 that entails planning, and the planning starts in peacetime. It entails
16 undertaking measures and activities in order to achieve a certain level of
17 combat readiness and to raise the manpower levels of the units to its
18 full -- for purposes of war. If the planning has been done properly in
19 accordance with the establishment of a certain unit and its needs, then
20 there is no need for subsequent mobilisation or requisitioning. I assume
21 your question refers to subsequent mobilisation or requisitioning.
22 However, such a mobilisation or requisitioning cannot be excluded. If in
23 spite of the fact that mobilisation has already been carried out it
24 transpires that other equipment and materiel are required for the unit, in
25 this situation the immediate user expresses his need for such equipment in
1 his briefing to the commander. The commander then orders his assistants
2 for mobilisation and -- or his Chief of Staff, and on the basis of this
3 order, the assistant or Chief of Staff fills in a form which he sends to
4 the Ministry of Defence which has the authority to provide certain
5 equipment and materiel, provided that such equipment or materiel exists in
6 the territory in question.
7 Q. Would you please tell us which regulation provides for this.
8 A. The rules on mobilisation which were in force in Republika Srpska
9 at the time. But there were also other regulations by the state organs
10 which provided for all of this in greater detail covering all the
11 participants in the mobilisation process, including state organs,
12 companies, and all other entities, because the process of mobilisation is
13 a strategic activity of enormous importance for the state. As such, it is
14 up to the state to carry out this job. But in order to make it
15 operational some of the tasks are delegated to lower level organs and the
16 process is simplified, conditionally speaking, but again in accordance
17 with the rules and regulations.
18 Q. Let me conclude by putting a specific question to you. In an
19 infantry brigade, let's say an engineer's company needs certain equipment
20 which it does not have. This equipment exists in a commercial company in
21 a municipality, or rather, the municipality where this unit has its
22 headquarters. Who has to submit a request and who would the process look
23 like actually in this case?
24 A. Mr. Stojanovic, I think I've just explained. But in this specific
25 situation -- well, there are actually two situations that can occur. One
1 situation is when the komandir, the commander of a company, receives a
2 task from the brigade commander and then he asks the brigade commander to
3 requisition certain equipment. In that case he will order the Chief of
4 Staff to draw up a request form -- a requisition form, he will sign it and
5 then send it off to be dealt with. So that this goes to the regional
6 Ministry of Defence office.
7 The second possibility is during the planning and preparation
8 stage for the carrying out of certain engineering tasks, or engineering
9 support for combat activities, the chief of engineers establishes that
10 something should be done and proposes this to the Chief of Staff. The
11 Chief of Staff transmits this proposal to the commander. The commander
12 makes a decision and, again, orders that the requisition form be filled
13 in, signed, and sent off. That's the procedure.
14 Q. At one point you said that it was possible for the chief of
15 engineers to enter this whole process. What does the chief of engineers
16 have to propose to the commander? What is his duty, his task, in all
18 A. It is the duty of the chief of engineers in the staff of the joint
19 tactical units of the brigade, according to the rules on the use of
20 engineers and the engineering support for combat operations, to propose
21 what these rules provide for. The chief of engineers, that is, is an
22 expert organ of the Chief of Staff. He participates in the process of
23 preparing the commander's decision. He proposes to the Chief of Staff the
24 way in which the subordinate engineering unit can be used in the most
25 efficient and the best possible way and the best possible way that use can
1 be made of the equipment available to the brigade.
2 Also, he makes a proposal, if he feels it is necessary, as to what
3 equipment should be left in the reserve and what the priorities should be
4 in the engineering support to all the subordinated units. That is, what
5 the engineering support should focus on.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this may be a
8 convenient moment for a break. I have just a few more questions in the
9 domain of the tasks of the chief of engineers and the direction of an
10 engineering unit, and then that would complete my examination of this
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes. How long do you think you need to finish the
13 direct examination of this witness?
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] After the break some 15 minutes
15 or so, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll take a break, and we'll resume at five
17 minutes past 11.00 -- past 12.00. I'm sorry.
18 --- Recess taken at 11.34 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 12.06 p.m.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stojanovic. Please continue.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Q. Mr. Lackovic, we have left it off at the moment when we started
23 talking about the duties of the commander of the engineering company and
24 the commander of the brigade. Do you remember?
25 A. Yes, I remember. But I believe that we haven't touched upon the
1 duties of the commander of the engineering company.
2 Q. I wanted to ask you as follows: During your professional career,
3 did you perform the duties of the commander of the engineering company?
4 A. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic, I did. I did perform the duties of the
5 commander of the engineering company.
6 Q. Did you also perform the duties of the chief of engineers in any
7 of the units that you belonged to?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. Can you please repeat the last bit because it wasn't recorded.
10 Where did you perform the duties of the chief of engineers?
11 A. I performed the duties of the chief of engineers in the corps
13 Q. Thank you. According to the rules, who is it who directs the
14 engineering company? Who is in charge of the direction of the engineers'
16 A. Without my intention to speak about the definition of the
17 term command, control, or direction or control, because in our theory it
18 is different than the western theory of direction and organisation. It
19 would be more appropriate for our situation to say commanding of a
20 company. But in terms of your question, in any event, the officer who is
21 in charge of directing and commanding a company is the company commander.
22 It's his exclusive right, which is prescribed and found in the law.
23 Q. Which regulations regulated the issue of command and direction in
24 an engineers company? What regulations are we talking about?
25 A. Like any other duties and like in most military units, the duties
1 of anybody is prescribed by combat rules. More specifically, when it
2 comes to a company commander, the commander of an engineering company, I
3 know that this is prescribed by the rules applicable to a company or a
4 squad in the engineering unit. But also these duties stem from the rules
5 of service in the armed forces relative to his role and relative to an
6 officer of that rank.
7 Q. The commander of an engineering company, can he command and
8 control an engineering company outside the context given to him by the
9 brigade commander?
10 A. Are you talking about the peacetime or the wartime functions,
11 Mr. Stojanovic? What are you referring to?
12 Q. I was talking about extraordinary circumstances, wartime
13 circumstances. The commander of an engineering company, can he be
14 independent in issuing orders on the use and of a company that go beyond
15 the orders of the brigade commander?
16 A. Mr. Stojanovic, as far as the combat use of an engineering
17 company, the commander of that company is authorised to command the
18 company in the spirit of the orders and decisions issued by his commander
19 and nothing beyond that. In other segments, however, such as the combat
20 training and preparations for the execution of missions and tasks, in
21 other words, bringing all the strengths of the company up to the combat
22 readiness ready to perform the future tasks is up to him. It is his
23 personal matter, and in keeping with his training and with his
24 determination, he can regulate it himself without any influence exerted on
25 the part of the commander unless it is obvious that he does not do his job
1 properly. Then the commander can correct his work and the ultimate
2 correction can be the replacement of such a commander.
