1 Friday, 28 September 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, everybody.
6 Mr. Registrar, could you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, and good morning, Your Honours. This
8 is case number IT-04-83-T, the Prosecutor versus Rasim Delic.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 Could we have the appearances for today, starting with the
12 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
13 Honours, Counsel, and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the
14 Prosecution, Daryl Mundis and Matthias Neuner, assisted by our case
15 manager, Alma Imamovic.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
17 And for the Defence? Madam Vidovic.
18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
19 Vasvija Vidovic and Nicholas Robson for the Defence of General Delic,
20 assisted by Lejla Gluhic.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 Before we call the witness, just a few housekeeping matters to
23 deal with.
24 Mr. Mundis, the Chamber is aware of a motion by the Prosecution
25 for redesignation of witnesses as 92 or -- 92 bis or ter witnesses. I'm a
1 bit at a loss as to what the value of this motion is supposed to be.
2 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Your Honours. Let me -- let me try to
3 clarify. It's -- basically, as I've indicated on a number of prior
4 occasions recently, we're reevaluating in terms of the amount of time
5 available to us in order to expedite the proceedings. And it's -- it's
6 the Prosecution's understanding that this Trial Chamber requires us in the
7 event we wish to re-designate a witness from viva voce to 92 bis or 92 ter
8 that we need to seek the Trial Chamber's leave or authorisation in order
9 to do that. And so simply what we've done by way of this motion is at
10 this stage simply seeking leave from the Trial Chamber to re-classify or
11 re-designate 9 previously-listed 92 -- or previously listed viva voce
12 witnesses as 92 bis or 92 ter.
13 We're not at this stage seeking to admit those statements under 92
14 bis. We're simply asking for authorisation to re-designate them to either
15 92 bis or 92 ter as a means of further expediting the proceedings and
16 allowing us to and to get the evidence before the Chamber in the time
17 allotted to us.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. That much I understand, Mr. Mundis.
19 What my problem is, is you're still going to have to file in a 92
20 bis or ter motion for specific witnesses to motivate -- to bring in the --
21 the statements. And at that stage, as you -- as you rightly say in
22 your -- in your motion, that this is not the stage for the -- for the
23 Defence to object. They can object at that stage.
24 MR. MUNDIS: Yes.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: At that stage --
1 MR. MUNDIS: Well --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Depending on what is before us, we may or may not
3 decide that this witness should not be 92 bis.
4 MR. MUNDIS: Yes.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, this motion seems to be saying, Tie your hands
6 behind your back and make sure that you are going to hear this witness as
7 a 92 bis whether or not at the time the witness does or does not qualify.
8 MR. MUNDIS: Okay. Let me -- let me try to briefly address that
9 point, which I completely understand.
10 With respect to the 92 bis witnesses, obviously we need to get the
11 statements certified before we can file them under Rule 92 bis. And so
12 our position was simply that before we send a Registry officer and a --
13 perhaps a -- a member of the trial team down on a mission to certify four
14 statements under Rule 92 bis that, we at least have the authorisation from
15 the Trial Chamber to re-designate those witnesses under that rule. Now,
16 that's a separate issue as to whether the Chamber ultimately accepts those
17 statements under 92 bis and/or requires the witness to attend for
18 cross-examination. But it's simply a point that before I send people and
19 spend some of the Tribunal's resources doing 92 bis statements on
20 witnesses that I -- I don't even have authorisation or -- or listed as 92
21 bis witnesses.
22 I hope that was -- that was clear.
23 We need to get the statements certified before we file them under
24 Rule 92 bis, and that requires a Registry legal officer and a member of my
25 trial team traveling to wherever the witness is to certify the statement.
1 And out of an abundance of caution, we at least wanted to have those
2 witnesses re-designated as 92 bis or potential Rule 92 bis witnesses, just
3 as we've listed other witnesses as 92 bis, before we send people down to
4 certify statements.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Again, I hear you. My problem is still not solved.
6 You go down and get the witness certified as a 92 bis witness. It comes
7 here. We look at everything. At that stage when he now has to come and
8 testify, and on what is before us, we feel 92 bis is not the way to go.
9 The resources have been spent. I don't -- I don't think that you are
10 absolutely correct in saying that you need authorisation to determine
11 which one -- which witness you want to make a 92 bis. You make -- you
12 make the decision.
13 MR. MUNDIS: Oh --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: And having taken the decision, you say, "Here is
15 the witness. I would like him to be 92 bis for the following reasons."
16 We get a response, and we decide.
17 MR. MUNDIS: That's absolutely -- that's absolutely fine with the
18 Prosecution. And that's the way that we've proceeded in a -- in a number
19 of other cases. My -- my -- and it was perhaps then my misunderstanding,
20 based on some discussions with the -- with the legal officer, that -- that
21 I was required to -- that I couldn't unilaterally switch from viva voce to
22 92 bis without the Chamber's authorisation. Perhaps I misunderstood the
23 legal officer.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Okay. No, that's fine.
25 Sorry, Judge. Just a second.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry. Okay. I'm sorry.
3 Then that settles that matter, then. We are now on the same page,
4 on the wavelength.
5 MR. MUNDIS: Yes. And if I could then ask further clarification
6 with respect to the Rule 92 ter proposed witnesses. Would -- would the
7 same --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah.
9 MR. MUNDIS: The same.
10 So then we will take the view, Your Honours -- I will actually
11 withdraw this motion, if -- if -- if the Chamber allows me to do that.
12 But I will indicate that the nine witnesses listed, so that the Defence is
13 on notice --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Right.
15 MR. MUNDIS: We will be seeking to make applications in the near
16 future under 92 bis or 92 ter for -- for those witnesses that we've
17 designated. And it would therefore be our intention with respect to the
18 92 ter witnesses that we will under -- we will bring them here. We will
19 then seek to have admitted into evidence their statement or statements.
20 And then ask the questions in order to --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
22 MR. MUNDIS: -- have those admitted, perhaps discuss a few
23 documents with the witness in line with the Chamber's decision that we
24 received yesterday, and then make them available for cross-examination.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
1 MR. MUNDIS: So I think everyone's now on notice that that's our
2 intention --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
4 MR. MUNDIS: -- with respect to these nine witnesses.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good.
6 MR. MUNDIS: If I could while I'm on my feet before the witness
7 comes in. Yesterday we received the -- the Defence motion concerning a
8 reduction to the court schedule to four days a week. I'm sure the Chamber
9 is well aware of that motion.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mm-hm.
11 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution will not be responding to that motion
12 in writing. I can -- I can indicate, if -- if the Chamber would like, the
13 Prosecution's very brief response to that orally, if that would --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure. Go ahead.
15 MR. MUNDIS: -- be of assistance.
16 Our position, of course, is that many, if not almost all of the
17 issues raised are issues for the Trial Chamber. Having had the
18 opportunity to review the Defence response, our comments are limited
19 really to two or three very brief points.
20 First of all, the Prosecution would respectfully ask that -- that
21 in the event we were to be sitting four days a week rather than -- than
22 five, that that obviously has no impact on the amount of overall time
23 available to the Prosecution. We wouldn't want a decision to reduce from
24 five days to four days to somehow negatively impact upon the amount of
25 time available to us.
1 The second point, of course, is -- as the Defence motion raises,
2 obviously in the event of -- of illness or -- or a heavy workload
3 affecting any of the Defence teams, that obviously could have a negative
4 impact on the overall conduct of the proceedings, in terms of unexpected
5 delays, et cetera, and we wouldn't want to be in a situation where any ill
6 health or medical conditions of any of the Defence teams would negatively
7 impact upon the case.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what's your position on that?
9 MR. MUNDIS: Our position --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: You support that?
11 MR. MUNDIS: Absolutely. I both personally and professionally
12 wouldn't want to see any work schedule that would have a detrimental
13 effect on the health of any members of the Defence team or, for that
14 matter, the accused. But, obviously, that's an issue for the Chamber to
15 dwell upon.
16 And the final point, as I've indicated in a discussion with
17 Mrs. Vidovic, which is reflected in the final paragraph of their motion,
18 if - and I stress the word "if" - the Chamber decides to go to a four-day
19 week schedule, we would respectfully ask that the Trial Chamber not sit on
20 Mondays for the simple reason that if we were not to sit on Mondays, that
21 day could be used by the Prosecution to proof witnesses. In other words,
22 we would fly the witnesses in on Sunday, proof them on Monday for
23 testifying on Tuesday.
24 If the Chamber, on the other hand, were to say, let's not sit on
25 Fridays, that's of no assistance to us because VWS will not bring the
1 witnesses in on Thursday to testify on the following Monday. That's
2 simply too long of a period for the witnesses to sit in the hotel.
3 So we could take advantage of having a Monday off to proof for
4 Tuesday, but having a Friday off does not allow us to proof witnesses on
5 that Friday for the following Monday because VWS will not bring the
6 witnesses in and have them sit here over the weekend.
7 So we would simply ask that if the Chamber opts for a four-day
8 trial week that Monday be the day that we not sit. For that simple
9 reason; it would save some resources and it would make -- make things move
10 a little bit more productively.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
12 MR. MUNDIS: Those are all we really have to say with respect to
13 that motion.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Mundis.
15 I don't imagine you have any issue to raise on this matter. The
16 motion is going to be withdrawn.
17 MR. ROBSON: The motion has been withdrawn, Your Honour. What I
18 would just say is that we would encourage the Prosecution to prepare as
19 quickly as possible, if they're going to send team members down to Bosnia,
20 to -- to collect declarations in order to prepare a Rule 92 bis
21 decision --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Motion.
23 MR. ROBSON: Motion. I beg your pardon.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
25 The -- the other thing, just to mention for the record,
1 Mr. Mundis, in terms of the calculation of the Prosecution hours for
2 presenting their case, they've just gone over -- just over 50 per cent.
