1 Friday, 21 September 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon to everybody in court.

6 Mr. Registrar, can you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number

8 IT-04-83-T, the Prosecutor versus Rasim Delic. Thank you, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

10 May we have the appearances, please, starting with the Prosecution

11 for today.

12 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your

13 Honours, Counsel, and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the

14 Prosecution, Daryl Mundis, assisted by our case manager, Alma Imamovic.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

16 And for the Defence?

17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good

18 afternoon to my learned friends from the Prosecution, to all those in and

19 around the courtroom. Vasvija Vidovic and Mr. Nicholas Robson for the

20 Defence of General Delic, with our assistant, Lana Deljkic.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] Thank you very much.

22 Before we call -- before we call the witness in, just a small

23 housekeeping matter. The Prosecution has filed some motions to lead

24 evidence pursuant to Rule 92 ter, good, and it -- I think the first of

25 those testifying is going to be sometime next week. I just wanted to find

1 out from the Defence whether it's possible for you to come up with any

2 response, so that an order can be given. I'm not suggesting you give that

3 response now.

4 MR. ROBSON: Good afternoon, Your Honours. As yet we haven't seen

5 the motion. We will have a look at it today and we will endeavour to

6 respond as early as we can next week.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. If I may just check with Mr. Mundis.

8 Mr. Mundis, when is that -- if -- if that motion is not granted,

9 then it has to come viva voce. When would he have to come?

10 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Your Honours. He's scheduled to appear

11 one week from today.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: One week from today. So it's Friday next week.

13 Thank you very much, Mr. Mundis.

14 Mr. Robson, I -- I understand that you haven't seen the motion.

15 Can I put slight pressure on you to try and aim for Tuesday?

16 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, we'll aim for Tuesday, certainly.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: You'll aim for Tuesday. Thank you very much I'm

18 most indulged to you.

19 Having said that, Mr. Mundis, am I wrong to suggest that in fact

20 your motion is out of time, in terms of our guidelines?

21 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, Your Honour. And I can simply indicate that in

22 light of the timing in which one of those -- or two of those statements

23 were taken, being the 17th of September, that we've endeavoured to file as

24 quickly as possible. We did have -- encounter some difficulties yesterday

25 in filing with respect to the large size of the document. We were unable

1 to file it electronically pursuant to the Registry's guidelines, and as a

2 result we had to then file it in hard copy this morning.

3 So I am aware of that, Your Honours, and we, as I've indicated,

4 are endeavouring to do everything possible to ensure that the Trial

5 Chamber has all of the relevant evidence and that the case is presented in

6 the most expeditious way possible.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Excuse my slow uptake. When you say those

8 statements were taken on the 17th of September, what statements are you

9 referring to?

10 MR. MUNDIS: The statements which are annexed to the -- to the

11 motion that was filed, consolidated statements.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I haven't read the -- the motion, so I haven't seen

13 those statements. I'm just aware of the motion.

14 Are these not statements that should have been taken much earlier?

15 MR. MUNDIS: Well --

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: If this witness was lined up -- is this witness on

17 the 65 ter list?

18 MR. MUNDIS: Absolutely. There are three -- three witnesses

19 referred to in the motion. All three of them are on the 65 ter list.

20 What we have proposed doing in the motion is seeking leave to move

21 them from being viva voce witnesses to being 92 ter witnesses, number one.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mm-hm.

23 MR. MUNDIS: Number two, those witnesses were shown a number of

24 exhibits that are on the exhibit list, and in the statements that are

25 attached to the motion, there is a table with respect to two of them where

1 the witness comments on the exhibits on the exhibit list. And what we

2 have proposed doing is tendering the written statement and the exhibits

3 which are explained or commented upon by the witness so that what we have

4 proposed doing is, in effect, making additional time available to the

5 Defence for cross-examination by foregoing a direct examination, which

6 would include a direct examination covering a certain number of exhibits

7 which are explained or commented upon by the -- by the witness in the

8 statement.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Mundis.

10 Having heard what you've said, I -- I think the Chamber is still

11 of the view that you should try to be punctual with your motions and you

12 are -- you are given indulgence for now, but I think you will be put under

13 pressure next time.

14 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.

16 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, if I could just state as well: As I

17 stated earlier, we will aim to respond by Tuesday, but my heart does sink

18 a little when I heard from the Prosecutor that they were unable to file

19 the motion electronically due to its size. So we'll wait and see what we

20 receive.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, let's wait and see what you -- do the best

22 you can. Okay? Thank you very much, Mr. Robson. We will not tie you

23 down to Tuesday, but if you can, please.

24 May the witness please be brought in.

25 MR. ROBSON: Thank you, Your Honour.

1 Yes, Mr. Robson, do you have something --

2 MR. ROBSON: Sorry, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are waiting for the witness? Is he under

4 cross-examination at this stage?

5 MR. MUNDIS: Let me -- let me put on the record, we are -- we are

6 done with the -- with the direct examination of the witness.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Just put it on the record.

8 Thank you so much.

9 Are we fetching the witness from ...

10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

11 [The witness entered court]

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Delic.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You made a declaration at the beginning of your

15 testimony yesterday to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

16 the truth. I remind you that you are still bound by that declaration to

17 tell the truth and nothing else but the truth. Okay?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I'm quite clear on that.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

20 The Prosecutor has finished asking his questions to you. It is

21 now an opportunity for the Defence to ask you questions.

22 Thank you very much. Mr. Robson.

23 MR. ROBSON: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 WITNESS: SEAD DELIC [Resumed]

25 [Witness answered through interpreter]

1 Cross-examination by Mr. Robson:

2 Q. Good afternoon, General Delic. My name is Nicholas Robson, and

3 I'll be asking you some questions today on behalf of General Rasim Delic.

4 If I could say at the outset that we've got many --

5 A. Good afternoon.

6 Q. If I could say at the outset, we have many issues to get through

7 today. I'd be very grateful if you could please focus on my questions.

8 And if my question can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no," I'd

9 encourage you to do so. Is that okay?

10 A. I understand.

11 Q. Now, General, yesterday you told us that from October 1994 you

12 were the commander of the 2nd Corps of the ARBiH, is that so?

13 A. Yes, that's so.

14 Q. The 2nd Corps had its headquarters in Tuzla, didn't it?

15 A. That's correct too.

16 Q. Now, with regard to Tuzla, it's right to say that during the war

17 that city was one of the most isolated parts of the free territory of

18 Bosnia and Herzegovina.

19 A. Yes, that's correct too.

20 Q. And in your testimony, you explained the access to Tuzla via the

21 main road and supply route from Zenica was cut off for most of the war.

22 Is that so?

23 A. Yes, that's correct too.

24 Q. Now, the result of that was that the inhabitants of Tuzla were

25 deprived of food and medicine for the majority of the war; is that

1 correct?

2 A. Yes, that's correct.

3 Q. And in respect of Tuzla, it's correct, isn't it, that the United

4 Nations designated that place as a safe area under a Security Council

5 resolution?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. Now, despite Tuzla having this United Nations safe area status,

8 Tuzla was often targeted by Serb artillery, wasn't it?

9 A. Yes, throughout the war, all the way through to the Dayton

10 Accords.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just interrupt. When was it so declared a

12 safe area by the United Nations? Witness?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that it was back in 1993,

14 but I'm not sure. At that time Srebrenica, Zepa, and some other towns

15 were designated as safe areas. I believe that there were four or five of

16 them.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

18 You may proceed, Mr. Robson.

19 Q. Now, using their artillery, Serb forces could fire on Tuzla

20 from strategic positions on the Mount Ozren salient, couldn't they?

21 A. Yes, that's correct. But they could do that from the Majevica

22 positions as well. Practically from all directions.

23 Q. And just in respect of the Mount Ozren Serb positions that, was

24 approximately 20 kilometres away from Tuzla, is that so?

25 A. Yes, around 20 kilometres. However, their artillery, such as

1 120-millimetre Howitzers and other pieces of artillery that they had at

2 their weapons -- disposal, could fire freely. At one point in time, they

3 were not 20 kilometres away. They were at the Vijenac feature, which is

4 less than 10 kilometres away from Tuzla as the crow flies. That's the

5 Lukavica municipality.

6 Q. Thank you for your detailed response, General, but perhaps if you

7 could just focus on the questions that you're being asked.

8 Now, is it right that a particularly egregious incident occurred

9 on the 25th of May, 1995 when during one of these Serb artillery attacks a

10 grenade landed in the centre of Tuzla old town?

11 A. Yes. In the very centre, I believe that there were 71 dead and

12 over 200 wounded.

13 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness a document

14 in connection with this incident. It's document D407.

15 For the record, this is a document from UNPROFOR HQ sector

16 north-east to Major General Rupert Smith and it's dated the 28th of May,

17 1995.

18 Q. General, do you see the Bosnian translation of that document in

19 front of you?

20 A. I do.

21 Q. Perhaps if we briefly could just turn to pages 2 in the English

22 and Bosnian versions just to confirm whom the document is from.

23 A. The document was signed by Mr. Hagrup Haukland, brigadier general,

24 commander of sector north-east.

25 Q. Thank you, General. If we could turn back to the first page,

1 please.

2 General, would you agree that this letter is addressed to

3 Major General Smith?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And if we look at point 1, we can see that it says: "Please find

6 enclosed with this letter the final report concerning the circumstances

7 and events surrounding the tragic shelling incident which took place on

8 the evening of 25th of May, 1995 in the centre of the old part of Tuzla."

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. This is the incident that we've just mentioned, isn't it, General?

11 A. Yes. Yes.

12 Q. If --

13 A. If I may assist you, I, too, received a report containing a

14 complete analysis of this event. Perhaps the -- Their Honours have this

15 report, but I do have it at home, both in English and Bosnian versions.

16 Q. Thank you, General. I don't think that will be necessary.

17 If we can focus on the conclusions at point 2 on this page. This

18 letter, which summarises the report's conclusions, says that -- that there

19 were at least 195 casualties directly caused by the shelling incident, of

20 which up to 72 people were killed.

21 Is it correct that there were 195 -- at least 195 casualties from

22 this shelling?

23 A. There were more. I said at the outset that as far as I knew there

24 was -- there were 71 dead and more than 200 wounded. The casualties in

25 total amounted to nearly 300 people.

1 Q. And, General, if we look at point (b), if you can just read that.

2 Does (b) confirm the deaths and injuries were a direct result of one high

3 explosive shell or grenade?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And we can see that that shell or grenade impacted in the midst of

6 a non-combatant civilian crowd of several hundred people, and that was on

7 the evening of the 25th of May. Is that so?

8 A. Yes, that's correct.

9 Let me just add this: Three of them landed while -- one of them

10 landed in the centre; whereas, the two others landed some 150 metres away.

11 Q. Thank you. And if we look at point (c), we can see that the

12 weapons system from which the shell or grenade originated came from the

13 Ozren salient at a distance of at least 20 kilometres; is that correct?

14 A. Yes, that's correct too.

15 Q. And then finally, at point (d), is it right we can see that from

16 the location of the shell's impact, the time it was fired, and the type of

17 shell used, it demonstrated that the purpose of the shelling was to

18 inflict maximum casualties on a non-combatant civilian population; is that

19 right?

20 A. Yes, that's right.

21 Q. Now, General, is it correct to say that this shelling incident on

22 the 25th of May was in fact the most deadly shelling incident that

23 occurred throughout the entire war in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

24 A. Yes. One of the events causing most victims in one day.

25 Although, around 1.200 civilians were killed by shelling in the town. I'm

1 not sure about the figure, but I believe it's roughly thereabouts.

2 Q. And that goes back to what you said earlier, that there was

3 shelling from Serb artillery throughout the entire war.

4 A. Yes. Yes, precisely.

5 Q. Now, apart from the shelling that was experienced in the Tuzla

6 area, is it correct that the situation in your area of responsibility

7 became even worse following the terrible events that occurred in

8 Srebrenica and Zepa?

9 A. Precisely.

10 Q. And would you agree with me that those events occurred in July of

11 1995?

12 A. Yes. Officially on the 10th and 11th of July through to the end

13 of July, but such a situation continued to exist later on.

14 Q. Thank you.

15 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, please could I admit this document into

16 evidence.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

18 please be given an exhibit number.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this will be Exhibit 416. Thank you,

20 Your Honour.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

22 Q. General, turning now to the 2nd Corps, could you explain to the

23 Trial Chamber what the ethnic composition was of the 2nd Corps during the

24 war.

25 A. The composition of the 2nd Corps of the BH army during the war

1 reflected the composition of the population, admittedly to a lesser

2 degree. However, particularly interesting was the town of Tuzla, where

3 the composition reflected the ethnic make-up of Prigrad [phoen], except

4 for the 9th Muslim, where there were no Serbs or Muslims and which was

5 formed in late August 1995, all the other units had at least several dozen

6 or several hundred or even more. In one of our brigades, which is the

7 115th Zrinjski Brigade, which was part of the corps or, rather, of the

8 operations group 5, was practically half/half. Half of them were Muslims,

9 half of them were Croats.

10 There were some other units, especially the Reconnaissance

11 Sabotage unit, as the commander of the staff I had 10 to 20 Serbs too.

12 The number went down in time, partly due to fighting, partly due to the

13 situation; however, even after the war in the professional army of the 2nd

14 Corps we had around 200 soldiers. I don't know the exact figure - who

15 were Serbs and who signed the first professional contracts. I don't know

16 what the situation is at present because on several occasions the

17 Federation army was reduced and their numbers must have gone down too,

18 consequently.

19 Q. Okay. Thank you, General. It's right to say, isn't it, that

20 within the 2nd Corps command there were also Bosnians of non-Muslim

21 ethnicity throughout the -- the war?

22 A. The interpretation wasn't clear. There were both Croats and

23 Serbs. My chief of staff, Andjelko Makar, was a Croat by ethnicity.

24 Therefore, there were Croats and Serbs in the corps command of the corps.

25 Chief of security, Ante Pranjic, was also a Croat. Assistant commander

1 for morale was a Croat too, Pejo Kovacevic and his brother, they were

2 members of the 2nd Corps for a while as assistant commanders for morale.

3 All these units were made up of both Serbs and Croats.

4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is quite difficult

5 to react at present; however, the interpretation doesn't really reflect

6 what the witness is saying. It's been three days now that the

7 interpretation has been quite poor of what is being said in Bosnian. I

8 cannot correct what I'm referring to because there are entire parts that

9 are incorrect. I can only suggest that we take the tapes from yesterday

10 and today and to match them.

