{short description of image}

  1. 1 Wednesday, 20th January, 1999

    2 (Open session)

    3 --- Upon commencing at 2.07 p.m.

    4 JUDGE JORDA: Have the accused brought in,

    5 please.

    6 (The accused entered court)

    7 JUDGE JORDA: Good afternoon to the

    8 interpreters, to the court reporters, to all counsel.

    9 We can resume now with the cross-examination of

    10 Mr. Jankovic.

    11 Is that correct, Mr. Dubuisson?

    12 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, that is correct.

    13 Slobodan Jankovic.

    14 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Cayley, what do you have,

    15 about another 30 minutes that you need? So about 10

    16 minutes to 3.00 is when you should finish. That is so

    17 long as the witness comes right into the courtroom.

    18 Well, we are not going to count every single minute,

    19 you know. I am talking approximately.

    20 (The witness entered court)

    21 JUDGE JORDA: Good afternoon, Mr. Jankovic.

    22 Please be seated. Let me remind you that you are still

    23 under oath and that you are being asked questions by

    24 Mr. Cayley from The Office of the Prosecutor, and he'll

    25 ask you questions for about a half hour as part of the

  2. 1 cross-examination.

    2 Mr. Cayley, you may proceed.

    3 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, thank you. Good afternoon,

    4 Mr. President, good afternoon, Judge Shahabuddeen, good

    5 afternoon counsel


    7 Cross-examined by Mr. Cayley: (Cont'd)

    8 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Jankovic. I hope you

    9 enjoyed a pleasant evening in The Hague last night.

    10 A. Thank you.

    11 Q. Now, you stated yesterday that one cannot

    12 evaluate the range on the basis of crater analysis. Do

    13 you recall saying that?

    14 A. Yes.

    15 Q. And the reason for that, Professor, is

    16 because it is extremely difficult to accurately measure

    17 the angle of impact of a shell, isn't it?

    18 A. Well, that depends. No, I didn't say that.

    19 I mean, if you have the beginnings of a hole where the

    20 projectile has gone in, if you have that -- I don't

    21 know whether that existed or whether they exploded. I

    22 don't know if there was a crater or if there was not,

    23 or there was the beginning of a hole, but if there is,

    24 on the basis of the access of that hole you can see

    25 where the projectile is coming from. That happens

  3. 1 frequently. But I don't think that was the case.

    2 Q. So you are stating in this particular case

    3 there wasn't a good crater from which to measure the

    4 angle of impact?

    5 A. Yes, that's how I think.

    6 Q. Now, if that was the case and the angle of

    7 impact was inaccurately measured, that would vastly

    8 change the calculations that you made for the Defence,

    9 wouldn't it?

    10 A. Well, we are getting into a technical

    11 discussion. Just a moment, please. I said that I

    12 never saw the effect on asphalt, and in the text I

    13 read, that there were very clear radii on the asphalt,

    14 which I didn't see that. You can't see that on the

    15 photographs either. However, it is true -- let's make

    16 a distinction. What I was talking about yesterday was

    17 mathematics, and those were exact things. Now we are

    18 talking about opinions. It is probable -- I didn't

    19 make that kind of a calculation.

    20 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Nobilo, do you want to

    21 interrupt the witness? Excuse me, Mr. Jankovic, the

    22 Defence Counsel wants to say something. I am going to

    23 give him the floor for that reason.

    24 MR. NOBILO: I am afraid, because we are

    25 talking about technical terms, that the interpretation

  4. 1 from French into English was not technically correct.

    2 Mr. Jankovic has been talking about dispersion and also

    3 the direction from which the shell is coming, and, to

    4 the best of my knowledge, as far as the English

    5 language is concerned, my learned colleague,

    6 Mr. Cayley, has been asking about the angle of fall,

    7 whether it can be calculated properly, and Professor

    8 Jankovic is answering about dispersion and about

    9 setting the right direction. So these are two

    10 different things. Of course, Professor Jankovic

    11 understands what I am saying in Croatian, so let us

    12 please clarify this matter, because the difference is

    13 substantial.

    14 JUDGE JORDA: All right. The Prosecutor has

    15 a limited amount of time and I don't want him to be

    16 interrupted too frequently. He has about 30 minutes.

    17 Mr. Cayley, could you reformulate your question. I'll

    18 ask you, Mr. Jankovic, even though it is a very

    19 technical subject, to try to answer as close to the

    20 question as you can. This is for time reasons, and in

    21 terms of equity between the Defence and the

    22 Prosecution. Thank you very much.

    23 Mr. Cayley, would you please reformulate your

    24 question and, as much as possible, try to take into

    25 account Mr. Nobilo's questions.

  5. 1 A. I heard the questions. Perhaps I was making

    2 a rather long introduction.

    3 JUDGE JORDA: If you've understood the

    4 question and if you can answer it, then go ahead.

    5 A. The two things are connected. One cannot

    6 answer the questions just by speaking out of the air.

    7 It requires a technical analysis and that takes some

    8 time. I would have to do some calculations. I would

    9 have to look at things. I would have to study things.

    10 One cannot give answers just like that, just speaking.

    11 But the two things can be connected, one to the other,

    12 and I can explain why. But that would take some time,

    13 and I don't know -- and it will take time if I were to

    14 go into those details.

    15 JUDGE JORDA: Well, it's not my time that's

    16 being counted here. Mr. Cayley is the one who has to

    17 decide about the density of the questions that he is

    18 asking. It seems to me that the question he asked was

    19 simple.

    20 MR. CAYLEY: I thought so, Mr. President, and

    21 in fact the witness answered my question. He was

    22 trying to explain that when a shell hits the ground, it

    23 makes a radii-like pattern. That was the translation

    24 that I got. That's what I understood he was saying.

    25 In any event.

  6. 1 Q. Professor, it is correct, is it not, from the

    2 photographs that you saw, that it would have been

    3 difficult to accurately measure the angle of impact of

    4 the shell on the ground?

    5 A. On the photographs you can't see anything.

    6 No conclusions can be drawn from those photographs.

    7 They are absolutely unusable.

    8 Q. Now, if there was an inaccuracy in the angle

    9 of impact, that would make your graphs here, frankly,

    10 not of very much use to the Court, wouldn't it?

    11 A. No, because what I said to you was that I did

    12 the calculations on the initial velocity of 735, and I

    13 told you that the Croatian army did not have that

    14 table, didn't have that charge. However, I presented

    15 the results in order to show you that even with those

    16 results, the data do not coincide among themselves.

    17 They are contradictory. But the most important thing

    18 is, I believe, is that the Croatian army did not have

    19 those tables and could not use that supercharge. You

    20 call that additional charge in your texts. But it was

    21 out of the question to do so.

    22 Q. Professor, listen very carefully to my

    23 question, because at the moment I am talking about the

    24 accuracy of the angle of impact. If there was a

    25 10-degree inaccuracy in the angle of impact when this

  7. 1 shell hit the ground, how would that effect the range?

    2 Let's say it hit the ground at an angle of 54 degrees,

    3 how would that effect the range of this shell?

    4 A. I gave you the tables and the results. I am

    5 not speaking, the results speak for themselves. I can

    6 take them out, I can show them to you again.

    7 JUDGE JORDA: No, no. Excuse me,

    8 Mr. Jankovic. If I've understood the question, it's

    9 not a question of finding the same results. If I

    10 understood the Prosecutor's question, it is, let's say,

    11 that there was a 10-degree error, what would the result

    12 of that be in respect of the range? The question has

    13 to do with the range. I am not sure that the French

    14 was correctly translated. I hope it was. It usually

    15 is. Is that your question, Mr. Cayley?

    16 MR. CAYLEY: That's exactly the question,

    17 Mr. President. If the witness could be given Exhibit

    18 D526, please.

    19 Q. If you could turn, please, Professor, to

    20 diagram "I".

    21 JUDGE JORDA: Could you put it on the ELMO so

    22 that the public gallery can see. These are technical

    23 questions, we are talking about the shelling of a city,

    24 and there were deaths and there were wounded people.

    25 It's a tragic situation. We are talking about "I" now,

  8. 1 are we not? Yes, "I."

    2 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.

    3 Q. Now, the estimate given by Witness W is 44

    4 degrees. I have asked you if there had been an

    5 inaccuracy of 10 degrees in that measurement, whether

    6 that would have increased the range. Now, if we look

    7 at document "I," we see an impact angle of 53.4

    8 degrees. Can you tell the Court what the range would

    9 be had the shell hit the ground at 53.4 degrees?

    10 A. Well, it's on the chart --

    11 JUDGE JORDA: Now, be careful with the

    12 question, as I heard it translated into French. Be

    13 careful. You said 53.4 twice, 53.4. That's what the

    14 calculation is that's been done. You were talking

    15 about 44, weren't you?

    16 MR. CAYLEY: We can call it 9.4 degrees

    17 inaccuracy, if you wish, Mr. President.

    18 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, all right.

    19 MR. CAYLEY:

    20 Q. If there had been a 9.4 inaccuracy in the

    21 measurement of the angle, this chart would have

    22 applied, wouldn't it, Professor, and the range would

    23 have been 16.000 metres?

    24 A. Yes. I suppose it would.

    25 Q. From this chart, this chart represents the

  9. 1 standard OF 462 ammunition with the additional charge?

    2 A. What's the question? What's the question,

    3 please?

    4 Q. Chart "I" refers to the trajectory of

    5 standard OF 462 Russian-type ammunition with an

    6 additional charge; is that correct?

    7 A. Yes. Let me repeat. Croatia did not have

    8 the firing tables, it had the velocity. I did the

    9 calculation because in the text that's -- additional

    10 charge was what was spoken about.

    11 JUDGE JORDA: Let's not mix up things. You

    12 are also mixing things. Let's not confuse opinions

    13 with technical questions. For the time being you are

    14 talking about technical issues. You said, "I don't

    15 want to mix opinion with technical issues," so let's

    16 not go back to what was said yesterday and see whether

    17 or not Croatia had that charge. Please try to answer

    18 the question that Mr. Cayley asked.

    19 MR. CAYLEY:

    20 Q. Professor, if we could look at diagram "C"

    21 now, and this is in connection with the M76

    22 ammunition. Now, had Witness W inaccurately measured

    23 the angle of impact by 4 degrees, 4.1 degrees to be

    24 precise, this chart would have applied, wouldn't it,

    25 Professor?

  10. 1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. The range of the shell would have been 16.000

    3 metres, wouldn't it?

    4 A. Yes, that's what it says.

    5 Q. Professor, do you know what the maximum range

    6 of standard OF 462 ammunition is with a full charge, so

    7 not supercharged, with a full charge?

    8 A. I have some tables in my briefcase. I could

    9 take them out and then answer exactly.

    10 Q. Please go ahead. The maximum range with a

    11 full charge and a low elevation on the barrel of the

    12 weapon.

    13 A. 15 kilometres, 300 metres.

    14 Q. So the maximum range of the OF 462 ammunition

    15 with full charge is 15.300 metres?

    16 A. Yes.

    17 Q. In the testimony that you read that was

    18 provided to you by the Defence, have you seen anywhere

    19 in that evidence an exact grid reference on a map

    20 locating this artillery piece that fired these shells

    21 on Zenica?

    22 A. No.

    23 Q. Now, you stated that Witness W said that the

    24 weapon was 16.000 metres away from Zenica; do you

    25 recall that?

  11. 1 A. Yes, and with me I have the notes indicating

    2 the page and on what line this data is found.

    3 Q. Now, I'm right in saying, Professor, that you

    4 faithfully abided by that figure of 16.000 metres,

    5 didn't you, in making your calculations?

    6 A. Yes.

    7 Q. Now, if you had read Witness W's testimony

    8 very carefully, you would have seen that he stated

    9 that, in fact, the weapon was about 16.000 metres away

    10 from Zenica; do you recall that?

    11 MR. HAYMAN: Could we have a page reference?

    12 MR. CAYLEY: Page 6.024, lines 6 and 7.

    13 A. Yes, also 6.029, line 7 and page 6.091, line

    14 8.

    15 Q. Do you recall, Professor, that it stated, and

    16 I'll read it for the purposes of the transcript, this

    17 is Witness W: "The angle at which the shell landed

    18 tells us that the artillery weapon was about 16.000

    19 metres away from the town of Zenica." On page 6.029, I

    20 think at lines 7 and 8, Judge Riad asked: "How far is

    21 it from Zenica?" "This point, Your Honour, is about

    22 16.000 metres away from Zenica."

    23 Is that the transcript that you read,

    24 Professor?

    25 A. Yes.

  12. 1 Q. Now --

    2 MR. HAYMAN: Mr. President, for completeness,

    3 I think it's absolutely necessary to read the portion

    4 of the transcript that puts this in context. On the

    5 next page, page 6.025, the witness was asked: "Is it

    6 your opinion that the shell also had an additional

    7 charge, an additional propellant to cover the extra

    8 distance?" Answer: "On the basis of our findings, it

    9 was assessed that the gunman had to have used a shell

    10 with an additional charge." End of answer.

    11 Thank you.

    12 JUDGE JORDA: All right. We're not going to

    13 argue about the transcripts. The Judges are capable of

    14 reading the transcripts. For the time being, we're

    15 listening to Mr. Cayley's cross-examination.

    16 When you redirect, Mr. Hayman, you can point

    17 out what you want to point out. Let me remind you also

    18 that, during the deliberations, the Judges are capable

    19 of reading the 17.000 pages of transcript. In fact,

    20 that's their jobs and that's their responsibility.

    21 Let's not begin to argue right now. We have a

    22 technical person here, and the cross-examination is

    23 being conducted normally.

    24 Mr. Cayley, please proceed.

    25 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

  13. 1 Q. So you would agree with me that the witness

    2 was giving an estimate of the distance?

    3 A. Yes.

    4 Q. Now, had you read Major Baggesen's testimony,

    5 Professor, you would have found that he stated at page

    6 1.940 that he estimated the range at 14 to 15

    7 kilometres in a westerly direction from Zenica.

    8 A. Last night, I read those pages, I received

    9 them, and if I understood correctly, he said that the

    10 range of the weapon was 14 to 15 kilometres. That's

    11 what he said, and he said it on page --

    12 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Everybody agrees.

    13 Everybody agrees.

    14 A. Line 21 of --

    15 THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me. I did not catch

    16 the page number.

    17 MR. CAYLEY: The page number was 1.940.

    18 Q. Now, can you show me in the models that

    19 you've provided to the Court one of these models which

    20 actually shows a range of less than 14.000 metres?

    21 A. OF 462, I've got firing tables, and I can

    22 answer anything you want to know about that.

    23 Q. No. What I'm interested in, Professor, is

    24 Exhibit 526. Does one of the models that you have

    25 demonstrated to the Court show a range of less than

  14. 1 14.000 metres?

    2 A. I don't understand the question.

    3 JUDGE JORDA: I don't understand it either,

    4 Mr. Cayley. Would you please ask it again? I'm not

    5 sure I understood it myself.