3 Just to make you aware of that.
4 MR. MUNDIS: Yeah, I'm absolutely aware of that.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
6 MR. MUNDIS: And I track that on a --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're tracking that.
8 MR. MUNDIS: -- hour-by-hour basis.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Right. And although you've gone over 50 per cent
10 of your hours, you have not gone over 50 per cent of your witnesses.
11 MR. MUNDIS: I'm well aware of that fact as well. And I'm also
12 very well aware of the overall percentage of the number of the exhibits
13 that are on our exhibit list --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
15 MR. MUNDIS: -- versus the number that have been admitted.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
17 MR. MUNDIS: So I'm happy that I took a statistics course in
18 college for that very reason.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, while you are on your feet - I'm still
20 addressing you - the Chamber is aware of a motion by the Prosecution for
21 submission of an expert report by Ms. Brkic. The Prosecution intends to
22 call this witness on the 26th of October. The motion was filed on the
23 25th of September. The -- the Defence has -- is entitled to 30 days to
24 answer. That's just a day after the 30 day. In which case, it doesn't
25 leave the Chamber any -- an opportunity to make a decision.
1 MR. MUNDIS: Again, based on discussions that I've had with the
2 Defence teams, it's clear to me their position is that they will want to
3 cross-examine this -- this expert. And so I'm proceeding on the basis
4 that -- that she will need to come and --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand. But they have -- they have 30 days
6 within which to give you notice that whether -- whether they object to her
7 qualifications or what have you. And if in line with what they told us
8 the other day they decide to sit the 30 days before they give you that
9 response, then --
10 MR. MUNDIS: Then we'll reschedule her, obviously if that's the
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Unless you can get privately an undertaking from
13 your colleagues on the opposite side that they'll respond quickly.
14 MR. MUNDIS: Right. I understand.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you very much.
16 I think those were all the housekeeping matters that we wanted to
17 raise. The witness may be called in.
18 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I just want to take advantage of
19 the break to remind you that I have to follow the proceedings and listen
20 to the witness in French, and I would please ask you to therefore make a
21 pause between the questions and the answers and generally between all the
22 interventions. Thank you very much.
23 [The witness entered court]
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, Mr. Hasanagic. As always, I remind
25 you that you are bound --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- to the declaration you made at the beginning of
3 your testimony to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but
4 the truth. Thank you very much.
5 I hope you've had a restful night.
6 Madam Vidovic.
7 WITNESS: FADIL HASANAGIC [Resumed]
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Cross-examination by Ms. Vidovic: [Continued]
10 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Hasanagic.
11 A. Good morning.
12 Q. Yesterday we stopped at the issue of prisoners of war. I'm going
13 to ask you several more questions about that.
14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may the witness be
15 shown MFI 480.
16 Q. Can you see, Witness, this document and do you recall the
17 Prosecutor showing you this report from the 328th Mountain Brigade? I
18 would like you to take a look at it again, and do you agree that it bears
19 the date the 13th of September, 1995? And I'm going to ask you to
20 memorise this date. Can you see that?
21 A. Yes, I can see it, but I said that I did not remember this
23 Q. But I want you to remember this date.
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. And there is mention that this is sent to the command post of the
1 35th Division.
2 A. Yes, I agree.
3 Q. Do you agree that this is the command post of the 35th Division in
4 Zavidovici? Is that so?
5 A. Yes, this is so.
6 Q. Take a good look at this first page of this document.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you agree -- and I believe that the Bosnian version is seen in
9 its entirety. Do you agree that on the first page there is no mention
10 that this document has been sent to anybody else but to the KM of the 35th
11 Division? I mean in terms of dispatching or receiving rubber stamp. Do
12 you agree with that?
13 A. I agree.
14 Q. There is no markings on the top of the document that this document
15 was sent as a coded message. Am I right?
16 A. Yes, you are.
17 Q. You can see the figure "284" in the corner, in the Bosnian
18 version -- oh, you don't have it.
19 Could the page be scrolled up, please. Right. Thank you.
20 Can you see this figure, 284?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. That figure does not indicate that this document either left the
23 command post of the 35th Division or that it was received there. It
24 doesn't indicate that. It could be an archiving number or something like
25 that. Do you agree?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Very well. And now please take a look at the last page of the
3 document. Take a good look at it, please. Do you agree that there is
4 only the stamp and the signature of, ostensibly, Fuad Zelkic? Is that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Can we turn it -- can we see the whole of the document.
8 Do you agree when documents are delivered anywhere, on the bottom
9 left corner it should state "delivered to," and then a list, "35th
10 Division," the archive, et cetera, et cetera? Do you agree that there are
11 such markings on documents?
12 A. Yes, I agree. They have.
13 Q. Do you agree that in this case there is no mention that the
14 document has been delivered anywhere, on the last page of this document?
15 A. I agree there is no such indication.
16 Q. By the same token, there is no indication that this document was
17 ever received by the 35th Division either through an encoded message or in
18 any other way. There is no indication of that. Is that so?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In connection with this, I would like to ask you this: Please,
21 would you agree or accept that during the Operation Farz reporting did not
22 work well?
23 A. There were disruptions because of combat activities.
24 Q. Do you agree that in terms of regularity of reports and their
25 regular frequency, there was some correspondence between you and the units
1 concerned and the 3rd Corps?
2 A. I did not understand your question.
3 Q. The 3rd Corps highlighted problems in terms of reporting from
4 subordinate units, and you forwarded that report to the subordinate units.
5 Am I right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. The situation in the field was chaotic because of the presence of
8 numerous and various units on the ground; is that so?
9 A. Yes, this is so when combat operations start.
10 Q. Let me go back to the issue of the command post of Zavidovici.
11 You said that this was your command post. The command post of Zavidovici,
12 as early as the end of August 1995, was constantly shelled. Am I correct?
13 A. Yes, you are.
14 Q. All officers are -- let me rephrase. All officers went out in the
15 field together with you during the Operation Farz so that they can join in
16 combat activities. When I say "all officers," I mean the officers of the
17 35th Division; meaning you and the other officers of the 35th Division
18 left the command post to take part in combat operations during the
19 Operation Farz out in the field. Am I correct?
20 A. Yes, 99 per cent did go out in the fields. There was a handful of
21 them left back at Zavidovici to maintain communications with the command
23 Q. Can you tell me who was left behind, if you remember?
24 A. Mobilisation and replenishment organ was there, because we needed
25 to replenish our units; supplies and finances personnel; and the legal
1 officer or the lawyer was there.
2 Q. Thank you for this explanation.
3 Do you agree that all operatives were out or operating officers
4 were out in the field with you?
5 A. Yes, I agree.
6 Q. Do you agree that the operatives are those who receive reports
7 from the subordinated units through the operations centre?
8 A. I agree.
9 Q. Therefore, during the Operation Farz, those operatives did not sit
10 in the headquarters of the command but were out in the field. Is that so?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I am going to revisit the issue of you. On the 6th of September,
13 1995, if you remember, you were already at the IKM Babilon of the 35th
14 Division; am I right?
15 A. On the 9th of September. On the 6th of September, the order for
16 all officers to move the command post and go to the field was signed and
18 Q. Thank you for this explanation.
19 So from the 9th of September, 1995, the forward command post of
20 the 35th Division Babilon was operational.
21 Do you agree that it was exposed to constant unrelentless shelling
22 from the very beginning it started operating?
23 A. Yes, the forward command post is located along the main axis so
24 that we can do as much as we can to ensure that the combat operations and
25 missions are accomplished, and this is why it is placed there.
1 Q. Do you agree that the extent of the shelling was such that
2 there -- it was decided for the forward command post to be relocated? Do
3 you recall that?
4 A. Yes. Because of the shelling and because of the progress of our
5 combat activities, I decided further and subsequent forward command posts,
6 which will ensure that we can control combat activities in an easier and a
7 simpler manner.
8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have the witness see
9 PT2564, please.
10 Q. Witness, please take a look at this document. You agree, don't
11 you, that this document was produced by the command of the 35th Division
12 at the IKM Babilon on the 11th of September, 1995?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. If we can scroll down the document so that the witness can see the
15 signature. Can you confirm this is yours?
16 A. Yes, this is my signature.
17 Q. Could you read the sentence below the word "I order." Do you
18 agree that this document orders that during the 12th of September, 1995,
19 by 12.00 the IKM of the 35th Division is supposed to be set up and
20 occupied in the area of Livade?
21 A. Yes, I can see that.
22 Q. So on the 11th of September, 1995, you are not residing neither in
23 the command post of Zavidovici but you are occupying the IKM of Babilon;
24 is that so?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And you said yesterday that this was located on the 12th kilometre
2 from Zavidovici; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you agree that in such wartime conditions, this is a long
6 A. Yes, particularly because there was combat activities and this
7 whole area was being shelled.
8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: A long distance from where?
10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] From Zavidovici, Your Honours. This
11 is what I asked the witness.
12 Q. Did you understand, Witness, me asking you about the long distance
13 from Zavidovici under such wartime circumstances?
14 A. Yes, this is how I understood it.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please proceed.
16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by your leave, may
17 this document be given an exhibit number.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
19 please be given an exhibit number.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 501.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] May the witness be shown document
23 D427, please.
24 Q. Witness, please take a look at this document. Do you agree that
25 you can see your signature?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And that this is a document dated the 13th of September, 1995
3 produced at the forward command post of Babilon at 11.30?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Let me remind you of the order of the 328th Brigade that we saw a
6 couple of minutes earlier.
7 May the Bosnian version be scrolled down, please, and turn -- and
8 the page 2 of this document in the English version be turned.