11 I would have to spring to my feet every time something like this

12 happens, and it's too soon and something is really disturbing about the

13 interpretation.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now that the questioning is done by your colleague,

15 just write a note to him, let him ask a question to clarify what is not

16 clear.

17 But let me also try and clarify something. In your question,

18 Mr. Robson, you talked of Bosnians -- or it is transcribed as Bosnians of

19 non-Muslim ethnicity. Is it supposed to be non-Muslim religion perhaps?

20 Is Muslim --

21 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, the -- I posed the question there

22 with -- on purpose, with that meaning.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Oh, is being a Muslim -- is that an ethnic

24 characteristic or is it a religious characteristic?

25 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, again, I don't want to get into an area

1 of evidence, but we've obviously --

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go ahead. As long as you have seen that.

3 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'm going to ask that question again,

4 because it seems -- my colleague informs me that the -- the response was

5 not clear.

6 Q. So, General, just to put that question to you again. Obviously

7 I'm interested in the 2nd Corps command. Can you confirm for us that

8 there were members of the command who were non-Muslims within the command?

9 A. Yes, precisely.

10 Q. And if you could again just -- I'm sorry that you have to do this,

11 but please could you explain to the Tribunal who those people were and

12 what positions they held.

13 A. I can, and I hope I won't forget anyone.

14 The first commander of the 2nd Corps was a Croat, Zeljko Knez.

15 The chief of staff and later on my deputy was Andjelko Makar.

16 Ante Pranjic was the chief of security, and later on he was the assistant

17 commander for garrison affairs. Pejo Kovacevic and his brother were

18 assistants for organisational and mobilisational issues and for morale.

19 There were others, other commanding officers occupying lower

20 positions, but these were my associates, my immediate assistants that

21 spring to my mind at present.

22 Q. And, General, the names of the persons you just mentioned, Knez,

23 Pranjic, Kovacevic, could you please explain to the Trial Chamber the

24 ethnicity of those persons. And there was somebody else as well, which I

25 don't think their name was perhaps captured.

1 A. Pejo and Dragan Kovacevic, they were two brothers who were also

2 there. Most -- most of them were Croats; although, there were Serbs among

3 them too.

4 Q. Okay. So just to clarify, Pejo and Dragan Kovacevic were of what

5 ethnicity?

6 A. I'm not sure. I believe they are Croats, but I never asked them.

7 I don't know.

8 Q. Zeljko Knez, can you say --

9 A. A Croat, I'm sure.

10 Q. Andjelko Makar? I think the --

11 A. A Croat, certainly.

12 Q. And Ante Pranjic?

13 A. Ante Pranjic is a Croat, I believe, too.

14 Q. Now, General, I'd like to discuss with you the right of members of

15 the ARBiH to exercise religious beliefs. And if I could show you document

16 P4068.

17 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, for the record, this document is

18 entitled "Provisional instructions on the organisation and functioning of

19 religious life in the armed forces of the Republic of Bosnia and

20 Herzegovina."

21 Q. Now, General, I see that the Bosnian version of this document is

22 not particularly clear. Can you make out the -- the heading or the title

23 of this document?

24 A. "Provisional instructions on the organisation and functioning of

25 religious life in the armed forces of the Republic of Bosnia and

1 Herzegovina." Dated the 7th of October, 1992.

2 Q. Thank you. And were you aware that there was an act that

3 regulated exercise of religious beliefs within the armed forces?

4 A. I have to tell you that from the beginning of the war, we allowed

5 that. Huseinta Dragasovic [phoen], Captain Dragasovic allowed for that,

6 and Catholics were able to practice their religious beliefs when they were

7 not in combat. This existed throughout the war, and I believe it exists

8 now, and this is the principle upon which the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina

9 operates.

10 Q. Just to clarify, General, where you say "Catholics were able to

11 practice their religious beliefs when they were not in combat," could you

12 confirm that both Serbs and Croats could both practice their religious

13 beliefs within the 2nd Corps?

14 A. That's precisely what I said, both Serbs and Croats. Croats are

15 Catholics, at least the majority of them, and Serbs were Orthodox. There

16 was a room with a cross and all the other religious symbols. There was a

17 guardian, a priest who went there to celebrate the mass. I have to say

18 that they were in the same building but they had separate rooms set aside

19 for that, two separate rooms.

20 Q. Thank you, General. If I can refer you to Article 1 of this

21 document. If you could try your best to read what it says.

22 A. It's quite unclear.

23 Q. Okay. Well, perhaps if I can read it out to you so you can

24 receive an interpretation. It states: "During the period of martial

25 law" --

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. -- shall we then get the English version

2 on the screen so that we can read with you?

3 MR. ROBSON: Yes, please.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

5 MR. ROBSON:

6 Q. So Article 1 states: "During the period of martial law, in units,

7 commands, staffs and institutions of the armed forces of the Republic of

8 Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter: Armed forces) the free exercise of

9 religious beliefs and performance of religious rites by the members of the

10 armed forces is planned and organised."

11 So my question, General, is: Do you agree that through these

12 instructions, the free exercise of religious beliefs was planned and

13 organised by the armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

14 A. Yes. Yes. I can agree with that, yes. Of course, to the extent

15 that the persons involved wanted to and were able to exercise their

16 beliefs.

17 Q. And, again, if I could refer you to Article -- if I could refer

18 you to Article 2. You're -- you're probably unable to read this article

19 as well; is that right?

20 A. Yes. This is precisely what I stated; although, the left part of

21 the text is quite poor.

22 This was allowed to all religious beliefs, to all soldiers. All

23 of them had to be allowed and enabled to practice their religious beliefs

24 insofar as the duty permitted.

25 And at the end, it says that there has to be tolerance between

1 soldiers of different beliefs in the ranks of the armed forces.

2 I can't read the first two words in the sentence, and I'm talking

3 about Article 2.

4 Q. And that principle of tolerance between soldiers of different

5 beliefs, that is reflected in what you described for us earlier when you

6 informed us as to how it was in the 2nd Corps.

7 A. Yes, precisely.

8 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, if this document could please be

9 admitted into evidence.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

11 please be given an exhibit number.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be Exhibit number 417.

13 Thank you, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

15 MR. ROBSON: In connection with this issue, could the witness

16 please be shown document D394. Just to explain to the Trial Chamber, that

17 this document is actually comprised of two separate documents that touch

18 upon a -- a similar issue.

19 If we could go to the first page of the document, please.

20 A. If I can read this out, this is an order written in Sarajevo on

21 the 5th of April, 1994. It is the Supreme Command Staff of the armed

22 forces, office of the commander. It is entitled "Marking a celebration of

23 Orthodox Easter. Order." If you need a comment, I can provide it.

24 Q. Perhaps just go to the bottom of that page, please. Could you

25 tell us -- could you please tell us who it's from.

1 A. Yes. It was signed by deputy commander Jovan Divjak. Brigadier

2 General Jovan Divjak. And he's representing the commander -- rather, I

3 can't see clearly whether he's representing the commander or he's the

4 deputy commander. It is illegible.

5 Q. And I don't know if you've had time to -- to look at the document

6 at all, General, but could you confirm for us that in this order

7 General Divjak is ordering that a reception take place in order to mark

8 the Orthodox Easter holiday? Is that so?

9 A. Yes, precisely so. Even though I have never seen this document

10 previously.

11 [Defence counsel confer]

12 MR. ROBSON:

13 Q. General, can you tell us: In the 2nd Corps, did members of Serb

14 ethnicity who held Orthodox -- the Orthodox faith, did they celebrate

15 Orthodox Easter each year?

16 A. Not only Easter. It's just one of the holidays. There was also

17 Christmas and a lot of other religious and other holidays, celebrations of

18 patron saints, and so on. As far as I know, all of them were celebrated,

19 and on those days they did not go to the front. We tried to find another

20 solution to accommodate them, to let them go to their home so that they

21 could celebrate the holiday with their families.

22 Q. So that was the Serb members of the 2nd Corps. Did the same thing

23 apply to Croat members who held the Catholic faith?

24 A. Yes, the same applied. There was just a slight difference in

25 their Easters and Christmases. I think it's just -- they were just one

1 week apart, and they celebrated their holidays within that one week.

2 Q. Thank you, General.

3 If we can please turn to page 2 of this document. As I say, it's

4 a -- it's a second order. And perhaps if General Delic could briefly tell

5 us what -- what it is.

6 A. Could the document please be enlarged.

7 "Order to organise a reception for Catholic Christmas. Hereby

8 submitted to General Staff and the headquarters of the General Staff." It

9 says here on -- that this order is being issued on the basis of provisions

10 on the instruction on organisation and functioning of religious life

11 within the armed forces of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and

12 Herzegovina. In the signature, we can see that it is typed "Rasim Delic,"

13 but I would say that the signature is somebody else's, not his.

14 And then it says how to organise this, the invitees, where they

15 should be accommodated, invited, and so on.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 A. And then --

18 Q. Would you agree with me that what it says is that it was signed

19 for General Rasim Delic?

20 A. Yes, I think that's right. This is not the handwriting of

21 General Delic.

22 Q. Okay. And if we could just finally confirm the -- the date of

23 this document. Is it right that it's dated the 17th of December, 1995?

24 A. 17th of December, 1995. Yes, precisely so.

25 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, please could these -- this exhibit be

1 admitted into evidence.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsel, I am not sure that the issue of religious

4 tolerance was raised in the examination-in-chief. And given your

5 objections as of yesterday, I'm curious to see where we are going with

6 this.

7 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, as you heard from the Prosecutor,

8 yesterday or if -- perhaps the day before, they are presenting a case made

9 up of many pieces, and each witness will come and tell one or two pieces

10 of the puzzle. We will, of course, confront the issues that each of those

11 witnesses deals with, and I will be coming to that shortly. But at the

12 same time, we have a duty to put our case wherever we can. And

13 General Delic here, as commander of the 2nd Corps, is, we would say,

14 rather uniquely placed to deal with some of the other issues which are

15 not -- have not been raised during examination-in-chief but have been

16 dealt with by other witnesses. So it's an opportunity for us to introduce

17 evidence on other very salient and important -- salient issues before the

18 Trial Chamber.

19 [Defence counsel confer]

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I very much appreciate what you say, Mr. --

21 Mr. Robson. And -- and I am mindful of the fact that the question of

22 religion has cropped up previously. I'm mindful of that fact. What I --

23 what I don't understand now and I didn't understand then, when it first

24 cropped up, is what -- of what relevance it is to the case. You know,

25 that's -- that's my only problem.

1 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, that's an excellent comment, but it's

2 a -- it's a matter that has arisen in the last few weeks. It's clearly --

3 it's something that the Prosecution has introduced. I share with you --

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it of importance to you -- to the defence of

5 General Delic?

6 MR. ROBSON: Well, we don't know what view you -- although you've

7 indicated now, Your Honour -- prior to that, we didn't know what view you

8 took.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: No. No.

10 MR. ROBSON: So we take the attitude that we have to confront each

11 and every --

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not suggesting that I'm taking any view. I'm

13 aware it was raised, and I'm not fighting with you. I'm aware it was -- I

14 was surprised that it was raised. I'm surprised it is being pursued,

15 because I don't see it anywhere in the indictment, and I don't -- yeah, I

16 don't see it anywhere in the indictment.

17 MR. ROBSON: [Microphone not activated] Your Honour, I don't think

18 I have to say any words. It's --

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: But if you do know -- if you do know where the

20 Prosecution is going with it and you are in a position therefore to -- to

21 put your ducks in a row to defend your case on that issue, by all means go

22 ahead. But just be advised that some of us on the Bench are lost.

23 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, what -- what I would say: I won't

24 pursue this any further in front of the witness, but if it -- if the Trial

25 Chamber wishes to air it, we would be very happy to deal with this at a

1 later stage.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go ahead.

3 MR. ROBSON:

4 Q. Moving to another issue. This is --

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Robson. You may proceed. Sorry

7 about that.

8 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I don't think we got an exhibit number

9 for the last document.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] No, you had just asked

11 for an exhibit number when -- the question was being raised. The document

12 is admitted into evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.

13 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, that will be Exhibit number 418. Thank

14 you, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

16 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm afraid -- sorry. For the record, I'm afraid

17 that I will dissent on this. I find the document being not relevant, and

18 so I would dissent.

19 MR. ROBSON:

20 Q. General Delic, turning to the issue of command and control within

21 the ARBiH. It's right to say, isn't it, that at the start of the war the

22 Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina passed legislation

23 which regulated the Bosnian army?

24 A. As far as I know, two laws were adopted: The Law on Defence and

25 on Armed Forces. I don't know whether anything was adopted in the

1 beginning of the war, and they set aside previous laws.

2 Q. Thank you, General.

3 I'd like to show you Exhibit 9, which is the Decree Law on the

4 Armed Forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is it.

5 While we're waiting for the English version to appear, General,

6 could you take a look at the title of this document, and is this one of

7 the laws that you just mentioned to us a moment ago?

8 A. Yes, that's precisely what it is. This is the Decree Law on the

9 Armed Forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ejup Ganic signed

10 it personally, he was deputy President of the Presidency of Bosnia and

11 Herzegovina. This was published in the Official Gazette, 3 -- 1335/92.

12 And this was issued in Sarajevo on the 9th of October, 1992.

13 Q. Sorry, and that's just -- as to the issue of who it's issued by,

14 if we could please look at page 9 of the English document and page 3 of

15 the B/C/S.

16 A. Well, it's clear that then and during the entire war the

17 Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina served as the Supreme Command of the

18 country and it was headed by the late Alija Izetbegovic.

19 Q. Okay. Just taking it step by step, General, if we can look -- if

20 you look at the right-hand column of this document, is it right to say

21 that this law was issued by the Presidency -- President of the Presidency,

22 Alija Izetbegovic? And it's just off the bottom of the English document

23 there.

24 A. Yes, that's correct. 20th of May, 1992, President of the

25 Presidency, Alija Izetbegovic, signed it personally.

1 Q. If we could look at Article 8, which is on page 2 of the English

2 version and page 1 of the B/C/S version. And you'll find it on the

3 right-hand side of the B/C/S version.

4 General, it's correct to say, isn't it, that we can see there

5 Article 8 falls in a section entitled "Command and control of the army"?

6 A. Yes. It says in that article what I said previously, that the

7 Presidency of the Republic is the most senior organ in the command and

8 control of the army.