3 Q. What is the name of the document based on which the commander of
4 the engineering company executes his duties of command and control?
5 A. One of the combat documents which is used in the armed forces of
6 the former JNA and Republika Srpska army is the order.
7 Q. Are we talking about daily orders which are issued by the
8 commander of the engineering company?
9 A. Yes. I'm talking about daily orders, but also in practice we have
10 the so-called order of the company commander for the execution of a combat
11 activity which may be either a defence or an assault or another technical
12 duty. At this moment, it is not that important, I believe.
13 Q. Mr. Lackovic, tell us, please: In that system, where are the
14 duties and tasks of the chief of engineers?
15 A. If I understand your question well, Mr. Stojanovic, the chief of
16 engineers as a professional in the brigade command appears as such, and
17 his role is decisive in the stage of planning of the future activities,
18 either defence activities or assault activities or any other activity. In
19 that stage, based on the information that he has about the subordinate
20 engineering units and based on the basic ideas of the commander, on the
21 way how the future tasks should be executed, he suggests or proposes to
22 the commander. When I say "commander," I mean the Chief of Staff who will
23 refer the proposal to the commander. Sometimes it may occur that this
24 proposal reaches the commander directly, that he himself directly
25 communicates to the commander. When I say "directly," that means that it
1 can happen in a situation when the commander himself has requested that.
2 After that, the commander will issue a decision. He will issue an
3 order for a combat order to be drawn up, and that the plan of operations
4 should be worked out. And he also issues orders to the subordinate units.
5 Mostly it is done during the command inspection. The chief of engineers,
6 in keeping with the proposal that has been adopted or the corrected
7 proposal that has been adopted pursuant to the right of the commander to
8 correct any proposal submitted to him, the commander may adopt the
9 proposal in full. He may also alter it or change it or amend it, or he
10 can also ask from the chief of engineers to correct the proposal himself,
11 or to reject it completely for that matter, and to issue an order that
12 things should be done the way he wants them to be done. This doesn't
13 happen very often. However, this is the right vested in the commander.
14 After that, the chief of engineers will work out certain documents
15 if those are indispensable and necessary for the execution of the task in
16 hand. And this is where his role in the process of decision-making mostly
17 finishes. This is where his role is exhausted.
18 Q. Mr. Lackovic, if there is a commander of the engineering unit, his
19 deputy squad commander is in the engineering company, is there something
20 in the rules that provides for the possibility for the chief of engineers
21 to command and control the engineering unit?
22 THE INTERPRETER: And the counsel uses the term "direction and
23 command" of the engineering unit.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This possibility cannot be excluded.
25 The chief of engineers may appear in the role of a person who will direct
1 and command, or command and control the engineering company, although this
2 happens very rarely in practice. However, it is not excluded. The
3 brigade rules define this in the following way: The commander will issue
4 a written order transferring his authorities to the chief of engineers in
5 such a case. In practice, a different situation is more common, and this
6 situation is also prescribed by the rules of combat used especially for
7 light infantry brigade, such was the case in the Milic Light Infantry
8 Brigade, for example.
9 The company commander or the engineering unit commander is at the
10 same time the chief of engineers. In that case, we may say that the chief
11 of engineers is also the company commander. If the commander does not
12 transfer his exclusive right of command by a written document on to an
13 officer who will direct not only the engineering company but also any
14 other unit, then this officer, whoever he may be, does not have the right
15 command that unit.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lackovic. We have heard this answer from
18 Mr. Butler already, and Mr. Butler also said that he has not come across
19 any written authorisation to transfer command.
20 Let me ask you: During your analysis and dealing with your issue,
21 have you encountered any written document by which the commander of the
22 Zvornik Brigade has transferred his duties on to the -- on to a
23 lower-ranking officer, on to the chief of engineers, yes or no?
24 A. No, Mr. Stojanovic. I have not come across any such document by
25 way of which the commander or in his -- or in the absence of Lieutenant
1 Colonel Pandurevic Major Obrenovic has transferred the duty of command to
2 another person rather than the commander of the engineering unit.
3 Q. And let me finish by asking you this: According to the rules on
4 subordination and the unity of command in the Army of Republika Srpska,
5 was there any possibility for having two commanders commanding and
6 directing one unit at the same time?
7 A. Mr. Stojanovic, if one was to respect all the rules and
8 regulations to the letter, then this would be impossible.
9 If you'll allow me, I would like to clarify. It is possible to
10 have two individuals issuing orders. However, if we are talking about the
11 command responsibility, only one person has the responsibility for command
12 and that right will have been transferred on to him. Nobody else has that
13 responsibility, and nobody in that unit is obliged to execute any such
14 orders that would be given by anybody else.
15 Q. Thank you very much. I have asked this -- I have put this
16 question to Mr. Butler. I would like to ask you the same. Why do you
17 believe that this transfer of responsibility for command and control
18 should be in written form? Why should it be in writing?
19 A. Are you referring to any specific situation when the company
20 commander is absent or are you asking me a general question?
21 Q. This is a general question. When one commander gives up his right
22 to command, does it have to be put in writing? When this right is
23 transferred on to somebody else, does it have to be in writing?
24 A. In any case this requires a paper, a document, because the
25 commanding officer of any unit is appointed by a written document, and as
1 from then his duties are prescribed by the law. At the moment when he
2 signs this document on assuming responsibility, that means that this
3 officer assumes the responsibility for everything that happens in his
4 unit, and he also is given legal prerogatives and authorisation to
5 undertake any measure to bring the situation in the unit up to the
6 required level of combat readiness. The moment this right is denied to
7 him as a rule, it should be done in writing.
8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lackovic. I am bringing to an end my
9 examination-in-chief today with a conclusion. Do you know Mr. Jokic, and
10 if you do how long have you known him?
11 A. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic, I know Mr. Jokic. I've known him briefly
12 from 1980 when I was completing my military high school and he was
13 finishing his military academy education. We happened to be in the same
14 barracks. This is when I got to know him superficially. After that --
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: And I -- Your Honour, I'm objecting as using this
17 witness as it appears they're going into the area of character based on
18 knowledge. And I believe the Court asked Mr. Jokic to make a choice. I
19 may be wrong, but I thought you made a choice. Is he a character witness
20 that knows him or is he an expert giving his opinion? Now we're combining
21 the two. If it's very brief -- but if we're going into it in detail, I
22 just don't think based on the Court's ruling, or based on the relevancy,
23 that's appropriate.