9 And you recall while we were discussing the MFI document --
10 rather, the report of the 328th Brigade, and you do agree with me that
11 when a document is delivered, it should have the indications in the bottom
12 left corner about the addressees and those that it was delivered to? Do
13 you agree?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. This is what was lacking in the document purporting to be a report
16 of the 328th Brigade to your command. Do you agree that the indications
17 in the bottom left corner were missing?
18 A. I agree.
19 Q. Now I'm going to revisit the contents of this document. Please
20 focus on item 6, and it is seen on the top of the page in the English
22 Witness, please take a look at item 6.
23 A. Yes, I have.
24 Q. Do you agree that it is clearly stated here that "The commander of
25 the 329th Brigade should report to the IKM of the 35th Division in the
1 Rudace area on the 14th of September, 1995 to receive his mission?
2 A. Yes, the commander of the 329th Brigade is supposed to report at
3 the IKM and they were in the region of Rudace village.
4 Q. So on the basis of this document, I infer that on the 13th of
5 September, 1995 you were still at the IKM of the 35th Division entitled
6 "Babilon," but on the subsequent day, on the 14th of September, 1995, you
7 were supposed to be in the region of the area of the Rudace village, at
8 the new forward command post.
9 A. Yes, because combat operations were nearing Blizna and this was
10 one of the key features after Podsijelovo and Paljenik.
11 Q. In other words, after 11.30 on the 13th of September, 1995, you
12 were in transition towards Rudace in terms of relocating your IKM.
13 A. Yes, I was.
14 Q. So on the 13th of September, 1995, you certainly were not at the
15 KM of Zavidovici.
16 A. I was not in Zavidovici.
17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. May this
18 document be admitted into evidence.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
20 please be given an exhibit number.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 502.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] May we put this document away and
24 may the witness be shown document D428.
25 Q. Witness, this is a brief document. I can see you reading it. Do
1 you agree that this document of the 35th Division dated 16th of September,
2 1995, as it's stated here, was produced at the forward command post of
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You saw the signature. Is it yours?
6 A. Yes, it's mine.
7 Q. So this document is entitled "Order on relocating the IKM." Is
8 that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So it is evident that on this day, on the 16th of September, 1995,
11 you issue an order from Rudace, from the forward command post of Rudace;
12 is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you again order that the forward command post be moved or
15 relocated; is that so?
16 A. Yes. We had to follow the front line combat activities.
17 Q. Very well. So, Witness, it's true, is it not, that during this
18 period from the 11th of September to the 16th of September, when another
19 order to relocate the IKM, that you were constantly on the move in the
20 northerly direction and that you were not sitting somewhere waiting for a
21 report. Is that so?
22 A. No, I was never sitting at an IKM, at one place. I was following
23 the combat activities.
24 Q. Very well. Your operatives, were they with you following the
25 combat activities?
1 A. Part of them were at the IKM, at the forward command post, and
2 some of them were out in the fields with the units.
3 Q. When you say they were at the IKM, that means that they were at
4 one of the IKMs that we saw being mentioned in the documents.
5 A. Yes.
6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] By your leave, may this document be
7 given an exhibit number, Your Honours, please.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
9 please be given an exhibit number.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 503.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. I would like you to have a look at another document, as well,
14 D429, please. Could this document please be removed so that we can have
15 D429 displayed.
16 Witness, could you please have a look at the date on this
17 document. And what it says in the heading is "The command of the 35th
18 Division." And the date is the 17th of September, 1995. And am I right
19 if I conclude that it is only on this day that you were at the command;
20 that before that, you were not issuing orders from the command?
21 A. I wasn't in Zavidovici at the command either. The command of the
22 35th Division did not write when -- or, rather, where the document was
23 created. He did not state the location where the document was created.
24 Q. I understand. In other words, even then you were not in the
25 division -- or rather, the division command. Is that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. All right. Please take a look -- or rather, can we scroll down
3 the document so the witness can see the signature. Right.
4 Your Honours, it's on page 2 of the English version.
5 So please take a look at what we discussed a few moments ago when
6 we were discussing MFI 480, document -- the document of the 328th
7 Division -- Brigade. The 328th Brigade.
8 You remember that document, don't you? Remember this document as
9 well. So on any document you submit, it says "to" and we see who copies
10 were sent to.
11 A. Yes, that was compulsory.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could this document
14 please be assigned an exhibit number.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
16 please be given an exhibit number.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 504.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Witness --
21 Could this document please be removed, as well, because I'd like
22 to move on to a different topic with this witness.
23 Could the witness now look at MFI 461, please.
24 You do recall, Witness, that the Prosecutor showed you an order to
25 attack from August 1995. You do remember that, don't you?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Then you said that that was not an order that you had signed -- or
3 rather, you said that it was not a final order. Remember that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now I would like us to review this document. Could the witness
6 please see page 3 of this document. In English, it is page 5. Page 5 in
7 English, please.
8 I am sorry, Your Honours. Page 4 of the Bosnian version. Page 4.
9 Before we move on to this page, Witness, do you agree that there
10 are some handwritten additions to this page that we are looking at now?
11 A. This is a working document. It's not a final document. And that
12 is why there are things there.
13 Q. All right. Could you please show page 4 of the Bosnian version
14 and page 5 of the English version. Page 5 in English, please. Thank you
15 very much.
16 Witness, could you please have a look at 5.2. So under 5.0, it
17 says: "Tasks issued to subordinate units." And then under 5.2, there is a
18 certain text.
19 Could you please focus on the handwritten portions of this
20 document, please, so that the witness can see. Could it please be zoomed
21 in a bit. Or rather, could the document be moved so that the witness can
22 see the handwritten text in its entirety. Thank you. Now it is visible.
23 Do you agree that here next to 5.2 it says: "Give concrete tasks
24 for securing" -- or can you read it, Witness?
25 A. It says: "Give concrete tasks for securing lines." That is why
1 we were in charge of securing the newly established lines.
2 Q. All right. I hope that it exists in the English translation, Your
3 Honours. We are discussing this handwritten note. Unfortunately, this PT
4 doesn't have it here, but I would like the witness to confirm it, because
5 I don't see this in the English document.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: There's a problem, because the English document
7 says at 5.3: "The El Mujahedin Detachment with 600 soldiers," then it
8 says "handwritten above." So...
9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. Your Honours, let's make
10 this crystal clear.
11 Q. This handwritten addition stands parallel to 5.2; is that right,
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Very well. Now, Witness, could you please look at 5.3 a bit. And
15 before we focus on this paragraph, Witness, please, do you agree that this
16 handwritten note obviously indicates that work is still being done on this
17 document, that this is not the final version?
18 A. Yes, this is not the final version.
19 Q. Now, over here it says: "5.3. The El Mujahedin Detachment." And
20 then it says: "With 600 soldiers." And above it says: "Whose forces are
21 these?" Is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So here it is also evident that the document is not clear and that
24 it is still being worked on; right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, could you please look at paragraph 5.4. That is the next
2 page in both versions, I believe.
3 Witness, please look at 5.4 now. Again, there is a handwritten
4 addition. What is added is -- it is stated: "With 300 soldiers." And
5 then above, in hand: "Whose forces?" That's what it says.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Witness, I just want to ask you something: Do you recognise the
8 handwriting? Whose handwriting is this? Can you recognise it?
9 A. I cannot recognise it, but it must be the chief of staff in terms
10 of the corrections made before this reached me.
11 Q. All right. Now, can we have a look at 5.4 and 5.5. And do you
12 agree that next to both of these paragraphs it says "no," "no"?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now I would like to ask you that we move on to paragraph 11; that
15 is, page 10 in the Bosnian version and 12 in the English version.
16 Witness, please pay attention to 11.1, "Information on
17 demonstrated and anticipated enemy activity," and then "security support,"
18 and then "information on demonstrated and anticipated enemy activity."
19 That's it, 11.1. Could you read it to yourself, please. I just want to
20 put one question to you in relation to that paragraph.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you agree that war -- prisoners of war or the Geneva
23 Conventions are not mentioned in a single word here?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. All right. So you said that this was not a final document when
1 you were answering the Prosecutor's questions, and that's what you said
2 today as well.
3 A. Yes.
4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just want to say for
5 the transcript that as for the 65 ter list, under number PT2449 there is a
6 version identical to this but without the handwritten notes. I want to
7 say this for the transcript. The same version that this witness saw here.
8 I don't want to waste any time by displaying that version as well.
9 Q. Witness, anyway I just want to ask you about the procedure
10 involved concerning these orders so that it is perfectly clear to all of
11 us here in the courtroom. So you prepare -- you prepare a document like
12 this. It was an order to attack. And then you submit it to the 3rd Corps
13 for their approval. Am I right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In such situations, when a higher command approves an order, then
16 it is valid and applicable -- or rather, only the approved order is
17 applicable and valid. Is that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And do you agree that this has to be clearly stated on the
20 document itself?
21 A. It has to be signed and it has to have a stamp.
22 Q. Right. And it has to say "approved"; right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we remove this
1 document now. I would like the witness to look at document D432.
2 Could the document please be focused.
3 Q. Witness, now I'd like to ask you whether you recognise this
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So this is a plan that the 3rd Corps approved to you for Operation
7 Farz; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. In the upper left-hand corner, it says "I approve," and then the
10 name of the person who approves.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And in the lower right-hand corner, there is your name and
13 signature. Is that your signature?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Could you please look at page 2 of this document now.
16 This page 2 roughly has the same content. On the top, there is
17 the approval and name of the commander of the 3rd Corps.
18 Can we just see the bottom of this page in Bosnian so that the
19 witness can see it.
20 Is that your signature?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. All right. Let us just have a look at the date. The date can
23 still be seen up here; is that right? So this order of yours was approved
24 on the 25th of August, 1995 at 1500 hours; is that right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. All right. Now could you briefly look at the next page of both
2 versions, please.