9 Q. Thank you, General. If I can refer you to Article 9. We don't

10 have to move the screen.

11 If you could read out for us the first -- the start of that

12 article and the first three points, please.

13 A. In Article 9, it says: "In achieving command and control of the

14 Army, the Presidency of the Republic shall in particular:"

15 Under 1: "Establish army development plans.

16 "2: Establish the organisation of the army and formation of Army

17 command, staffs, and institutions of the army.

18 "3: Establish the composition of command and control in the Army

19 in keeping with the law.

20 "4: Follow implementation of the established policy principles

21 and command and control of the army."

22 "5: Establish the plan of use of the army in case of war and

23 order the use of army in war and peace."

24 Q. Thank you.

25 A. And then 6 --

1 Q. So would you agree with me, based on what you've just read out to

2 the Trial Chamber, that not only does the law provide that the Presidency

3 is the most senior organ in command and control of the army, it also sets

4 up particular tasks and responsibility -- and responsibilities for the

5 Presidency?

6 A. Yes, precisely so.

7 Q. And in particular, the last point, 5, that you've just read out,

8 that provides legal authorisation for the Presidency to order the use of

9 the army during wartime, doesn't it?

10 A. Yes. That was regulated by way of this item.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we go back to the beginning of that Article

12 5 -- Article 9, without -- without losing subarticle 5?

13 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I believe they're on two different

14 pages.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are they? Okay. That's fine.

16 MR. ROBSON:

17 Q. Now, General, did the last article - I'm interested in this law -

18 is Article 10.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, on this page.

20 MR. ROBSON: Would you like -- if we --

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would like them to go to Article 10 now in

22 English.

23 MR. ROBSON: If you can turn to page 3, please, in the English.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

25 MR. ROBSON: And if we can scroll down the page in the B/C/S

1 version. If we can go a bit further in the B/C/S version, please. Thank

2 you. And if we can just change that so we can see the entire section.

3 Thanks.

4 Now, Your Honours, there's a -- a translation error in the English

5 version of this law, so I'll ask General Delic to read out Article 10, if

6 I may. It's the top part and part 1 I'm interested in.

7 A. Are you referring to Article 9 or 10? Article 10: "President of

8 the Presidency of the Republic shall, on behalf of the Presidency:

9 "1. Representative the armed forces in the Republic and abroad.

10 "2: Sign acts of the Presidency."

11 Q. General, based on that, would you agree with me that this article,

12 10.1, shows that the President of the Presidency was responsible for

13 representing the armed forces, both inside and outside of the country?

14 A. Precisely so. This was wartime and upon authorisation of the

15 Presidency he was the one doing precisely that throughout the war.

16 MR. ROBSON: [Microphone not activated]

17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Microphone.

19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

20 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, you'll note that in Article 10.1, the

21 words "inside" and "inside" [sic] are omitted.

22 Q. Now, General, turning to Article 10.2, is it right that that

23 provides that the President shall sign Republic Presidency acts relating

24 to the army and oversee their implementation?

25 A. I think the interpretation is not good. I have the Bosnian

1 version here, and it says that the President signs the acts of the

2 Presidency of the Republic which pertain to the army and he takes care of

3 their implementation. This refers to the President of the Presidency, the

4 late Alija Izetbegovic, who is authorised to sign the acts. He's

5 authorised to do that on behalf of the Presidency -- the acts that pertain

6 to the army and to take care of their implementation.

7 Q. Just to clarify. By "acts," this could mean decisions, orders, or

8 any other type of instruction relating to the army, is that so?

9 A. Yes. This covers everything that pertains to the army.

10 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'd like to put that exhibit to one

11 side, if I may, and refer to some later legislation, which is document

12 D401.

13 Just for the record, this is a document entitled "Decision on the

14 organisational chart of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and

15 Herzegovina."

16 Q. Okay. If -- are you familiar with this document at all, General?

17 A. I don't remember seeing it, but I am familiar with this decision,

18 with its contents, rather; although, I do not remember this document

19 reaching me.

20 Q. Okay. If we could please look at page 6 of the English version

21 and page 4 of the B/C/S version. If we could just --

22 General, could you confirm for us that this decision was issued on

23 the 24th of October, 1994 and it was signed by President Izetbegovic?

24 A. Precisely.

25 Q. Now, you've told us that you were familiar with its content. Is

1 it right that this decision introduces a structure for the ARBiH that was

2 in place until the end of the war?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. If we could refer to page 2 in both the English and B/C/S

5 versions, please. It's section 4 that I'm interested in. Exactly.

6 Sorry, in the --

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it Roman numeral 4 or is it --

8 MR. ROBSON: It's Roman numeral 4 that I'm after, and I think

9 we've got Roman numeral 5 in the B/C/S version. Is that -- is that

10 correct?

11 Okay. Thank you.

12 Q. General, we can see there that the heading is "Organisation of the

13 Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina."

14 A. Yes, precisely.

15 Q. And if we look at part 1 of section 4, it states: "The Army of

16 the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall consist of: General Staff,

17 air force and anti-aircraft defence command, six corps, Eastern Bosnia

18 operations group-division. And then it goes on to say: "and three

19 independent brigades."

20 Could you first of all just clarify, what is the Eastern Bosnia

21 operations group-division, please.

22 A. I think that this is in the area of Gorazde and that this should

23 be a division which was created in the free territory; that is to say,

24 Gorazde municipality and other liberated municipalities around it.

25 Q. Thank you for that clarification. The part we're interested is --

1 in is the reference to "six corps." And in that connection, if we could

2 look at the next page, please, page 3 --

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. -- of the English. And it's still page 2 of the B/C/S.

5 If we could scroll down to the bottom of the B/C/S version,

6 please.

7 Okay. Now, would you agree with me, General, that part 5 of item

8 4 states: "The following shall be directly subordinated to and linked to

9 the Army General Staff Commander." And then it goes on to say:

10 "commanders of the units as referred to under item IV/1 of this

11 decision."

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: All right.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that interpretation is not

14 good. Item 5 defines this in different terms, and I will read it to you

15 verbatim.

16 Item 5 reads: "Commander of the general -- the following: Shall

17 be directly subordinated and linked to the army General Staff commander,

18 air force and anti-aircraft defence commander and commanders of the units

19 as referred to under item IV/1 of this decision, deputy commander, chief

20 of staff of the army," and then in parenthesis, it says "also," and then

21 there's no more text following that.

22 Q. If we can move to the next page. If you can carry on, please,

23 General.

24 A. [No interpretation]

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, we -- I got no interpretation.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And all administrations and

2 departments listed in item IV/II of this decision.

3 MR. ROBSON:

4 Q. Could you just repeat that last bit, General, just the first, the

5 top part -- the first paragraph.

6 A. So and then it continues with this sentence: "Assistant

7 commanders of the General Staff, the Army Staff, and all administrations

8 and departments listed in item IV/2 of this decision. Administrations

9 within the Army Staff ...."

10 Q. So, General, it is a little bit complicated, but from this part of

11 item 4, we can gather the following: It says that commanders of the units

12 referred to under item IV/1 of this decision shall be subordinated to or

13 linked to the Army General Staff commander. Is that so?

14 A. It's all clear to me. President and Supreme Command resubordinate

15 what is within their jurisdiction to the commander of the General Staff.

16 At least, that's how I read this.

17 [Defence counsel confer]

18 MR. ROBSON:

19 Q. And from this -- this law, could you tell us, who is directly

20 subordinate, then, to the General Staff commander, General Delic?

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before General Delic answers, can I just ask

22 that we -- we pause in between questions and answers, and can you also try

23 to do that, General. The interpretation is not going at the same pace and

24 some of us up here lose -- lose you if you go fast.

25 Thank you very much. You may -- you may answer now.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sir, I took this to mean that the

2 General Staff is the specialised organ of the Presidency and then the

3 President of the Presidency resubordinated or transferred some

4 responsibilities that fall within his jurisdiction and linked it directly

5 to the General Staff. It pertains to these persons and these units.

6 MR. ROBSON:

7 Q. General, a little earlier on we read the text of section IV, IV

8 part 1, and we saw that the units mentioned in there included the six

9 different corps of the ARBiH. Do you remember?

10 And perhaps we can get that back on -- on the screen. If we could

11 go back a page.

12 A. Yes. Yes, precisely. Not only six corps. There was the Eastern

13 Bosnian Division there; there were the three brigades, I believe that they

14 were Sarajevo brigades; and another unit.

15 Q. Precisely so. But having told you that what I'm interested in is

16 in the six different corps, would you agree with me that it follows from

17 this decision that the commanders of those six different corps were

18 directly subordinate to the Army General Staff commander?

19 A. That's the decision of the President of the Presidency, the

20 decision subordinating them.

21 Q. So you would agree with me, then.

22 A. Yes. Yes.

23 Q. And would you agree that the effect of this decision is that the

24 commander of the General Staff could only issue orders to the commanders

25 of the corps and those other independent units specified in item IV/1 that

1 we can see?

2 A. Only the units listed here, the corps and those units. I believe

3 that there were assistant there -- assistants there or deputies mentioned

4 there in command of those.

5 Q. Just to clarify, General, you just referred to the corps and those

6 units. Could you please specify what you mean by "those units."

7 A. Specifically, I meant the unit in Eastern Bosnia. I meant the two

8 or three brigades mentioned herein. I believe that there were two or

9 three brigades in Sarajevo. I'm referring to the units that were listed

10 in the earlier paragraphs, because this refers back to those.

11 Q. Thank you, General.

12 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I think -- first of all, if we could

13 please admit the document into evidence. And I think it would be an

14 appropriate time to take the break.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

16 please be given an exhibit number.

17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be Exhibit number 419.

18 Thank you, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

20 We'll take a break and come back at 4.00. Court adjourned.

21 --- Recess taken at 3.33 p.m.

22 --- On resuming at 4.01 p.m.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.

24 MR. ROBSON: Thank you, Your Honour.

25 Q. General Delic, just before the break, we were talking about the

1 decision on the organisational chart of the ARBiH. If I could just clear

2 up a couple of points before we move on to the new -- on to a new topic.

3 Could you confirm, General, that from that decision the

4 consequence was that the General Staff commander could only issue orders

5 to the commanders of those units listed in item IV/1?

6 And we can bring that document back up, if necessary.

7 A. I don't need it. I think that you are quite right, except for

8 representing them abroad, these units are enumerated. And you can see

9 that in the relevant item.

10 Q. So that means that the General Delic, the General Staff commander,

11 could only issue orders to the commanders of the corps and those other

12 units listed in -- that we discussed in the decision.

13 A. Precisely so.

14 Q. And it's also right to say, isn't it, that only a commander of a

15 corps could issue orders to his subordinate units directly?

16 A. That's true as well.

17 Q. Okay. Thank you, General.

18 I'd like to move on to the issue of the directive that you

19 mentioned yesterday in your evidence.

20 If the witness could please be shown document -- or Exhibit 384.

21 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, just to explain. You've seen this

22 document before. And on the last occasion, we explained that we'd only

23 managed to get a few small parts of the document translated.

24 Unfortunately, the situation is still the same today, but we -- we should

25 be able to manage.

1 Q. General, the document on the screen in front of you, is this the

2 directive that you mentioned in your evidence for the year 1995?

3 A. Yes, precisely. On the 5th of January, 1995 the General Staff of

4 the army, Kakanj command post, issues this to the command of the 1st, 2nd,

5 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Corps and the Gorazde Eastern Bosnia

6 Operations Group. This is the directive for continuation of offensive

7 combat operations by the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

8 And then further below, you see the units and the tasks given to

9 them.

10 Q. Thank you. If we could please refer to page 9 in the Bosnian

11 version only, just to see who the document is signed by.

12 A. The document is signed by the staff of the army, by Brigadier

13 General Enver Hadzihasanovic. I think that at that command post he was

14 the most senior officer and in charge of the duties of the chief of staff,

15 and as such, he did this.

16 Q. And is it right to say that General Delic approved this document?

17 Can you see his signature?

18 A. No. No. There's no signature here -- oh, just a minute. There

19 is something underneath. I think that, yes, this is the signature of

20 General Delic, although this is enlarged. It says: "Rasim Delic.

21 Commander Rasim Delic." Yes.

22 Q. And that's his approval.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. If we could return back to the first page, please.

25 Now, General, would you agree with me that -- you've mentioned a

1 little bit about what this document contains, but it's right the first

2 section deals with the forces opposing the ARBiH; is that so?

3 A. Yes, information on the enemy.

4 Q. Now, if we could turn -- turn to page 7 of the Bosnian version and

5 page 3 of the English, please. Is it possible to fit the -- it's points 5

6 and 6 that we're going to be discussing, so if they could be put on the

7 page, please.

8 A. Yes. I'm aware of this. There was also a map accompanying this

9 document. I'm almost sure that there was a map. And in item 5, it says

10 what the tasks of the 2nd Corps were.

11 I said yesterday that these directives were more or less the same

12 throughout the war. It says here that they should liberate the areas of

13 Mount Majevica, Banj Brdo, Stolice, Busija Poversnica [phoen], Medvednje

14 [phoen], Brusnice village and come out on the Priboj-Lopare-Celic road.

15 In coordination with the 3rd Corps, liberate the general or the broader

16 sector of the Vozuca. To cut off the Chetnik forces at Mount Ozren along

17 the Klokotnica-Sevarlije axis. With the assistance of the other corps

18 lift the blockade from the free territory of Srebrenica and Zepa and come

19 out on the river Drina.

20 So the tasks that were issued on a yearly basis. Actually, these

21 were guidelines on what to do during the year, based on which commander of

22 the corps commander planned his activities for the following year.

23 Q. Now, you read out some of the tasks. Would you also confirm that

24 in the last part of this section dealing with the 2nd Corps, related to

25 lifting the blockade of Srebrenica and Zepa and Sarajevo.

1 A. Yes. Yes, precisely.

2 Q. Would you agree with me, General, that the tasks set out for the

3 2nd Corps, liberating the general sector of Vozuca, lifting the blockade

4 of Srebrenica, Zepa, and Sarajevo, these are all extremely general tasks?

5 A. All are quite general. It is very difficult to reach the state

6 border and the area of responsibility of the 2nd Corps included three and

7 a half enemy corps: East Bosnia, 1st Krajina, Drina Corps, so basically

8 the entire three corps of the enemy were located in the area of

9 responsibility of this corps. These are general tasks, guidelines for

10 some activities. The main goal was to maintain free territory and, if

11 possible, reach the state border in the north and in the east: Drina --

12 the Drina River and the Sava River.