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Mr. Stojanovic, before we heard this witness we
25 have already made a ruling in this aspect. I hope any questions in this
1 direction will not affect the impartiality of this expert witness.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was aiming for the
3 opposite, not for what Mr. McCloskey is saying. But I will finish.
4 Q. Mr. Lackovic, the fact that you knew Mr. Jokic, did that have any
5 influence on you, on your professional integrity, on your professional
6 career and your professional knowledge, and did that maybe lead you to say
7 something that is not correct and to compromise any of these things?
8 A. Mr. Stojanovic, if the Court allows me, I would like to complete
9 what I was saying. The second time, after 12 years, again --
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, Your Honour. Not responsive to the
12 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, I think you have to answer the question
13 put by Mr. Stojanovic here. We are doing a question and answer
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour. I
17 Mr. Stojanovic, my acquaintance with Mr. Jokic, I dare say, is not
18 superficial but it is not such that I could come to any decisions about
19 his character. That was not the objective of my analysis or any of my
20 other aspects of work and should not have had any influence on my position
21 on this specific matter. And it is up to the Trial Chamber to decide on
22 his culpability. It is up to me just to state my opinion on some relevant
23 military issues that pertain to this case.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Well, the question was this: Did this acquaintance with Dragan
1 Jokic in any way affect your position and the opinion that you voiced
2 today before this Trial Chamber?
3 A. No, Mr. Stojanovic. When I was working on the report, I was not
4 affected by any emotional matters.
5 Q. Thank you. I have one more question. I think that in your CV --
6 we didn't say it, did you attend training and education in Holland in the
7 course of this year?
8 A. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic. I attended some training in the Netherlands
9 in Ede in the training school for intelligence personnel.
10 Q. Could you please tell us who organised this training and what kind
11 of a training did you receive. What were you actually preparing for?
12 A. The initiative for the training was launched by the Royal Dutch
13 Ministry of Defence. I was in a group of ten officers, senior-ranking
14 officers, of the Army of Serbia and Montenegro who went to the SMID centre
15 in Ede in order to learn English and to prepare for the forthcoming
16 Euro-Atlantic integration processes as well as the joining of Serbia and
17 Montenegro in the partnership for peace programme.
18 Q. Do you believe that this mission, this preparation for
19 peacekeeping operations and Euro-Atlantic integration, was something you
20 completed in a professional manner?
21 A. Yes. I believe that the whole group, including myself, carried
22 out our duties in a professional way at this training centre for
23 intelligence personnel.
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lackovic. I have no more questions for you. Could
25 you please concentrate now in your answers to the questions which will be
1 put to you by my learned friend Mr. Karnavas, Mr. McCloskey from the
2 Prosecution, and possibly from the Judges. And I thank you once again for
3 your testimony.
4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.
5 Any questions, Mr. Karnavas?
6 MR. KARNAVAS: I have a few general questions, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.
8 Cross-examined by Mr. Karnavas:
9 Q. Good morning, sir.
10 A. Good morning.
11 Q. I want to pick up on the last issue, the issue of your education.
12 Could you please tell us after completing the secondary high school, the
13 secondary school for military, how many actual years of military education
14 do you have?
15 A. Following my completion of the military high school, I completed
16 the military academy which took six semesters or three years to complete.
17 I completed the school for the staff -- command staff from 1994 to 1996.
18 This school lasted for two years. As well as the school for national
19 defence. That training took one year. Beside that - and this is not
20 stated in my CV - I also completed some courses at a lower level which
21 were focused on the implementation of some secondary duties in the command
22 staff. Altogether that amounts to about seven years of education and
24 Q. All right. And could you please tell us on average how many years
25 of field experience do you have.
1 A. Mr. Karnavas, my entire military career was practically based on
2 my work in the field, practical work. Even when I worked as the chief of
3 engineers in the corps, the role of an engineers officer is to follow the
4 unit as it is carrying out its duty out in the field. If I can determine
5 how long this period was, I would say that it was about ten years.
6 Q. All right. And I take it that the rules that you have been
7 commenting on today, those are the same rules that you were trained in and
8 that you applied in the field so you both have theoretical knowledge and
9 practical application knowledge. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas. The majority of the documents comes from that
11 period, even though a part of those documents was changed. But the
12 substance has remained the same. Through my regular work and training I
13 received practical and theoretical knowledge, including all the -- and I
14 followed all the innovations and amendments in the rules and regulations
15 because these changes were very important in the implementation of my
16 establishment duties.
17 Q. And would it be fair to say that throughout these years you've
18 developed a particular knowledge and expertise in the application -- the
19 interpretation of and the application of these particular rules sufficient
20 enough for you to give an expert opinion to the honourable members of this
22 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas. I believe that I have enough experience,
23 knowledge. This was also confirmed in the process of my schooling,
24 especially the education, the training, that I completed over the past
25 year. So that all the knowledge that I acquired and training in that
1 school give me the grounds for thinking the way I do about this.
2 Q. Now, I know a little bit about the grading system and the
3 promotional system in this part of the world. And I look at your age,
4 you're -- you seem to be 43, 44, somewhere in that neighbourhood. Is that
6 A. Yes. You are correct, Mr. Karnavas.
7 Q. And would it be fair for me to say that based on your grade, which
8 is colonel, and -- you're fairly young to have achieved that grade? Don't
9 be modest.
10 A. No. Well, I don't think that I'm too old. But in any case for
11 some regular circumstances, you could conclude that I am young. I agree
12 with what you have said.
13 Q. All right. And the fact that you were promoted so rapidly could
14 also attest to the fact that perhaps you are extremely competent, because
15 normally promotions don't come too easily in the military. Isn't that a
17 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas. The position and the rank that I hold at the
18 moment and the duty that I am performing, I went through all the requisite
19 duties and carried out all the requisite tasks, and my superior officers
20 always graded me well for my work.
21 Q. Now, I want to just focus a couple of questions on your experience
22 as a commander. Could you just please tell us what's the largest amount
23 of people or units that you've commanded so we have an understanding of
24 your positions.
25 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas. The highest command post that I held was the
1 duty of the commander of the 305th Engineers' Brigade of the Army of
2 Serbia and Montenegro. If we exclude my current position, the deputy
3 commander of the military district of Belgrade, which is not the same rank
4 of the Chief of Staff, which we do not have in our command anyway, but it
5 is of adequate rank. So in commanding the 305th Engineers' Brigade, under
6 my command I had, depending on the period, from several hundred up to
7 1.000 men.