    6 MR. CAYLEY:

    7 Q. Professor, in these tables in D526, you show

    8 the possible maximum range of a 122-millimetre shell

    9 with a number of variables, including the degree of

    10 impact, the target height, and the gun height. Is

    11 there any one of these tables where the maximum range

    12 of a shell in these particular circumstances is less

    13 than 14.000 metres?

    14 A. First of all, I don't know whether it's 229.

    15 I didn't catch the beginning of your question. On the

    16 graph that I showed you --

    17 JUDGE JORDA: Yes.

    18 A. If you can help me, please.

    19 JUDGE JORDA: I thought you were talking

    20 about letters. You're talking about 526, Mr. Cayley.

    21 We have to be clear here. It's a very technical

    22 discussion and very important, we all know that. So

    23 that 526 has several letters.

    24 Just a moment, Mr. Hayman, I'll try to

    25 clarify everything. You'll see. Trust me.

  15. 1 D526, which is a Defence Exhibit, has several

    2 documents, but they are indicated by letters,

    3 Mr. Cayley. Could you tell the witness, and here I

    4 agree with the witness, he can't answer, what document

    5 are you talking about? Is it K? Is it L?

    6 MR. CAYLEY: I'll direct the witness straight

    7 to the document. It's document N.

    8 JUDGE JORDA: All right. That's clear now,

    9 so we're talking about document N. Very well.

    10 Document N. It's a chart which shows an OF 462 --

    11 MR. CAYLEY:

    12 Q. What is the range on this particular table,

    13 Professor?

    14 A. 14 kilometres, you can see that.

    15 Q. To be exact, 14.220 metres, I think, is your

    16 calculation.

    17 A. 222.

    18 Q. Do you agree with me that from B, C, F, D, G,

    19 I, and N, this is the lowest range of all of the values

    20 expressed in these tables?

    21 A. Yes.

    22 JUDGE JORDA: Let's move along. Let's move

    23 along, Mr. Cayley. That was clear. That was obvious.

    24 MR. CAYLEY:

    25 Q. You stated to the Court just now that last

  16. 1 night you were provided with the testimony of Major

    2 Lars Baggesen who estimated the range to be between 14

    3 and 15 kilometres; is that correct?

    4 JUDGE JORDA: All of that was said,

    5 Mr. Cayley. Let's move on.

    6 A. Yes.

    7 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, when Major

    8 Baggesen was quoted, he said that the range of these

    9 122-calibre weapons is 14.000 to 15.000 metres, but

    10 that that was the possible range, not that that was the

    11 actual range there.

    12 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Nobilo, you will have the

    13 redirect. Please wait until the end of the

    14 cross-examination. Just wait until the end of the

    15 cross-examination. You will be able to redirect and

    16 make any comments you want. Don't disturb Mr. Cayley

    17 in his demonstration.

    18 Mr. Cayley, try to get to the essentials.

    19 The witness said it to you already. We're talking

    20 about 14 kilometres, 222 metres. What is the question,

    21 please?

    22 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. Nobilo has misrepresented

    23 Major Baggesen's testimony, but I will move on as

    24 you're requesting, Mr. President.

    25 Q. Tell me, Professor, what do you know about

  17. 1 the characteristics of the D130J weapon. Are you

    2 familiar with its handling characteristics? I'm sorry,

    3 the D30J. I've just said "D130."

    4 A. You're asking the characteristics of the

    5 weapon, not of the projectile, that is, the 30J that

    6 you're talking about; is that right?

    7 Q. Correct, the weapon.

    8 A. The weapon.

    9 JUDGE JORDA: The gun.

    10 A. Without the documentation, it's difficult to

    11 speak, but ask me what you want. If I can answer it, I

    12 will, if not, well, then I can't.

    13 I can only add, if it's of interest for you,

    14 it's my father who built it. He built the Yugoslav

    15 version. Therefore, ever since I was a child, I've

    16 been familiar with it.

    17 JUDGE JORDA: Well, I hope that in your

    18 childhood you were given other toys, Mr. Jankovic.

    19 A. Well, they were little guns.

    20 JUDGE JORDA: Well, it's not assumed that

    21 because daddy is familiar with the gun, the son is

    22 familiar with the gun as well.

    23 Ask your question again, Mr. Cayley.

    24 MR. CAYLEY:

    25 Q. Professor, the D30J is a highly mobile

  18. 1 weapon, isn't it?

    2 A. Yes. It's known for that.

    3 Q. It can be towed behind a vehicle, can it not?

    4 A. Yes, that's clear.

    5 Q. It's very easy, isn't it, to move it 1.000 or

    6 2.000 metres backwards or forwards?

    7 A. It's relative when you say "easy." "Easy" is

    8 relative. You know, that's just relative.

    9 Q. It can be set up quickly to use in action,

    10 can't it, as a weapon?

    11 A. Well, I don't know how much time it takes to

    12 move a weapon. I couldn't tell you that. That's not a

    13 technical problem. You'd have to ask military people

    14 about that.

    15 Q. Would it be quicker to set up a

    16 122-millimetre D30J for action than, for example, a

    17 155-millimetre howitzer?

    18 A. Well, I said to you that I don't know that.

    19 JUDGE JORDA: We're getting into hypotheses

    20 now, Mr. Cayley. We can't ask the witness to invent

    21 scenarios. He's an expert.

    22 MR. CAYLEY:

    23 Q. If I showed you a video of a D30J, would you

    24 be able to recognise it?

    25 A. I suppose so.

  19. 1 MR. CAYLEY: If the lights could be brought

    2 down, please, and the video played.

    3 Just to introduce this video, this is a video

    4 actually involving Mr. Ivica Rajic and a shelling

    5 incident from Kiseljak, but it does very graphically

    6 represent the artillery piece which we're discussing

    7 within the accused's area of command.

    8 Q. Watch very carefully, Professor.

    9 (Videotape played)

    10 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President?

    11 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Nobilo? Mr. Cayley, just a

    12 moment, please.

    13 MR. NOBILO: My colleague is not receiving

    14 any interpretation of this text. We don't know when

    15 this was recorded and what this man is saying, my

    16 colleague doesn't and the Judges don't, which is most

    17 important.

    18 JUDGE JORDA: I thought that that was not

    19 important. I thought that's not what the important

    20 thing was.

    21 MR. CAYLEY: It's not, Mr. President. I have

    22 a --

    23 JUDGE JORDA: That's not important.

    24 MR. CAYLEY: I have a copy for Mr. Hayman, if

    25 he wants what is stated put into evidence. It is the

  20. 1 gun that is important.

    2 MR. HAYMAN: Mr. President, we don't know

    3 what the date of the tape is, we don't know where the

    4 tape was made, and we're told we can't listen to it and

    5 understand what the person is saying to try and date it

    6 or put it in a place or a time.

    7 JUDGE JORDA: That's not the problem,

    8 Mr. Hayman. The problem is that the Prosecution wants

    9 to show you the picture of a gun. We haven't seen the

    10 gun yet. What the person is saying, for the time

    11 being, for the time being, is not very important. If

    12 you don't mind, let the video be shown.

    13 MR. HAYMAN: With all due respect,

    14 Mr. President, the Prosecutor said this photo, this

    15 videotape, will place this gun under the command and

    16 control of my client. That is what he said --

    17 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Hayman, let me remind you

    18 there is somebody here who is directing the discussion,

    19 that is, Judge Jorda with Judge Shahabuddeen. I just

    20 said that the videocasette was going to be shown. You

    21 will have it. The Prosecution said that it was showing

    22 it to show a gun, and you can make your objections when

    23 you redirect. Time is running for the Prosecution.

    24 Let me direct things here. Don't you think

    25 that I also have a certain amount of possibility to

  21. 1 direct things and some authority here? Don't you think

    2 we're wasting a lot of time? I'm the accountant of the

    3 time, if you like, here, as you are. Let the

    4 Prosecution conduct its cross-examination.

    5 Don't force me, once again, to intervene, and

    6 once a decision has been taken by the Judges, I will

    7 ask the parties to comply with it.

    8 Mr. Cayley, please proceed. We will show the

    9 video. The Judges don't need it for the time being.

    10 It's the Judges who decide things here.

    11 Mr. Cayley, continue with the video and show

    12 us the gun. I can't believe that.

    13 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President. I

    14 will provide a copy of the videotape to my --

    15 JUDGE JORDA: You will get a copy of it.

    16 MR. CAYLEY: If the video could be continued,

    17 please.

    18 JUDGE JORDA: Let's continue. Yes, please be

    19 seated.

    20 (Videotape played)

    21 MR. CAYLEY: This is the important part of

    22 the news report.

    23 (Videotape played)

    24 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Now, the question,

    25 Mr. Cayley.

  22. 1 MR. CAYLEY: If the picture can be paused,

    2 please. Sorry, can the picture be placed back on the

    3 screen? Could the picture of the artillery be placed

    4 on the screen?

    5 Q. Did you recognise it, Professor?

    6 JUDGE JORDA: Yes. This is the fundamental

    7 point of the question that Mr. Cayley is asking.

    8 Mr. Jankovic, do you recognise the weapon as

    9 the Prosecutor has referred to it?

    10 A. I don't recognise it. In order to see

    11 whether it has the characteristics for the 122 shell,

    12 we see the large plate on which everything turns. You

    13 can't really see that here.

    14 MR. CAYLEY:

    15 Q. Do you recognise --

    16 A. No, I don't recognise it. No, I don't.

    17 Q. Would you recognise it if you saw the

    18 double-baffled muzzle brace? It probably won't be

    19 translated. The tip of the barrel of the gun is

    20 distinctive on a D30J, is it not, Professor?

    21 A. Would you repeat the question, please?

    22 Q. Is the end of the barrel of a D30J

    23 distinctive, the baffle?

    24 A. You are talking about the muzzle where the

    25 ring is that you use in order to fire? I think I saw

  23. 1 that. Well, it could be on the other guns also.

    2 Listen, these kinds of things are things that

    3 journalists recognise. We technicians, we work with

    4 technical data, not with pictures.

    5 Q. Now, I've almost finished, Professor. You

    6 stated yesterday that Croatia does not have, and indeed

    7 you have never seen, range tables for M76 ammunition.

    8 Do you recall saying that?

    9 A. Yes, that's right.

    10 Q. How were you able to use M76 ammunition from

    11 1996 onwards?

    12 A. Well, I didn't use it. I didn't understand

    13 the question. Are you asking whether I use it today?

    14 Well, no, I didn't use it.

    15 JUDGE JORDA: It's an ambiguous question,

    16 Mr. Cayley.

    17 MR. CAYLEY:

    18 Q. If you don't have the range tables for a

    19 particular piece of ammunition, you can't use that

    20 ammunition in an artillery piece, can you?

    21 A. Right.

    22 Q. Now, you stated that Croatia has never had

    23 the range tables for M76 ammunition. Do you recall

    24 stating that?

    25 A. Yes, that's right.

  24. 1 Q. Would it surprise you to know that Croatia

    2 has been advertising both its 122-millimetre howitzer

    3 and M76 ammunition for sale since 1996?

    4 A. Yes, I know that.

    5 Q. How is it --

    6 A. In Abu Dhabi we provided a brochure about

    7 that projector, but without the firing tables. We

    8 considered if we could sell it, at that point we could

    9 draw up the firing tables.

    10 Q. How is a country able to use ammunition that

    11 you are selling without range tables?

    12 A. Well, the country doesn't do it. It was a

    13 company that made the offer. I said that we had the

    14 documentation and that we could produce it, and if

    15 anybody wants to buy it, at that point we can produce

    16 it. I said that now we have the range tables and the

    17 possibility of establishing those tables, and we can do

    18 it. Let me add again that now we are not interested in

    19 that because we have much better projectiles. The one

    20 that I had built is much better.

    21 Q. Now, lastly, you state that after the war

    22 began the Croatian government asked you to become a

    23 technician in an institute in Zagreb. What was that

    24 institute that you worked in?

    25 A. The name in Croatian is Brodaski Institute.

  25. 1 That is the institute for ships, ship construction

    2 industry, and I worked there until I retired.

    3 Q. Did you have any sort of military rank prior

    4 to retirement from your service in the Croatian

    5 government?

    6 A. In the former Yugoslavia, after my studies in

    7 Brussels, I was an officer in that army, and that was

    8 until 1962. I left -- '72. I was a

    9 Lieutenant-Colonel, I was a Colonel, but then I decided

    10 that I wanted a scientific career, not a military one.

    11 MR. CAYLEY: I have no further questions,

    12 Mr. President.

    13 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you, Mr. Cayley. Let me

    14 now turn to the Defence. It is with pleasure now that

    15 I give you the floor, and you can use this time as you

    16 like, Mr. Nobilo. I hope that the Prosecution is not

    17 going to interrupt you as much as you interrupted it.

    18 Go ahead, please.

    19 Re-examined by Mr. Nobilo:

    20 Q. Thank you. I'll try and be more correct in

    21 posing my questions.

    22 Professor, could you tell us whether you

    23 would be able, had you been in Zenica on that

    24 unfortunate day, to calculate the angle of fall of the

    25 projectile, the one where it hits the ground, that

  26. 1 angle? Would you have been able to calculate that had

    2 you been in Zenica on that day?

    3 A. I think that's not so easy. To answer in

    4 principle is difficult. I can tell you what I would

    5 have done had I been there. In any case, what

    6 surprised me the most is that I would analyse all of

    7 the impact sites, not just one, and that way, if I were

    8 to get any kind of result, I would have all the results

    9 and I would be able to make comparisons and conclude

    10 what the average is and what's the dispersion, what is

    11 the plausible gap between the results in order to do

    12 that study correctly. That's how I would answer, a

    13 priori, a posteriori. I can't say anything else.

    14 Q. Witness W and Major Baggesen, how many

    15 craters did they look at, if you recall by reading

    16 through the transcript?

    17 A. If I've understood the material correctly, it

    18 was based on one. At times they speak about the other

    19 impacts here and there, that it fell here or fell

    20 there, but I had the impression that the conclusions

    21 were drawn from a single impact.

    22 Q. Professor, am I right in saying that from the

    23 shell and from the crater you are trying to determine

    24 the angle of fall, that is one element, but that

    25 witnesses tried to determine and calculate from the

  27. 1 crater, to determine from the crater the direction from

    2 which the shell was launched --

    3 MR. CAYLEY: I am objecting at this point.

    4 That is a matter that was never addressed, the bearing,

    5 the bearing of fire was never addressed in the

    6 examination-in-chief or in the cross-examination. The

    7 angle of impact and the direction of fire are two

    8 distinct matters, Mr. President.

    9 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Cayley, I think that the

    10 questions are so technical, and we are fortunate to

    11 have a technical expert here. All right. Continue,

    12 Mr. Nobilo.

    13 MR. NOBILO: Thank you.

    14 Q. The questions intermingle. Could you tell

    15 the Court, please, first, whether it is easier to look

    16 at the crater and by its aspect to determine the angle

    17 of fall, or the bearing of fire, that is to say the

    18 direction from which the shell came? What's easier?