13 Q. Would you agree with me that the tasks set out in the directive

14 constitute instructions at the strategic military level?

15 A. One could say so. The strategic level was to reach the state

16 border and liberate the country.

17 Q. And it's right, isn't it, that the directive only defines the

18 tasks for units at the corps level and it does not provide tasks to levels

19 subordinate to the corps? Is that so?

20 A. You're completely right.

21 Q. So based on the directive, it was the responsibility of the corps

22 command to work out plans and issue tasks to the units subordinate to the

23 corps; is that correct?

24 A. Precisely so. The corps was an independent unit which did not

25 only within one year but within four years whatever it could, because

1 there existed only guidelines and it was sometimes difficult to defend the

2 territory, let alone to liberate it all the way up, say, to the state

3 border.

4 Q. And just for the purposes of clarity, when we talk about the

5 levels subordinate to the corps level and, in particular, the 2nd Corps

6 level, we're talking about the level of divisions and the autonomous units

7 belonging to the 2nd Corps; is that so?

8 A. Precisely so.

9 Q. Now, going back to the events that you described at the early

10 stage of your cross-examination in Tuzla and Srebrenica and Zepa, would

11 you agree with me that it was militarily legitimate for tasks to be given

12 to liberate the Vozuca sector and to lift the blockade of Srebrenica and

13 Zepa?

14 A. That's quite a logical question. I don't know if you're asking

15 this for the record, but any child will tell you that this is logical.

16 Q. Thank you, General.

17 If we can stay on the same page, and I'd like to refer you to the

18 section below, section 6. Can you confirm that, again -- well, here we

19 can see the tasks provided to the 3rd Corps.

20 A. Precisely.

21 Q. And, again, within that section we can -- would you agree that the

22 tasks are extremely broad?

23 A. Just like --

24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the answer. It

25 wasn't clear.

1 MR. ROBSON:

2 Q. General, could you please repeat that answer.

3 A. The same as in relation to the 2nd Corps. And I would say that

4 in -- as far as I'm concerned, the task was even more ambitious -- or

5 rather, the guidelines were even more ambitious. But I also had more

6 forces at my disposal, but, nevertheless, I believed them to be overly

7 ambitious.

8 Q. So just to go back to my question, what I asked you is: You would

9 agree, then, that the tasks are extremely broad or general in nature?

10 A. Yes, precisely so.

11 Q. Now, if we could please look at page 4 of the English version and

12 page 8 of the B/C/S. It's section 17 that we're interested in.

13 General, would you agree with me that this section deals with

14 security?

15 A. Yes. In item 17, in the first sentence, it says that: "The

16 secrecy of implementation of decisions, orders regulating planning,

17 preparation, and execution of combat activities is to be ensured and

18 raised at a higher level."

19 And then it says: "To provide counter-intelligence protection by

20 way of organs of SVB," and so on.

21 Q. If I can ask you, could you -- do you see the last part which

22 deals with treatment of prisoners?

23 A. Yes. It is in this directive as well. From 1992, the position

24 was the same. The procedure with imprisoned persons is to be begun and

25 completed with the military police organs.

1 Q. And --

2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please complete reading. The

3 interpreters are -- do not have the written translation, so we're

4 interpreting off the cuff.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says underneath: "To the

6 security, to the -- at the command post and forward command post is to be

7 provided by way of a military police unit from the composition," and this

8 is where the text ends.

9 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, what I'll do is I'll read out the

10 English translation and if you could please let me know whether that

11 accords with what you can see.

12 Q. Does it say: "Procedure with prisoners is to be started and

13 completed with the military police organs engaging commanding officers

14 from the military security and other trained organs as necessary"?

15 A. Yes, precisely.

16 Q. And would you agree with me that here the commander of the General

17 Staff was giving instructions to the corps -- the corps as to how

18 prisoners of war should be dealt with?

19 A. Precisely.

20 Q. Okay. Based on the directive, it's right to say that the 2nd

21 Corps extracted tasks and activities to be carried out at the level

22 subordinate to the 2nd Corps; is that so?

23 A. Yes, precisely. I tried in the eastern part of the front to

24 implement, with less success, with the 24th and 25th Division, to

25 implement the plan around Majevica. And as for the plan concerning

1 Vozuca, it has already been discussed.

2 Q. And it's right to say, isn't it, that as soon as the directive was

3 issued, the corps was able to start work on planning combat activities

4 based on the tasks contained in the directive?

5 A. I wouldn't agree with you, because anything can be put down on

6 paper; whereas, the situation in real life is something quite different.

7 When I was able to found forces, resources, time, and ability, I began

8 with implementation of the tasks. I told you that in the previous several

9 directives the problem of Vozuca pocket was discussed, but they didn't

10 manage to resolve it. Those were instructions and guidelines given to me

11 based on which, given the forces, abilities, and resources I had, I tried

12 to implement as much as I could, under the circumstances.

13 Q. Perhaps at this stage we could look at Exhibit 401 in connection

14 with what you've just told us.

15 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, this is a document we saw yesterday.

16 It's a plan entitled "Preparation of activities for combat operation,

17 Uragan 1995."

18 Q. Now, General, we can see that the date of this plan is the 23rd of

19 August, 1995; is that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. If we can just go to page 3 in the English version and page 2 in

22 the Bosnian.

23 At the bottom of the page there, General, can you -- can you

24 confirm that this plan was issued by you on that particular date?

25 A. Well, yes, this is my plan. I have nothing to add or subtract.

1 Everything that is stated here is so, and I can confirm that now.

2 Q. And I think, as you said yesterday, this is a plan setting out the

3 plans and activities in order to prepare for the operation Uragan; is that

4 so?

5 A. Precisely.

6 Q. And is it correct to say that this plan shows what those tasks

7 were, who was going to carry out the tasks, and the time frame for them to

8 be completed?

9 A. Yes. And I explained this yesterday, that this was my plan -

10 nobody needed to approve it - this was my activity. In order not to have

11 to memorise what was going on and in order to have a proper order of tasks

12 that needed to be performed and in order to assign tasks to certain

13 people, I drew up this plan about how to implement the task.

14 Q. Thank you, General.

15 If we could return to page 1 again, please.

16 Now, General, if we could look at the top entry. It doesn't have

17 a number next to it, but it's above the entry number 1. Do you agree with

18 me that what that says is: "Drafting of the plan for combat operation

19 'Uragan 95'"?

20 A. "Plan on activities for implementation of combat operation

21 Uragan." This is what it says right in front of me. Perhaps we have

22 different ...

23 Q. It may be that the interpretation is slightly different, but you

24 have the correct box that I'm referring to.

25 Would you agree with me, General, that next to what you've just

1 read out it sets down the time frame for the activity to be completed?

2 A. Either your question or the interpretation is not clear.

3 Something's wrong there.

4 Q. I apologise. We were -- we crossed wires at the moment. You have

5 just read out the heading of the document, I believe; is that right?

6 A. "Plan of activities for implementation of combat operation Uragan

7 95."

8 Q. Yes. And if you look underneath there, we can see a table with a

9 number -- five different columns. Do you agree?

10 A. Yes. Yes. This is the number of activity, and then we have the

11 activity, time, who executed it, and remark. Those are the columns.

12 Q. And if we look at the second column, it has a heading that says

13 "Activity." Do you see that?

14 A. Yes. "Activity" is: "Drafting of the plan for -- of activities

15 for implementation of combat operation Uragan 95." So the entire plan

16 pertains to activities for implementation of combat operation Uragan, and

17 the time frame for that is from the 16th until the 25th of August, 1995.

18 Within that framework, the activity was to be completed.

19 Q. I see. So beneath where it says "drafting of the plan for combat

20 operation 'Uragan 95'," those are all sub-activities [Realtime transcript

21 read in error"Serb"] to be carried out by the corps command?

22 A. No. No, no, no. We seem to not understand each other. Serbs

23 have nothing to do with this. This plan was supposed to be produced by my

24 staff, the staff of the 2nd Corps.

25 Q. Thank you. Believe me, it's -- it wasn't what I said.

1 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, "sub-activities" was what I said,

2 "sub-."

3 Q. Let's move to a different question.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Sub-activities. It's now corrected on the

5 screen.

6 MR. ROBSON:

7 Q. So, General, I'll try and explore this a little further. The --

8 the first entry in the second column that says "drafting of the plan for

9 combat operation 'Uragan 95'," underneath that we can find a number of

10 different entries, 1, 2, 3, 4.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. So all those numbered entries, would you agree with me that those

13 are sub-activities or smaller tasks to be carried out in preparing the

14 plan?

15 A. Yes. Yes, you're quite right. All of this is an integral part of

16 the activity that was aimed at producing the plan.

17 Q. Now, just going back to that very first entry in the second

18 column, to the right of the entry we can see a time frame there, can't we?

19 16 to 25th of August, 1995.

20 A. Yes, precisely.

21 Q. So is it right to say that the plan for the combat operation

22 Uragan had to be completed within that time frame?

23 A. You're quite right, but only from the point of view of the corps

24 command. Subordinated commands also had a certain period of time given to

25 them to produce their own plans.

1 Q. And on that point, if we could please look at page 4 in the

2 English version and page 3, the B/C/S.

3 Can you tell us what this document is, very briefly, please.

4 A. Yes, I can. I remember. This is a plan that was postponed two or

5 three times. Unfortunately, due to the 3rd Corps.

6 Now, here it says: "Activities pursuant to the Uragan plan." It

7 says: "Based on the readiness -- " I would rather say "non-readiness of

8 the 3rd Corps units," but the text reads what it reads -- "which are

9 conducting a coordinated action with our troops, according to the Uragan

10 plan, I hereby."

11 And then it says that the implementation -- it says: "I hereby

12 order every activity planned to be carried out until the 26th of August,

13 1995, to be carried out by the 31st of August, 1995."

14 "Item 2: All activity -- all activities planned to be carried out

15 until the 1st of September, 1995, to be carried out by the 5th of

16 September." That is to say, the deadline was extended because the 3rd

17 Corps was not ready.

18 Q. So, General, you would agree with me that this order was given to

19 the commands of the 21st, 22nd, 24th, and 25th Divisions on the 22nd of

20 August, 1995.

21 A. Precisely so, and to be delivered personally to the commanders.

22 Q. What this shows, then, is that you were ordering your subordinate

23 units, the divisions, to prepare activities relating to Operation Uragan.

24 A. This is something I stated yesterday repeatedly.

25 Q. Okay. Would you agree with me, General, that this plan shows that

1 you, as corps commander, as well with -- with your command were taking all

2 the steps to plan Operation Uragan?

3 A. Whatever I was able to do, I did.

4 Q. If the witness could please be shown a different exhibit. It's

5 386.

6 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, this is a -- for the record, this is a

7 document we looked at yesterday. It's an order from the General Staff at

8 Kakanj dated 26th of August, 1995.

9 Q. Do you remember this document from yesterday, General?

10 A. I do. And I can give you the following comment: Unless I am

11 mistaken, unless I recall wrongly, I believe that this document was

12 produced after the signing of that document for this operation. I believe

13 this particular document was authored later.

14 Q. That's exactly the -- the question that I was going to raise with

15 you, General. So what this shows is that this document was sent from the

16 General Staff at a point in time after the plan for combat operation

17 Uragan had already been carried out -- sorry, had already been prepared.

18 A. Yes. As far as the corps command is concerned, yes. However, the

19 divisions had still been given enough time, although I believe that by

20 that time they were ready too.

21 Q. And it's -- it's clear from the plan that we looked at a moment

22 ago that it was up to the corps to decide which subordinate units to

23 deploy in the combat operation; is that correct?

24 A. That's normal. I did not interfere with the decision of the

25 division commander as to what he was going to do. I gave him the area,

1 and within the area that he was given as part of his assignment, the

2 division commander produced his own combat disposition and implemented the

3 decision. I was supposed to carry out other tasks, such as giving support

4 to the corps artillery group, coordinated action, cooperation,

5 communication between the units; whereas, they were supposed to deal

6 autonomously with their axes and their zones.

7 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, this document can be put away. I'm

8 going to turn to another matter.

9 Q. General, in your testimony yesterday, you discussed the order for

10 Operation Uragan and explained how you had seen General Rasim Delic at

11 Visoko, where the order, a map for Uragan was approved. Do you remember

12 that?

13 A. Yes. Yes. And I still stand by that.

14 Q. If we can look at Exhibit 402, please.

15 Now, General, we looked at this order yesterday. And forgive me

16 if I'm asking you to repeat yourself, but it's right, isn't it, that this

17 document was prepared by you?

18 A. By me alone. Of course, I mean my command staff, not just I

19 personally.

20 Q. Yes. And in the copy of the document that we have before us, if

21 we can just go to the final page in the B/C/S, please.

22 You told us yesterday that on this particular copy, it doesn't

23 have your signature, but you believed that you would have signed the

24 other, first copy, of this document. Is that right?

25 A. I don't recall this exactly. I do remember that I brought along

1 two copies and that it was in a hurry that the commander signed both

2 copies. He signed the map at the same time. I don't recall whether

3 Sakib Mahmuljin had the order at all. I know that his map was signed by

4 the commander too. We briefly looked at the map, and that was when this

5 particular activity was implemented.

6 Q. Concentrating on the other copy, because you told us that you took

7 along two copies. The other copy which General Delic approved, that did

8 have your signature on it, didn't it?

9 A. Not the other one. I believe the first one did. The second one

10 might not have had. But don't hold me to that. I'm not sure. The first

11 one should have had it, 100 per cent sure. I recall that it was in great

12 haste and automatically that the commander signed both.

13 Q. Okay. And you mentioned that when you met with General Delic, you

14 had the order and a map. Would you agree with me that under army standard

15 procedure the order and the map would only contain information about the

16 corps level and the unit immediately subordinate to the corps level?

17 A. Precisely. This is quite understandable, because geographic maps

18 are of larger or smaller scale and, of course, not every single soldier

19 could be plotted onto the map. There is a standard operational procedure

20 for the corps command level where the division is very important. Its

21 area of responsibility and its task. Possibly the positions can also be

22 plotted into the map of the brigades, I mean, in order to know what the

23 situation is. That's important for the corps commander, but otherwise the

24 standard operational procedure does not require this to be in the map.