8 Q. All right. And just briefly so we have an understanding, what
9 exactly does the 305th Engineers' Brigade do? I don't believe you've
10 commented on that in your direct. But just give us a sense of their
12 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas. The 305th Engineers' Brigade is the
13 highest-ranking joint engineers unit of an independent formation in the
14 Army of Serbia and Montenegro. It comprises a command, staff units, just
15 like the majority of other land forces units. It also has engineers
16 battalions. In the brigade that I commanded, there were two pioneers'
17 battalions, one road and bridge construction battalion, a battalion for
18 fortifications, and there was also a camouflage company.
19 Q. Okay. Now, just focusing your attention to another area that
20 you -- that was brought up, you talked a little bit about mobilisation.
21 And I wanted to ask you if you are aware of - which you must - of the
22 concept or the doctrine of All People's Defence.
23 A. Yes, of course, Mr. Karnavas. That was a doctrine on which the
24 concept of defence of the former SFRY was based. Before that, it was also
25 in force during all the developments from 1990 to 1995. This was a state
1 strategy or a state doctrine.
2 Q. Was this started at the academy and was this being applied?
3 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas. We learned about the doctrine of All People's
4 Defence through the course of our education and training. This was also
5 written about a lot, not only in the press but also in expert
7 Q. All right. And you mentioned now the year 1995 as a cut-off date.
8 Is that because of the Dayton Accords and the reorganisation of Bosnia and
10 A. It's possible that that is one of the reasons.
11 Q. All right. And just my final question, I guess: Would it be
12 possible for someone, an analyst, an expert, to understand and appreciate
13 what was -- the application of the rules and to interpret the events as
14 they were unfolding throughout this war without fully knowing and
15 appreciating and of course factoring in to their analysis the doctrine of
16 All People's Defence?
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Vague and calls for speculation. And there's no
20 foundation, and the foundation for that question would take us all the
21 rest of the week and is really not relevant.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE LIU: Well --
24 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may, Your Honour, just please.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes. You want to rephrase it or --
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, first of all, I don't think it's vague. It's
2 fairly concrete. Secondly, we have testimony from Mr. Butler who
3 admittedly said that to him it wasn't an important concept, and he knew
4 very little of it, and it is on the record. Now I'm asking for this
5 gentleman to comment, is it possible for someone to interpret the events
6 on the ground as they were unfolding. In general. I'm not speaking
7 about --
8 JUDGE LIU: With the understanding that it's a hypothetical
9 question --
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Hypothetically speaking.
11 JUDGE LIU: So you may put to this witness.
12 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, this is just a thinly veiled
14 personal attack on Mr. Butler.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: It's not an attack.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's not relevant. Enough of that.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yeah. Let's forget the other experts in the
18 Prosecution's case. Do not mention it at all. Just put a hypothetical
19 question to this witness.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: I understand, Your Honour. I understand. However,
21 these antics are unprofessional --
22 JUDGE LIU: Well, well, well. Put your question to this witness.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.
24 Q. Is it possible for an expert to truly understand and interpret the
25 events as they were unfolding during this war - and I'm talking about a
1 foreign expert - if that expert were not to understand, appreciate, and
2 factor into his analysis the doctrine of All People's Defence?
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, Your Honour. He's throwing all this
5 rhetorical -- I don't even know in English what you call it. Understand,
6 appreciate -- these thinly veiled comments about Mr. Butler. Is this
7 necessary at this stage of the game? It's absolutely absurd. It should
8 not be allowed.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour --
10 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. McCloskey, I think, you know, Mr. Karnavas
11 is obsessed with the term of All People's Defence from the very beginning
12 of this trial. This is maybe the last expert witness in the sense of the
13 military terms. If we did not allow him to put this question to this
14 witness, maybe in the rebuttal or rejoinder cases there will be a big
15 problem. So based on the hypothetic basis, we allowed this question to be
16 put to this witness.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: I want to go on the record for objecting, Your
18 Honour, and I just want to make this very clear, because I have no
19 objection whatsoever about the All People's Defence. It's the comments
20 that he's interjecting, the unnecessary remarks, about Mr. Butler. I'm
21 just sick and tired of it.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, I agree with you.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: In my own defence --
24 JUDGE LIU: Stop, you, Mr. Karnavas. I agree with Mr. McCloskey
25 that we should not attack anybody in putting any questions. So be very
1 careful to chose the words you are going to use --
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I mean, "foreign," what is this kind
3 of talk --
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour --
5 JUDGE LIU: Well --
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I'm entitled to respond. A foreign
7 expert would not have grown up with this concept and --
8 JUDGE LIU: Let's not debate on those issues.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE LIU: We have to finish this witness as soon as possible.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm trying, Your Honour. I'm trying.
12 Q. Sir, do you remember the question or would you like me to phrase
13 it one more time?
14 A. I remember it, Mr. Karnavas.
15 Q. Would you kindly explain it for us. Give us your answer.
16 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas. I believe that an analysis made by any expert
17 insufficiently acquainted with the system of All People's Defence would
18 not be convincing enough and would not present the true state of affairs
19 and facts without dwelling on the matter of whether the expert knew the
20 topic well or not. Without deep analysis and knowledge of the system and
21 how it functioned in all of its segments, it is difficult to be objective
22 and to make a valuable, true analysis.
23 Q. Thank you. And one could even jump to conclusions, couldn't they?
24 A. Probably. Because conclusions are the products of analysis.
25 Q. Thank you, sir. Thank you very, very much. I have no further
2 A. You're welcome.
3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. Karnavas.
4 Any cross-examination, Mr. McCloskey?
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just briefly, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.
7 Cross-examined by Mr. McCloskey:
8 Q. Good afternoon, Colonel.
9 A. Good afternoon, Mr. McCloskey.
10 Q. I just want to ask you a bit about your experience. Aside from
11 the very unfortunate and I'm sure horrible experience of the NATO bombing,
12 do you have any combat experience?
13 A. What kind of combat experience specifically are you thinking of?
14 Q. Any experience in the army during wartime fighting the enemy. I
15 would direct you to the --
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, this is vague --
17 MR. McCLOSKEY:
18 Q. The events of --
19 MR. KARNAVAS: This is vague. Does he mean hand-to-hand combat?
20 Does he mean charging up a particular line?
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, I think the question is quite
22 clear. Any experience during the wartime fighting the enemy. The witness
23 could give his explanations. I think it's specific enough.