    19 A. I repeated that I had a lot of craters on the

    20 earth, but not on asphalt. On firing ranges, it's

    21 almost impossible to say from where and what the angle

    22 of fall is of the projectile. It is true that one can

    23 apply information using fragments, that is the -- they

    24 call it the axe effect, that the walls of the shell

    25 disperse and they fly all around the projectile. It's

  28. 1 true that the -- it's usually that the rocket remains

    2 in one piece and that the base remains in one piece.

    3 Ordinarily, we recognise from what projectile

    4 is involved by the large pieces, but when we fire

    5 projectiles, ordinarily the base is also found in one

    6 piece or split into two, so one can recognise what is

    7 involved. But we never tried to go in the other

    8 direction, that is using the crater as a starting point

    9 in order to know what is the bearing or the angle. I

    10 never saw that done. I haven't done any kind of work

    11 on that subject to see whether anyone has done it.

    12 Q. Professor, in the literature anywhere in the

    13 world, have you ever come across the fact that the

    14 caliber, the range from which it was shot and the

    15 bearing is determined on the basis of a crater without

    16 any instruments, just by looking at it and with a

    17 compass? Have you ever come across that in the

    18 literature?

    19 A. No. I never saw that and I don't know.

    20 Q. Thank you. You said that the caliber is

    21 determined according to the traces of the shell. Could

    22 you explain to the Court what, as a rule, is found,

    23 what parts are usually found, and how do you know what

    24 caliber was used, in practical terms?

    25 A. I already said that the walls whose pieces,

  29. 1 pieces of different sizes, and ordinarily it's very

    2 important to know the size of the piece from a shell.

    3 That's why special tests are carried out. The shell is

    4 put into sand, into a closed space, you measure the

    5 curve of the dispersion of the large pieces. Eighty

    6 per cent of the weight of the projectile are pieces

    7 that can be said to be large. That's very important to

    8 know, because that tells us what the effects of the

    9 different pieces are.

    10 As I also said, ordinarily the rocket remains

    11 in one piece, it's found on the ground, and as well as

    12 the base, because it's very thick. It always remains

    13 in one piece or almost in one piece, perhaps broken

    14 into two pieces, but they were large pieces that can be

    15 recognised.

    16 The other pieces are very dispersed, that is

    17 those of different sizes, and I said that it's very

    18 interesting, and we always look at -- there are special

    19 tests. We look for the dispersion of the pieces to see

    20 what is the percentage of the pieces that are large and

    21 those that are small, and there's a specific diagram

    22 for each projectile. Somewhere in the text I found

    23 that they were pieces that were larger or smaller than

    24 this caliber should be, which is not impossible.

    25 It's impossible to find for all sizes in one

  30. 1 single caliber and to take what you want. They say

    2 this is a smaller one, this is a bigger one, this is

    3 another big one, another small one, but you can't go

    4 the other way, as I said.

    5 Q. You said that on the basis of these pieces

    6 you cannot determine this. How can you determine in

    7 the most certain terms caliber? You mentioned the base

    8 of a shell. Perhaps I didn't receive the translation,

    9 but the fuse, is the fuse usually on the spot?

    10 A. As I said, after the explosion, ordinarily, I

    11 am not saying always, but ordinarily, in most cases the

    12 rocket remains almost in one piece and the base is in

    13 one piece or broken into two or three pieces. And

    14 therefore the rocket, when it's in one piece, even if

    15 -- on the rocket -- because it's indicated on the

    16 rocket what it is. That's how we know what it is. On

    17 site we know that it's the crater produced by this

    18 projector because there were a lot of craters on site.

    19 That's the first thing. But when you find the pieces

    20 of the base, that is the back part which is very thick

    21 and which doesn't break --

    22 Q. Just one moment, please, Professor. For the

    23 transcript, your expression Upaljac was translated as

    24 rocket -- no fuse. Was that correct or not?

    25 A. Let me repeat this in the different

  31. 1 languages. Upaljac in French is la fuseer. In English

    2 it's the fuse.

    3 Q. So you spoke about fuse, not rocket, right?

    4 A. You see, here we are not talking about

    5 rockets, no. We shouldn't say rockets. It's the

    6 fuse. In French it's la fuseer and in English it's

    7 fuse. It's baza in Croatian and then base in English

    8 and French culot.

    9 JUDGE JORDA: I think the interpreters

    10 appreciate the various possibilities. These are

    11 technical terms. I am trying to help them. We can

    12 continue, Mr. Nobilo.

    13 MR. NOBILO: Thank you, Mr. President. I

    14 should like to mention that it was the error of the

    15 Defence for not giving the interpreters a list of

    16 terms. It is difficult for them to know in advance the

    17 different areas and technical terminology that we use,

    18 so the Defence Counsel would like to apologise for

    19 that.

    20 Q. On the scene itself, according to the report

    21 on the spot, made on the spot by the judge, a fuse was

    22 found. It was 152 millimetres. Did you see that fact

    23 in the material, I mean, that we gave you?

    24 A. If I remember, they speak about the fuse and

    25 about 155, 152. I am not sure if they speak about

  32. 1 150. But I said yesterday, and I can repeat it today,

    2 that a projectile, a fuse, is used on several

    3 projectiles, and that's characteristic here. That is

    4 the fuse RGM2 is used, it is a Russian fuse. There is

    5 also the former Yugoslav version, which is UTUI. And

    6 that fuse is used as 122, 130 and 152 millimetres, the

    7 three completely different projectiles and three

    8 completely different systems, but it's the same fuse.

    9 So one has to be very careful.

    10 Q. Thank you. I have almost completed. Defence

    11 Exhibit 230, you have seen that diagram, have you not?

    12 Can you tell us, it was the Prosecutor's exhibit, is

    13 this trajectory mathematically correct? We can place

    14 it on the ELMO.

    15 A. It is exact mathematically speaking. The

    16 mathematics, what I showed you, and anyone can make the

    17 comparisons in order to see what the comparison is.

    18 Now, as much as I can see just like this, that it

    19 doesn't correspond, if I look at things quickly.

    20 Q. Thank you.

    21 A. I would need some time in order to know

    22 exactly, in order to say this is not quite right, it

    23 should be this or it should be that. I would have to

    24 look at all of the comparisons and all of the -- but

    25 that's not necessary.

  33. 1 JUDGE JORDA: Before we say it isn't

    2 necessary, is this the exhibit -- the exhibit was

    3 provided by whom? It was the Prosecution case, given

    4 during the Major's testimony? Is that right?

    5 MR. NOBILO: It was Witness W who spoke at

    6 greatest length on the shelling of Zenica.

    7 JUDGE JORDA: I would like to consult with my

    8 colleague for a moment.

    9 The Judges are going to decide that after the

    10 questions they want to ask, and after the redirect has

    11 been completed, the diagram be given to the witness and

    12 he will withdraw to a secluded place and perhaps he

    13 could come back in order to make a comparison, because

    14 we have two graphical comparisons and the witness is

    15 saying it doesn't correspond. I don't know what that

    16 means when you say it doesn't correspond. For you it

    17 means something, Mr. Jankovic. I am not asking for an

    18 explanation now.

    19 We will have the witness come back so that he

    20 can criticise the diagram that he sees.

    21 All right. You want to continue, Mr. Nobilo,

    22 or have you completed what you wanted to do?

    23 MR. NOBILO: Yes, Mr. President, two more

    24 questions.

    25 Q. The first is the following. We saw Exhibit

  34. 1 565, it is the howitzer 122-millimetre D30J, and in one

    2 section it quotes the distance, a distance of 17.300

    3 metres. You had some facts and figures contained in

    4 another document, Prosecutor's Exhibit 564, and it

    5 stated 17.133 metres. Now I would like to ask you the

    6 following: Regardless of the fact whether it is 17.133

    7 range or 17.300 metres, would that vitally affect your

    8 findings as to the range of the howitzer?

    9 A. Since I have the model with me, and I have my

    10 computer, I did the calculations last night, the other

    11 calculations, so that I could answer that question. I

    12 have the exact data now, with the new figures.

    13 JUDGE JORDA: You sort of thought -- I don't

    14 understand. You had foreseen this question,

    15 Mr. Jankovic?

    16 A. No. Well, since yesterday I said that it

    17 wouldn't change anything, so I prepared myself in order

    18 to defend what I said.

    19 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you.

    20 A. Therefore, it's diagram "F." The range would

    21 not be 15.141, but would have been 15 kilometres and

    22 302 metres. For diagram "C," the angle of elevation

    23 would not be 30.1 degrees, but 29.4 degrees. And the

    24 angle of fall would not be 48.1, but 47.4. On diagram

    25 "D" the angle of elevation would not be 27.7 degrees,

  35. 1 but 27.5 degrees. And the angle of fall remains the

    2 same, but the wind is not 13.5 but 11 metres. On the

    3 basis of these figures, I would repeat what I said

    4 yesterday.

    5 MR. NOBILO:

    6 Q. Thank you, Professor. Tell us one more

    7 thing, please. According to your knowledge -- is it

    8 more precise, 17.133 metres, is that more precise, or

    9 the other figure published for commercial purposes, the

    10 17.300 figure? Which figure is more exact, in your

    11 opinion?

    12 A. I do not doubt that the source data is

    13 17.133, since I said that that was an official

    14 document. The other was a secondary document, and it

    15 is the official documents that are the source of our

    16 information. I would also like to add an explanation.

    17 Very frequently it happens, and it even happened to us,

    18 it even happened to me, when we develop a weapon and we

    19 calculate the range, and we publish documentation in

    20 order to advertise the weapon, and we provide the data,

    21 and then afterwards, when the development has been

    22 completed, we don't quite have exactly what it is that

    23 we wanted.

    24 So, for example, I believe that in the same

    25 document, for this projectile it said that it had a

  36. 1 20-kilometre range, but our tests later on said that it

    2 was greater than 20 kilometres. It was 20 kilometres

    3 and 50 metres. So that does happen. It's because of

    4 this that the firing tables are the most important and

    5 most exact documents that exist.

    6 The book that I showed you must be in

    7 agreement with the firing tables, because this is also

    8 an official book as the tables are official. That's

    9 all I can say.

    10 Q. And now my last question. Any expert, but an

    11 expert of course, if any expert were to take these

    12 elements into consideration, the ones that you had,

    13 would he, by means of calculations, arrive at the same

    14 result as you yourself did?

    15 A. Absolutely. I will add only a few details

    16 that I haven't already said, and that is that I used

    17 the Russian aerodynamic coefficient of 1943, and I used

    18 the normal projectile, 122 explosive, figures because

    19 even in the text, it says that it was the projectile of

    20 the normal point, and everything I said is something

    21 that every specialist would also say according to

    22 calculations reached.

    23 MR. NOBILO: Thank you, Mr. President.

    24 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you. Judge

    25 Shahabuddeen?

  37. 1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Professor, counsel would

    2 have told you that we are not military experts in court

    3 and, therefore, we depend, to a great deal, on expert

    4 assistance from persons of your training and

    5 background. So do forgive me if I ask you a question

    6 or two which may appear to you to be elementary in

    7 nature.

    8 Let me first ask you this question: Is it

    9 the case that the trajectory of a shell need not have

    10 the same angle of elevation as the angle of fall?

    11 A. It is never not the same. If they are the

    12 same elevation, the fall angle is always greater than

    13 the angle of elevation.

    14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, would I be right in

    15 understanding you to mean this, that the angle of fall

    16 could indicate two things, namely, the range of the

    17 shell and the direction from which it came?

    18 A. The direction -- more or less, yes. There is

    19 another effect which comes into play which is

    20 deviation, but that's not so important. It's one or

    21 two degrees. I wasn't even sure that one should really

    22 talk about it here because it's not important. It's

    23 not significant enough. But the angle of fall cannot

    24 tell you exactly what the angle of elevation is because

    25 the angle of fall influences not only the angle of

  38. 1 elevation but ordinarily the initial velocity, and from

    2 the photographs that you've seen, you can understand

    3 that.

    4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Professor, it may be

    5 that I have misled you. I wasn't asking whether the

    6 angle of fall would indicate the angle of elevation,

    7 but only whether the angle of fall would indicate the

    8 range of the shell and the direction from which it

    9 came.

    10 A. Same answer.

    11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I see. Do bear with me,

    12 Professor. You are an expert and we are not.

    13 Now, I have heard mention before of Jane's

    14 publication, but I have to be frank with you, I don't

    15 think I've ever consulted it. What is the correct

    16 title of that publication; do you know?

    17 A. Jane's, you're talking about Jane's

    18 publication?

    19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Jane's publication.

    20 A. I am not the one who mentioned it. It was

    21 Mr. Cayley. I look at it. I'm familiar with it. It's

    22 a source of information, but it's not really

    23 scientific. It's got more of a commercial

    24 orientation. For a technical person, a scientific

    25 person, like myself and for my colleagues, that's not a

  39. 1 source of much information.

    2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Again, I apologise to

    3 you, Professor, if I suggested that you had mentioned

    4 the publication to me, but you had discussed it, and so

    5 I was asking for its correct title. Would I be right

    6 in supposing that that publication has been going now

    7 for some time, perhaps, for some decades?

    8 A. No, I don't know. I don't know.

    9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Does the publication

    10 consist of advertisements of new weaponry or does it

    11 consist of assessments made by experts on the weaponry

    12 of various states?

    13 A. I said to you, it's not a publication that

    14 we, who work in the technical areas, are very

    15 interested in. I can tell you what I think about it,

    16 but that's simply my opinion, and I'm not sure that

    17 everything I'm going to say is right. I know that it

    18 is a company in Switzerland, I think, that produces it,

    19 and it is especially used for high military officials

    20 to see what can be bought, what possibilities exist, in

    21 respect of knowing what company or countries produce

    22 what. It's expensive. It's a big book. It's filled

    23 with information, interesting information for military

    24 people, especially for those people who are involved in

    25 logistics for the armies.

  40. 1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Is it a publication

    2 which is relied upon by military authorities worldwide?

    3 A. I suppose so.

    4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, the last area of

    5 interest to me concerns the testimony of witnesses

    6 about the shells which fell on Zenica. Would I be

    7 correct in recalling you as saying that the testimony

    8 of the witnesses which you read suggested that those

    9 shells were explosive shells?

    10 A. Yes.

    11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, does the fact that

    12 the shells were explosive shells tell you anything

    13 about the range of those shells?

    14 A. The firing tables, for instance, the one I

    15 have with me, there are the firing tables for

    16 projectiles, anti-tank, and in the same volume, there

    17 are explosive projectiles and then tables for

    18 illuminating shells and those also that leave smoke.

    19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Can you have different

    20 types of explosive shells such that some types extend

    21 over a longer range than other types?

    22 A. Yes, I showed you that there were two

    23 explosive projectiles of different characteristics and

    24 different ranges, but in this table, there was only

    25 one. Now, there's the third that I constructed which

  41. 1 has an even greater range. We don't have firing tables

    2 for that yet.

    3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Professor, I thank you.

    4 JUDGE JORDA: I have some questions, not

    5 questions of an expert, and I also apologise, as my

    6 colleague Judge Shahabuddeen did, for my lack of

    7 expertise.