25 Q. And when you provided the order and the map to General Delic, you

1 had already decided which units the 2nd Corps would use; is that so?

2 A. All of this had been completed. I was there for the ammunition

3 and for the explosives, for the most part.

4 Yesterday I explained why we had the situation. There were two

5 corps, great losses. The problem and the situation was becoming more and

6 more complex given the front line.

7 Q. Exactly. You were the commander in the field. You knew the

8 conditions, and therefore you were the appropriate person to decide which

9 units to be used -- which subordinate units to be used within the

10 operation.

11 A. Precisely so.

12 Q. And when General Delic approved the plan -- sorry, the order and

13 the map by placing his signature on it, this simply meant that the corps,

14 the 2nd Corps, could proceed with the operation. That is right, isn't it?

15 A. This meant to the Gloc commander, the grey-haired person we saw

16 yesterday, as a signal to provide ammunition.

17 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness please repeat the last sentence.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Without that particular indication,

19 he would not have provided any -- anything.

20 MR. ROBSON:

21 Q. General, it may be that the interpretation was lost there, so I'll

22 repeat my question. When General Rasim Delic approved the order and the

23 map by signing them, this simply meant that the 2nd Corps could proceed

24 with Operation Uragan; would you agree?

25 A. I would agree by commenting in the following way: This approval

1 to me was important in order to obtain materiel and technical equipment

2 from Gloc, without which I would not have been able to do what I did. Had

3 the conditions been different and had the 3rd Corps not been there, I -- I

4 could not have carried this out without an approval.

5 THE INTERPRETER: The witness may have said "I could have carried

6 this out without approval."

7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can I just intervene? The witness

8 just said "I could have approved it -- I could have done it without

9 approval," and it was entered "I could not have done it."

10 Can the witness please clarify this.

11 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour --

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I can interrupt. Both of you are talking at the

13 same time. Madam Vidovic, you were talking. The interpreter was talking.

14 I don't know whether what you said was interpreted.

15 Can we ask Mr. Robson to please ask the question again and let the

16 interpreter interpret.

17 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, with your leave, I'd just like to

18 clarify that specific part of the answer, if I may.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: By a question, yes.

20 MR. ROBSON: Please.

21 Q. General, did you say - and again, please clarify if I have this

22 wrong - "had the conditions been different and had the 3rd Corps not been

23 there, I could have carried out this without approval"?

24 A. Precisely. I didn't even have an entire corps. I had 5.000 and

25 100 or 200 attackers and two batches of brigades, around 2.000 of them.

1 So it was on the basis of the directive and the instructions and

2 guidelines that I received, I could have carried this out without a

3 signature.

4 Q. And apart from deciding which units to use and planning the

5 operation, it's correct that you actually named the operation as Uragan;

6 is that so? Uragan 95.

7 A. Precisely.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just get clarification, Mr. Robson. This

9 answer as corrected makes it difficult for me to follow the logic of the

10 argument, and I'll tell you why.

11 Mr. Delic told us a couple of minutes ago that without

12 General Delic's signature, the Gloc commander couldn't give him the

13 materiel and equipment to go to war. Therefore, this seems to suggest to

14 me that without the signature he could not go to war.

15 Now, if he now says that -- if the correction now is: "So it was

16 on the basis of the directive and the instructions and guidelines that I

17 received I could have carried this out without a signature," then that

18 doesn't make sense.

19 How -- was he going to fight with his bare hands?

20 [Defence counsel confer]

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I clarify this?

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This particular signature has not

24 much to do with Gloc, G-l-o-c. The commander of the General Staff does

25 have the influence to order Halid Cengic, but I know that had the

1 operation not been planned, he would not have issued a single bullet,

2 because the situation was so difficult that it was very hard to get hold

3 of materiel and technical equipment.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I guess what I'm saying is, I don't understand how

5 the operation could have been implemented without the approval of the

6 general. As -- as you said, Mr. Delic, one, you didn't have arms and

7 ammunition. If it is not approved, I don't know whether the 3rd Corps

8 would have come to your rescue. I don't know whether without the 3rd

9 Corps, would you have managed.

10 You know, the whole operation for me seems to suggest that, from

11 what I've heard you say so far -- seems to suggest that you needed to get

12 his approval. But if I'm wrong, please say so. You don't have to

13 explain. Just say, "No, you are wrong. I can -- I can go to war without

14 his signature." That's fine.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. You're wrong. What you

16 have stated here is not what I wanted to say. I said that there were

17 9.000 men in all. If I had 50 or 60 thousand men at the time, this is not

18 a corps. This is just a part of a corps. There was no reason for me,

19 without the signature of the commander of the General Staff, Rasim Delic,

20 not to carry out combat activities in my area of responsibility had the

21 situation not been in the Vozuca theatre of war as it was, as I described

22 yesterday.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed.

24 MR. ROBSON: Just bear with me.

25 [Defence counsel confer]

1 MR. ROBSON:

2 Q. General, I'm going to put that issue to one side for the moment,

3 and I'm going to turn briefly to the operative tactical analysis on the

4 liberation of Vosica that we looked at yesterday. And this is Exhibit

5 407.

6 I take it that you recognise this document, General?

7 A. Yes, I do. We commented upon it yesterday.

8 Q. And during your comments yesterday, you explained that this

9 document was part of an -- an exercise to analyse all combat operations

10 that took place during the war; is that so?

11 A. No, not at all. This was no exercise. This was an operation. If

12 this has been interpreted correctly, this was no exercise. This is an

13 operations and tactical analysis within a project that lasted for two or

14 two and a half years in order to make a record of what had been going on

15 in the war. This was no exercise.

16 Q. Again, we're at cross-wires, general. By "exercise" what I meant

17 was this analysis was part of a project. But -- but I think you've

18 explained clearly what -- what the purpose was.

19 Yesterday in your evidence, General, you -- you told us that you

20 didn't think the project was very successful. And by this, I'm talking

21 about the project to analyse the combat operations. And you explained

22 some of the problems.

23 A. Yes. This was my assessment. I don't believe it was ever

24 completed satisfactorily. There are several reasons for it. Quite a long

25 period of time elapsed. Some people retired. Others died. Some were

1 demobilised. It was very difficult to obtain information.

2 I believe the analysis was relatively good. The first part of it

3 was a military analysis, because, of course, it had to do with a military

4 operation. But for the rest, the analysis was, in my view, quite poor.

5 Among other things, the army general Rasim Delic retired in that period of

6 time, and I believe that his successor did not bring this to completion.

7 There were quite a few shortcomings. There was exaggerations, boasting.

8 Some titles of units were simply made up, and others that were in fact

9 involved in the execution of these tasks were not mentioned.

10 Q. Just bear with me a moment, please, General.

11 [Defence counsel confer]

12 MR. ROBSON:

13 Q. Now, General, would you agree that the results of the analysis

14 into Operation Uragan were supposed to be verified by a special commission

15 of the General Staff?

16 A. I know that some 15 holders of Ph.D. degrees were engaged on this

17 and they were supposed to categorise the material, to check up on it, and

18 to sort it out.

19 Now, as for this operations and tactical analysis, I am sure that

20 at least 90 per cent of the information contained therein is true, because

21 I was there in charge of the analysis, as well as the division general.

22 My answer to your question is affirmative. The objective was to

23 show the relevant historical facts to the generations to come, in order

24 for them to draw lessons for the -- for better or for worse on the basis

25 of what had happened in those four years of war.

1 Q. General, if I suggest that the -- this analysis here was not

2 verified by that special commission, would -- would you agree with me or

3 would you disagree?

4 A. I would agree with you. I am not even sure that it ever reached

5 them. I'm not sure.

6 Q. And so, General, you've set out quite a list of problems with the

7 analysis that took place of these combat operations and agreed that this

8 analysis was not verified by the special commission.

9 Can I refer your attention to page 4 in the B/C/S document and

10 page 6 of the English. Now, it's point 4 which I'm interested in. If you

11 could just scroll down.

12 General, before you answer any question, can I ask you this:

13 Bearing in mind what you told us about the way that Uragan was planned and

14 prepared by the 2nd Corps in accordance with the directive, it's not right

15 to say, is it, that the carrying out of the combat activities was ordered

16 by the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina General Staff?

17 A. I wouldn't really agree with you. De facto the order and the map

18 were approved. That is to say, they were signed. With the very fact they

19 were signed and approved on the basis of the directive and guidelines, I

20 took it to be a sufficient reason to place the army General Staff there;

21 although, I myself, of course, did produce this on my own.

22 Q. And indeed, General, as you say, you produced it on your own and

23 you've confirmed that General Delic simply gave his approval of the combat

24 activities. And that's so, isn't it?

25 A. This is something I've been stating all this time, both during

1 proofing and in my testimony here.

2 Q. General, I'd like to turn to the two coordination plans that you

3 were shown yesterday. I'm just going to focus on one by way of example.

4 If we could bring up Exhibit 399, please.

5 General, could you confirm that what we can see here is the

6 coordination plan for August 1995? And it bears the date of the 10th of

7 August.

8 A. Yes, precisely so.

9 Q. And, General, I don't want you to -- to repeat yourself too much,

10 but could you briefly explain again what this document is.

11 A. This is - at least, I see it that way - an arbitrary plan

12 regulating the life and work in the units for the months to come. It

13 lists some main activities and several headlines, activities, the persons

14 to carry them out, time frames, and some remarks. It was made in order to

15 provide an orientation as to what had to be done in the months to come and

16 within what time frames.

17 Q. Thank you, General. And if I understood your evidence correctly,

18 the way that this coordination plan would be prepared is that every month

19 a corps would make its own coordination plan and then forward that

20 coordination plan on to the staff of Hadzihasanovic, the chief of staff.

21 Is that so?

22 A. This is something I stated yesterday in those two documents - and

23 there's another one - that most probably this was an expert -- excerpt

24 from my plan of activities for the forthcoming months. Both those plans

25 were produced, because a staff communicates with a staff horizontally and

1 provides them with information. Probably they compiled the information

2 received into a collection or summary of plans. This is something that

3 can be seen in our documents.

4 Q. So they compiled it. They put it into one document. And that's

5 what we can see on the screen in front of us.

6 A. Precisely so. I believe that that was the whole purpose of that.

7 Q. It's correct to say, isn't it, that this coordination plan was not

8 considered to be a combat document?

9 A. No, it was never a combat document.

10 Q. And if we can look at this August plan and see what the tasks are

11 in here relating to the 2nd Corps. If we can please look at page 14 of

12 the English document, page 12 of the B/C/S.

13 General, I believe it's under Roman numeral 13, the tasks for the

14 2nd Corps command.

15 A. Yes, precisely so.

16 Q. If we can just look at some of the items set out in this

17 coordination plan. If we can scroll down a page, please, in the -- in the

18 B/C/S version.

19 Would you agree with me that item 2 relates to accommodation?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. If we turn to the next pages in both documents, please. And if we

22 can look at item 5, so if we can scroll up in the English version, please

23 and ...

24 Is it right that item 5 here relates to training of officers of

25 the 2nd Corps command?

1 A. Well, yes, it is stated here that this is the training of officers

2 of the 2nd Corps and that the time frame was probably 30th of August,

3 1995.

4 Q. And then perhaps just the last item we'll look for the 2nd Corps

5 is item number 7. Is it right that this task concerns the renovation of

6 existing and the building of new wooden facilities for the units?

7 A. Yes. This was my task, because there had been a transformation of

8 the 28th Division, the 24th and the 25th Divisions were merged, and those

9 were my personal plans as to how to solve the problem, which was the

10 accommodation of these units, as I've already told you. I told you

11 yesterday. And the reappointment of the commands, that's also one of the

12 things that these -- this refers to.

13 Q. So would you agree with me, General, that this plan that we see

14 here before, and the other examples that we -- exist, they have nothing to

15 do with the coordination of combat activities?

16 A. This arises from the fact that this was not a combat document.

17 This was my regulation of the life and work in the units and dealing with

18 certain problems there.

19 Q. Thank you. And now I'd like to turn to the ways that you

20 discussed yesterday that the 2nd and 3rd Corps commanders concretely

21 coordinated their combat activities.

22 And if we could bring up Exhibit 403, please.

23 Now, General, you discussed this document yesterday when you were

24 questioned by the Prosecutor. Do you agree this is an order from you

25 dated the 1st of September, 1995?

1 A. Yes. You can see that from the heading.

2 Q. And it's right, isn't it, that you issued this order with the

3 intention of carrying out concrete coordination of combat activities

4 between the 2nd and 3rd Corps?

5 A. For the benefit of the Trial Chamber, I have to explain. During

6 that period of time, all the documents had already been prepared; all the

7 combat documents, that is, on both sides. They were in -- towards the end

8 of the preparation in the divisions and the brigades. Some of the

9 obligations that were on the part of the -- of officers and commands were

10 being realised towards the end of the planning of the combat activities.

11 And this is precisely what is being regulated by this document. A team

12 consisting of the most responsible people goes to the zone of

13 responsibility of the 3rd Corps in order to concretely coordinate combat

14 activities, which means cooperation between the units that are involved in

15 combat operations.

16 Q. And just to -- to recap briefly, General, you told us that the

17 purpose of these meetings was to discuss issues such as to decide which

18 targets to fire on.

19 A. Yes, precisely so.

20 Q. To --

21 A. Which means targets, the contact lines, the way of marking the

22 area, how far the units of the 3rd Corps can go, how far can mine go,

23 division of artillery targets so as to -- not to waste ammunition, the

24 establishment of links, links between corps and divisions, looking at the

25 terrain from the other side, meaning reconnoitering; and all the other

1 important issues of significance for combat operations that were to

2 expect -- to be expected.

3 Q. So the reality is, General, that the coordination of Farz and

4 Uragan took place in the field, didn't it?

5 A. Precisely so.

6 Q. It follows from that that the General Staff did not coordinate the

7 activities of the 2nd and 3rd Corps during Farz and Uragan. Do you agree?

8 A. There was no single officer there. Later on, Mr. General

9 Enver Hadzihasanovic was sent there, but as far as I can remember, he was

10 just a transmission from the logistics commander to receive equipment for

11 further offensive activities.

12 Q. Well, General, bear with me a second.

13 [Defence counsel confer]

14 MR. ROBSON:

15 Q. General, we know that General Hadzihasanovic was in the area,

16 because we saw him on the video yesterday. But can we just be clear he

17 did not -- I apologise. I withdraw that question.