24 Yes, Mr. Stojanovic.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I just wanted
1 to clarify if this refers to combat in the Army of Republika Srpska in
2 Bosnia and Herzegovina or generally refers to combat. I think Yugoslavia
3 did have certain military experiences and this is known. It's known in
4 which period this was. This was the attack of the NATO forces and the
5 conflict in Kosovo. So the question whether this expert has experience in
6 the Army of Republika Srpska or in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I think that it
7 seems to me that that would be the proper framework for this question.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, first of all I don't think it's relevant because
9 just the general knowledge from the very beginning of his military service
10 until now. Secondly, I believe that Mr. McCloskey would like to be more
11 specific in terms of the time.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY:
14 Q. You're a relatively young guy, man, and there hasn't been -- you
15 know, we haven't fought continuously in this century, so hopefully there's
16 not too many wars. So can you -- I think you understand me. What kind of
17 combat experience have you had?
18 A. Yes. I took part in the NATO air campaign against the Federal
19 Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991 [as interpreted] in the entire territory of
20 the then-Federal Republic of Yugoslavia excluding Kosovo. The whole
21 territory was a combat zone, and I was mostly engaged in the
22 implementation and organisation of tasks to alleviate and clear up the
23 damage caused by NATO bombing. For the engineers, this is a very valuable
24 experience, which I'm sure you will agree is not something that many
25 senior officers have a chance to do in other armies. So for me, this was
1 a valuable experience.
2 As far as my participation is concerned in combat operations such
3 as the ones mentioned by your colleagues, no, I did not take part in
4 combat operations in Republika Srpska, nor did I take part in infantry
5 combat operations anywhere else because that simply wasn't my role.
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stojanovic, is there anything you need for
7 clarification in the transcript?
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I wish only to
9 draw your attention to line 66 -- that is page 66, line 1. It says that
10 the expert says he had experience in the NATO air campaign in 1991. It's
11 a historical fact that this was not in 1991. The witness mentioned
12 another year. So for the sake of the record, I think this should be
14 JUDGE LIU: Witness, which year did you mention?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1999.
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may proceed, Mr. McCloskey.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.
18 Q. Sometimes we're losing track of NATO and their various campaigns.
19 But you're meeting with NATO now. You're coming to Holland and meet with
20 former adversaries?
21 A. Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
22 Q. Okay. I just want to ask you a little bit about the chief of
23 engineers job. And we have heard repeatedly regarding the job of chief of
24 engineers or it could be chief of artillery or chief of security, that it
25 is their job to make proposals to their commander. Is that correct?
1 A. Yes. That's correct, Mr. McCloskey.
2 Q. And make plans pursuant to the commander's orders on their
4 A. In essence, yes. That's correct.
5 Q. Okay. And then the commander's orders go out to the -- in this
6 case it would be the engineering company of a brigade. Is that right?
7 A. Yes. That's correct, sir.
8 Q. And those would be coming from and initiated by the commander of
9 the brigade or the Chief of Staff which is usually in charge of
11 A. Orders to subordinate units are always issued by the commander.
12 If he is absent, then the Chief of Staff takes on the function of
14 Q. Well, I think you yourself said that in engineering -- in a
15 brigade the engineer is -- chief of engineers is under the Chief of Staff.
16 You're familiar with that structure?
17 A. Yes, Mr. McCloskey. The chief of engineers in the chain of
18 command is subordinated to the Chief of Staff. He is in the organ dealing
19 with branches and arms of service in the staff.
20 Q. And I think you testified that in most cases the engineering
21 orders actually come from the Chief of Staff because they are the ones
22 that are working together, but that they can in some situations come from
23 the commander himself. I believe I'm paraphrasing roughly what you said.
24 A. No, Mr. McCloskey. I'm afraid you misunderstood this. All orders
25 come from the commander. Proposals for the making of these decisions
1 contained in the order are made by the chief of engineers through the
2 Chief of Staff to the commander. If the commander is absent, then we go a
3 step lower. There is one link less. Then it's the chief of engineers
4 making proposals directly to the Chief of Staff. The Chief of Staff then
5 makes a decision. But he then is acting as the commander. He is the
6 commander in that case because the commander is absent.
7 Q. I understand that all orders will and do -- are responsible for
8 the commander and mist originate there. I thought you were saying,
9 though, that even when the commander is present in the everyday workings
10 of an engineering unit, sometimes the Chief of Staff may issue orders
11 directly to the engineering company without the commander's involvement.
12 The commander of the brigade, that is. So am I not correct on that?
13 A. Mr. McCloskey, I do not exclude the possibility that an order
14 might be issued, but in practice this is not very likely. Because if the
15 commander is there, there is no reason for him not to issue the order.
16 Q. And that's the way these bodies such that I've described basically
17 work. The commander is really involved on a brigade level, isn't he?
18 A. Yes. It's the commander who makes decisions based on proposals by
19 his subordinates. The Chief of Staff is subordinated to him, and the
20 Chief of Staff puts together all the proposals by the various organs of
21 the staff command and ultimately proposes to the commander what the
22 decision should be, or he gives him several options, several versions or
23 variants of the final decision if there is more than one option. Then
24 it's the Chief of Staff who explains these various possibilities and
25 proposes to the commander which option he believes should be selected. He
1 has his favorite option.
2 Q. Okay. Let's go back to the chief of engineering responsibility as
3 you've described it. We've talked briefly about their responsibility to
4 make proposals and plans, and you said that sometimes those proposals may
5 get corrected by the commander or sometimes even rejected. And then you
6 also -- you said the next step along the way was that the chief of
7 engineers would work out any documents that were indispensable and
8 necessary to the carrying out of the order. Is that right?
9 A. Yes, yes. That's right, sir.
10 Q. And then you said that, and I quote you, I believe: "This is
11 where his role is finished, exhausted." Is that correct?
12 A. At the planning stage, yes, that's what I said. That's where his
13 role is exhausted. I'm referring to the planning stage for combat
15 Q. Okay. So he's got a lot more to do regarding the carrying out of
16 the commander's orders, doesn't he, the chief of engineers?
17 A. I agree with that, Mr. McCloskey. Yes.
18 Q. I noted in your report you really didn't talk about that. You
19 didn't get past the planning stage in any great degree.
20 So let's do that. If we could get Exhibit D23/3. And if we could
21 put the English on the ELMO. And if we could focus the ELMO, certainly
22 the last third of the page, that first page, and blow that up a bit.