    8 Should I understand that you found the

    9 evaluations of the witnesses in the statements that

    10 were given to you, that you found them somewhat

    11 superficial or am I wrong in saying that?

    12 A. Would you explain what you mean by

    13 "superficial"?

    14 JUDGE JORDA: Well, in other words, not very

    15 rigorous.

    16 A. Yes, I agree with you.

    17 JUDGE JORDA: Have you ever worked with NATO

    18 officers, western officers, to exchange your

    19 experiences, experiments, your conclusions?

    20 A. Yes, quite frequently.

    21 JUDGE JORDA: Your knowledge, in fact, which

    22 is quite great, was it ever made available to Croatia

    23 in the conflicts? Were you ever asked to put your

    24 knowledge on the side of Croatia?

    25 A. Well, I cooperated with the Croatian army

  42. 1 from the very start.

    2 JUDGE JORDA: Are you able to draw up firing

    3 tables yourself?

    4 A. Yes, I am.

    5 JUDGE JORDA: Should I understand that you

    6 refused to draw up the firing tables for this shell for

    7 which you said that there was no firing table?

    8 A. No, no, no, that was not the problem. We

    9 didn't have the firing range. We didn't have

    10 instruments. Even if we had had a firing range, there

    11 was an embargo, and we could not get them, so we didn't

    12 have them. We didn't have the assets that we needed in

    13 order to do what would be needed in order to set up the

    14 firing tables.

    15 JUDGE JORDA: This is the first time in your

    16 statement that you're talking about instruments because

    17 I have to say that throughout your statement, you spoke

    18 only about the lack of a firing range. I have not been

    19 in the army for a long time, but I do remember that the

    20 firing ranges -- it seems to me that in a country like

    21 Croatia, won't you be able to find firing ranges?

    22 That's why I really don't understand.

    23 A. Well, I'm always afraid about going into too

    24 many details. Even when we talk about firing ranges,

    25 you have to make different types. There is one thing,

  43. 1 the technical firing range, and then the other thing is

    2 those that can be used for units, but the technical

    3 firing ranges requires a great deal of instruments

    4 which are very expensive.

    5 You, first of all, have to make exact

    6 measurements for the impact points on all the

    7 coordinates. You have to measure the initial velocity,

    8 even the velocity along each point on the trajectory.

    9 You have to measure the atmosphere. You have to

    10 measure the wind and the temperature in respect of

    11 velocity, et cetera, temperature of the powder. There

    12 are many things and they have to be organised.

    13 In the former Yugoslavia, there were firing

    14 ranges but they were all on the Serbian side. Near

    15 Samac, there's a large firing range which is very

    16 well-equipped. There's another one on the coast.

    17 Well, it doesn't matter where.

    18 JUDGE JORDA: But when did Croatia find

    19 itself with a firing range?

    20 A. Well, the first one was, I'm not sure, but it

    21 was, at that time -- it didn't have instruments. The

    22 first ballistic one that we were able to set up was

    23 with the shell that I spoke to you about. That means

    24 at the beginning of 1997. At that point, we had the

    25 minimum necessary in order to set up the firing range.

  44. 1 JUDGE JORDA: Therefore, Croatia was never

    2 able to procure the firing tables for those weapons?

    3 A. No, as far as I know, it was not.

    4 JUDGE JORDA: All right. I do not have any

    5 other questions.

    6 We're going to take a break. We're going to

    7 ask you to do a little bit of work. Let me tell you

    8 the rules so that everything will be clear. This work

    9 will not give rise to any question, any question from

    10 the Defence or from the Prosecution. The witness will

    11 be a kind of an amicus curiae, further to Rule 70, I

    12 believe it is, that is, that he will come back to give

    13 us a short explanation, I hope, that is, of the

    14 criticism that he has of the charts that had been

    15 provided by Witness W. This will be put into the

    16 minutes.

    17 We're not going to go back to a polemic about

    18 what the witness said about this or that point. The

    19 Judges are asking for this additional information, so

    20 long as we're fortunate enough to have this expert with

    21 us.

    22 Now we're going to take a break. About how

    23 much time would you need, Mr. Jankovic?

    24 THE WITNESS: Not very much time.

    25 JUDGE JORDA: Very well. Let me suggest

  45. 1 something. We will give the interpreters a bit of a

    2 break. Let me suggest that we resume at 4.00. The

    3 witness will work, and if you agree, before we begin

    4 with the cross-examination of the previous witness, we

    5 will have Professor Jankovic speak to us once again,

    6 and we thank him for coming back.

    7 Is something wrong, Mr. Registrar?

    8 THE REGISTRAR: No, not really a problem. I

    9 had a question for the Prosecutor. Does he want 524

    10 through 526 to be tendered as evidence?

    11 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, please. Thank you.

    12 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Hayman doesn't agree, I

    13 suppose, about the video. I'm frightening Mr. Hayman

    14 now, I see. No, you don't have to be afraid. You know

    15 how to defend your interests. You hold the interests

    16 of your client very close to your heart, and we are

    17 very loyal to justice, but all of us are loyal here. I

    18 expressed what I wanted. I thought that the Prosecutor

    19 simply wanted to show the image of a gun.

    20 So you don't agree with the entire video or

    21 just the one point?

    22 MR. NOBILO: The entire video. We don't know

    23 what the source is. It seems to us that it's made up

    24 of two clips. We also received information that these

    25 guns are shooting at Kiseljak, and the text says that

  46. 1 Rajic is threatening Sarajevo. So there's quite a bit

    2 of confusion involved, and we couldn't even see the

    3 cannon properly, by the way.

    4 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Cayley, could you give us

    5 some clarification? I would like to have this little

    6 problem resolved. Of course, I could consult with my

    7 colleague to do so.

    8 MR. CAYLEY: First of all, Mr. President, is

    9 there any objection to 564 and 565, which is a public

    10 document? These are extracts from Jane's 1996.

    11 JUDGE JORDA: No objection?

    12 MR. NOBILO: No objections. No objections.

    13 JUDGE JORDA: The video?

    14 MR. CAYLEY: The video, I will find out

    15 exactly what the origin is and I will tell the Court.

    16 It hasn't been altered in any way. There's been no

    17 jiggery-pokery, as my learned friend suggests. It's

    18 simply an extract from Belgrade TV. We're most

    19 interested in the artillery piece. If my learned

    20 friend wishes, we can narrow it down and simply have

    21 the gun, which the witness couldn't identify anyway,

    22 admitted into evidence.

    23 JUDGE JORDA: All right. I'm sure this will

    24 reassure Mr. Hayman and Mr. Nobilo, if you were to cut

    25 up the video and do away with the interview part. I

  47. 1 suppose that's possible, is it not?

    2 MR. CAYLEY: I'm perfectly happy to do that.

    3 THE REGISTRAR: All right. We can have a

    4 still of the video, if you like. We can make a still,

    5 starting with the video, but only the part showing the

    6 gun.

    7 JUDGE JORDA: All right. You will give the

    8 Judges and the Defence the specific information. Does

    9 that satisfy you?

    10 MR. NOBILO: We all agree. Thank you.

    11 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Everybody is

    12 satisfied now, so we can take our break until 4.00. Is

    13 that all right, Mr. Registrar?

    14 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. However, this document,

    15 the photograph, will be 567.

    16 JUDGE JORDA: All right. We can resume at

    17 4.00.

    18 --- Recess taken at 3.38 p.m.

    19 --- On resuming at 4.07 p.m.

    20 JUDGE JORDA: All right, Professor. Thank

    21 you for having returned.

    22 So that things are very clear, the witness in

    23 this part of the testimony, we can say is the

    24 Tribunal's witness based on Rule 98 of the Rules of

    25 Procedure and Evidence. We are bringing him in as Rule

  48. 1 98 and it's a correction of -- having conferred with my

    2 colleague, we authorise each of the parties to make

    3 some comments, if they wish to.

    4 You had, Professor, the diagram, which was

    5 attached to the testimony of one of the witnesses. We

    6 don't have it with us, but it can be put on the ELMO.

    7 THE REGISTRAR: All right.

    8 JUDGE JORDA: It's on the ELMO. The public

    9 can look at it. Now, you have an element about which

    10 you can make any comments that you consider appropriate

    11 to make, and the Tribunal thanks you for doing so.

    12 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I redid the

    13 calculation and I compared the trajectory with the

    14 trajectory of the -- that is, we are not sure where we

    15 were in disagreement. There were two projectiles. I

    16 suppose it would be of interest to speak about the

    17 projectile that the Croatian army had, the OF 462, or

    18 would you like me to speak about both of them?

    19 JUDGE JORDA: Perhaps both, since you studied

    20 both.

    21 THE WITNESS: Well, then we need some more

    22 time. I only did it for one. For the second I would

    23 need more time. It would be too dangerous just to do

    24 it off the cuff. There could be mistakes. One needs

    25 to concentrate.

  49. 1 JUDGE JORDA: About how much time would you

    2 need?

    3 THE WITNESS: Well, if you would allow me the

    4 time that it would take for the other witness, I could

    5 make some preparations, and I could ask you exactly

    6 what it is that you are asking data for. I can tell

    7 you what the height is --

    8 JUDGE JORDA: What was the hypothesis of the

    9 witness who had spoken? What we are interested in is

    10 the contradiction that you see with the diagram. What

    11 is it? I don't really remember. What was it,

    12 exactly?

    13 THE WITNESS: Well, I have everything in my

    14 head. He did not say what projectile was involved.

    15 It's because of that, that I was always speaking about

    16 two projectiles.

    17 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, very well.

    18 THE WITNESS: I can make a comparison of the

    19 figures of the two projectiles.

    20 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, I think that would be

    21 good. Can you assess about how much time you are going

    22 to need?

    23 THE WITNESS: About an hour. About an hour.

    24 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Very well. All

    25 right. We'll ask you to withdraw and we'll hear the

  50. 1 next witness. Thank you.

    2 So that everything is clear, Professor

    3 Jankovic will come back at a time that we will set, at

    4 least an hour, and he will come to make his

    5 contribution to the diagram.

    6 In the meantime we will continue with the

    7 cross-examination of an unprotected witness and whose

    8 cross-examination has been postponed until today. I

    9 believe Mr. Harmon is going to do it and it's

    10 Mr. Tadic, the Minister of the Federation? Is that

    11 correct, Mr. Harmon?

    12 MR. HARMON: Yes. Good afternoon,

    13 Judge Jorda, Judge Shahabuddeen and counsel. Yes, I

    14 will be conducting the cross-examination of Mr. Tadic.

    15 JUDGE JORDA: Take your time, Professor

    16 Jankovic. Take your time.

    17 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's too dangerous to do

    18 that quickly without a --

    19 JUDGE JORDA: Well, you speak about danger so

    20 much, and you are an expert in explosives. That's what

    21 begins to worry us. All right. Wish you good work.

    22 We will now have Mr. Tadic brought in to the

    23 courtroom.

    24 (The witness withdrew)

    25 JUDGE JORDA: So that everything is clear,

  51. 1 let me remind you that Mr. Tadic came yesterday. He is

    2 the former Minister of Justice of the Federation. As

    3 regards the procedural matters, the Trial Chamber

    4 decided that the cross-examination would be postponed

    5 until this afternoon.

    6 How long will this cross-examination take,

    7 Mr. Registrar, if you base it on the direct

    8 examination?

    9 THE REGISTRAR: About two hours and 10

    10 minutes.

    11 JUDGE JORDA: Two hours and 10 minutes of

    12 cross-examination.

    13 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, if we start

    14 running late, 10 or 15 minutes late, could we work

    15 longer tonight, because Mr. Tadic was supposed to

    16 finish yesterday and then we asked him to stay for an

    17 extra day today, and he postponed some of the things he

    18 had to attend to. If we only reach about 10 to 15

    19 minutes before the end of his statement, could we stay

    20 longer tonight so that he could finish tonight,

    21 please?

    22 JUDGE JORDA: That depends upon how much time

    23 it takes, but we also take into account the

    24 interpreters. Ordinarily we should have another

    25 break. So I really don't know. That will depend upon

  52. 1 the Prosecutor, who has the right to use two hours, and

    2 I suppose that he's not going to finish by then.

    3 Because, in addition to that we've got to hear the

    4 Professor again.

    5 All of you understood that once we speak

    6 about shells and trajectories, it takes a lot of time.

    7 Therefore, I don't think he will be able to leave

    8 tonight, unfortunately.

    9 Usher, please have the witness brought into

    10 the courtroom.

    11 (The witness entered court)

    12 JUDGE JORDA: I really can't answer,

    13 Mr. Nobilo. It doesn't depend on me.


    15 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Tadic. Thank you. Let me

    16 remind you that you are still under oath when you are

    17 asked questions. I'm very sorry, you may not be able

    18 to leave this evening, Mr. Tadic. I know that it's not

    19 pleasant for you, but we'll see. Maybe, but I have my

    20 doubts. Without wasting any more time, we'll give the

    21 floor to Mr. Harmon.

    22 Cross-examined by Mr. Harmon:

    23 Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon,

    24 Mr. Tadic.

    25 A. Good afternoon.

  53. 1 Q. My name is Mark Harmon and to my right is

    2 Andrew Cayley, and to his right is my other colleague

    3 Mr. Kehoe.

    4 Let me go directly to the examination. Could

    5 I have Prosecutor's Exhibit 22 placed on the ELMO,

    6 please.

    7 Mr. Tadic, there is a map that is to your

    8 left on the machine, we refer to as the ELMO, and in a

    9 moment, I hope, on the screen there will appear an

    10 image.

    11 Now, yesterday on direct examination you said

    12 that in 1993 you were in the Posavina, and you remained

    13 in the Posavina throughout 1993. I would ask you,

    14 please, to point out first of all the Posavina on this

    15 particular exhibit and then, secondly, you said you

    16 were in the Orasje area, or the Orasje pocket. Could

    17 you point out to the judges where is the Orasje

    18 pocket?

    19 A. This is the Posavina. I am indicating it

    20 right now. It is the Bosanska Posavina, the northern

    21 part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Orasje is here,

    22 approximately, where I showed it to you.

    23 Q. You are pointing on the exhibit, above the

    24 letter "A" in the word Posavina, is the location of

    25 Orasje?

  54. 1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. Now, while you are orienting us in this

    3 particular exhibit, would you point out the

    4 municipalities of Kiseljak, Vitez and Busovaca,

    5 please?

    6 A. You see, this is where Vitez is, the place

    7 that I pointed to just now, and then Busovaca is over

    8 here, and then Kiseljak.

    9 Q. The territory that separated the Posavina

    10 from Vitez, Kiseljak and Busovaca municipalities was

    11 territory that was occupied by the Republika Srpska in

    12 1993; is that correct?

    13 A. Yes. Yes. Most of this area was under

    14 occupation by the army of Republika Srpska. Part of it

    15 was also covered by the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    16 Q. Okay. Were you in the HVO in 1993, 1992 and

    17 1994?