3 Could we please have this document focused so that we see the
4 upper right-hand corner, please.
5 What I want to ask you, Mr. Hasanagic, is the following: Do you
6 see this stamp here?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you agree that every page of approved orders has to be verified
9 with a stamp?
10 A. Yes. In this case, there are several variants that are prepared
11 beforehand and we have to know what the final version is by way of this
12 stamp that is then affixed on each and every approved page.
13 Q. Yes. So the stamp shows that that is the final version, the valid
14 version, the approved version; right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. Now I would like us to look at page 6, please, in
17 Bosnian; page 7 in the English version, Your Honour.
18 Could you please have a look at this part, "Tasks issued to
19 subordinate units." And please look at paragraph 5.3, where the El
20 Mujahedin Detachment is mentioned that we saw a few moments ago.
21 You remember that something completely different was written here,
22 500 or some big figure? 500, 600? Do you agree that there is no such
23 thing in this order?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. Now I would like to ask you to look at paragraph 11, that refers
1 to security support and self-protection. Page 11 of the Bosnian version
2 and page 13 of the English version.
3 Witness, please, Mr. Hasanagic, take a look and read this section
4 where it says "Security support and self-protection." Take a look at the
5 second, third, and fourth paragraph. Second, third, and fourth paragraph,
7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the fourth paragraph
8 of this section continues on the following page in the English version, so
9 please give us a sign when we are supposed to turn the page.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You recall that we were taking a look at the version of the order
12 shown to you by the Prosecutor.
13 Please, can we have the next page in the English version.
14 So, Witness, do you agree that this part of the order contains
15 something completely different under this heading than the previous one?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Here it is clearly stated what are the instructions as -- with
18 regard to the reception of prisoners of war, and they are demanded to be
19 handed over to the members of military police. Am I correct?
20 A. Yes, you are.
21 Q. Also what is demanded is that prisoners of war be treated in the
22 spirit of the Geneva Conventions. Am I correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What is demanded is that elderly and very young prisoners of war
25 be treated with special care; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now please take a look at the last page of the document, both
3 versions, the Bosnian and the English.
4 We can see your signature. Please confirm whether this signature
5 is yours.
6 A. Yes, it is mine.
7 Q. Now, Mr. Hasanagic, I'd like to ask you this: This document that
8 I showed you is a photocopy of the original document; is that so?
9 A. Yes, this is my order.
10 Q. And this document has been certified and verified and approved by
11 the command of the 3rd Corps; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So the document showed by the Prosecutor under MFI 461, although
14 bearing your signature, is not a copy of the original of the approved
15 version of the order to conduct Operation Farz; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could, Your Honours, please this
18 document be admitted into evidence.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
20 please be given an exhibit number.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 505.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 Madam Vidovic, while we are here, you are four minutes from making
24 up the time that the Prosecution took.
25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that I need
1 15 minutes tops. I am very close to concluding my cross.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Madam Vidovic, while we are still with this
4 document, I'm just curious to know - it may not be relevant, but I'm
5 curious to know - on whose initiative was the reference to the Geneva
6 Conventions included in the final Farz plan? I'm asking because you drew
7 our attention to the fact that in the draft, there was no reference to the
8 Geneva Conventions and no specific order to treat the prisoners of war in
9 accordance with the Geneva Conventions, but now in the final plan such a
10 provision has been included. Who initiated this inclusion?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the working plan, there were
12 proposals and it contains many other elements. And in the final version,
13 the chief of staff and other people from the commander, together with the
14 chief of security, we included all these elements here. So the -- it was
15 our initiative.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Could I be more specific and ask you if your
17 lawyer was involved in this? Because I heard you mention that there was a
18 lawyer attached to your Main Staff.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The security organ, the
20 lawyer, chief of staff, chief of the operative organ, and I. This is the
21 group of officers that finalizes this document and all other major
22 documents. There is mention of a group for document preparation,
23 comprising the people I just listed, and they're in charge of determining
24 the final version of all major and important documents.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Now I'd briefly like to address certain other documents shown to
4 you by the Prosecutor, so could we see Exhibit 432 appear on the screen,
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Exhibit 432?
7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's just that the previous document was document
9 432. I'm just wondering if you're not making any ...
10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have the Bosnian version as
11 it is.
12 Q. Witness, the Prosecutor showed you this document. It seems that
13 this goes for a document of the 35th Division's command. The date is, it
14 seems, some day in April 1995. But what I'd like to ask you is this:
15 Please --
16 Can we have the display as it is in the Bosnian version.
17 Please --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just -- I hear you saying the date is a day in
19 April sometime in 1995. I see the English version says "August." Can we
20 just make sure that it's April and not August.
21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is very illegible
22 on this version. I can't make out the date here.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then let's not say "April."
24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] What I wanted to say: I would
25 rather say it was 04, 1995 or the fourth month. But that's not the point
1 of my question. Something else, as you will see for yourselves, Your
2 Honours, is the point of my question.
3 Q. Witness, do you agree that you can make out the figure "42",
4 centre top? Could you explain to the Bench what is written here?
5 A. "Not an original."
6 Q. So this is the document shown to you by the Prosecutor, this
7 document that we can see before us. Doesn't this note, "not an original,"
8 indicate that this is not an original? How else would you interpret
9 those words?
10 A. Somebody wrote "not an original," but it would require further
11 analysis for us to see what it is all about.
12 Q. Very well. When you confirmed to the Prosecutor that this was an
13 order for a certain attack, did you perform such an analysis in the way
14 that we applied our analytical skills on the previous document, did you
15 analyse this document, given that it bears a notation "not an original"?
16 A. No, I did not. It was just shown to me as is. I did not have the
17 time to perform any analysis.
18 Q. Very well. It means that can you claim that this order is an
19 original, not having analysed it and -- since this is a photocopy, and
20 given that it bears the notation "not an original"?
21 A. I'm really confused, to be frank. I can't understand your
23 Q. Let's make this situation clear. Are you confused by my question
24 or the --
25 A. Your question.
1 Q. I will repeat my question. Witness, please, what is stated here
2 is "not an original." My question was: Given that you confirmed, asked
3 by the Prosecutor, that this was your order, now I'm asking you: Are you
4 sure that this is your order, even when it's stated here "not an
6 A. If it bears my signature on the last page, then this is my order,
7 because I signed it.
8 Q. Now, please, do you agree that the signature on the previous
9 document - that was MFI 461, shown to you by the Prosecutor - that that
10 document bore your signature but having analysed it, you stated that this
11 was not ordered? Can you claim that this order is yours, regardless of
12 the fact that it bears your signature, by the same token?
13 A. I can't remember.
14 Q. You did not analyse it very carefully when shown by the
15 Prosecutor, did you?
16 A. I did not.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, maybe I will have five
19 to ten minutes after the break.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic. Then we'll
21 take the break and come back at quarter to 11.00.
22 Court adjourned.
23 --- Recess taken at 10.14 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 10.44 a.m.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic.
1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may we have the
2 witness see PT21 --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel repeat the number, please.
4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] PT2132. Thank you.
5 For the record, this is a document of the command of the 3rd Corps
6 produced at Zenica on the 2nd of June, 1995.
7 Q. Witness, please take a look at it. First of all, do you agree
8 that the document bears the title "Activating the El Mujahedin Detachment
9 in the area of responsibility of the 35th Division"?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Please take a look at item 2 of this order.
12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this would be on the
13 following page in the English version.
14 May we see the signature, please.
15 Q. Witness, do you recognise this signature?
16 A. This is the signature of the corps commander.
17 Q. Item 2 says: "The re-subordination is to be implemented from the
18 2nd of June until needed and until the present order has been changed."
19 So do you agree that this order concerns the re-subordination of
20 the El Mujahedin Detachment?
21 A. Yes, it does.
22 Q. Very well.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may we admit this
24 document into evidence.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
1 please be given an exhibit number.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 506.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Madam -- Madam Vidovic, before we take away this
5 document from the screen, I would like you to clarify from where the El
6 Mujahid Detachment was re-subordinated. We understand that it -- it was
7 now re-subordinated under the 35th Division, but where was it before?
8 Under whose command was it before that?
9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Witness, if you can answer this question. Can you answer His
11 Honour's question? I will refresh your memory as to the follows so that
12 we can try to answer this question. First help me. When was the 35th
13 Division established?
14 A. On the 1st of March, 1995.
15 Q. Very well. Do you recall that on the 31st of March, 1995 the El
16 Mujahedin Detachment was re-subordinated to the 35th Division?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Very well. Now, could you explain to the Bench what happened to
19 that detachment between the 31st of March and the 2nd of June, 1995.
20 Where was it, who they were subordinated or re-subordinated to.
21 A. The El Mujahedin Detachment is a unit of the 3rd Corps. Their
22 command post is in Zenica. They were part of the composition of the 3rd
23 Corps. And by these orders, they were re-subordinated for the
24 effectuation of concrete, specific missions. And it can be seen from this
25 decision -- this order, rather, that the commander determined which
1 missions they are going to accomplish in my area of responsibility.
2 Q. Very well. Do you agree that the commander said here: "The
3 re-subordination is to be implemented from the 2nd of June, 1995 until
4 needed and until the present order has been changed"?
5 So he suggests that this is to be so until the order is changed.
6 A. It is the right of the commander who re-subordinated a unit to
7 take it and use it for some other purposes because that unit is part of
8 his establishment or until the mission has been accomplished for the
9 purpose of which that unit was re-subordinated.
10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, does this answer
11 satisfy your curiosity or shall I dwell further on this issue?
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: It does indeed. Thank you very much.
13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Neuner.