23 Okay. I won't go over all of this, but we can see there a few lines up
24 from the bottom that it talks about: "Suggests the commander how the
25 directly subordinated engineering units and combat technical resources
1 thereof should be used." And then it says: "Pursuant to the commander's
2 decisions and cooperating and consulting with other organs of the command
3 it proposes tasks of the engineering units, makes a plan, prepares
5 Do you see that in the B/C/S version?
6 A. Yes. Yes, I do.
7 Q. And that's what you've been talking about in your testimony today?
8 A. I didn't talk about this segment. I was talking about the
9 planning stage. The work of the chief of engineers at the stage of
10 implementation is something we have touched upon in response to your
12 Q. Well, I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on it, but I do
13 want to go -- implementation is a pretty important topic, as you imagine,
14 knowing some of these facts as you do.
15 Let's go down, it's a few lines passed where it says: "Pursuant
16 to the commander's decisions, cooperating and consulting." And it
17 begins: "Controls execution of tasks issued to subordinate engineering
19 So it's the job of the chief of engineers to control the execution
20 of the tasks that the commander has issued to the subordinate engineering
21 units. Is that correct?
22 A. That's correct, Mr. McCloskey.
23 Q. Tell us what "control" means in this context.
24 A. Control is a planning function carried out by the organs of the
25 staff command in order to assure themselves that the subordinate units are
1 doing exactly what the commander ordered and in the manner that he
2 ordered; that is, that they are complying with the commander's order.
3 Control is implemented on the basis of a plan of control which is
4 drawn up by the organ for operative and teaching tasks of -- operations
5 and training tasks of the brigade. And all the command organs of the
6 brigade, provided that the plan envisages their carrying out control, that
7 is, control is left open as a possibility but it is not a duty.
8 Q. This lists a duty. Paragraph 40 it says: "Duties of the
9 engineering organ are as follows." It doesn't say possible duties.
10 A. Yes, I agree.
11 Q. And it says: "Controls execution of tasks." Now, you said that,
12 yeah, it's his job to make sure the task is carried out pursuant to the
13 commander's orders. So in that job, can the chief of engineers issue an
14 order consistent with the commander's orders to the engineering company
16 A. No, Mr. McCloskey. The chief of engineers does not have the right
17 to issue orders. He cannot issue any orders regardless of whether such
18 orders relate to the commander's idea or not.
19 By your leave, Mr. McCloskey, I spoke of the role of all the
20 organs of command in the system of control and, within this context, of
21 the place and role of the chief of engineers. It is true that the duty to
22 carry out control and monitoring is prescribed in the rules, but it is
23 also correct that this is not an individual duty left to chance. It is a
24 management function of command. In order to organise control, the command
25 that made the plans is responsible for organising control. Therefore, a
1 command organ cannot go to a subordinate unit if this is not in compliance
2 with the commander's order or if it is not part of the plan approved by
3 the commander.
4 Q. Are you suggesting that the chief of engineers cannot direct or
5 tell the engineering company how to do the job according to the
6 commander's orders? He certainly can do that.
7 A. Yes, he can, Mr. McCloskey. All issues that have to do with his
8 profession, yes. But as regards the use made of the unit in combat, that
9 he cannot do. One of the duties and authorities, powers, of the chief of
10 engineers, as I explained, is to look after the combat readiness of the
11 unit. In the professional sense he can do that, but he does not have the
12 right to command the unit or to use it in combat operations.
13 Q. We don't have any disagreement on the right to command. Perhaps
14 when I say "issue orders," you think I'm talking about originating the
15 issue of an order pursuant to a commander. I'm not. When I say issue an
16 order, I mean he is -- well, the first way he can issue an order is to
17 pass on the order of a commander. The commander wants a bridge built at
18 point Y, the chief of engineers tells the commander of the engineering
19 companies, "The commander wants you to build that bridge on point Y, do
20 that." That's passing on the commander's order. The chief of engineers
21 has the right to do what I just said, doesn't he?
22 A. I agree with you, Mr. McCloskey. You're right. The chief of
23 engineers does have the right to transmit the commander's order.
24 Q. Okay. And if the -- and building that bridge the engineers
25 commander picks pine as his material, the chief of engineers can say, "No,
1 I want you to use oak." The chief of engineers can do that, too, can't
3 A. Yes. These are professional matters, strictly professional. And
4 therefore he can express his influence.
5 Q. All right. Let's go down a little farther. It's several lines up
6 from the bottom, and it says: "During combat activities the organ
7 monitors and directs actions of engineering actions in accordance with the
8 commander's decisions."
9 So this says the chief of engineers can direct the actions of the
10 engineering company as long as it's consistent with the decision of the
11 commander. Is that correct?
12 A. No, sir. In the original it says the following: "During combat
13 operations and activities, the organ directs actions of engineering units
14 in accordance with the commander's decision, suggests to the commander
15 changes and amendments in the tasks issued to the units."
16 We're not speaking of command and control here.
17 Q. I agree with you.
18 A. He simply monitors.
19 Q. Well --
20 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stojanovic, are there any translation
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I think this
23 is a fundamental issue here. Mr. McCloskey is obviously hearing in the
24 interpretation what suits him, and that is the word "direction." In the
25 B/C/S, in the original, it doesn't say "rukovditi." [phoen] It says
2 THE INTERPRETER: And interpreters note that both of these terms
3 can be interpreted as "direction" in English.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: I don't know how this will be interpreted, to be
5 quite sincere.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: They both mean "direct" in English, according to
7 the translation people, and I'm not suggesting we're commanding here.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: But that does not help. We can look into, to see
10 if there are two different meanings for those two different words in the
11 military context. It's a little late in the day to be bringing this up,
12 and we will look into that.
13 Q. But I am again -- I am not suggesting he is a commander and I'm
14 not suggesting he is directing with the extreme responsibility of a
15 commander. But when it says: "Directs the action of," that means that he
16 is influencing the carrying out of the operation, is that correct, no
17 matter which way you translate it?
18 A. Yes, Mr. McCloskey. But we have to put a comma behind this. This
19 is the way in which he implements this. And this is very significant. In
20 order to understand what this is all about.
21 Q. The placement of a comma. Have you been listening to President
23 A. Yes, with pleasure.
24 Q. I thought that sounded familiar. Okay.
25 So if this job is not a bridge-building job and it's an illegal
1 job, it's an improper job, it's part of a process to commit and cover up a
2 crime, when a chief of engineers knowingly directs, as it suggests here,
3 influences the way an illegal job is carried out, he bears some
4 responsibility, in the military sense, for going along with that illegal
5 job, doesn't he, whether he was ordered to do it or not?
6 A. Mr. McCloskey, provided that anyone, not just the chief of
7 engineers, knew that carrying out a certain job constituted a crime and
8 didn't take any measures to prevent it, yes, then he does bear part of the
9 responsibility for it. I repeat, provided that he knew.
10 Q. Okay. And I think we'll leave that up to the Judges.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: No further questions.
12 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. McCloskey.