    18 A. Yes.

    19 Q. What position did you hold in the HVO,

    20 Mr. Tadic?

    21 A. Yesterday I tried to explain, in 1992, in

    22 April, on the 28th of April, I got out of Sarajevo and

    23 I reached Brcko. That is also Posavina. And,

    24 regrettably, I managed to spend only a single night in

    25 Brcko, and then I went out to the southwestern

  55. 1 territory. We were there together, the Bosniaks, the

    2 Muslims and the Croats, and we set up a joint defence,

    3 that is to say it was called the 108th HVO Brigade, and

    4 it was also the civilian government that was formed

    5 too. I never had any posts in the army, but I was a

    6 member of the so-called Crisis Staff. That was a

    7 civilian element, a civilian component, and we operated

    8 as a government in wartime in an area that was not

    9 occupied yet.

    10 After Brcko, where I spent two or three

    11 months, I went to Bosanski Brod, which is also in

    12 Posavina, and after Bosanski Brod fell, I went to

    13 Orasje. In Orasje I was entrusted with the task of

    14 setting up civilian authorities.

    15 Q. When you were in Orasje, were you a member of

    16 the HVO?

    17 A. Not in the sense of belonging to military

    18 units. I told you that I never belonged to the HVO in

    19 that sense. However, you must realise that as the

    20 Croatian Defence Council, the HVO came into existence,

    21 the same name covered both the civilian and the

    22 military components. The civilian component had its

    23 own separate part, in the sense of the executive and

    24 legislative and judiciary branches, whereas the

    25 military part had its own set-up.

  56. 1 JUDGE JORDA: A little bit more slowly.

    2 THE WITNESS: All right.

    3 MR. HARMON:

    4 Q. I take it, Mr. Tadic, from your testimony

    5 that for a small portion of time, which you've told us

    6 about, you were a member of the military component of

    7 the HVO, then became a member of the other component of

    8 the HVO?

    9 A. I never wore a uniform.

    10 Q. Okay. I take it, likewise, you were never a

    11 member of the military police of the HVO?

    12 A. No.

    13 Q. Did you have occasion to visit the Vitez,

    14 Kiseljak or Busovaca municipalities in 1993?

    15 A. No.

    16 Q. Did you visit those same municipalities in

    17 1992?

    18 A. In 1992, yes, in passing. As I was going

    19 from the south of the country towards the Posavina,

    20 towards the municipality of Brcko, the southwest part,

    21 which was under HVO units controlled, and these were

    22 joint forces at the time of Croats and Bosniaks, and as

    23 we were passing with convoys of food and logistics,

    24 generally speaking.

    25 Q. So I take it your answer is that you

  57. 1 transited through one or all of those municipalities on

    2 a single occasion in 1992 on your way to the Posavina;

    3 is that correct?

    4 A. I went along the road that existed then.

    5 That is to say, that that road went through populated

    6 areas only in part, but most of it went over mountains,

    7 et cetera. So we managed to travel only where there

    8 weren't combat operations and where the situation

    9 permitted this to be done. So I travelled several

    10 times until the month of October.

    11 Q. Now, yesterday you testified that when you

    12 arrived in the Orasje area, and I am quoting you from

    13 page 6 of your testimony of yesterday, lines 8 and on,

    14 that essentially in the entire year of 1993 your task

    15 was to set up the work of the courts and the

    16 Prosecutor's offices and the legal authorities and to

    17 set up civilian institutions of the parent authority

    18 from -- and I don't have the date here -- at the end of

    19 February or the beginning of March, 1994. So that was

    20 your responsibility while you were in Orasje area. My

    21 question to you, Mr. Tadic, is: Were you setting up

    22 these legal authorities and these civilian institutions

    23 for the authorities of Herceg-Bosna or for the Republic

    24 of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

    25 A. Yesterday I tried to explain that I came to

  58. 1 that area at the end of April, after I had established

    2 civilian authority in the territory of Brcko, together

    3 with others, and I already helped set up the military

    4 authorities, because I was the first one to write

    5 certain rules and regulations for the military police,

    6 but they were relevant only to the 100th Brigade of the

    7 HVO, Brcko, and then after that I went to Bosanski

    8 Brod. I think this was June or July, 1992.

    9 At that time the HVO council for Bosanska

    10 Posavina acted as an independent party and at that time

    11 I had the task of establishing civilian and military

    12 judiciary authorities in the territory of Bosanska

    13 Posavina. I elaborated the necessary acts and I took

    14 them to Zagreb, and part of the government of

    15 Bosnia-Herzegovina was there at the time.

    16 Q. Your answer is very lengthy. I am limited in

    17 the amount of time I have, and my question was very

    18 specific to you. Were you setting up the courts and

    19 the prosecutors' offices for the authorities of

    20 Herceg-Bosna in 1993 or were you setting these

    21 authorities up for the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

    22 A. In 1992, I was establishing these authorities

    23 for the authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina; in 1993,

    24 within the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.

    25 Q. In 1993, you were setting up those

  59. 1 authorities for the authorities of Herceg-Bosna. My

    2 question to you then, Mr. Tadic, is, who directed you

    3 to do that in 1993?

    4 A. On the 6th of January, 1993, I was appointed

    5 assistant head of the justice department within the

    6 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna --

    7 Q. Let me --

    8 A. -- and I was detached in Posavina, and my

    9 task there was to establish the judiciary. It hadn't

    10 been operating at all until then, and it hadn't been

    11 operating from April 1992.

    12 MR. HARMON: Could I have the assistance of

    13 the usher and have this exhibit marked as a

    14 Prosecutor's Exhibit, please?

    15 Q. Mr. Tadic, I'm going to show you a document,

    16 and I'll give you a preview of it while it's being

    17 marked and before it's presented to you.

    18 This is from the Narodni list, and it

    19 indicates your appointment as the assistant head, and

    20 it indicates, and I'll let you take a look at this

    21 yourself, that this appointment went into effect on the

    22 6th of January, 1993 and that you were appointed by

    23 Dr. Jadranko Prlic who was the president of the HVO

    24 Herceg-Bosna.

    25 A. Yes.

  60. 1 Q. I'm going to ask you to identify this in just

    2 a moment.

    3 A. Yes, yes, that is exactly what I said.

    4 THE REGISTRAR: This is 568.

    5 MR. HARMON:

    6 Q. Let me just very briefly ask you, when it's

    7 shown to you, to confirm that this is the decision

    8 announcing your appointment in the Narodni list.

    9 A. Yes, yes, this is a decision dated January 6,

    10 1993.

    11 Q. Your official title was what on this

    12 particular appointment?

    13 A. Assistant Head of the Department for Justice

    14 and Administration of the Croatian Community of

    15 Herceg-Bosna.

    16 Q. Now, thereafter, after you received this

    17 appointment, Mr. Tadic, you set about drafting various

    18 laws or various regulations dealing with the courts and

    19 dealing with civilian institutions of Herceg-Bosna, did

    20 you not?

    21 A. No, no, I didn't do that. I was only one of

    22 the persons working on that team, so I was not head of

    23 the justice department. I was assistant head of the

    24 justice department. The justice department had a head

    25 of its own and three assistant heads, and I was one of

  61. 1 these three assistant heads.

    2 Q. Thank you for that clarification. My

    3 question to you, Mr. Tadic is, did you work as an

    4 assistant head of the justice department on drafting

    5 laws and regulations relating to Herceg-Bosna?

    6 A. Yes, yes, to the extent to which I was asked

    7 to do so and to the extent to which I could have done

    8 so under the circumstances.

    9 Q. Now, in drafting the laws that you did for

    10 Herceg-Bosna, did you consult with the legal

    11 authorities from the Republic of Croatia?

    12 A. Republic of Croatia? No, no. I don't know

    13 if somebody else did, though.

    14 Q. Now, yesterday in your testimony, you

    15 discussed, in brief, the workings of the various

    16 courts, and in your testimony at page 61, and I'm

    17 referring to lines 11 through 17, you were asked the

    18 question of whether or not the military court in

    19 Travnik and the military prosecutor's office functioned

    20 normally in the course of 1992 and 1993. Part of your

    21 answer in response to that question was: "And

    22 regardless of the fact that I was not in Mostar, I was

    23 at the time in the northern parts of Bosnia, in

    24 Bosanska Posavina at the time, I was in constant

    25 contact and communication because I was detached ..."

  62. 1 I won't read the rest of your answers -- well, let me

    2 read the rest of your answer: "... and my duties were

    3 to go to Posavina to set up the legal system there."

    4 Now, according to your answer, you were in

    5 constant contact and communication, was that with

    6 Mostar?

    7 A. Yes.

    8 Q. Were you in constant contact and

    9 communication with the Vitez municipality?

    10 A. No.

    11 Q. Were you in constant contact with the Travnik

    12 judicial authorities?

    13 A. No.

    14 Q. How did you get your information about the

    15 status and the workings of the Travnik judicial

    16 authorities if you weren't in contact with them in

    17 1993?

    18 A. Quite naturally, from Mostar.

    19 Q. So apparently Mostar was in contact and had

    20 the ability to communicate with the authorities in the

    21 Vitez municipality in respect of the status of the

    22 judicial authorities; is that your conclusion?

    23 A. How Mostar obtained information, that, I do

    24 not know; however, I often went to Mostar, and people

    25 from Mostar would come, and then we would discuss the

  63. 1 subject matter related to the functioning of courts,

    2 and I know it was very, very difficult to establish

    3 judicial authority. After all, until the end of 1992,

    4 we did not even manage to get military courts to

    5 operate at all. I think only in Mostar there was a

    6 military court that was in operation, not in Orasje,

    7 though; in Orasje, only in March 1993, although the

    8 decree was passed in 1992.

    9 Q. Mr. Tadic, when did the Travnik district

    10 military court in Vitez and in Travnik commence its

    11 work?

    12 A. I think it was in 1993. I cannot tell you

    13 the exact date or month, but this can be checked, I

    14 believe.

    15 MR. HARMON: Could I have Prosecutor's

    16 Exhibit 456/73, please, shown to the witness?

    17 Q. Mr. Tadic, would you take a look at that

    18 document? This is a document that is dated the 31st of

    19 August, 1993. In the upper left-hand corner, you can

    20 see that the time this communique was issued was 1630

    21 hours, and it is a communique from the Croatian

    22 Community of Herceg-Bosna from the command of the

    23 Central Bosnia Operations Zone, and I would like to

    24 direct your attention to a portion of this particular

    25 document, and on the English translation, it references

  64. 1 the Travnik district military court that was based in

    2 Vitez pronouncing certain sentences against certain

    3 individuals.

    4 Do you see that portion that I'm referring to

    5 in the BCS version?

    6 A. Yes.

    7 Q. You can see from that particular document,

    8 which is a communique from the information office of

    9 the Central Bosnia Operations Zone, that the Travnik

    10 district military court in Vitez was functioning, at

    11 least on the 31st of August, 1993, by virtue of the

    12 fact that it describes an indictment and certain

    13 sentences that were passed in respect of various people

    14 identified in the communique; is that correct?

    15 A. I never denied it. I said that it started

    16 operating as of 1993, not 1992, and when exactly in

    17 1993 it did start operating, that, I cannot say, but

    18 this is not controversial.

    19 Q. Now, can you furnish us with any additional

    20 information about the functioning of this particular

    21 military district court in the Vitez municipality? Are

    22 you able to assist us?

    23 A. I don't know. I didn't understand your

    24 question. What specific information do you have in

    25 mind?

  65. 1 Q. Can you identify, for example, the prosecutor

    2 of that court? Can you identify the judge or judges of

    3 that court? Can you tell us how they functioned and

    4 any additional clarity on when they functioned?

    5 A. It would be very difficult for me to give an

    6 accurate answer because I said yesterday to the

    7 Honourable Judges that my task, first and foremost, was

    8 to establish the system in Bosanska Posavina, and I

    9 knew the names of people there because I worked with

    10 them, and the rest I knew from the justice department

    11 where I was assistant head, and I also knew the

    12 problems that we discussed there.

    13 Now I cannot recall the names of the persons

    14 involved. I do know a few people who were there on the

    15 ground, for example, Marinko Jurcevic, but what he

    16 exactly did at that time, I cannot tell you for sure.

    17 Until the present day, he is a cadre. He is a judge

    18 or, rather, I think he's a cantonal judge for Central

    19 Bosnia at present.

    20 There are some other people too whom I had

    21 known from before the war from that area and who were

    22 working in courts, and now whether they held these

    23 particular posts at that time, that can be checked

    24 too. It was published, so I don't think there should

    25 be any controversy involved.

  66. 1 Q. Mr. Tadic, let me go to a different subject

    2 there, and that is, can you tell me when Bosnia and

    3 Herzegovina was recognised as a sovereign state? What

    4 was the date of that recognition?

    5 A. The 6th of April, 1992.

    6 Q. Who was the head of the government of that

    7 particular sovereign state in 1992?

    8 A. Mr. Jure Pelivan.

    9 Q. Did Alija Izetbegovic become the head of that

    10 state, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

    11 A. Alija Izetbegovic was the president of the

    12 presidency of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina before

    13 the proclamation of independence and sovereignty and

    14 afterwards as well.

    15 Q. Now, I won't go into great detail, but the

    16 Republika Srpska, headed by Radovan Karadzic, broke

    17 away from the legitimate government authorities in

    18 Sarajevo, didn't they?

    19 A. Yes.

    20 Q. Would you say that the entity known as the

    21 Republika Srpska was a legitimate state?

    22 A. No, I never maintained that, nor did we

    23 discuss that point, either in this Trial Chamber or

    24 anywhere else.

    25 JUDGE JORDA: Focus your questions on the

  67. 1 examination-in-chief, please.

    2 MR. HARMON: All right.

    3 Q. Mr. Tadic, when did Herceg-Bosna come into

    4 existence?

    5 A. You must differentiate here two things.

    6 First, the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna was

    7 established, and to tell you quite frankly, I don't

    8 know the exact date of that because I was not in those

    9 political structures at the time, and in 1993, I think

    10 it was on the 18th of October, to be precise, the

    11 Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna was established.

    12 Q. The 18th of the October of which year?

    13 A. 1993.

    14 Q. Now, did either the Croatian Republic of

    15 Herceg-Bosna or the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna

    16 receive international recognition as a separate entity?

    17 A. No, because it did not ask for it.

    18 MR. HARMON: Now, can I have Prosecutor's

    19 Exhibit 38, tab 22 shown to this witness, please?

    20 Q. You are a lawyer by training, and I believe

    21 you told us yesterday that you received your legal

    22 degree in 1977 and were also a minister of justice of

    23 the federation.

    24 Now, tell us, if you could, in 1993, what was

    25 the constitutional court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and

  68. 1 what role did it play in the national affairs of that

    2 legitimate state?

    3 A. The constitutional court of the Republic of

    4 Bosnia-Herzegovina was established according to the

    5 regulations of the constitution of the Republic of

    6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Its role was to assess the

    7 constitutionality and the legality of the laws and

    8 other legal acts which were enacted in the Republic of

    9 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    10 Q. In fact, Mr. Tadic, on the 18th of September,

    11 1992, the constitutional court of Bosnia and

    12 Herzegovina rendered a decision in which it annulled

    13 the decision on the establishment of the Croatian

    14 Community of Herceg-Bosna that was adopted on the 18th

    15 of November, 1991, did it not?