15 MR. NEUNER: Can I just make a technical announcement. This
16 document was just tendered as Exhibit 506. The Prosecution believe --
17 believes it has been tendered earlier as Exhibit 396 already. If this
18 could please be checked maybe by the registrar. Thank you.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: 396?
20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] It wasn't clear to us either. It
21 seemed that ...
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah. But 396 was PT -- P02133. Now this is 2132.
23 If we can be clear as to whether -- whether P02133 and PT2132 are the same
25 MR. NEUNER: There might be the possibility that this current
1 document, which is P506 -- Exhibit 506, has a different ERN number but is
2 indeed referring to the same document. So that -- we have two of the same
3 documents but with different ERN numbers.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Why -- why don't we have a look at the document
6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I can be of
7 assistance. It is the same document, I see here now; however, the problem
8 is that there are quite a few documents that the Prosecution -- well, you
9 know, you can find one document under two or even three PT numbers. The
10 very same document. That's what creates the confusion. Now when I look
11 at the form of this document, it differs from the form of the other
12 document that I showed today. However, the content is the same. Believe
13 me, we are not in a position to follow then what it was that was admitted.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I appreciate what you say, Madam Vidovic. At the
15 same time, we just don't want to burden the record with a duplication of
16 documents of -- which are saying the same thing.
17 If the difference is only in form and not in substance, do we need
18 to admit this document if it's already admitted?
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely not, Your Honour. No. I
20 would not have tendered it otherwise. So I withdraw my request to have
21 this document admitted.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic. Then --
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: We are sure it's the same?
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, both parties are assuring us that it's the
25 same. We haven't seen 2133 yet. If -- maybe you'd like us to see 2133,
1 we can do so.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Okay.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we be shown 2133, please.
4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. It has the same
5 number. And there are no additions that would make it any different.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. In that -- in that event, then thank you
7 very much for withdrawing the tendering of this 5 -- 2132. Thank you very
9 Mr. Registrar, will you reserve number 506 for the next exhibit.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
12 Yes, Madam Vidovic, you may proceed.
13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness just have a look
14 at D434, please.
15 Q. Witness, could you please have a look at this document. It's a
16 very short one. Could you please have a look at the signature. Do you
17 see it?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you agree that this document was created at the forward command
20 post of the 3rd Corps Natron?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. On the 23rd of September, 1995, operative time, et cetera, and the
23 heading says: "Withdrawal of the El Mujahedin Detachment from the
24 structure of the 35th Division." Do you see that?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 1. It says:
2 "Order of the commander of the 3rd Corps on the re-subordination of the
3 El Mujahedin Detachment to the 35th Division is hereby annulled and the El
4 Mujahedin Detachment is placed under the direct command of the 3rd Corps
6 So, please, is it correct that on the 23rd of September - that is
7 to say, the 23rd of September - the order on the re-subordination of the
8 El Mujahedin Detachment to the 35th Division was annulled?
9 A. Yes, that is what is written here.
10 Q. Except for the fact that it's written here, is it something that
11 actually did happen? Do you remember?
12 A. I don't remember the details.
13 Q. It is possible?
14 A. Yes, it is possible.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions for this
18 And could this document please be assigned an exhibit number.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: This document is admitted into evidence. May it
20 please be given an exhibit number.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 506.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner, any re-examination?
24 MR. NEUNER: Yes, Your Honours.
25 Re-examination by Mr. Neuner:
1 Q. Good morning, Witness. I would like to deal with the request from
2 Judge Harhoff during the cross-examination that the Prosecution addresses
3 the July orders issued by the General Staff. And in order to do that --
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Neuner, I really apologise for interrupting
5 you, but when you speak and Mr. Mundis is busily typing on his keyboard,
6 that really does compromise the -- the -- the quality of -- of your voice.
7 I wonder if -- if Mr. Mundis could move over to another keyboard or -- or
8 be less active on the -- thanks.
9 MR. NEUNER:
10 Q. Okay. I want to talk briefly about the July orders as issued by
11 the General Staff and as discussed by my learned colleague yesterday.
12 If we could please, with the assistance of the usher, have Exhibit
13 443 as a point of departure being shown.
14 And while this is being done, could you, Mr. Hasanagic, tell the
15 Court briefly, which combat operation, if any, was launched in July 1995
16 by the 35th Division?
17 A. It was in July 1995 that the operation started and Krcevine, Gaj,
18 and Malovan were the features that were to be taken.
19 Q. Thank you. If you look here at the document. You remember having
20 been shown that document by both parties, I believe, in the last days?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And we can see it relates to the 18th of July, 1995. And I'm
23 interested in the first line again. We find here two orders being
24 mentioned: An order by the General Staff - and I'm just reading out the
25 last four digits - 1306, dating from 17th of July; and another order from
1 the 3rd Corps command, 501 are the last three digits here, from the same
3 Is it correct that during the course of the last five days you
4 have not seen the -- the 3rd Corps order?
5 A. I did not see that.
6 Q. Thank you. Therefore, I want to turn my attention to the General
7 Staff order. 1306 were the last four digits.
8 If we could briefly move to Exhibit 496, please, which was shown
9 yesterday, bearing the last four digits in mind, 1306.
10 If this is enlarged as it is done now. If you look at the last
11 four digits of this order. Could you read them out for the record,
13 A. What digits? I'm sorry.
14 Q. 1 -- I will do it for you, 1 -- the Broj number, 1/825-1276. Can
15 you follow me?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In the document we just saw a moment ago, were these digits
18 mentioned or not?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Yes. Indeed the report we saw a moment ago refers to a different
21 Broj number than the one order we have here in front of us; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Yeah. Nevertheless, I want to draw your attention to one aspect
24 of number 1.
25 If we could scroll the English version down.
1 And we see here, if I can quote: "Immediately undertake all
2 necessary activities to activate the whole front on the battlefield of
3 RBiH ...."
4 What would you understand would that mean, "to active the whole
5 front on the battlefield"?
6 A. That we should all be active in the entire theatre of war of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and to have
8 activities carried out within the scope of the possibilities of all the
9 units involved.
10 Q. If I would show you a map for a second, please.
11 With the assistance of the usher, this is map 3 from the court
13 My question to you is: Do you agree with me that the entire
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina is being depicted here?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And the order which is currently in front of you refers to Zepa
17 and Srebrenica, the area.
18 A. It says here: "In the entire theatre of war of
20 Q. Okay. So where would you understand the words "entire theatre" of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina? What would they mean? Where should combat operations
22 be launched, according to this map?
23 A. The 1st Corps, the 5th Corps, the 7th Corps, the 3rd Corps, the
24 2nd Corps, the 4th Corps, down there; that is to say, in all parts of the
25 theatre of war or front of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
1 Q. Okay. If we turn now to the next exhibit. It's -- the map can
2 please remain there. It's Exhibit 496, which was shown yesterday. Sorry,
3 495. My -- oh, is this 495? Hmm. Then I have only the PT number
4 available. I apologise for this. I think I selected the wrong exhibit.
5 The PT number is 2253 -- or the Exhibit number is 494. I apologise. 494,
6 not 495. Yes.
7 If you please look at the Broj number in the upper left-hand side.
8 Do you recognise this Broj number of this document?
9 A. 1306.
10 Q. And this is indeed the number to which your report issued on the
11 18th of July was referring to; am I correct?
12 A. The order, yes.
13 Q. Yeah. And if we look here at the first lines, it talks about the
14 situation in Zepa. Could you on the map indicate where Zepa is.
15 A. I don't know that area exactly, because I was not in the area, but
16 it's around here. [Indicates]
17 Q. Could you roughly encircle where you believe that Zepa is.
18 A. I don't know exactly. From Srebrenica and then to the west,
19 somewhere around here. [Marks].
20 Q. Thank you. Could you mark --
21 A. I am not sure. I am simply not sure.
22 Q. Could you make a "1" next to the circle where you believe that
23 Zepa is.
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. Okay. And then could you tell the Chamber in which corps' AOR
1 Zepa is lying.
2 A. I think it was the 2nd Corps.
3 Q. Okay. So you believe Zepa is in the 2nd Corps AOR.
4 If you look now at the order which is in front of you --
5 A. I told you that I wasn't sure.
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. I did not know what the areas of responsibility of the corps were.
8 I cannot assert that it was the 2nd Corps. I think so, but ...
9 Q. If you look at the order which is --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I -- yes. Can you assert, Mr. Hasanagic, that
11 Zepa was not in the area of responsibility of the 3rd Corps?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was not in the area of
13 responsibility of the 3rd Corps.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
15 MR. NEUNER:
16 Q. So if you please look for a moment at the order which is in front
17 of you. You see it is issued to the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 7th Corps of the
18 ABiH. Could you explain where the headquarters of these corps -- of these
19 four corps were by indicating on the map where they are.
20 A. The first one was in Sarajevo.
21 Q. Could you mark a "2" where you believe that Sarajevo is, for the
22 1st Corps.
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. Thank you.
25 A. 3rd Corps, Zenica.
1 Q. Could you mark it with a "3".
2 A. [Marks]
3 Q. Thank you. 4th Corps?
4 A. 4th Corps? In Mostar. [Marks]
5 Q. Thank you. You marked it with a "4", yes.
6 And the 7th Corps?
7 A. I'm not sure. I think it was in Travnik. I'm not sure.
8 Q. Okay. If you could mark where you believe that Travnik is with a
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. Thank you. So if we look at the order, especially the addressee
12 field, we see that the order is issued to the commanders of the corps
13 which you have indicated on the map with number 2 to 5; is that correct?
14 A. I am sorry, I didn't really hear you.
15 Q. If you look at the order, 4 -- Exhibit 495 in front of you, you
16 see that it is sent to the corps commands which are in the cities which
17 you have marked with 2 to 5; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And if you look at number 1, you see similar language to the
20 previous order. It says: "Immediately undertake active combat operations
21 on the entire front."