13 Any re-direct, Mr. Stojanovic?
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] By your leave, Your Honour, I
15 only wish to remove the interpretation issue and clear it up very briefly.
16 Re-examined by Mr. Stojanovic:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Lackovic, in the B/C/S when describing the
18 duties of the chief of engineers, there was a word used "usmjerava."
19 A. Correct, Mr. Stojanovic. That's what I read.
20 Q. Does the notion of "usmjeravati" imply necessarily that the person
21 exercising command and control issues orders on the work of the command
23 A. Could you repeat your question, Mr. Stojanovic.
24 Q. Let's go step by step. Does "usmjeravati" a unit -- is this
25 something that only the person exercising command and control can do, or
1 can it also be done by someone with no command and control responsibility?
2 A. Yes, your question is clear to me now. In the process of
3 decision-making there is a decision, and there are corrective decisions.
4 Both notions fall under the competence of the commander. The commander
5 reached a decision, he has the right to reach a corrective decision, and
6 he issues this decision pursuant to reports from the field which he
7 receives from his organs or from his immediately subordinate commanders.
8 That's what I was trying to point out. So the manner in which
9 "usmjeravanje" is carried out is important.
10 By gaining insight into the situation on the ground, the chief of
11 a branch or arm of service proposes to the commander through the regular
12 channels that a corrective decision should be made by the commander. How
13 reliable the information that the chief of a branch gets from the ground
14 is a different issue. If he is sent to monitor the situation on the
15 ground himself, then of course this information is reliable. If he
16 receives this information through the duty system or through the chain of
17 command, then the information is less reliable and less self-evident.
18 In any case, the manner of "usmjeravanje," of the activities of a
19 conditionally speaking subordinate unit, because the unit is not
20 subordinated to the chief of the branch but to the commander, is again
21 carried out through the regular channels. Based on an insight into the
22 manner of carrying out combat assignments on the ground, the chief of a
23 branch proposes to the commander either that implementation should be
24 continued or that the decision should be corrected and an amended order be
25 issued. In practice, we have corrective decisions made by the commander
1 and expressed through combat orders.
2 Therefore, the commander's order can be corrected during the
3 implementation of combat activities by means of a combat order. This
4 constitutes a correction of the original decision, and this is what we
5 mean when we say "usmjeravanje" of combat operations.
6 Q. Thank you. Let me just conclude by asking you whether you still
7 abide by your fundamental thesis that the chief of engineers does not
8 command and control the use of an engineering unit?
9 A. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic. In the sense that you mean, certainly not.
10 Q. I have to repeat my question because of the interpretation again.
11 Can the chief of engineers at any time in accordance with the regulations
12 have the command of -- have the duty of direction and the responsibility
13 of command towards an engineering unit, yes or no?
14 A. Yes. When the commander authorises him in writing for this and
15 when his -- this duty is regulated in writing, otherwise no.
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lackovic. And to conclude, you told Mr. McCloskey
17 that the chief of engineers can pass on orders to the commander or
18 komandir of an engineering company. In accordance with paragraph 114 of
19 the regulations already mentioned by you in emergency situations in states
20 of war and so on, the commander can issue an order directly to the
21 komandir of an engineering company, yes or no?
22 A. Yes, certainly. It's his right to issue direct orders to his
23 subordinates, not just the commander of a company but anyone in the
25 Q. Thank you. And to conclude, does the duty operations officer at
1 the time he is carrying out this duty, can he also be the chief of the
2 functional service that he belongs to? Can he perform both duties at the
3 same time?
4 A. No, he cannot, Mr. Stojanovic. And that is regulated in the rules
5 of service.
6 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, if I could ask one more question on
9 an area that was brought up, this important area regarding the direction
10 and the meaning -- the two meanings of it. Just one question. I've been
11 very brief, as you know, in all my crosses. If you could just give me
12 this. There is one question related to one short document that's already
13 in evidence that I think will help with this issue.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes. But please bear in mind that your question will
15 be subject to re-direct if there's any.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. It should be the same subject
17 relatively. It may --
18 JUDGE LIU: I know --
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- cause a little more discussion, but thank you.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could show the witness Exhibit 513/B. We
22 can put the English on the ELMO.
23 Further cross-examination by Mr. McCloskey:
24 Q. I know you're familiar with these documents from your review.
25 This is a page, 14 July, out the daily order book of the engineering
1 company. This is the day, as I know you're aware, that Major Jokic was
2 the duty officer. And looking at number 5 entitled: "Tasks received from
3 brigade command."
4 It says: "Ostoja Djuric is to be appointed officer for technical
5 services and supplies by the order of the chief of engineer."
6 Is this order from Mr. Jokic? Which kind of direction is this,
7 the one with the U or the other one or neither?
8 A. Are you referring to this particular wording that by order of the
9 chief of engineers Ostoja Djuric is to be appointed officer for technical
10 service and supplies? Is that what you're referring to?
11 Q. That's what I said. That's the question.
12 A. Mr. McCloskey, this does not have any legal effect. As far as I
13 can see, this was assigned by company commander. But nowhere in the
14 documents did I come across an order by -- this would have been regulated
15 because any appointment is regulated by the order on appointment signed by
16 the brigade commander for non-commissioned officers and corps commander or
17 higher-ranking officer for officers, or even the chief of the Main Staff
18 of Republika Srpska army for officers. So I wouldn't be able to say what
19 this was.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Nothing further.
22 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
23 Mr. Stojanovic, any questions?
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
1 Mr. Karnavas, do you want to re-examine?
2 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Your Honour. I think I've had enough
3 excitement for the day.
4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Judge Argibay.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 Questioned by the Court:
9 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Good afternoon, colonel. I have one question as a
10 matter of clarification I think.
11 When you were talking this morning about resubordination you made
12 an example and you told us that a military unit could be resubordinated to
13 a civilian Territorial Defence unit. I've heard always the things the
14 other way around, the civilians were subordinated to the military. But
15 this is the first time I hear about a military unit resubordinated to a
16 civilian organ. Can you clarify that for me?
17 A. Your Honour, I was talking about resubordination of military units
18 and I explained this on an example. It is correct that it is customary
19 for all the structures in the area of defence to be put in the function of
20 carrying out defence activities to the extent to which it has been
21 provided for by the decisions of state bodies. In this particular case
22 when it comes to sending and resubordination of an individual or a
23 technical equipment to a body that belongs to the civilian structure, be
24 it a unit that is -- that consists of people on work obligation or the
25 civilian protection unit. In my view and in practice, that should not be
1 anything out of the ordinary. I don't think that this is contrary to any
2 rules or regulations or that it is out of the ordinary for that matter.