    16 A. I did not take part in that, nor did I, to be

    17 quite frank, ever read it. I have never even seen it.

    18 You must understand that the constitutional court of

    19 the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, just as the other

    20 legal institutions, disintegrated in 1992. The Croats

    21 and Serbs withdrew from those legal institutions.

    22 Q. Let me also inform you then, if you haven't

    23 seen this document, Mr. Tadic, that the decision of the

    24 constitutional court of Bosnia and Herzegovina also

    25 annulled the following inter alia, the decree on the

  69. 1 organisation, operation of jurisdiction of the judicial

    2 authorities in the event of a state of war or an

    3 immediate threat of war in the territory of the

    4 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, which was adopted

    5 on the 3rd of July by the presidency of the Croatian

    6 Community of Herceg-Bosna. It also annulled the decree

    7 on the armed forces of the Croatian Community of

    8 Herceg-Bosna which was adopted on the 3rd of July, 1992

    9 by the presidency of the Croatian Community of

    10 Herceg-Bosna.

    11 Now, are you saying, Mr. Tadic, that you've

    12 never heard of this decision?

    13 A. Your Honours, Mr. President, there are some

    14 other questions involved here. I did not come here to

    15 politically expound on the Croatian Community of

    16 Herceg-Bosna. I really did not read those decisions,

    17 nor was I interested in them. I had quite a different

    18 realm of activity.

    19 JUDGE JORDA: He's asking, Mr. Tadic, whether

    20 you knew it. That's all.

    21 A. I said that I never saw them. I did hear

    22 about that but I did not read it.

    23 JUDGE JORDA: Please continue, Mr. Harmon.

    24 MR. HARMON:

    25 Q. In fact, we can see, can we not, Mr. Tadic,

  70. 1 from Prosecutor's Exhibit 568 that you were appointed

    2 as an assistant to the justice ministry some few months

    3 after the constitutional court of Bosnia and

    4 Herzegovina had annulled the legislation dealing with

    5 the organisation and operation of judicial authorities

    6 in Herceg-Bosna; isn't that correct?

    7 A. It is correct that I was appointed on the 6th

    8 of January, 1993.

    9 Q. Furthermore, Mr. Tadic, you then proceeded to

    10 assist in drafting legislation for an organisation, the

    11 existence of which was not recognised by the sovereign

    12 state of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

    13 A. I don't know what the question is now. Am I

    14 being tried because I participated in that work?

    15 Q. Mr. Tadic, you're not on trial, and if you

    16 think that the questions are intended that way, please,

    17 don't take them in that spirit, Mr. Tadic.

    18 My question to you is very clear, however.

    19 After the decision of the constitutional court of

    20 Bosnia and Herzegovina that was issued on the 18th of

    21 September, 1992, you were appointed as an assistant

    22 justice minister, and you assisted in the drafting of

    23 laws for an entity which was known as the Republic of

    24 Herceg-Bosna; isn't that correct?

    25 A. No. First of all, it was not the Republic of

  71. 1 Herceg-Bosna. Secondly, it was not a ministry, a

    2 justice ministry, but it was a lower form of

    3 organisation. It was what we called a department, and

    4 it is correct that I was appointed on the 6th of

    5 January.

    6 Q. All right. We won't belabour the issue. I

    7 think the record is clear on its own.

    8 Let me discuss your testimony yesterday, and

    9 your testimony yesterday was one that covered at length

    10 the various laws and some of the laws that related to

    11 criminal procedure, that related to the work of the

    12 military district courts, the decree on the military

    13 prosecutor, and other laws and regulations relating to

    14 the military police.

    15 Now, Mr. Tadic, in summary, your testimony

    16 was that Blaskic had no competencies to initiate

    17 investigation, he had no competencies to direct the

    18 civilian or military police, nor did he have any

    19 competency over the prosecutors of the military

    20 district courts. Now, I would like to explore with

    21 you, Mr. Tadic, the competencies that Blaskic did have

    22 under the legislation that you testified about, and let

    23 me begin with certain Defence Exhibits.

    24 Can I have Defence Exhibit 521 shown to the

    25 witness, please.

  72. 1 Mr. Tadic, let me first of all direct your

    2 attention to the decree on the district military

    3 prosecutor's offices. I would like to direct your

    4 attention to Article 6 of that particular decree. Now,

    5 under that particular article, the district military

    6 prosecutor's offices could receive from military

    7 personnel, including military commands, and my

    8 translation says: "Criminal charges and other request

    9 and statements concerning matters under its

    10 jurisdiction for the purpose of taking such action as

    11 it is authorised to take."

    12 I don't know, Mr. Tadic, could you tell us,

    13 first of all, what criminal charges the district

    14 military prosecutor's office could accept from military

    15 commands?

    16 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, we are dealing

    17 precisely with the term that we discussed yesterday and

    18 drew your attention to, "criminal charges." "Krivicna

    19 prijava" was translated as "criminal charges." I

    20 maintained that that is not the proper translation, and

    21 yesterday we discussed this point and we said that a

    22 better term would be "complaint," because "charge," a

    23 "criminal charge" associates in our minds, indicates a

    24 formal criminal indictment, whereas citizens and

    25 military commanders can only bring in criminal

  73. 1 complaints. So I would like this to be cleared up

    2 termologically.

    3 MR. HARMON: I have no objection to that,

    4 Mr. President. I am reading off a translation that was

    5 provided to me by the Defence.

    6 Q. So, my question, Mr. Tadic, and you can

    7 perhaps assist us very briefly by explaining what is

    8 meant by the term "criminal charges?" Does that mean a

    9 formal charge that was presented to the military

    10 prosecutor by the military commander, or does that mean

    11 a complaint that was made by the military commander and

    12 given to the military prosecutor?

    13 A. I considered that I clarified this matter

    14 yesterday somewhat. In our system, according to the

    15 law on criminal procedure, a criminal charge, prijava,

    16 is just the initial material on the basis of which the

    17 internal affairs organ, that is to say the police,

    18 proceeds, or the public prosecutor proceeds on the

    19 basis of that material. It is not a formal charge.

    20 Q. Okay.

    21 A. I said yesterday, I explained when a citizen

    22 can make a formal charge vis-a-vis the courts.

    23 Q. In addition to what we just discussed, the

    24 commander of a military zone could also provide to the

    25 military prosecutor statements he had gathered,

  74. 1 evidence he had gathered, information he had gathered

    2 about the commission of certain crimes, could he not?

    3 A. Yes, he could have, either to the prosecutor

    4 or to the military police.

    5 Q. Thereafter, as I understood it, the

    6 prosecutor could initiate charges or an investigation?

    7 A. Yes, and bring in an indictment.

    8 Q. Now, let me turn, if I could, to Article 27.

    9 I am referring to the decree on the military courts,

    10 district military courts. Do you have that particular

    11 provision in front of you?

    12 A. Yes.

    13 Q. You testified about that particular provision

    14 yesterday, and amongst the obligations that were

    15 created by Article 27 on a commander of a military unit

    16 was the obligation, and I am quoting a portion of the

    17 first paragraph: "Shall gather all information which

    18 may be of use for the conducting of criminal

    19 proceedings." Is that correct?

    20 A. Yes, Article 27, paragraph 1, speaks about

    21 this and says that the commander is duty-bound to

    22 undertake all measures for the perpetrator of a

    23 criminal offence by virtue of his office ex officio,

    24 should be prevented for hiding or escaping, to preserve

    25 the traces. We are therefore dealing with the

  75. 1 perpetrator of the criminal offence, that is to say

    2 known individual.

    3 Q. Now, Mr. Tadic, this is a mandatory

    4 provision, is it not? The commander is obligated to

    5 turn this information over to the prosecutor, isn't

    6 he? It's not discretionary, the use of the word

    7 "shall" imposes a mandatory obligation on a commander

    8 to turn information about a crime over to the

    9 prosecutor so the prosecutor can conduct proceedings in

    10 accordance with the law?

    11 A. Here it is obligatory, mandatory, to pass it

    12 onto the prosecutor or the military police, and if you

    13 read further on, you will see the other provisions

    14 contained.

    15 Q. We will get to those other provisions in a

    16 moment, Mr. Tadic. So you agree that it's a mandatory

    17 provision, and the provision requires that the

    18 commander turn over not just evidence, but information

    19 that's available about the crime?

    20 A. Yes, when the perpetrator is known.

    21 Q. Now, let me come to that particular point,

    22 Mr. Tadic. Yesterday, when you were asked to opine on

    23 what this particular provision meant, you were asked a

    24 question by Mr. Nobilo: "Does this mean that the

    25 perpetrator has to be known?" And your answer was,

  76. 1 "Yes." And you gave us an example, an example of a

    2 particular --

    3 A. Yes.

    4 Q. -- person who had committed a homicide, who

    5 was known, who was arrested, and you said under those

    6 circumstances the commander was obligated to turn over

    7 that information to the military prosecutor. Let me

    8 ask you this question.

    9 A. Yes, that's right.

    10 Q. Let's assume, Mr. Tadic, that there is a

    11 very, very serious crime committed about which the

    12 commander knows. The perpetrator isn't known

    13 immediately. What obligation does the commander have

    14 to turn over to the prosecutor information that would

    15 be of assistance to the prosecutor in the conduct of a

    16 criminal proceeding?

    17 A. First of all, this provision does not speak

    18 about a case of this kind, that is to say that the

    19 commander will turn over to the prosecutor material,

    20 when we are talking about an unknown individual.

    21 However, the commander will ask, request the competent

    22 authorities to investigate that case, to collect

    23 evidence, to uncover the perpetrator, and to have this

    24 transferred to the public prosecutor all material for

    25 further proceedings.

  77. 1 Q. So you recognise, Mr. Tadic, that the law

    2 requires a commander, under Article 27, to turn over

    3 information that he knows about the commission of a

    4 crime, even if he does not identify the perpetrator?

    5 A. Yes. But in that case he does not have to

    6 submit this to the public prosecutor, but to the

    7 security service or, rather, the crime investigation

    8 service that then processes it.

    9 Q. You told us yesterday, Mr. Tadic, that the

    10 military police could conduct investigations, but so

    11 could the military prosecutor, he could initiate and

    12 conduct investigations, could he not?

    13 A. I don't know what you mean by

    14 investigations. If it is a formal act, then it can be

    15 conducted only by the court, but in certain cases the

    16 court, according to law, has the authority to allow

    17 certain investigated actions to be carried out by the

    18 crime investigation service or, rather, the military

    19 police in this specific case. So, formally speaking,

    20 the public prosecutor or anyone else cannot conduct an

    21 investigation in our case, only the court of law can.

    22 All of this is called preliminary actions.

    23 Q. So by virtue of the duty that was on the

    24 commander at the time in 1993, if the commander was

    25 aware of the commission of a crime under the laws that

  78. 1 existed, he had an obligation to turn over the

    2 information about that crime to the military police

    3 authorities; is that correct?

    4 A. Yes, to the military police, to the crime

    5 investigation service.

    6 Q. Your testimony is he had absolutely no

    7 obligation whatsoever to turn over that information to

    8 the military prosecutor?

    9 A. He could have turned them over, but he did

    10 not have to.

    11 Q. Let me ask you this question. You testified

    12 also yesterday about the law of criminal procedure in

    13 the former Yugoslavia, and you testified about Article

    14 73, which was found in the rules and the regulations

    15 relating to the military police, and you testified that

    16 essentially all citizens were duty-bound under the

    17 former Yugoslavia to assist the police, and that

    18 included enterprises, they were duty-bound to assist

    19 the police, were they not, and the courts?

    20 A. That provision primarily speaks of helping

    21 the authorities discover certain matters, that is

    22 helping the crime investigation police, that is to say

    23 where action is taken ex officio. That is not to say

    24 for all acts. Citizens were not duty-bound to report

    25 any act. That is exactly what the law stipulates too,

  79. 1 in which cases yes and in which cases no.

    2 Q. Were they duty-bound to assist and cooperate

    3 with the prosecutorial authorities of the state in the

    4 former Yugoslavia?

    5 A. The public prosecutor could have asked for

    6 certain data. First of all, he could have asked the

    7 police for these data, the state institutions,

    8 enterprises, and from citizens only exceptionally.

    9 However, this did not carry weight as evidence in a

    10 court of law. If the public prosecutor were to call me

    11 in as a citizen, and if I were to make a statement to

    12 him, that cannot be used as evidence in a court of

    13 law. I was public prosecutor for years and I never

    14 resorted to that.

    15 Q. Well, let me come back, Mr. Tadic, to Article

    16 27 that we've just been discussing a moment ago and let

    17 me turn to the second paragraph in that particular

    18 article that indicates that. I am quoting from my

    19 translation: "The commander of the unit or

    20 establishment shall immediately inform the district

    21 military prosecutor or his immediately superior

    22 commanding officer of the data referred to in paragraph

    23 1 of this article."

    24 Now, that provision is mandatory as well; is

    25 it not?

  80. 1 A. Yes. Yes. It is in the context of paragraph

    2 1 that we already discussed.

    3 Q. So the reason why it's important, obviously,

    4 to immediately, and I emphasize the word "immediately,"

    5 inform the district military prosecutor, is so the

    6 district military prosecutor can take the appropriate

    7 legal action in a timely fashion; isn't that correct?

    8 A. Again, it is important to know that the

    9 public prosecutor cannot formally initiate an

    10 investigation. He can only ask the court to go to the

    11 crime scene, to carry out that kind of an

    12 investigation, an on-site investigation, because the

    13 public prosecutor in our case cannot conduct an

    14 investigation. He is only present. But he can take

    15 other measures. For example, he can ask the crime

    16 investigation service of the military police to find a

    17 rifle, a pistol, another object that was used during

    18 the commission of that crime.

    19 Q. He can ask the appropriate authorities to

    20 conduct a complete and thorough investigation into the

    21 elements of the crime; can he not?

    22 A. Not an investigation, but they should collect

    23 data that will help him to decide whether he is going

    24 to ask the court for an investigation, because it is

    25 only the court that carries out an investigation.

  81. 1 Q. Now, let me turn to the third provision of

    2 this particular article, or the fourth provision, I

    3 should say, referring to a military commander holding

    4 the post of company commander or an equivalent or

    5 higher post or an authorised official of the department

    6 of the interior and the security department or the

    7 military police. "May arrest a member of the military

    8 in cases envisioning detention under the Law on

    9 Criminal Procedure." Yesterday you talked to us about

    10 the law of criminal procedure in the former Yugoslavia,

    11 which I understand was adopted by Herceg-Bosna,

    12 correct?

    13 A. Yes.

    14 Q. Are you familiar with Article 191 of the law

    15 of criminal procedure of the former Yugoslavia?

    16 A. Yes, that article speaks of the reasons for

    17 deciding on detention. It has several paragraphs, 1,

    18 2, 3, 4, that were used for deciding on detention under

    19 different circumstances or in different situations.