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Could you explain how you understand that order. Where is --
24 where are active combat operations ordered?
25 A. In all areas of responsibility of the units referred to here; that
1 is to say, all units that are within these corps. They were ordered to
2 act within the scope of their possibilities in their zones to take combat
3 activities in order to tie up enemy forces.
4 Q. So and then it says here, above the "order" -- above the word
5 "order," it states: "The goal of providing that assistance would be to
6 relieve the front around Zepa." Do you find that portion?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Could you explain how combat in the AORs of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and
9 7th Corps relieve the front around Zepa.
10 A. Quite simply, all of us, as many of us as there were, were to tie
11 up the enemy forces. The enemy did not have that many people either, but
12 the point was to weaken their position at Zepa.
13 Q. Could you explain again that relationship between combat in the
14 corps' AOR, on the one hand side, and as you just stated, "weaken their
15 position at Zepa." Whose position at Zepa would be weakened?
16 A. I was referring to enemy positions, because they had to have their
17 forces tied up with us, and then they would have less troops to send to
19 Q. So which enemy army are you referring to or enemy positions you
20 are referring to?
21 A. I am referring to the Army of Republika Srpska.
22 Q. Okay. And how would VRS forces being tied up with "us," as you
23 just said?
24 A. A part of the forces that are moving toward Zepa and that are
25 attacking Zepa. If we were to open even more fronts, then they would have
1 to tie up more of their forces with us and they would have to deal with
2 us, our forces. I am referring to the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina that was
3 at Zepa.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's Note: We can hardly hear the
5 witness because of the typing coming from other microphones. Thank you.
6 MR. NEUNER:
7 Q. So can you please --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: We can still hear some typing somewhere.
9 MR. NEUNER:
10 Q. Okay. So I want to move on to number 4 of the order in front of
11 you. I think in the English it's page 2. And it says here: "Send me a
12 report regarding this order by 20.00 hours on 18th of July, 1995, with a
13 detailed description of activities."
14 This order was issued on the 17th of July, as we can see, and you
15 see the deadline. What type of deadline is given here for the completion
16 of the task? Could you explain?
17 A. That is an obligation of the corps, and I wouldn't know what those
18 obligations were.
19 Q. I understand. I'm just asking you: If the order is dating from
20 the 17th of July and the deadline provided in number 4 is the next day at
21 8.00 p.m., what do you think, what type of order is this? How big or how
22 small would you assume is the deadline or the time period provided for the
23 implementation of this order?
24 A. Again, I am saying I don't know. This was addressed to the corps
25 command. What kind of reports they were supposed to submit, I really
1 cannot answer this question.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me understand your question, Mr. Neuner. Are
3 you saying the witness must tell you whether the deadline given is
4 sufficient to accomplish the objective of the order?
5 MR. NEUNER: Yes. I was trying to establish whether there is
6 enough time --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's right. That's what I'm asking.
8 Then make sure that you -- your question is so clear to the
9 witness --
10 MR. NEUNER: I will.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- that he's able to understand what you want to
13 MR. NEUNER:
14 Q. For the purpose of launching active combat operations, which is
15 the topic of this order, is the deadline of less than --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: For the purpose of relieving Zepa.
17 MR. NEUNER:
18 Q. -- for relieving Zepa by launching combat activities on other
19 fronts, is the deadline of 48 hours sufficient?
20 A. Yes. Yes. Any activity is welcome to have the forces tied up.
21 Q. I want to look with you at Exhibit 443 again, in terms of seeing
22 whether the deadline was complied with. We see here in the second line --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic. Madam Vidovic.
24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. Here the
25 Prosecutor is trying to tie up two things which have nothing in common
1 with one another. The order dated the 18th of July being shown to the
2 witness was sent obviously to the corps, and the other order that the
3 Prosecutor seeks from the witness to testify whether deadlines had been
4 honoured or not is a document produced by the 35th Division.
5 I object to bringing those two documents in a connection where
6 there isn't one, and this is the gist of my objection.
7 MR. NEUNER: I can explain that.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] Please respond to that
10 MR. NEUNER: Yes. First of all, the order shown is referring to,
11 in the first line, to the document just seen -- just shown before, 1306,
12 the General Staff order. And we see a second document, an order for the
13 3rd Corps mentioned in the second line here, and we see the date of that
14 order. And that's all I am trying to establish, the temporal
16 We have established that the order of the General Staff, as is
17 stated here in the first line, is from the 17th of July, and we see then
18 the order of the 3rd Corps command with the reference number and we see
19 the date. And all I'm trying to establish from this witness is whether
20 the second order from the 3rd Corps issued is within the time period
21 provided by number 4 of the General Staff order.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: The objection is overruled.
23 MR. NEUNER:
24 Q. Could you, Mr. Hasanagic, having just seen that the order provided
25 in the General Staff order was the 18th of July at 8.00 in the evening,
1 could you tell, looking at your own report, whether the 3rd Corps
2 attempted to comply with the order from the General Staff in time.
3 A. I don't know what was written or I can't recall what was written
4 in the 3rd Corps command's order. My report was to the effect that I am
5 ready, that all the preparations for combat were done, and that I am
6 seeking further instructions from the corps. This is a report, not an
7 order. And the corps command demanded that I send them a report, nothing
9 Q. Okay. If we look at --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, I am -- I think in support of the witness's
11 answer, you will see that this first paragraph, which is the only one I'm
12 able to see of the report, talks in the future. So it is not reporting an
13 accomplished fact.
14 MR. NEUNER: Yes.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is saying -- it is telling you what will happen.
16 MR. NEUNER: Okay. Correct.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So in order to establish what happened, I want to show you Exhibit
19 444, please. And I'm interested in the first page and the time provided
20 and date provided there.
21 First of all, have you -- do you recall having been shown this
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So if you look here, the time period is the 18th of July, 10.00.
25 Thinking about the General Staff order, would you believe that this order
1 for the continuation of attacking engagement Proljece is within the time
2 period initially set by the General Staff?
3 A. I think this is a coincidence because this is a continuation of
4 the Proljece operation from May 1995 and this coincided with the General
5 Staff's and 3rd Corps commander's orders. Because Proljece II is supposed
6 to be commenced on the 21st -- 20th and 21st July, 1995.
7 Q. But you agree with me that you issued that order at that time
8 here, 18th of July, 10.00 in the morning?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. I will move on to other topics. We were -- or my
11 learned colleague was discussing reports from the El Mujahedin Detachment
12 being sent to you. And this is transcript 3155, line 1. You responded to
13 one of the questions of my learned colleague: "It was a precedent in the
14 division if reports did not come in, and the division meted out severe
15 punishments towards units who failed to submit their reports."
16 Do you remember having said that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Could you explain to the Chamber which severe punishments were you
19 referring to.
20 A. We would send a warning. We demanded that the chief of staff or
21 the commander to report to the command post or to a place specified to
22 explain why they hadn't done it, and they had to write the report
23 regardless of the circumstances obtaining -- well, "punishment" is maybe
24 too harsh a word, but measures were taken. Let's put it this way.
25 Q. And in terms of continued non-compliance, what measures were you
1 then having at your disposal?
2 A. Another warning would be sent. This is what fell within my
3 purview. I did not have authority to punish in some other way.
4 After written warnings, they would comply.
5 Q. Okay. And against which units did you impose such measures you
6 were just reporting about?
7 A. Against the units within my composition and against the El
8 Mujahedin Detachment, I would send warnings, reminders to all of them, and
9 I was very clear in my warnings that I could not be in a position to
10 report to my superior command or prepare any other kinds of support --
11 reports if I did not know the state of affairs in my subordinate units.
12 Q. Then in response to the question for oral reports by my learned
13 colleague, oral reports from the El Mujahedin Detachment command, you
14 responded -- this is transcript page 3105, lines 1 till 18: "There was
15 analysis after the completion of the Proljece action and they were present
16 at that analysis briefing."
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Where was this analysis meeting after Operation Proljece taking
20 A. After Proljece operation, who attended were reports from the 3rd
21 Corps -- representatives from the 3rd Corps at the command post of the
22 35th Division.
23 Q. Which was at the time where?
24 A. The command post of the division in Zavidovici.
25 Q. Thank you. And which units apart from the 3rd Corps attended?
1 A. All the units that took part in the Proljece operation: The 3rd,
2 4th, 5th Mechanised Battalion, the 328th, 329th Brigades, units from the
3 3rd Corps, the 2nd Mechanised Battalion, and the El Mujahedin Detachment.
4 Q. I note the translation says "Mechanised Battalion." Could we
5 clarify. Are we talking about manoeuvre battalions? This is page 55 --
6 A. Manoeuvre. I apologise. Manoeuvre battalions. I apologise. My
8 Q. Thank you. And who from the El Mujahedin Detachment took place?
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Took place?
10 MR. NEUNER:
11 Q. Who attended from the El Mujahedin Detachment?
12 A. The -- Aiman, the interpreter, and there was another person who
13 introduced himself as the commander. I can't remember the name. I can't
14 remember the name.
15 Q. Okay. Can I have PT2143 being shown to the witness, please.
16 We see it's an order from the 7th of June, 1995 entitled
17 "Participation of the El Mujahedin Detachment in offensive combat
19 My first question is: Have you ever seen the document?
20 A. No, I haven't seen it until now.
21 Q. Yeah. I have, nevertheless, selected this document for today
22 because you are mentioned indirectly, I believe, in paragraph 3 of the
24 If we can scroll down in the English -- in B/C/S, please, a little
25 bit. And in English, it is page 2.
1 And I'll give you time to read it.
2 A. Yes. This is a report, an analysis, better said.
3 Q. Would -- do you remember the event being stated here?
4 A. I think it was.
5 Q. What do you mean by "I think it was"? I don't understand your
6 answer. Can you explain, please.