3 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Thank you. I don't have any further questions.
4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Judge Argibay.
5 Any questions out of Judge's questions? Mr. Stojanovic?
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
8 Mr. Karnavas?
9 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
11 Mr. McCloskey?
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President, just one.
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.
14 Further cross-examined by Mr. McCloskey:
15 Q. In determining whether or not a unit was in fact subordinated -- a
16 military unit was subordinated to a civilian structure, would you want to
17 know what task the unit was carrying out in order to determine whether it
18 was a military task or a civilian task?
19 A. Do you mean whether I personally would be interested in that in my
20 capacity as a commander of such a unit maybe?
21 Q. In your capacity as an expert witness trying to sort out whether
22 or not this was a civilian-managed operation and the military was merely
23 subordinated to this civilian operation, or whether this was a
24 military-run operation where the civilians were working for the military,
25 as the Judge had opined it to you, the possibilities of the two things.
1 Would you want to know what that task was to help you determine that? I
2 mean, for example, if the task ended up being the engineers helping bury
3 the local refuse that had built up over the winter, that sounds like a
4 civilian task as opposed to whether or not the operation had to do
5 specifically with prisoners of war. Wouldn't that be a factor in figuring
6 out who was actually in charge or running this task?
7 A. Yes, Mr. McCloskey. Probably it would be important if we were
8 talking about a unit. In that case, it would be important and it would
9 merit attention. Bearing in mind that only one person and one piece of
10 equipment were engaged on simple tasks, to my mind, the tasks such as
11 excavations, I don't think it is important and that it doesn't deserve any
12 attention. The command was not to be too concerned with such a simple
13 engagement. Because it was not resubordination of an entire unit but
14 rather of an individual.
15 Q. Perhaps you're not familiar with the job that is the basis of that
16 hypothetical. So I don't think I need any further questions.
17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
18 At this stage are there any documents to tender? Mr. Stojanovic?
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We would like
20 to tender the rules of service in the armed forces as D71/3 and the
21 regulations on the authorities of the command as D72/3. And I would also
22 like to thank the interpreters, because in preparing for today's hearing
23 they had to translate both of these documents into English.
24 As for D74/3, I would like to tender the CV of Mr. Lackovic. And
25 in my conversation with Mr. McCloskey I got his agreement to do that, that
1 we should make indisputable some of the paragraphs that can be found in
2 the expert's written report if at all possible. Thank you.
3 JUDGE LIU: Any objections, Mr. McCloskey?
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, we can't tell from what
5 Mr. Stojanovic said what D71/3 and D72/3 are. We have some rules, and I
6 think they're the rules we're talking about, but until we can confirm that
7 we're not really sure exactly what he means.
8 JUDGE LIU: I see.
9 The issue is that, Mr. Stojanovic, did you furnish those
10 translations to the Prosecution?
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. This is the
12 rules that we have been talking about, and now I hear that the translation
13 has still not been provided to Mr. McCloskey. And two weeks ago we sent
14 the rules for translation to the translation service. If there's anything
15 disputable, I accept that. Mr. McCloskey should voice his opinion on that
16 after having received this translation. And later in the course of the
17 day we're going to check what has happened with the translation of this
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Given that we are familiar with engineering
21 rules and rules of the duty officer that are already in evidence, that's
22 what we're a little confused on. Because that's already in evidence. So
23 this is new material we haven't seen. As Mr. Stojanovic says, it's merely
24 reprints of the JNA rules. If that's what it is, I'm sure I will have no
25 objection, but I generally like to see what it is before I agree to it
1 going into evidence. So with that proviso, we don't have any problem.
2 With the report, I know the Court is aware of my concerns as I
3 indicated them first thing, and now of course I am aware of the Court's
4 concerns on that same subject. And given that the witness has testified,
5 I do have serious problems with this report coming in at all. Though I
6 did promise Mr. Stojanovic, and I will work with him to look at that
7 report to see if we can identify statements of rules and expert opinions
8 that are not arguments and are not legal arguments, and if we can find
9 that, I will -- we'll get back to you and reach a stipulated agreement
10 about that for your consideration.
11 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: I have no objection to the CV.
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Just a point of clarification on the report itself.
15 We're constantly told, you know, Your Honour, that because we're before
16 Professional Judges, the Judges can very well throw out what they don't
17 want, what they don't find acceptable. So I think the Court can very well
18 redact on its own what it thinks is not relevant or its -- it invades the
19 province of the Judges. So that's why we allow a lot of evidence to come
20 in, and it's up to the Trial Chamber to decide what, if any, weight to
21 give it. So I don't really see the point of that. But if there is going
22 to be redaction, I would suggest that it be done the other way around,
23 that is, take out the opinions and the body remain the way it is. I have
24 read the report, and frankly I don't have a problem with it myself. But I
25 understand the concerns.
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
2 Mr. McCloskey.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: I object to the standing of Mr. Karnavas. Unless
4 Mr. Jokic or counsel specifically designates him the authority to argue
5 regarding his exhibits, that is not appropriate and may not be helpful.
6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
7 Well, as for the document D74/3, the CV of this witness is
8 admitted into the evidence.
9 The document D71/3, D72/3 we temporarily made a decision to admit
10 it into evidence at this stage, pending the translations of those
11 documents and we still give the opportunity for the Prosecution to check
12 these regulations, whether we have already admitted it or not, whether
13 it's part of the whole regulation or not, you know, for these kind of
15 As for the document D73/1, the suggestions by Mr. Karnavas might
16 be the last result. But since the two parties agree to put their heads
17 together to work out some redactions on those reports, I believe that we
18 give this in a priority to the parties to decide.
19 Well --
20 MR. KARNAVAS: And I was merely speaking as an amici, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE LIU: I understand that. I understand that. I'm not going
22 to dwell on this issue any longer since time is up.
23 Well, Witness, thank you very much for coming to The Hague to give
24 your evidence. Madam Usher will show you out of the room, and we wish you
25 a pleasant journey back home.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, concerning with the future witnesses, are there
5 any matters that Mr. Stojanovic or Mr. Lukic would like to inform us?
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as we have already
7 informed you, tomorrow we have two witnesses. The first one should take
8 just one session and the second witness which will be a character witness
9 should take even less than that. So I hope and I have informed the
10 Prosecution team that we will be able to finish both witnesses tomorrow.
11 We have not planned any protective measures for any of the two witnesses
13 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
14 And we'll resume tomorrow morning 9.00 in the same courtroom.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
16 at 1.47 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday,
17 the 23rd day of July, 2004,
18 at 9.00 a.m.