    20 Q. If, Mr. Tadic, a crime prescribed the death

    21 penalty, custody was required to be ordered against a

    22 person if there was a reasonable suspicion that he had

    23 committed such a crime; isn't that right?

    24 A. Yes.

    25 Q. When one explores the statutory scheme,

  82. 1 criminal procedure scheme of the former Yugoslavia a

    2 little further, those crimes that require mandatory

    3 custody, in other words, for which the death penalty is

    4 available, included the crimes of genocide, war crimes,

    5 crimes against the civilian population, the wounded and

    6 the sick, prisoners of war, murder of an enemy who had

    7 surrendered or laid down his weapons; isn't that

    8 correct?

    9 A. Yes.

    10 Q. So under Article 27 of the document that we

    11 are referring to, a commander could arrest an

    12 individual, in fact it was required to arrest an

    13 individual if there was a warranted suspicion that he

    14 had committed a crime such as war crimes, crimes

    15 against the civilian population, the wounded and the

    16 sick, prisoners of war, murder of an enemy who had

    17 surrendered or laid down his weapons; is that correct?

    18 A. Yes, if the person is known and if there is

    19 nothing else concerned, because then that person has to

    20 be handed over to the competent authorities.

    21 Q. Now, let me just be a little bit more precise

    22 and a little bit more concrete, Mr. Tadic. Colonel

    23 Blaskic was required to arrest a person if there was a

    24 warranted suspicion that that person had committed one

    25 of those crimes which I just described under this

  83. 1 provision; isn't that correct?

    2 A. He could have, but someone from the crime

    3 investigation police could have too, because in this

    4 paragraph reference is made to both.

    5 Q. I understand, but I am asking you not about

    6 the military police, I am asking you about Colonel

    7 Blaskic.

    8 A. He could have.

    9 Q. Okay.

    10 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Harmon, it's almost a

    11 quarter after 5.00. I would like to give the

    12 interpreters a little 10-minute break and we could

    13 resume, say, in 10 minutes.

    14 We have to know whether to resume with the

    15 witness, which would mean that the Professor would have

    16 to come back tomorrow morning. What do you think?

    17 These are Defence witnesses. What's your opinion?

    18 MR. NOBILO: We suggest that we finish with

    19 this witness. The Professor can come back tomorrow, if

    20 necessary.

    21 THE WITNESS: Mr. President, Your Honours, I

    22 besiege you, I was supposed to be in Sarajevo today and

    23 I postponed that until tomorrow. My flight is tomorrow

    24 at 11.15. I truly have to go. Tonight we can work

    25 until 10.00, if need be.

  84. 1 JUDGE JORDA: Well, I appreciate your

    2 availability toward justice, and I render tribute to

    3 that, but justice has a certain cadence. We'll try,

    4 Mr. Tadic. If you agree, Professor Jankovic will come

    5 back tomorrow. And I apologise to the interpreters.

    6 We'll take a 10-minute break and then we'll see what we

    7 can do. Thank you.

    8 --- Recess taken at 5.15 p.m.

    9 --- Upon commencing at 5.30 p.m.

    10 JUDGE JORDA: We can resume. Have the

    11 accused brought in, please.

    12 (The accused entered court)

    13 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Harmon, please continue.

    14 MR. HARMON: Thank you very much,

    15 Mr. President, Judge Shahabuddeen.

    16 Q. Mr. Tadic, yesterday, you discussed Defence

    17 Exhibit 522 which were the regulations on the military

    18 police, this is an exhibit, and this particular edition

    19 is from Mostar in April of 1994. Was there a set of

    20 regulations for the military police in 1992?

    21 A. In '92, I'm not quite sure.

    22 Q. Was there a similar set of regulations in

    23 1993?

    24 A. In '93, yes, there was.

    25 Q. Have you done a comparison between the

  85. 1 regulations that existed in 1993 and the regulations

    2 that are Defence Exhibit 522, those regulations in

    3 April of 1994, and if so, can you tell us what

    4 differences there are in the two versions?

    5 A. I never compared them.

    6 Q. Now, let me change the topic, Mr. Tadic, and

    7 let me direct your attention to some of your testimony

    8 yesterday and some of your answers yesterday.

    9 I'm referring, first of all, to page 23 of

    10 the transcript starting at line 2. You were asked a

    11 question by my colleague, Mr. Nobilo: "Mr. Tadic,

    12 please tell the Court who can give instructions either

    13 to the civilian or to the military police and to take

    14 certain action to conduct pre-criminal proceedings to

    15 interview a person? So who are the persons who can

    16 give such instructions to the police according to

    17 law?" And your answer was essentially -- well, your

    18 answer was: "First of all, we must take, as a point of

    19 departure, the fact that the police has a hierarchy of

    20 its own and it has its own bosses, so to speak, and

    21 they say what is going to be done and they give

    22 guidelines. That is one part of it. And the other

    23 part that can exist, according to the Law of Criminal

    24 Procedure, and it is the public prosecutor in this

    25 particular case, and he is duty-bound, in a way, to do

  86. 1 so. If he asks the police to work out such a report,

    2 and if he studies this report and if he assesses that

    3 some things remain unclear and, therefore, a procedure

    4 cannot be continued ..." and then it goes on and on and

    5 on.

    6 So essentially what you have referred to is

    7 the police, the public prosecutor, and eventually, your

    8 answer concludes that there are three entities, the

    9 investigative judge, the public prosecutor, and senior

    10 police officers who can direct the investigations,

    11 among other things.

    12 Then on page 25, you were asked a question,

    13 and I'm reading part of this question: "The commander

    14 of the Operative Zone, Colonel Blaskic, could he order

    15 the military police to take fingerprints, for example,

    16 to interview persons, to question certain persons, or

    17 to do anything else by way of pre-criminal proceedings,

    18 anything of this nature?" And on line 19 and 20 of

    19 your long answer, you said, "... so Mr. Blaskic did not

    20 have these powers."

    21 Lastly, let me direct your attention to a

    22 question and answer that was given and is found on page

    23 43 starting at line 12. My colleague, Mr. Nobilo,

    24 asked you the following question: "The Law on Criminal

    25 Procedure, does it allow the commander of the Operative

  87. 1 Zone to command the military police in terms of what

    2 are going to be the investigative or pre-investigative

    3 actions they will take," and your answer was, "No, that

    4 is not within his authority."

    5 Now, when you gave those answers, Mr. Tadic,

    6 you were talking about the statutes and the regulations

    7 that you had been describing; isn't that correct?

    8 A. Yes. I had in mind the Law on Criminal

    9 Procedure and the regulations which must correspond and

    10 be in conformity with that law.

    11 Q. Did Colonel Blaskic have de facto powers

    12 which exceeded those powers which were articulated in

    13 the various decrees and laws and regulations which you

    14 described for us in detail?

    15 A. I don't know that.

    16 MR. HARMON: Could I have Prosecutor's

    17 Exhibit 456/74 through 77, please? Mr. Usher, if we

    18 could please start with Exhibit 456/75, if that could

    19 be shown to the witness, please.

    20 Q. Mr. Tadic, 456/75 is an order that was issued

    21 by Colonel Blaskic on the 4th of September, 1992, and

    22 that date appears in the upper left-hand corner of the

    23 document you have in your hand; is that correct?

    24 A. Yes.

    25 Q. Now, that document, as you can see on the

  88. 1 right-hand upper portion of the document, is an order

    2 directed to the commander of the regional military

    3 police by Colonel Blaskic; is that correct?

    4 A. Yes.

    5 Q. Now, would you very quickly review the body

    6 of that text, the four provisions that are in there,

    7 because I want to ask you some questions about that?

    8 Mr. Tadic, this is an order from Colonel

    9 Blaskic to the commander of the regional military

    10 police asking -- ordering the military police to go

    11 with a patrol and arrest an individual by the name of

    12 Mladen Cosic and take him to prison; is that correct?

    13 A. Yes.

    14 Q. The second provision, Colonel Blaskic orders

    15 the military police to do a number of things. The

    16 first thing he orders the military police to do is to

    17 prepare all the necessary documents for this particular

    18 individual, as well as evidence. So he asks the

    19 military police to prepare documents and evidence;

    20 correct?

    21 A. That's what it says.

    22 Q. He identifies, does he not, the specific

    23 charges for which he wants evidence prepared,

    24 specifically, vandalising the premises of the Kiseljak

    25 police station, unlawfully entering the Kiseljak HVO OS

  89. 1 barracks, and, thirdly, abusing personnel while they're

    2 carrying out their duties.

    3 My first question to you, Mr. Tadic, are

    4 those criminal charges?

    5 A. First of all, these are not criminal charges

    6 because a criminal charge is something else. These are

    7 specific orders to the military police, and we can

    8 discuss whether, in conformity with the law, as they

    9 stand here, and I'm seeing this for the first time now,

    10 whether they could have been issued by Colonel Blaskic.

    11 Q. Mr. Tadic, instead of saying "criminal

    12 charges," I get used to the terminology in my own legal

    13 system. Are those criminal offences, vandalising

    14 premises, unlawfully entering a particular premises,

    15 and abusing people? Are those criminal offences,

    16 either in the former Yugoslavia or in Herceg-Bosna's

    17 scheme which adopted the rules of the former

    18 Yugoslavia?

    19 A. Yes, I understood you better this time

    20 around. So you wish to differentiate between "offence"

    21 and a "criminal act"?

    22 Q. An offence and a completed criminal charge.

    23 A. Yes. An offence, therefore, is a milder form

    24 of lack of respect for regulations, and to simplify

    25 matters, let me say the following, as I was taught to

  90. 1 do: A criminal act or charge is a more serious act,

    2 and, of course, a charge as a formal act goes towards

    3 the court, a court of law, and it can be issued by a

    4 public prosecutor for criminal acts. Everything else

    5 is a complaint. It is difficult to translate that,

    6 perhaps, but it is all the material on the basis of

    7 which a requirement is made for an investigation to be

    8 launched or to issue an indictment on that basis.

    9 Q. Now, Mr. Tadic, in light of your answer

    10 yesterday that it was not within the authority of

    11 Colonel Blaskic to command the military police in terms

    12 of what are going to be the investigative or

    13 pre-investigative actions that they take, would you

    14 please tell the Court what legal authority Colonel

    15 Blaskic had to issue this order?

    16 A. Well, the Law on Criminal Procedure did not

    17 authorise him to partake of this kind of order. We

    18 mentioned Article 27 a moment ago of the regulations

    19 governing military courts, and this is an exception.

    20 Q. So this is, is it fair to say, an authority

    21 or a competence that Colonel Blaskic took upon

    22 himself? He exceeded the statutory authorities that

    23 were available to him?

    24 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, I apologise. Our

    25 learned colleague interrupted the witness in his

  91. 1 continuity. He wanted to explain fully the problem of

    2 disciplinary measures and everything else, so please,

    3 would he allow the witness to explain fully what he

    4 wants to say?

    5 JUDGE JORDA: I had the impression that the

    6 witness was expressing himself.

    7 Have you not been able to express yourself

    8 fully, Mr. Tadic? I had the impression that you

    9 expressed everything that you wished to. Did you want

    10 to add something to your answer?

    11 A. There was one section that I didn't finish

    12 speaking about, and that is the competencies of the

    13 commander, disciplinary, to punish and discipline

    14 individuals, and for that to determine measures,

    15 amongst others, prison sentences. He could issue this

    16 up to a period of 60 days, in that he could order a

    17 disciplinary sentence of up to 60 days' imprisonment.

    18 MR. HARMON:

    19 Q. Mr. Tadic, we're going to get to the rules

    20 military discipline a little later, so if you would

    21 please refrain from discussing those rules of military

    22 discipline only and unless it's required to qualify or

    23 clarify an answer. I'm going to come to that subject

    24 matter later in my examination.

    25 My question to you sir is, what was the legal

  92. 1 basis for Colonel Blaskic to issue an order to the

    2 military police telling them what to do, how to gather

    3 evidence, and what charges or what offences they should

    4 bring or investigate?

    5 A. I do not see any legal basis here to which he

    6 referred. It does not exist in this act.

    7 JUDGE JORDA: At one point, Mr. Tadic, you

    8 say that the legal basis is the military power, that

    9 is, of military discipline, and then you say something

    10 else. Could you express yourself clearly? You're

    11 dealing with legal specialists here. Let's not get

    12 into overly complicated issues. Very simple question,

    13 what legal basis did Colonel Blaskic do that? If this

    14 is an exception, please say so. That's a very simple

    15 question. You can answer.

    16 A. This was an exception. According to the Law

    17 on Criminal Procedure, he could not have issued this

    18 order, except according to the rules for disciplinary

    19 action which is within his competence.

    20 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you for that.

    21 MR. HARMON:

    22 Q. Now, let me show you the next exhibit which

    23 is 456/76, and you will see, Mr. Tadic, that this is a

    24 document, in the upper left-hand corner, that is dated

    25 the 4th of February, 1993, and it is number 01-2-05,

  93. 1 and if you turn to the second page, you'll see -- I'm

    2 sorry, the first page of the BCS version -- that it has

    3 been issued by Colonel Blaskic. I'd like to direct

    4 your attention, please, to the paragraph, item number 6

    5 in that particular document.

    6 JUDGE JORDA: The question, please,

    7 Mr. Harmon?

    8 MR. HARMON: Yes.

    9 Q. Mr. Tadic, it's difficult to read, but have

    10 you had an opportunity to read paragraph 6?

    11 This is an order from Colonel Blaskic, and as

    12 you can see in paragraph 6, it is directed to the

    13 officer in charge of the Zenica Jure Francetic Brigade

    14 military police, and it is an order to have a soldier,

    15 who sold a rifle to Muslim members of the military

    16 police of the Zenica brigade, arrested.

    17 My question to you is, what is the legal

    18 authority that Colonel Blaskic had in February of 1993

    19 to order the military police to arrest somebody?

    20 A. They are the regulations regulating

    21 disciplinary action, military disciplinary action,

    22 within the frameworks of the military units.

    23 Q. So you're referring to a set of regulations

    24 that you didn't talk about yesterday, that is, the

    25 rules of military discipline?

  94. 1 A. Yes, there are rules.

    2 Q. Okay. Let me turn your attention to 456/74,

    3 the next exhibit. This is a short item, Mr. Tadic.

    4 Take a minute to read it. Have you had a chance to

    5 read that, Mr. Tadic?

    6 A. Yes.

    7 Q. This is a document, it is issued by Colonel

    8 Blaskic, it is dated the 24th of October, 1992?

    9 A. Yes.

    10 Q. In this particular document it indicates

    11 that: "Mensur Alic, major of the JNA, is currently in

    12 Trogir. If you take the road to Travnik, arrest him,

    13 and if he resists, execute him." I have two questions

    14 for you: First of all, what is his authority under the

    15 law that existed on the 24th of October to have this

    16 person arrested? He is not a member of the HVO, he is

    17 a member of another organisation, the JNA, so what is

    18 his authority to have this person arrested?