18 [Defence counsel confer]

19 A. He was not in my area. I saw him only once or twice in the area

20 of the 3rd Corps.

21 Q. General, the point that I need to clarify with you: It's right to

22 say, isn't it, that General Hadzihasanovic had nothing to do with the

23 coordination taking place between the 2nd and 3rd Corps during the

24 operations?

25 A. You are absolutely right.

1 Q. Now, in connection with Operation Uragan, I'd like to turn to

2 another exhibit, if I may. It's a -- it's P2498. It may have been

3 admitted as an exhibit. I'll just double-check.

4 P2498, please.

5 If we could just scroll to the bottom of the B/C/S version,

6 please, and if we can just go to page 2 in the English, just to establish

7 who the document is from.

8 A. At the bottom of this document, you can see that this is my

9 document, this is my signature. Because of the change in the situation, a

10 new order was issued for further combat operations; i.e., the engagement

11 of the units in combat.

12 Q. Perhaps if we could just scroll back up in the B/C/S version, go

13 back to the page 1 in the English.

14 Can you tell us a little bit more, General, about this order?

15 A. Of course I can. I can read everything; because I can't remember

16 everything off the top of my head. This is a supplement order -- of

17 deploying units for immediate, next and subsequent tasks. Sent to the

18 command of the 2nd Division of the army, section -- let me not go through

19 that. I don't think it's necessary. The 1978 edition.

20 Under 4: "I have decided the following: With the main forces,

21 upon linking up with the forces of the BH army's 3rd Corps, on the line:

22 Vissic, trig point 497, Djurica Vis, trig point 505."

23 Q. Thank you, General. There's no need to read the order out. But

24 perhaps you could just confirm for us: That from this order, is it right

25 that you are deciding and ordering new activities for the divisions, the

1 22nd Division?

2 A. Not only for them. For all the divisions. For the entire 22nd.

3 Q. And also in this order, we can see that you are specifying the

4 combat formation to be used as well.

5 A. Here what is defined is that in this task, they have to form

6 attack force, the defence line and the support or reserve forces.

7 Q. And what this order shows is that you were commanding the

8 subordinate units and that you didn't need the approval from the General

9 Staff in order to issue these new assignments; is that correct?

10 A. I said it yesterday: I said that I was personally in command of

11 all divisions and that I was on the forward line of the entire defence.

12 Q. Thank you, General.

13 And if I could show you a final document before we break again.

14 It's P2571. 2571.

15 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I neglected to ask for that document to

16 be entered -- to be tendered into evidence. Please could it be admitted.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: 2498?

18 MR. ROBSON: Exactly.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: May P2498 please be admitted into evidence and be

20 given an exhibit number.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit number 420.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

23 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, it doesn't appear to be the correct

24 document. I asked for P2571. It -- it may be that I've made the mistake.

25 Your Honours, it appears that perhaps we have our numbers slightly

1 out of order. Could -- is it possible to take a break now and we'll deal

2 with it on our return?

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure. That will give you time to sort yourselves

4 out.

5 We'll take a break and come back to quarter to 6.00. Court

6 adjourned.

7 --- Recess taken at 5.14 p.m.

8 --- On resuming at 5.47 p.m.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson, before you continue, just one little

10 question. And let me preface my question by saying it is not the

11 intention of the Chamber to interfere with your cross-examination.

12 But having said that, the Chamber sees a particular thrust - it's

13 one, you may have many - that the Defence is going into. Do you -- do you

14 think you need to go through all these documents one by one to make that

15 point?

16 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'm well aware that it's probably not

17 been the most interesting of afternoons for the Bench. But please, it --

18 if I can just say that we are well aware of the Prosecution's case from

19 the indictment, and we have spent a lot of time looking at the PTs and the

20 documents and exhibits which may well come into evidence and have already

21 come into evidence. And the position is that a lot of the questions we've

22 been putting today are really dealing with broader issues, because this is

23 really the only opportunity we're going to get to -- to get a commander of

24 a -- a corps.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, I --

1 MR. ROBSON: So --

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand. But as I'm saying, I understand

3 that. All I'm saying is, we can see a particular direction. And at least

4 I'm of the view that you can -- you could make that point in one

5 paragraph.

6 MR. ROBSON: Okay.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: And then go on.

8 MR. ROBSON: Thank you, Your Honour. I mean, what I can tell you

9 is that I'm drawing to the -- the conclusion of my issues.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.

11 MR. ROBSON: There's one which I will need to deal with in some

12 length.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. You go ahead.

14 MR. ROBSON: But if we can return to the document that we were

15 trying to bring up before the break. It's P2731.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: 2731.

17 MR. ROBSON: Yes, correct.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: What did we do with 2571?

19 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, it was our fault. It was an incorrect

20 number.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: So we cancelled 2571?

22 MR. ROBSON: Yes.

23 Q. So, General, the document you have in front of you. If we could

24 just quickly turn to the last page of the B/C/S version so we can

25 establish who this is from.

1 Do you see the name there, General?

2 A. Yes. This was my then-assistant for morale, guidance and

3 political issues, doctor of science, Salih Kulenovic.

4 Q. He's a member of the 2nd Corps, then, is that so?

5 A. Yes. He was in the command of the 2nd Corps.

6 Q. Can we turn back to the front page, please, in the B/C/S version.

7 Is this document headed with the words "Preparations and the state of

8 combat morale in the Operation Uragan 95"?

9 A. Precisely.

10 Q. Have you seen this document before, General?

11 A. I suppose so, but I'm not sure.

12 Q. If you could just very briefly -- and not read out loud, but if

13 you could just to yourself very briefly read the first few parts of this

14 document that you can see on the page in front of you.

15 A. I have read the first passage already.

16 Q. Are you able to say, does this document summarise the steps that

17 the commanding staff for morale took during Operation Uragan?

18 A. Yes, that's only one of the parts of that organ.

19 Q. Now, if we can please turn to page 3 in the English version and

20 page 2 in the B/C/S. There's a particular paragraph I'd just like to ask

21 you about, General.

22 Now, if you could look at the paragraph that starts halfway down

23 the page. And in the English version, again, it's the middle section

24 we're interested in.

25 General, do you see some text which begins: "Shortcomings and

1 flaws in the organisation were particularly obvious, which especially

2 negatively affected the spirit and combat motivation of the troops"? Do

3 you see that part?

4 A. No, I must admit that I don't.

5 Q. So if you start at the halfway point, General, and look at the

6 text below that, do you see reference there to -- I don't think it's

7 possible to close in any more.

8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsel, can it be highlighted in yellow?

9 MR. ROBSON: I'm not aware of that possibility, Your Honour.

10 Q. So, first of all, General, can you read the text as posed?

11 A. Yes, I can see it. And I'll try. I'll do my best.

12 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is reading.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "There is the lack of

14 synchronisation of units and -- between the army and civilian authorities.

15 Shortcomings and flaws in the organisation were particularly obvious,

16 which especially negatively affected the spirit and combat motivation of

17 the troops. The dissonance was rather prevalent during the collection of

18 the booty. There were many loose cannons present, which had affected the

19 combat readiness and overall success that could have been achieved in the

20 final liberation of the area of Ozren."

21 MR. ROBSON:

22 Q. Thank you, General. What I'd like to ask you about is the

23 sentence which says "there were many loose cannons present, which had

24 affected the combat readiness and overall success that could have been

25 achieved in the final liberation of the area of Ozren."

1 Can you help us? Do you know what this sentence means?

2 A. I suppose that I know; although, it is very delicate to explain

3 what it means.

4 The civilian authorities in the municipalities of Lukavac and

5 Zavidovici did not undertake adequate measures in order to secure the

6 newly liberated territories. There were a lot of things, such as looting

7 certain houses, breaking and entering without consent, which presented

8 lots of problems to the army.

9 On top of our normal activities, we had to dedicate some troops to

10 control the territory, because we were afraid of the infiltrated groups.

11 We had handed over the terrain to the municipalities of Zavidovici and

12 Lukavac and they were supposed to, in their capacities as civilian

13 authorities, together with the civilian police, to organise unhindered

14 life and activities there, but they failed to do that, and I suppose that

15 this part refers to what I've just told you.

16 Q. Okay. Thank you, General.

17 I'm going to move on to -- sorry, please could this be admitted

18 into evidence, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

20 please be given an exhibit number.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit number 421.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

23 Yes, Mr. Robson.

24 MR. ROBSON:

25 Q. I'm going to turn to the issue of the intercept that we saw

1 yesterday. It's Exhibit 414.

2 Could the document please be brought up on screen.

3 Now, General, I'm right in saying you told us that you didn't

4 personally receive this document at any point, did you?

5 A. You're absolutely right.

6 Q. And you described this transcript as raw material. It sets down

7 the way that it was taped by those officers. Is that so?

8 A. Yes, you're right.

9 Q. Now, can you confirm --

10 A. Yes, there was a group of soldiers which was monitoring and was

11 recording what was happening in real life without any comments.

12 Q. For those soldiers who were carrying out the monitoring, does it

13 follow that the three speakers that appear on this transcript must have

14 been speaking the Bosnian language?

15 A. Precisely. You can see it in here. That's how it reads.

16 Q. And if we can just quickly turn to page 2 in both documents,

17 please. I say it's page -- I've referred to page 2 in the B/C/S. It may

18 not be; it may be on the first page.

19 General, do you see the -- thank you. If we can leave the English

20 version on the second page, as it is.

21 General, can you see the exchange where a person marked as "Y"

22 says, "Who am I speaking to?" And the person marked as "M" responds,

23 "With the Mujahedin commander." Do you see that in your version?

24 A. No. I have a different page 2. Can we have page 1.

25 Q. Do you see it now, General? It's about the middle --

1 A. Yes, I see the document, and I'm trying to find that section.

2 Can you please repeat the question.

3 Q. So the exchange that I'm interested in is that a person who's

4 marked as "Y" says, "Who am I speaking to?" And then a person marked as

5 "M" says, "With the Mujahedin commander."

6 It should be in the bottom quarter of the screen, General.

7 A. "With the commander of the Mujahids." Therefore, not

8 Mujahedins -- Mujahedin, but Mujahid.

9 Q. Ah. Could you explain the difference for us, General, between

10 "Mujahids" and "Mujahedin"?

11 A. I wouldn't be able to explain that. I don't know.

12 Q. But there is a distinction, is there?

13 A. I believe there is.

14 Q. Just bear with me a moment.

15 [Defence counsel confer]

16 MR. ROBSON:

17 Q. The question that I was -- I wanted to ask you, General, was

18 that: Would you agree with me the reason why the person marked as "M" has

19 been identified as a Mujahid or Mujahedin is because of this comment he

20 makes, where he says: "With the Mujahedin commander"?

21 A. I believe that that's the case. But somebody from the 3rd Corps

22 would be able to tell you something more specific about it. Although, I

23 do believe that "M" is connected with "Mujahid."

24 Of course, provided that this is somebody from the 3rd Corps. I

25 don't really know who this is about.

1 Q. Yes. General, can you just confirm that this text does not say,

2 "With the Mujahedin commander." That is not the correct translation of

3 what that person said.

4 A. Yes, you're right.

5 [Defence counsel confer]

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just as we don't know what delta X

7 or delta Y stands for. These are code names for the persons using the

8 communications device. These are not the precise names of the

9 participants but, rather, the code names of the participants in the radio

10 communication. Every radio set and each participant have their code

11 names.

12 MR. ROBSON:

13 Q. Just to -- just to clarify, General, what did that person say if

14 he didn't say, "With the Mujahedin commander"? What is the correct --

15 what are the correct words used? Would you read it out, please.

16 A. He said not "with the commander" but, rather, "with the

17 komandir. " A "komandir" is the person in charge of a smaller unit, a

18 squad, a platoon, or company. The term "commander" is used for the

19 battalion level and above, division, brigade, and so on. If he says

20 "komandir," this means that he's in command of a smaller unit. It can be

21 a squad. It may be a platoon or a company.

22 Q. Thank you for that, General, but what I was trying to get at is

23 could you just read the entire sentence out, what this person actually

24 said.

25 A. The sentence reads: "With the komandir of the Mujahids."

1 Q. And -- okay. Thank you, General. I'm going to move away from

2 this issue and -- and come back to the order that was disputed yesterday,

3 which was the Exhibit MFI 415.

4 Now, yesterday, General, you confirmed that you never saw this

5 order before attending at this hearing. Is that so?

6 A. Yesterday I gave it a bit of thought, and I believe that this

7 order was drafted by the late General Mustafa Hajrulahovic and that this

8 is not a document of the General Staff but, rather, as it is stated in the

9 heading, it's a document of the administration for intelligence and

10 security. It wasn't referenced in a file. I didn't see it. But it

11 doesn't mean that it never reached my office. This can be checked.

12 Q. Did the question -- or what I was asking you to confirm, General,

13 is you never saw this order, did you, prior to attending this hearing?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. And you told us that the document did not seem right to you.

16 First of all, you mentioned that there was no strictly confidential number

17 on it. Is that so?

18 A. Yes, that's correct. It's also true that under "3"- and this is

19 something I thought about yesterday - what is referred to is

20 Mustafa Hajrulahovic, Talijan, and he was the head of the administration

21 for intelligence. I believe that he wrote it without his knowledge and

22 that he was not able to receive a reference number because he did not

23 receive the approval of the commander.

24 I think that we can check this in the files. This isn't an

25 original.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could we -- could we see paragraph 3 of the English

2 version, please. Thank you very much.

3 MR. ROBSON:

4 Q. Concerning Mustafa Hajrulahovic, it's the case, isn't it, that

5 that gentleman is now deceased? Is that so?

6 A. Yes. And I wouldn't want to discuss him at this time.

7 Q. So there's no way for us to check whether or not he was involved

8 in the preparation of this order. Would you agree?

9 A. He must have taken part in this, because otherwise his name would

10 not be there at the bottom. What is disputable - and this can be checked

11 in the archives of the corps or of this particular administration,

12 although, as we see, there is no reference number - he may have tried to

13 do this on his own, of his own accord.

14 Q. He may have tried to do this on his own. You're speculating,

15 aren't you, General, as to what this order may be or how it may come

16 about.

17 A. This person is deceased, and please accept my position that I

18 don't want to comment upon him.

19 Q. Well, let's look at the other factors which led you to believe

20 that this document didn't seem right. You said there was a contradiction

21 because the document came from an administration when it was -- when it's

22 purported to come from the commander. That's right, isn't it?