7 A. This analysis took place as after each combat activity. I believe
8 that this analysis did take place, and now we have a document testifying
9 to that effect, and this is only normal in our procedure.
10 Q. And here it mentions a name of the El Mujahid commander, and I'm
11 just asking you: Have you ever heard that name, Abu Maali Hasan?
12 A. Yes, I did hear about that name.
13 Q. Who is -- or what have you heard about that name?
14 A. As I said yesterday, when they introduced -- when they came
15 here --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, at this point, the
18 Prosecutor is not dealing with redirect. He is restating his questions
19 during his examination-in-chief. This should have been explained during
20 direct examination and now the Prosecutor is re-opening his direct.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner.
22 MR. NEUNER: I'm just mentioning it because it says here in the
23 third line of the third paragraph that this person reported to the
24 commander of the 35th Division. "Reported," it says here. That's why I
25 am inquiring.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He did not report --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah. Yeah, just a -- just a second. Just a
3 second, sir.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, but the problem is do you -- what -- what was
6 the reason that this document was not shown to the -- to the witness
7 during examination-in-chief?
8 MR. NEUNER: The Prosecution had so many documents to show, and
9 this is not a document which was authored by this witness.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mm-hm.
11 MR. NEUNER: So the reason for showing other documents was that
12 the Prosecution focused on documents signed by this witness.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: By this witness.
14 MR. NEUNER: And now on cross-examination the issue of reporting,
15 including oral reporting has come up. And here is hearsay information, if
16 I may state, about oral reporting to the 35th Division commander. That's
17 why it was selected at this late stage.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. I'll allow the question.
19 Yes -- oh, sorry, yes, Madam Vidovic.
20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may -- may be
21 heard before that.
22 First of all, I cross-examined on the issue of reports both
23 written and oral prompted and covered by the Prosecutor during his
24 examination-in-chief. So this was my cross. This was not a new element
25 that I introduced in my cross-examination. I did not introduce a new
1 fact. The Prosecutor examined in detail the receipt of reports during his
2 examination-in-chief. And a practical consequence of what the Prosecutor
3 is doing when they fail to show such documents to the witness is that in
4 my cross-examination I am in no position to ask proper questions to the
6 So, please, I did not broach the issue of reports in my
7 cross-examination. That issue was broached by the Prosecutor during his
8 direct examination.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. The objection is overruled. The question
11 is allowed.
12 You may respond later, Madam Vidovic, if you so wish. You can
13 apply to -- to re-- to cross-examine again on this point specifically.
14 MR. NEUNER: [Microphone not activated]
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
16 MR. NEUNER:
17 Q. Could you -- what have you learned about Abu Maali Hasan?
18 A. He was introduced to me as the Emir of the unit. I learned about
19 Hasan for the first time here, but he was not introduced as the commander.
20 This is my knowledge about him in its entirety.
21 Q. When was he introduced to you?
22 A. I was introduced to him by Aiman when he delivered the plan on the
23 15th of May. Maybe on that occasion, maybe even earlier, but I can't
24 recall and pinpoint.
25 Q. The 15th of May, 1995?
1 A. As I say, maybe then, maybe earlier. I can't really be specific
2 about the time when he said this to me.
3 Q. And could you describe Mr. Maali, Abu Maali?
4 A. He was tall. And what distinguished him from the rest is that he
5 did not sport a beard. Sometimes maybe a short one or a stubble, but he
6 did not sport a long beard, contrary to all the others. And this is what
7 I remember him by; he did not wear a beard.
8 Q. If I would show you a picture, would you be in a position to
9 recognise him?
10 A. I don't know. I'm not sure.
11 MR. NEUNER: With the usher's assistance, if, please, PT6166 could
12 be shown to the witness.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I want my objection to
15 enter the record. The Prosecutor has re-opened examination-in-chief
16 again. This attempt at identifying somebody should have been done in his
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner.
19 MR. NEUNER: I am in the Court's hands. I can withdraw showing
20 that picture, but stating what the witness has said for the first time,
21 that now he's told me that he has seen Abu Maali, I can explore this angle
22 for the first time. Before, when the video - I'm referring to Exhibit
23 409 - was shown, the witness had not told me that he has seen Abu Maali.
24 So I am now in a different situation, I believe.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, yeah, it goes to preparation --
1 Just a second. Just a second, sir.
2 It goes to preparation. Why do you get surprised by your witness
3 in court?
4 I don't think the identification of a picture goes to the question
5 of reporting. I think you must stay within the question of reporting.
6 MR. NEUNER: Okay. I do. Okay, I withdraw the document.
7 Q. Then I will move on just - and I have a few final questions - to
8 something you stated when Exhibit 486 was shown to you. And this is
9 transcript page 3131, line 12: "The only one who introduced himself when
10 he came to my command was Moatez. He was the military commander," you
12 Could you explain to me -- you said "he was the military
13 commander" of which unit?
14 A. Yes. When they came here, he was the only one who introduced
15 himself. He said, "I am Moatez, the military commander of the El
16 Mujahedin Detachment."
17 Q. Thank you. And so he introduced himself to you. Could he speak
18 your language?
19 A. Please, when he came to my office with Aiman, I asked the
20 interpreter, "Who's this now?" And then Aiman said, "This is the military
21 commander." And that person confirmed that. And this is how I know that.
22 As I told you - and I reiterate - in the contact of the El
23 Mujahedin Detachment and their members, there was always this linguistic
24 barrier. And the only person who communicated with them and with us was
25 this person Aiman, who was the interpreter.
1 Q. And when did Aiman come with Moatez to your office?
2 A. I can't really pinpoint the time. I'm not sure whether this was
3 in my office or maybe out in the field. I can't really recall the time
4 and the place.
5 Q. Okay. Do you remember what are you discussed with Mr. Moatez on
6 that occasion?
7 A. We discussed combat activities. We discussed military matters. I
8 can't really specify right now.
9 Q. And then you stated - this is on transcript page 3131, line 24 -
10 "I had contacts with Aiman on several occasions."
11 Could you tell briefly when these contacts started with Mr. Aiman.
12 A. When the corps chief of staff brought him to me for the first time
13 and introduced him as a member of the El Mujahedin Detachment, and he told
14 me that I would be maintaining contacts with him, and that he spoke our
16 Q. Which -- this chief of staff was from which corps?
17 A. From the 3rd Corps.
18 Q. Do you know his name?
19 A. I think that Kadir Jusic was the chief of staff at the time.
20 Q. If we look at Exhibit 429 - the last document I'm showing today -
21 for a second. We see the document is from the 23rd of October, 1994. And
22 I ask you to look at number 1, please.
23 If the English could be scrolled down.
24 Is -- here the chief of staff mentioned. Is that the occasion
25 you were just reporting about?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Yeah. Could you just clarify one issue. It talks at the very end
3 in brackets, after the name "El Mujahedin Detachment command" is
4 mentioned, in brackets, "About 10 people."
5 A. I did not see them. I saw only Aiman together with the chief of
6 staff and the intelligence officer from the corps and the operatives from
7 the corps.
8 MR. NEUNER: The Prosecution has no further questions, Your
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 Madam Vidovic, do you want to exercise your right to deal with
12 that document?
13 MR. NEUNER: Sorry, I forgot to tender the map into evidence. I
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
16 MR. NEUNER: The map is lying next to the witness.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Oh. Yeah.
18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'd rather
19 cross-examine during -- after the break, because we are going to print out
20 that document. In the meantime, if you concur -- or maybe after your
21 questions, if you agree, I would be dealing with that document because I
22 had no occasion to prepare it. I would like to see the entire document.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: You can deal with the question and questions
24 arising from the Bench. Okay? Is that okay?
25 Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.
1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: The map, yes. I'm -- I'm remembering.
3 May the map -- map 3 from the binder please be admitted into
4 evidence and be given an exhibit number.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 507.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
7 Yes, Mr. Neuner.
8 MR. NEUNER: Also the document just shown to the witness with the
9 PT number 2143, if I could ask that this document is please admitted.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: May PT2143 also be admitted into evidence and be
11 given an exhibit number.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 508.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
14 MR. NEUNER: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Fine. Judge?
16 Questioned by the Court:
17 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, to your knowledge, were
18 there any Mujahedins that were foreigners in the 7th Muslim Brigade?
19 A. Your Honour, I don't know the establishment of the 7th Muslim, and
20 they were not anywhere near my units, so I can't really answer this
22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
23 You told us that you don't really know anything about the
24 composition of the El Mujahedin Detachment. You couldn't give us the
25 exact number of soldiers that composed this detachment. We saw a
1 document, however, today. It was confirmed to us that the document was
2 only a work document. And in that document, we saw a figure of 600
3 members, soldiers. I understand that it's only a work document, but how
4 can one put a number relating to soldiers in a work document if no precise
5 information existed to that effect? Can you explain to us why does this
6 figure appear?
7 A. Many corps command orders that reached us would specify the
8 detachment, using 10, 150, 200, 250, 350 members, and it is correct, as
9 you point out, the largest number was 600. But I was never sure. Those
10 figures came from the corps. And whenever I asked Aiman about the head
11 count, he would retort formulaically, "En-Shala, God willing, there will
12 be enough brothers." So I never knew exact answer.
13 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you for this explanation.
14 That's all. I have no further questions.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
17 General, I have a number of questions and I will just put a few of
18 them to you in -- before the break here and then we will continue after
19 the break.
20 One of the short questions that I have relate to the lawyer whom
21 you mentioned in your earlier testimony. And I understand that this was a
22 lawyer attached to the command of the 35th Division. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: What was his functions? What did he do? What --
25 which kind of advice did he offer?