    19 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President.

    20 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Nobilo.

    21 MR. NOBILO: The question contains an

    22 assertion that does not emanate from this document,

    23 namely, that this document was issued by Colonel

    24 Blaskic. It was never proved. The document is not

    25 signed, nor was it recognised by anybody, nobody has

  95. 1 knowledge of this document. And I think --

    2 JUDGE JORDA: I believe this was tendered.

    3 MR. HARMON: It was, Mr. President, 456/74.

    4 If Mr. Nobilo wants to dispute this, he has an

    5 opportunity to dispute it later in this case, but I

    6 have a limited amount of time, Mr. President, and I

    7 object to constantly being interrupted with objections

    8 that are quite obvious. The objections and the remedy

    9 of this --

    10 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, continue, Mr. Harmon.

    11 Mr. Nobilo, try not to interrupt too often.

    12 You know that interruptions are always annoying to

    13 those who are being interrupted. I am here in order to

    14 make sure everything stays in order here.

    15 Mr. Harmon, continue. The witness also has a

    16 time constraint.

    17 MR. HARMON:

    18 Q. Mr. Tadic, what is the legal authority that

    19 Colonel Blaskic had to issue this order on the 24th of

    20 October, 1992?

    21 A. If he did issue this, if Mr. Blaskic did

    22 issue this, then he overstepped his competencies, and

    23 did not have authorisation to do so based on the law.

    24 Q. My second question, Mr. Tadic, is what is his

    25 legal authority to give an order to have an individual

  96. 1 executed?

    2 A. He did not have the authority to do so.

    3 Q. Now, let me turn to 456/77. Have you seen

    4 this document before coming in to testify before today?

    5 A. No, not a single one of these documents.

    6 Q. Mr. Tadic, you will see from this document,

    7 in the upper left-hand corner, it is an order that was

    8 issued on the 11th of October, 1993, and, at the

    9 bottom, you will see that the person who issued that

    10 order is Colonel Blaskic. Furthermore, you will see

    11 that in the right-hand side of this document that this

    12 order was issued to, amongst others, the 4th MP

    13 Battalion, which is the 4th Military Police Battalion.

    14 I direct your attention to paragraph 1, which reads as

    15 follows: "Undertake the following disciplinary

    16 measures against any soldiers and their immediate

    17 commander who desert defence lines. (a) Execution of

    18 the unit soldier." My question to you, sir, is what

    19 was Colonel Blaskic's legal authority to issue an order

    20 to the military police to have a soldier who deserted a

    21 defence position executed?

    22 A. He did not have such authority.

    23 Q. Now, could I have the next exhibit, which is

    24 Defence Exhibit 368. Mr. Tadic, have you seen this

    25 particular Defence Exhibit before coming in here to

  97. 1 testify?

    2 A. No.

    3 Q. Take a moment to read it. I will direct your

    4 attention, first of all, to the date in the upper

    5 left-hand corner, the 31st of May, 1993, at 0945

    6 hours. You will see on the right-hand side, below

    7 that, this has been issued to the commanding officer of

    8 the 4th Military Police of Battalion Vitez, and to the

    9 assistant for SIS. This is an order issued by Colonel

    10 Blaskic from -- it's obvious from the face of this.

    11 Take a moment to read this very quickly. I would like

    12 to ask you some questions about it.

    13 Mr. Tadic, my first question is: This is an

    14 order, or my first observation is this is an order to

    15 the military police to conduct an investigation into a

    16 case and to take disciplinary measures against certain

    17 identified individuals identified in the predicate

    18 paragraph. What was Colonel Blaskic's legal authority

    19 to direct the military police to take disciplinary

    20 measures against military police members?

    21 A. Mr. Blaskic could have taken disciplinary

    22 action as commander, and the military police was

    23 supposed to carry this out in operative terms, that is

    24 to say to escort the person in question to the place

    25 where the disciplinary action would be taken, that is

  98. 1 to say to bring the person in, had the person tried to

    2 escape, et cetera.

    3 JUDGE JORDA: (No translation) -- when you

    4 answer, Mr. Tadic.

    5 MR. HARMON:

    6 Q. My question, Mr. Tadic, is this: What is

    7 Colonel Blaskic's legal authority to order the military

    8 police to take disciplinary measures against military

    9 police members?

    10 A. That should be seen in the context of the

    11 regulations, the military rules that the army had.

    12 Q. So are you saying, Mr. Tadic, that Colonel

    13 Blaskic had the authority to order disciplinary

    14 proceedings against military police members?

    15 A. Within disciplinary measures, yes.

    16 Q. Let me ask you one additional question.

    17 Again, in light of your testimony that Colonel Blaskic

    18 could not command the military police in terms of what

    19 they are going to investigate, how do you reconcile

    20 this order with your testimony yesterday?

    21 A. Quite easily so. The Colonel, and any

    22 commander, had certain daily operational powers in

    23 terms of the military police. The commander of the

    24 military police had other powers, and the military

    25 police had an independent organisation within the

  99. 1 Department of Defence, later the Ministry of Defence.

    2 What Mr. Blaskic did, that is a different matter. The

    3 extent to which he abided by the rules or not, the

    4 extent to which he was compelled to do certain things

    5 or not, that I really do not know.

    6 Q. Let me turn your attention to Prosecutor's

    7 Exhibit 456/59. While we are waiting for that

    8 document, Mr. Tadic, let me just return to the previous

    9 exhibit. If you just put that down for just a minute,

    10 Mr. Tadic, and return to the previous exhibit. Are you

    11 saying that in respect of Defence Exhibit 368 Colonel

    12 Blaskic exceeded his authorities or he was within his

    13 authorities in respect of this particular order to the

    14 4th Military Police Battalion?

    15 A. Partly, yes.

    16 Q. Please explain your answer.

    17 A. I thought that I had already explained it.

    18 It says in the Rules that the commander does have

    19 certain daily operational powers, and that the

    20 commander of the military police has other powers, on

    21 the other hand. Why such orders were issued to the 4th

    22 Battalion of the military police by Mr. Blaskic, and

    23 why he did not go through the command of the military

    24 police, that I do not know. He is the only person who

    25 can answer that.

  100. 1 Q. So are you saying that by issuing this order

    2 to the commanding officer of the 4th military police to

    3 conduct the investigation and to take disciplinary

    4 measures against the culprits, he was exceeding his

    5 authorities? I want to try to define precisely what

    6 part of this order you believe he exceeded his

    7 authorities in and what part he was within his

    8 authorities, because to me, at least, that's not

    9 clear.

    10 MR. HAYMAN: Asked and answered,

    11 Mr. President.

    12 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Harmon, the question was

    13 asked, that's correct, but I think that's because you

    14 were preparing for the following question. Is that

    15 right, Mr. Harmon?

    16 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, if you are

    17 satisfied that there has been a clear answer given in

    18 respect of this document, I am satisfied. I don't have

    19 -- please, Mr. Hayman, let me finish, will you.

    20 MR. HAYMAN: I haven't said a word, counsel.

    21 I stood up.

    22 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, it's not clear to

    23 me what the answer is, but if you are satisfied, then I

    24 will move onto a different document.

    25 JUDGE JORDA: I had the feeling that you had

  101. 1 asked the question, and that you wanted him to repeat

    2 it again. That was the feeling I had, and I did

    3 somewhat agree that you had asked the question.

    4 Starting with 368, was that the -- I see that

    5 Mr. Hayman is still standing. Do you have an objection

    6 you wish to make, Mr. Hayman?

    7 MR. HAYMAN: The witness said that the

    8 accused should have gone through the head of the

    9 military police in Mostar, and he doesn't know why he

    10 didn't do that. It is point blank, he said it, he has

    11 been asked the same question three times, and we think

    12 that this is repetition.

    13 JUDGE JORDA: I thought, Mr. Hayman, that I

    14 had agreed to your objection, that you don't have to

    15 repeat me for the third time, repeat your objection.

    16 Mr. Harmon, please continue. A few more

    17 moments, but I think that the interpreters might be

    18 getting tired. I would like to move to Exhibit

    19 456/9 --

    20 MR. HARMON: 59, Mr. President. 456/59.

    21 Q. Now, take a look at that, please. Have you

    22 seen this document before?

    23 A. No.

    24 Q. This is an order, and it's an order dated the

    25 10th of May, 1993, at 1705 hours. Unfortunately, the

  102. 1 addressee has been blacked out. It relates to the

    2 events that occurred in the village of Ahmici, and it

    3 has been issued by Colonel Blaskic. Now, take just a

    4 minute, please, and read that document. Mr. Tadic,

    5 first of all, let me direct your attention to paragraph

    6 2, because I think we can figure out to whom this

    7 document was addressed and what those black lines

    8 covered up. Normally, where those black lines are is

    9 the addressee of an order; isn't that correct?

    10 A. Yes.

    11 Q. You will see in paragraph 2 that Colonel

    12 Blaskic orders the assistant for SIS of the Operative

    13 Zone, Central Bosnia, as the person who is responsible

    14 for the task that is identified in the first paragraph,

    15 that is gather all information about what took place in

    16 the village of Ahmici. My first question to you is:

    17 What was Colonel Blaskic's legal authority to designate

    18 the assistant for SIS to conduct this investigation?

    19 A. I think that he did not have legal grounds

    20 for doing so.

    21 Q. Now, when a crime has been committed about

    22 which the commander of an operation zone knows about,

    23 but doesn't know or allegedly doesn't know the

    24 perpetrators identities, am I correct, Mr. Tadic, that

    25 the proper investigative agency to whom the order for

  103. 1 an investigation should have been directed was the

    2 military police?

    3 A. Yes.

    4 Q. Now, in any of the enactments that you have

    5 described to this Court, any of the regulations that

    6 you have described to this Court, is there any

    7 discretion given to the commander of the Operative Zone

    8 under the circumstances which I have described? Does

    9 he have any discretion to give it to somebody else, the

    10 investigation?

    11 A. I am not aware of that. He was supposed to

    12 investigate this and an order should have been issued

    13 to the military police, and then there is the security

    14 service too. How this will be organised is a question

    15 of operations.

    16 Q. Now, let me show you Defence Exhibit 343A.

    17 343. I'm sorry.

    18 While we're waiting for that exhibit,

    19 Mr. Tadic, when a commander of an operations zone knows

    20 about a crime, a serious crime, that's been committed

    21 within his area of operation, how soon after he

    22 acquires the knowledge of the commission of that crime

    23 is it that he's required by law or by regulation to

    24 turn over the request to investigate that crime to the

    25 military police?

  104. 1 A. Well, as soon as possible.

    2 Q. Now, would you take a look at Defence Exhibit

    3 343, and you can see from this document, this also is

    4 an order, it is an order dated August the 17th, 1993.

    5 It is issued by Colonel Blaskic, and it is issued to

    6 the assistant for SIS, "Attention: Mr. Ante

    7 Sliskovic," and it orders, again, to take further

    8 steps, further investigation, in respect of the killing

    9 of civilians at Ahmici. You will see from the text

    10 that Colonel Blaskic orders that SIS continue with

    11 collecting information in respect of that crime.

    12 I take it, again, Mr. Tadic, there's no legal

    13 authority that you can identify that would have

    14 permitted Colonel Blaskic to direct that SIS conduct an

    15 investigation into the crimes at Ahmici?

    16 A. Colonel Blaskic could have and should have

    17 asked the military police to do so, and the SIS service

    18 was within the military police.

    19 Q. Well, then perhaps you can clarify for me,

    20 was SIS a military police agency?

    21 A. I know that for a certain period of time, it

    22 was. How this developed later, I was not part of it,

    23 so ...

    24 Q. When did you know that SIS was part of the

    25 military police? What time period are you referring to

  105. 1 you, Mr. Tadic?

    2 A. I'm referring to the period from the

    3 beginning of 1993, 1992/1993.

    4 Q. Was SIS the normal organisation that would

    5 conduct investigations into criminal offences such as

    6 the killing of civilians?

    7 A. By its very structure, the SIS was supposed

    8 to deal with security matters, intelligence and other

    9 affairs, and the crime investigation police was

    10 supposed to do things related to crimes; however,

    11 someone from that domain should be questioned at length

    12 about this.

    13 Q. Let me ask you one last question, Mr. Tadic,

    14 in this area. Was there any statutory or regulatory

    15 authority to permit Colonel Blaskic to identify which

    16 part of the military police should conduct an inquiry

    17 into criminal offences?

    18 A. There were rules saying that this was to be

    19 done by the crime investigation police.

    20 Q. Which is separate from SIS?

    21 A. I just told you now that, for a certain

    22 period of time, all of this was together. The rules

    23 that we elaborated on here are from 1994, and then it

    24 was clearly stated that the crime investigation service

    25 was an independent agency within the military police.

  106. 1 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Harmon, you have about 30

    2 minutes left. I think that the interpreters have

    3 worked for many hours this afternoon, as we all have.

    4 We will resume tomorrow morning.

    5 Mr. Tadic, you'll have to stay in The Hague.

    6 I'm very sorry.

    7 THE WITNESS: Until tomorrow?

    8 JUDGE JORDA: But all of us are in the

    9 service of justice. My colleague and myself both thank

    10 you. I cannot ask for 30 minutes, because that would

    11 mean that there is the redirect time, the time for the

    12 Judges' questions. The interpreters have worked a long

    13 time, as we have.

    14 We will resume tomorrow at 10.00.

    15 Mr. Harmon, please respect the time limit

    16 that's been given to you tomorrow morning.

    17 MR. HARMON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.

    18 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you to the interpreters,

    19 and I adjourn the Court.

    20 THE WITNESS: I'm not satisfied with this.

    21 JUDGE JORDA: You don't like this solution.

    22 All right. Could you explain yourself? Is that

    23 because you have to leave? I suppose that's why.

    24 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, that is my only

    25 problem. Tomorrow at 11.15, I'm supposed to be on that

  107. 1 flight. I stayed for that purpose today because I knew

    2 that I was supposed to be testifying on a certain

    3 matter, and I was here yesterday too.

    4 JUDGE JORDA: If you like, you can come back

    5 at another time. The Judges cannot accommodate

    6 themselves with simply having everything finish

    7 quickly. Justice cannot make accommodations for

    8 individuals. It can put itself in the place of others

    9 and other witnesses, and that's what we try to do. If

    10 you can't come back tomorrow, then you have to come

    11 back another time. If not tomorrow, then another

    12 time. You choose.

    13 The Judges will resume tomorrow at 10.00 with

    14 Mr. Tadic. If, in the meantime, Mr. Tadic cannot do

    15 so, he will so inform the Registry, and we will call

    16 him back, pursuant to Rule 98, for the 30 other

    17 remaining minutes, the redirect time, and the Judges'

    18 questions. That's how justice moves. I don't have to

    19 teach this to a former minister of justice. You would

    20 agree with that. You have the choice. The Judges

    21 cannot discuss it any further.

    22 We will resume tomorrow at 10.00.

    23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

    24 6.17 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,

    25 the 21st day of January, 1999 at

  108. 1 10.00 a.m.