23 A. There are two major issues that are contradictory here: The first

24 one being that nowhere in the heading in the upper left-hand corner does

25 it state that the document is filed, because there is no reference number.

1 This is one inconsistency.

2 The second inconsistency is that it is not stated where it was

3 sent. First, a document should have the name of the author who drafted

4 it, and then to whom it was addressed.

5 This is copy number 1, which means that this is the administration

6 copy, and it was not filed in the administration, which means that there's

7 something irregular about it. This was a copy that was supposed to be

8 kept in the place where it was drafted. As such, it could not have been

9 sent anywhere. Therefore, it had -- it has to be an original.

10 Q. And --

11 A. It would have to be an original.

12 Q. Would you agree with me, General, that there's a further

13 contradiction? Because this document appears on the face of it to have

14 originated in the administration for intelligence and security, but if we

15 look at who it's addressed, to it simply states it's to the 2nd Corps and

16 to the 7th Motorised Brigade.

17 If this had been a legitimate document, this document would have

18 been addressed to the administrations of both of those units; is that so?

19 A. I see that you are quite familiar with the military hierarchy of

20 our organisation. It is not normal for the administration to send to the

21 command of the 2nd Corps anything. Under the structure, it could only

22 have communicated something to the administration of the same department

23 or to its own counterpart.

24 Q. And something else that's strange about this document, General:

25 If we could look at point number 1, it's talking about members of the

1 former El Mujahid unit. Do you see that?

2 A. Yes, I see that. That's item 1.

3 Q. And yet this document is being sent to the command of the 2nd

4 Corps.

5 Now, to your knowledge, were there any members of the El Mujahid

6 Detachment living in Tuzla either during or after the war?

7 A. No, never.

8 Q. So would you agree with me that based upon all of these

9 contradictions that we've discussed today, that this order may well have

10 been prepared by someone that doesn't understand the ARBiH very well?

11 A. One could put it that way. There are quite a few contradictions.

12 You have to keep in mind that this was after the war; that this detachment

13 did not operate as a detachment. They had been disbanded. I don't know

14 what the objective was, because I or my subordinates never contacted them

15 directly. Particularly not in the post-war period when the Army of the

16 Federation was formed.

17 Q. Precisely so. And then if we can look at -- or discuss one final

18 matter, which is rather strange about this document. If we can scroll

19 back to the top of the B/C/S version.

20 General, would you agree with me that it -- this document purports

21 to have been sent by the packet system?

22 A. That's what it says, that it was transmitted by packet. I don't

23 know what was used, in fact, to transmit it.

24 Q. Now, General, what I'd like to do is show you a different document

25 - two documents, in fact - to show what we could expect if the document

1 had been sent by packet.

2 So if we could please bring Exhibit 375 up on the screen.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: For the identification of the likes of me. Could we

4 also get, if the witness is able to, an explanation of what a packet

5 system is.

6 MR. ROBSON: Exactly. That's what I was going to do next, Your

7 Honour.

8 Q. General, could you please explain to the Trial Chamber what the

9 packet communication system was or is.

10 A. This is a device which was introduced, I believe, in late 1994 or

11 in 1995, which made possible fast transmission of communications; namely,

12 orders, and any other sort of communication between two participants.

13 To put it briefly, this is a device whereby all these documents

14 were sent and on the basis of which a communication link was set up.

15 Q. Thank you, General. And perhaps just for us to explain a little

16 further, if we can look at page 5 --

17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excuse me. It is not quite clear whether the

18 transmission was electronic or physical.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Electronic. Electronic.

20 MR. ROBSON: So if we could please bring up page 5 in the English

21 version and -- it's the last page in the B/C/S, which is page 4.

22 If we could please try and reduce the document down so we can try

23 and have it all on -- on one page. Okay. That's -- that's good.

24 Q. Now, General, I'm not bothered particularly about the content of

25 what this document says. I'm more interested in the form of it. Would

1 you agree with me what -- what this is is a -- is a document and we can

2 see at the bottom that somebody has signed for the commander Rasim Delic?

3 If we can scroll down in the English page, please.

4 A. Yes, that's right.

5 Q. So would you agree with me that somebody has prepared a physical

6 document, a piece of paper in this instance, and somebody has put a stamp

7 on this document and a signature, signing it for Rasim Delic?

8 A. This is what it says here, "for," and then there are the initials

9 of the person. They are in the lower left-hand corner, "MM." So the

10 person doing the encryption received the document at such-and-such an hour

11 on the 22nd of July, 1995.

12 Q. Pause there, please, General. So having told us that we've

13 started off with a physical document which has a stamp and a signature,

14 would you agree with me that we can tell from this document that the

15 contents of this document were sent using the packet communication system?

16 A. Well, yes. This is similar to the facsimile we have today. I

17 don't know how else I should explain it.

18 Q. And am I right in saying that in this instance the reason we can

19 tell that this document was sent using the packet system is because of the

20 handwritten information in the bottom left-hand corner of the document?

21 A. I think you're right. To say the least, it is quite strange that

22 it is not placed in one's own hand, in spite of the stamp. If this is an

23 original, then it should read that it was personally signed by the

24 commander.

25 Q. As I say, General Delic, it's -- the content is not so important.

1 We're trying to look at the procedure by which documents were sent by

2 packet. And would you -- would you agree with me that the handwritten

3 information in the bottom left-hand corner indicates that this document

4 was sent using the packet system at 14.48 hours on the 22nd of July, 1995?

5 And then underneath that, we can see that somebody has signed --

6 A. Yes. Yes.

7 Q. Put a signature to it saying that that has been done.

8 A. Yes. Yes.

9 Q. Now, before we leave this document, one final thing I'd like to

10 mention: You would agree with me that looking at the format of this

11 document, it looks as though it's been prepared on maybe a typewriter or

12 a -- a word processor or something like that?

13 A. Yes. Yes.

14 Q. Now, if we can go to the -- the pages before. So it's going to be

15 page 4 in the English, page 3 in the B/C/S.

16 Sorry, the English is on two pages, so if we can go to the page

17 before, just -- in the English version.

18 Now, first of all, General, I know -- I said the -- the contents

19 of the other document was not important, but would you agree with me that

20 what we can see there is the text that was contained in that last

21 document? It's been transferred into a different format.

22 A. I would have to take a look at the text first.

23 Yes, yes. Well, if you're referring to the form of sending the

24 document and all that, I would agree with you.

25 Q. So just to explain the process or perhaps you could do this for

1 us, General, it's right that from taking an original document with a stamp

2 and a signature, we then move to this sort of document here. And this is

3 the thing which is actually transmitted via the packet communication

4 system. Is that so?

5 A. Yes, yes, you are right.

6 Q. And if we can look at the top of this page, we can see that

7 there's a solid line that runs horizontally, and above that there's some

8 information. Can you tell us what that means and what sort of information

9 is contained there?

10 A. In the top left-hand corner, it reads: "The administration of the

11 Military Security Service," and the date is the 22nd of July, 1995.

12 "Day: Saturday."

13 In the middle, it says: "Sarajevo, encryption" -- or rather,"the

14 General Staff, encryption, hours: 1520."

15 In the top right-hand corner, it reads: "Original file. Document

16 received." And next to that there is a signature.

17 Following the words "original file," there are some letters I

18 can't make out. And below, it says: "Document received by," and then

19 there's the signature of a person, which is illegible.

20 Q. From this document, General, are we able to tell whether this is

21 what has been received from the far end, if you like, of the packet

22 communication system or is this the document that entered into the packet

23 communication system? Can we tell that from the information at the top of

24 the page?

25 A. This is the original from the packet communication. I said

1 yesterday that the previous document was highly suspicious. It should

2 have quite a different appearance. Again, you're prompting me to give my

3 opinion of a person who is deceased, and it's always easy to lay the blame

4 on him.

5 I believe that for some reason this was done by the late General

6 Talijan Hajrulahovic and that he sent this without the knowledge --

7 Q. With respect, General, I'm going to ask you not to speculate on

8 how that document may have arisen, but what I will ask you is that: If

9 that document had been sent via the packet system, we could have expected

10 to see it either in this sort of format and certainly bearing the sort of

11 signatures, the types of signatures and the types of information that we

12 can see on this page. Would you agree with me?

13 A. You're right. This question should have been put at the outset,

14 and I believe that any additional discussion is superfluous. So I think

15 that, of course, it has to have the heading saying who sent it and then

16 who received it.

17 Q. Thank you, General.

18 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, I'm going to turn to my final issue,

19 and I'll leave this open to you to explore if you wish to find out more

20 about the packet.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'll ask maybe one or two questions just about the

22 packet. You know, and I -- and I must concede up front that my knowledge

23 of technology is very limited.

24 Now, from my knowledge of technology, the technology that sends

25 documents fast recently is a fax, and before the fax it was the telex. Is

1 there anything else? Is a packet none of these two?

2 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, if we could put that to the witness, if

3 he -- if he's able to explain.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: The packet -- Mr. Delic, is the packet

5 communication neither a telex nor a fax? Do you remember a telex?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that it's more similar to

7 telex. What puzzles me is the heading here. I even find the bottom

8 section of the document in order.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's --

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The important issue is that nobody

11 received the document and nobody filed it.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Forget about the appearance of the document. I

13 just wanted to find out. Is a packet communication something other than

14 a telex? Then we move on because as you speak, that's what I'm trying to

15 imagine what could have been used, and I'm not able to come up with any

16 answer.

17 This was not a telex, a packet communication?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was something similar to that. I

19 said that it was something similar, technically speaking, but not the same

20 thing.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Thank you.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Therefore, it could not have been --

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

24 You may proceed, Mr. Robson.

25 MR. ROBSON:

1 Q. Just finally on this issue, can you confirm, General, that in

2 sending information via the packet communication system it was not like a

3 fax machine; it could not record a signature or a stamp. It would only

4 pass the hard physical typeface that we see on the document in front of

5 us?

6 A. Yes, okay.

7 Q. All right. The final issue, General, relates to that of

8 reporting.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, I'm getting a little confused. You say -- I

10 thought you have been saying to the witness that these documents that have

11 the signature either of General Delic or somebody signing on his behalf

12 are documents that went through the packet system.

13 Now, when you say "just finally on this issue, can you confirm,

14 General, that in sending information via the packet communication system

15 it was not like a fax machine; it could not record a signature or a

16 stamp," then I get confused, because it sounds like you have been

17 contradicting what you have been saying all the time.

18 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, if perhaps I could put a question.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: But is that what you have said?

20 MR. ROBSON: No, Your Honour, I don't want to --

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no, just read -- read your question on the

22 screen and tell me what -- whether that's what you had said.

23 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'm talking about the physical delivery

24 of the document. The signatures that we have -- that we can see on this

25 document here, what I've been -- what I'd hoped to ascertain from the

1 witness is that this was part of the process by which the document was

2 sent. So the document either going in or the document going out, somebody

3 could indicate that the document had been sent, but those signatures would

4 not be transmitted.

5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excuse me.

6 MR. ROBSON: Like a fax, if I can put it that way.

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: I guess the real issue is, if a signature could be

8 transmitted through the packet system. So if the sending document had a

9 signature, would that signature then be visible in the receiving document,

10 in the receiving end.

11 MR. ROBSON: Perhaps if the witness could deal with that.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You couldn't see the signature. The

13 packet communication is -- how can I explain it?

14 First, you have to encrypt or code by means of equipment. You

15 change the form of the words. For example, if you want to put the heading

16 "Information," it wouldn't appear in the Bosnian language as

17 "information." It would appear as a coded, protected message. And as

18 such, when this is typed, you cannot decode it if the other participant in

19 the communication does not have a similar equipment to use for the

20 decoding.

21 Every packet communication has to have the heading, the time of

22 sending. The signature itself is not in dispute, although it may be,

23 because we are talking about the original here. If there is an original,

24 then -- if this is an original, then it wasn't sent with package

25 communication. In the original, there shouldn't be a situation where the

1 signature is lacking. In package communication, there should be a number.

2 There doesn't have to be a signature, but there must be a number. As far

3 as I can see, this is example number 1 from the headquarters or the bases

4 that was sent, not that arrived at my office, because it is indicated that

5 it was sent to the 7th Brigade. It is the original example from the base

6 where it was created.

7 In other words, it had to have both the signature, the stamp, and

8 it had to be registered. And all that I was talking about boiled down to

9 that. I don't know how else I can explain to you that there are two

10 pieces of equipment, on two sides, and these two pieces of equipment are

11 compatible. They can communicate to each other. And those who are trying

12 to intercept that conversation in -- in the air, they cannot understand

13 it.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

15 MR. ROBSON: Okay.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. That clears a lot of air.

17 Thank you so much.

18 MR. ROBSON:

19 Q. The final point on this, General: So the document is sent via the

20 packet system. It is received at one -- at the far end. And what comes

21 out is a document such as -- like we can see on the screen, except it will

22 have no -- obviously no written signatures or written -- handwritten

23 information on it. Is that right?

24 A. You are right. What you receive is a document similar to this one

25 with the heading which shows when it was sent, where it was sent, who

1 registered it. Every piece of equipment will register that unless the

2 document is an original, of course.

3 Q. So in the top part above the horizontal line, we have the

4 information about when it was received, the date, and also we can see a

5 serial number as well; is that right?

6 A. Yes. But we have explained everything. It is precisely as you

7 are now saying. The top part is actually the information about the time

8 when the piece of equipment received this communication. And you can see

9 the time, 15.20.

10 There should be also a signature of the person who received it,

11 but it's missing. But the time is here, when it was received.

12 Q. Okay. Thank you, General.

13 I'll try and deal with this last issue very quickly. Is it right

14 that in the 2nd Corps command there was an operation centre which received

15 daily reports from subordinate levels below the corps?

16 A. Yes. All units in the direct line of communication with the corps

17 would send once or twice a day daily reports, according to my scheme.

18 They would send it to the operations centre. There those documents were

19 processed. And then the interested parties would be informed about their

20 contents.

21 Q. It's right, isn't it, that when those reports from the subordinate

22 level arrived in the operations centre, an officer or a team of officers

23 would review those reports and prepare one summary report? Would you

24 agree with me?

25 A. I agree. But if you will allow me a minute, I believe I can make

1 your job easier.

2 The battalion, as a lower unit in the brigade, sends its reports

3 to the brigade -- the brigade, describing what happened in the battalion.

4 Then the brigade reduces all these reports and sends their report to the

5 division. The division, in it's turn, reduces the report, informs the

6 corps, and then the corps considers that and decides what should be sent

7 to the higher rulers.

8 For example, the piece of information that should be three or four

9 pages long is finally reduced to maybe half a page or one page.

10 I know what you're aiming at, and I believe that I may -- I've

11 been able to make your job easier and that I've saved you some time with

12 this explanation.

13 Q. I believe you're correct.

14 Could we please look at document D413.

15 Now, General, can you tell from this document, is this a daily

16 combat report from the 2nd Corps command dated the 11th of September, 1995

17 to the General Staff at Kakanj and some other places listed as well?

18 A. Yes, precisely so.

19 Q. And if we could just on the -- on the Bosnian version, if we could

20 please look at page 2. We can see that there's a different piece of

21 information there.

22 And if we could look at page 3 now, as well.

23 So if we can return to page 1. General, the question that I have

24 is: Is it right that this document from the 2nd Corps to the General

25 Staff at Kakanj deals with different issues? It talks of the aggressor.

1 It gives information about combat activities, morale, and security.

2 A. It is not correct. It is not correct for this reason: This was

3 sent from the command post of the 2nd Corps in Cubric. Not from the

4 command of the 2nd Corps. You can see that it was also sent to the

5 operations centre which means that we were in a very specific situation

6 and we were sending reports to those in Tuzla and we were some 20

7 kilometres or 30 kilometres from Tuzla. And as for the rest of your

8 question, the answer is "yes."

9 Q. So among other places, this document, you agree, was sent to the

10 General Staff at Kakanj.

11 A. Yes, that was the General Staff command post.

12 Q. If we could look at document P2588, please.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you want to deal with D413?

14 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, if I could admit this into evidence. I

15 was going to ask that they all be admitted at the same time. But if we

16 could do it now.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. The document is admitted into evidence. May

18 it please be given an exhibit number.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit number 422.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

21 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, while we're waiting for the document to

22 appear, P2588 is a document from the operation planning administration at

23 KM Kakanj to the Presidency, the commander of the ARBiH, the Visoko Gloc,

24 and the administration for morale.

25 Q. General, would you agree with me that in the top part of this

1 document, it's dated the 12th of September, 1995 and it refers to the

2 situation on the BiH battlefield for the 11th of September, 1995?

3 A. Yes, that's right.

4 Q. If we could quickly scroll down through the -- the B/C/S version.

5 If it could please be moved over to the right so the General can perhaps

6 see a little bit more of the contents. If we can move --

7 Would you agree, General, first of all, on this page that we can

8 see, that there are -- there is a summary --

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: And can we lift the English as well, please. Thank

10 you.

11 MR. ROBSON:

12 Q. There is a summary about the activities of the enemy that deals

13 with all of the different corps?

14 A. Yes. Yes. Yes, that's right. This is a summary description of

15 the situation on the front line.

16 Q. And so would you agree with me that from the document that we saw

17 a moment ago from the 2nd Corps dated the 11th of September, which was

18 three pages in length, that -- the information in that document has been

19 condensed and summarised within this document?

20 A. I've already said that. That's how this was done. Sometimes it

21 can happen for five or ten times.

22 For example, for the 4th Corps, it says: "Movements of motor

23 vehicle were noticed."

24 I'm sure that a lot more information had arrived from the 4th

25 Corps about the morale, the troops, the situation, but only one sentence

1 was incorporated into the final report.

2 Q. In respect of the 2nd Corps, we can see that the information in

3 that earlier report has been condensed to some three or four sentences; is

4 that so?

5 A. Ten times.

6 Q. Okay.

7 A. More than ten times.

8 Q. Okay. Thank you very much, General. I have no further

9 questions.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you have --

11 MR. ROBSON: Sorry. If that document could please be admitted

12 into evidence.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

14 please be given an exhibit number.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit number 423.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

17 Mr. Mundis.

18 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a few questions on

19 one issue arising from cross.

20 Could the document Exhibit 415 Marked for Identification please be

21 put back up on the screen.

22 Re-examination by Mr. Mundis:

23 Q. While that's being done, General Delic, a few moments ago my

24 learned colleague - and this is reflected on lines 18 to 22 of page 76 -

25 asked you if there were any members of the El Mujahid Detachment living in

1 Tuzla either during or after the war. And you answered: "No, never."

2 Now, I'd like to ask you, sir: In November 1997, what was the

3 area of responsibility that your corps covered?

4 A. I don't know exactly. I can't tell you off my head.

5 There had been a reorganisation of the military, and I believe

6 that at that period of time the 3rd Corps stopped existing, together with

7 some other units, and I believe that the 2nd Corps remained together with

8 the 1st and the 5th Corps. The only corps that existed as professional

9 army, part of the territory of the 3rd Corps during the peacetime,

10 although there was no special zone of responsibility, but some of the war

11 units that continued that tradition and lived as war units within their

12 command, they were in Tesanj, Zavidovici -- in Tesanj and in Zavidovici.

13 In the municipality of Tuzla and the Tuzla canton, I don't know

14 that there was a single member of the Mujahedin of whom you are now

15 talking.

16 Q. And -- and your answer, sir, is: "In the municipality of Tuzla

17 and the Tuzla canton." Do you know if there were any former members of

18 the Mujahedin detachment living in other areas covered by the 2nd Corps in

19 November 1997?

20 A. I am convinced there were none, but this was no longer my task.

21 This was no longer my activity. Civilian organs of authority were in

22 charge of that. If any such person had moved into the area - but I doubt

23 it. I don't think that there were any in Tuzla or in the canton.

24 Q. My -- I understand that, sir, my question is: In the 2nd Corps

25 area of responsibility as it existed in 19 -- November 1997, outside of

1 Tuzla and the Tuzla canton, were there any former members of the El

2 Mujahedin Detachment living? I know you've said there were none in Tuzla,

3 in the Tuzla canton. I'm talking about outside of Tuzla in the area

4 covered by 2 Corps in November 1997.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.

6 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I -- I --

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't understand the question.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just a second. Just a second.

9 MR. ROBSON: Yeah, Your Honour -- Your Honour, I referred to -- to

10 what the -- the question put to the witness was: Was there anyone living

11 during or after the war in Tuzla and not in any region outside or canton

12 outside? So ...

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, can you say that again? Or let me read it

14 here.

15 MR. ROBSON: The point, Your Honour, is that --

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: So --

17 MR. ROBSON: I'm objecting because it's going beyond the scope of

18 the question put to the witness during cross-examination.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Mundis.

20 MR. MUNDIS: Your Honour, the question -- the question that was

21 originally put by my learned colleague, again on page 76, lines 18 to 21,

22 implies that the 2nd Corps consisted exclusively of the Tuzla canton. My

23 question simply is saying that there might be areas of the 2nd Corps

24 responsibility in 1997 outside of Tuzla where former members of the El

25 Mujahedin Detachment may have been living at that time, 1997, November

1 1997, which might go to the issue as to why this document may have been

2 addressed to the 2nd Corps commander in late 1997.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] The objection is

5 overruled. You may proceed, Mr. Mundis.

6 MR. MUNDIS: .

7 Q. General Delic, do you understand the question that I'm asking you,

8 sir?

9 A. Yes, I understand you, and I will answer. My area of

10 responsibility remained the same, but I said that there had been a

11 reorganisation in the ranks of the BiH army. The 3rd Corps, the 7th

12 Corps, and the 4th Corps stopped existing as a result of that. Parts of

13 the commands for development that had used to belong to the 3rd Corps were

14 placed under my authority. I said that this was the area of Zavidovici,

15 that this was the area of Tesanj.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, sorry, sorry, Mr. Delic. You know, we would

17 like you to go home for the weekend. Please answer the question. You are

18 not answering the question. The question is: Were there any El Mujahid

19 members -- former members of the El Mujahid residing in the area of

20 responsibility of the 2nd Corps outside Tuzla and Tuzla canton in November

21 1997? That is the question. Your answer should be "yes" or "no," because

22 we -- we want to make sure that you go home. Unless you want to be here

23 next week. You want to spend the weekend here, that's fine.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I respect you and I

25 would like to give you my answer, but it will be both "yes" and "no,"

1 that's why I would like to explain why "yes," why "no."

2 No, because this was not my area of responsibility. Yes, because

3 in Zavidovici there was a command for the development of the brigade which

4 used to belong to the 3rd Corps of the BiH army, which at the relevant

5 period was a development command. And in the municipality of Zavidovici

6 in a place called Bocinja they had erected a village, a community of the

7 Mujahedin. I know that they had put up their tents there. Nobody could

8 come close to them. They were very close. They had bought some of the

9 Serb houses. They were there illegally. It was not in my area of

10 responsibility but it was in the area where my development command was.

11 The area of responsibility of the 3rd Corps remained the area of

12 responsibility of the 3rd Corps.

13 I accepted those brigades because they had to be under somebody's

14 authority. These people had to be under somebody's command and control

15 after the transformation, and I believe that the Prosecutor now is happy

16 with my answer.

17 MR. MUNDIS:

18 Q. Let me just try to make sure that we understand. Bocinja in

19 Zavidovici municipality in November 1997 fell within which ARBiH corps

20 area of responsibility?

21 A. 3 Corps. 3 Corps, which we -- which was some sort of a command

22 for development.

23 Q. You told us earlier with this reorganisation that 3 Corps

24 disappeared. Do you know when 3rd Corps was disbanded?

25 A. No. No. I don't even know whether this happened in 1997. I

1 believe so. I'm just guessing. This is a guessing game.

2 I know that those groups that had been part of that corps, the 7

3 became part of the 3rd Corps and then they returned to the 2nd Corps, only

4 commands for development. I'm talking about 10 or 15 people.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Delic, yesterday you told us this is Ramadan.

6 You don't dare guess. Please don't guess. But apart from it being

7 Ramadan, we don't want guesswork. We want what you know factually. So

8 don't guess. If you don't know, just say you don't know. Please.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

10 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution has no further questions. Thank you.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

12 Judge?

13 Questioned by the Court:

14 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] The French translation is now

15 over. There is a lag and a difference between the French and the English

16 version. And it's very difficult to follow the proceedings in French.

17 Thank you.

18 But to return on this document, what I understood - and I may be

19 wrong - is that the fact that there is no signature -- no handwritten

20 signature is not a real problem regarding this document, given that this

21 is the document that was received at the receiving end through this packet

22 transmission that you told us about.

23 A. Yes, that's right.

24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] After the document being decoded,

25 and that's why there is no handwritten signature. But I wonder whether it

1 would be possible, whether in the deciphering process of the document that

2 was sent through the packet system, there might not be the number of the

3 protocol, which mainly would only appear in the original. Would that be

4 possible, that that number would be only in the original?

5 A. You may be right. Both on the original and the document that was

6 received by packet communication, there should be such a heading.

7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] And I have another question. In

8 1997, what function did General Rasim Delic occupy? Do you know that?

9 A. Yes. Army general Rasim Delic was the commander of the General

10 Staff of the Army of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have a few more

12 questions. You yesterday during the examination-in-chief, you talked

13 about the chain which would go up to the 3rd Corps, to the 2nd Corps, so

14 the command chain. And today, during the cross-examination, you talked

15 about a chain that was going top to bottom from the Presidency all the way

16 down to the field. And this was a chain that was used for orders. So I

17 have a question on the command chain but dealing with omissions, and I

18 would like to go from bottom up. So if there were illegal activities

19 going on that would have been committed by soldiers or officers - and

20 we're talking here at the bottom level - the commander of this lower unit,

21 on the field, this -- I don't know what is the lowest unit that could be

22 found. But commander of this unit, was he duty-bound to conduct his unit

23 in a way to make sure that illegal activities would not be committed and

24 if illegal activities were eventually committed, was he duty-bound to

25 sanction these illegal activities?

1 A. Your Honour, you are absolutely right. However, his competence,

2 the competence of a commander, differs depending on the level. The

3 actions that can be taken by the commanding officer at the lowest level,

4 such as a squad or platoon, is not the same to that of the higher-up

5 level, such as a company, battalion, or even further up, a brigade, which

6 consists of several battalions, or even further up, a division, which

7 consists of several brigades.

8 What should I tell you? The lowest person should inform the

9 lowest -- the low-ranking commander should inform his immediate superior,

10 who in turn should -- should propose certain measures.

11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So it goes up. It must go up.

12 And if by chance someone who was duty-bound to make sure that

13 nothing would happen or sanction in case something has happened does not

14 do it, then his superior -- if his superior suddenly finds out that these

15 activities have been going on, these illegal activities have been going

16 on, he's still duty-bound to report -- or to prevent and sanction, at

17 least. There's no interruption in the chain. Is that the way it works?

18 A. You're absolutely right.

19 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] And this goes all the way up.

20 This is -- it goes all the way up. It applies to every single level;

21 right?

22 A. That's how I see it. That's the logic of it.

23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 And I have another small question: Today you told us that in the

25 7th Muslim Brigade there were no Croats, no Croats from Bosnia.

1 A. I am convinced that there weren't.

2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So to your knowledge, were there

3 any Serbs from Bosnia?

4 A. I don't think there were any Serbs either.

5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So this means that there were

6 only Muslim Bosniaks?

7 A. I believe you're right.

8 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] And there were only those -- only

9 Muslim Bosniaks, but were there also foreign Muslims? As far as you know.

10 A. To my knowledge, there were no Bosniaks, pure Bosniaks. And I

11 mean those who were non-Muslims, such as atheists, for instance. I

12 believe that they were all practicing Muslims Bosniaks there.

13 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] And they were all local Muslims

14 or were there foreign Muslims also?

15 A. I believe that it was made up of local Bosniaks from

16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, 100 per cent of it. There may have been Muslims from

17 other parts of the former Yugoslavia there too.

18 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But no foreigners from abroad.

19 A. Yes, I believe there were no foreigners.

20 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But you're not sure.

21 A. Again, unfortunately, I'm speculating, but I'm almost certain.

22 Let's say 70 to 80 per cent.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.

24 It is past time. We are going to have to adjourn, sir. You have

25 to come back Monday morning, at 9.00 in the morning in Courtroom II, to my

1 knowledge.

2 Court adjourned to Monday, the 24th of September, at 9.00 in the

3 morning. Courtroom II.

4 Court adjourned.

5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.06 p.m.,

6 to be reconvened on Monday, the 24th day

7 of September, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25