1 A. He offered legal advice to officers, soldiers. We discussed
2 orders that reached us. He would explain the orders reaching us from our
3 superior command. He monitored the regulations which concerns the
4 division, units, and soldiers. He followed regulations, in terms of
5 international law, as concerned our division; meaning codes of conduct,
6 codes of military conduct. Of course -- and, of course, he cooperated
7 with the security organ whenever disciplinary measures were meted out and
8 other measures were taken.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Do you know if he was -- if he had
10 received any training in the international humanitarian law? Was he
11 knowledgeable about the contents of the Geneva Conventions, for instance?
12 A. I do believe that they went to Zenica to attend some seminars, but
13 I really cannot tell you anything detailed about that. But I believe he
14 took part in drafting the final versions of orders by inputting the
15 elements that you just mentioned.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
17 I think we can take the break now and then I will just continue my
18 line of questions after the break.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.
20 Please come back at half past 12.00.
21 --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 12.29 p.m.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Judge, you may proceed.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes.
25 General, we were speaking about the assistance of the lawyer that
1 was attached to the command of the 35th Division. My question, to
2 continue with this lawyer, is: Do you know if he was ever engaged in the
3 investigation or prosecution of any crimes committed by any member of the
4 35th Division?
5 A. I do not recall. He cooperated with the security organs, but to
6 what extent, I really don't know.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Were you given information by the lawyer or by the
8 security -- the chief of security or by anyone else, for that matter, of
9 such investigations being made at all?
10 A. I don't -- no, I don't remember.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: So to your recollection, no investigations were
12 made -- criminal investigations were made against any member of the 35th
13 Division in 1995.
14 A. I cannot recall.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much.
16 Now, as you are aware, I'm sure, this trial relates to the
17 activities of the El Mujahedin Detachment, and it is for this reason
18 extremely important for the Chamber to elicit as much information as we
19 can about the control over the El Mujahedin Detachment, so I'm going to
20 put a number of questions to you regarding this issue.
21 First of all, was it your recollection that you -- that you, as
22 commander of the 35th Division, had control over the members of the El
23 Mujahid Detachment after it had been subordinated to you?
24 A. I did not and I could not have control over them because I did not
25 have enough information and everything else that we discussed so that I
1 could have control over that detachment. Starting with the establishment,
2 head count, reporting, and the other elements that are of very great
3 importance for me having any control over them.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, General. I'm glad that you mentioned
5 yourself a few of the issues that would be relevant to the issue of
6 control; namely, the establishment of the El Mujahid Detachment, the head
7 counts, the reporting, and so on, because my next question is: What do
8 you mean by the word "control"?
9 And let me be more precise: If you as a military leader were to
10 describe to me what "command and control" means in military terms, what
11 would your answer be?
12 A. The element of command is control, and I should know how, in which
13 way they prepare for combat activity, how and in which way they carry out
14 combat activities, because that is why they came to the area of
15 responsibility in most cases.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: So what you are saying is that you should be
17 informed at least about their preparation for combat and their conduct of
19 A. Yes, and the success they achieved.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: To what level of detail would you be able to
21 control their activities during combat?
22 A. Once combat activity starts if it is an attack then from the
23 initial positions, how they reached the target of their action, what they
24 are supposed to do at that facility that they had taken, that was their
25 target, and also the continuation of combat activity, if required.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: But otherwise you would leave it to the -- the
2 commander of that unit to -- to control the activities of the combatants
3 in the field?
4 A. Yes. He was responsible for a certain task, for a certain axis,
5 to do that.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Now, you said a while ago that you did not have
7 control over the Mujahid Detachment. And this is -- it appears to be, at
8 least, some sort of a contradiction because, on the one hand, you had the
9 El Mujahid Detachment at your disposal and you did, in fact, use them in
10 combat, yet you maintain that you had no command over them. How am I to
11 understand this?
12 A. The way I would put it is "under my control," not "had no command
13 over them." I could not control some of their actions, because I didn't
14 have any reports.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Which actions are you referring to?
16 A. I am referring to combat activities, action in terms of combat
17 activity; what they were doing at that place, how much time they were
18 spending there and so on, because they had been given an orientational
19 task and it is that facility that is the target. Now, how they would get
20 to that facility or target is something that I could not control.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: So am I to conclude on the basis of your testimony
22 that you had command over the El Mujahedin Detachment but you had no
23 control over them? Is that correctly understood?
24 A. As for the order, the re-subordination order, I was supposed to
25 command them. But in terms of the execution of tasks, I could not because
1 I did not ... Or rather, in terms of the paperwork, they were
2 re-subordinated to me so that I command them.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: If -- let us just take this as a hypothesis. If
4 it were brought to your attention that members of the El Mujahid
5 Detachment had committed war crimes during combat operations, would you
6 then have felt that you would be responsible for those crimes?
7 A. I would take measures, inform the corps command, and certainly I
8 would have been partly responsible for what they had done, because it's my
9 area of responsibility.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: I accept that.
11 Now, let's look at a slightly different aspect of the activities
12 of the El Mujahid Detachment. You told us yesterday that from time to
13 time the El Mujahid Detachment would ask you for engineering support. Do
14 you recall that?
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Would they also ask for other kind of support,
17 like provision of ammunition, medical assistance, and other forms of
18 assistance from the 35th Division?
19 A. The 35th Division had a war hospital, and they asked to have
20 their soldiers and wounded be brought to this hospital that was under the
21 35th Division. Also, they wanted to prepare facilities for activity. I
22 explained logistics support yesterday. It was at their level and the
23 corps intervened in terms of the equipment that they did not have. I
24 myself did not have enough equipment.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: We will come to their equipment in just a minute,
1 but -- but speaking of -- of assistance and services offered to the
2 Mujahid Detachment by the 35th Division, my question would also be: If
3 you had arranged religious services and if the members of the Mujahid
4 Detachment took part in those religious services.
5 A. I did not organise that. I did not organise that in the division.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Were religious ceremonies held within the ambit of
7 the 35th Division? I mean, were there masses given or anything of that
9 A. Within the 35th Division, the command of the 35th Division, no.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
11 Let's look then at the weaponry available to the 35th Division.
12 You have told us that you had not been informed of what the El Mujahid
13 Detachment really had in terms of weaponry.
14 A. I've already said that when we asked for operations records, they
15 did not give me the list of weapons and ammunitions that was prescribed
16 under those rules and records.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. But did you have intelligence or
18 other information available to you to show what they actually had? For
19 instance, did you know if they had mortars? Did they have tanks? Did
20 they have other artillery?
21 A. In one plan, they mentioned a few weapons that they had available.
22 I remember these were mortars, light launchers, and some anti-armour
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think at one point earlier this morning there
25 was one of the documents referring to the El Mujahid providing a tank
1 platoon. Do you recall that?
2 A. It's the corps that gave the tank platoon to the El Mujahid. The
3 division did not have any tanks. It said: "The El Mujahid Detachment
4 with one tank platoon," and that tank platoon came from the corps.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Does a tank platoon come with a tank also?
6 A. Yes, three tanks.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: So the -- the 3rd Corps would deliver three tanks
8 to the El Mujahid Detachment? Is that correctly understood?
9 A. Yes, that's what it says in the order.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. You also mentioned in your earlier
11 testimony that the El Mujahid Detachment enjoyed some sort of protection
12 from what you called "the clergy." I would like you to expand a bit on
13 this. What sort of protection are we speaking about and who was "the
15 A. I read this piece of information just before this. They, together
16 with the religious officials in the territory of Zavidovici, they had
17 contact and they probably went to pray with them. They attended these
18 religious rites. I did not attend. Exceptionally, only when there was a
19 big holiday like Bajram, then I was invited. That was organised by the
20 religious officials in Zavidovici.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: I see. But what did you mean by "protection"?
22 General, you may freely speak up and -- and give us your
23 impression of the status that the EMD, the El Mujahid Detachment, enjoyed
24 in your view.
25 A. In my view and according to the information that exists, it was
1 stated there that the current leadership trusted the EMD more than the
2 division command. Is that the result of the fact that we had the kind of
3 composition of division that we had, that we were not organised from a
4 religious point of view, that we did not have a particular religious
5 affiliation or whether they knew something that I did not know? But
6 that's the information and the report that exists. And the division
7 command got more distant from me, and I noticed that.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: You said - and I am just quoting you from the
9 transcript now - that the current leadership trusted the El Mujahid
10 Detachment more than the division command. What do you mean by this?
11 A. That's what I read in their report that I came across. That
12 report exists. I would not know what they meant by that, but I know that
13 at one point in time they said - in that report, that is - that the
14 division is a burden for them and that it should leave Zavidovici. Of
15 course, I didn't know about it then. I was preoccupied with combat
16 activities and I did not pay much attention to what I've been telling you
17 just now.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Who are "they"? Who is the current leadership
19 that you are talking about?
20 A. The current authorities in the town of Zavidovici. Perhaps even
21 beyond that. I don't know.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Are you suggesting that -- that it would reach
23 higher up, beyond and above the religious leadership in Zavidovici?
24 A. I've already said the then-current authorities in Zavidovici asked
25 that of the higher instances. That is what the document says.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. Let's move to Exhibit 504, if we can,
2 please, because I noticed that in the bottom, if you look at the units
3 which were informed about the establishment of the new forward command
4 post in Livade, I think I did not see that the El Mujahid Detachment had
5 been informed of this, and that surprised me, if it is true.
6 You are setting up a new forward command post, but you're not
7 informing, if I'm correct, the -- if I am -- if I have understood this
8 correctly, you're not informing the El Mujahid Detachment. Why not?
9 A. This pertains to the combat activity that is moving towards
10 Maglaj. Because the corps commander already then, in terms of one of the
11 coordinations - I think it was either the 15th or the 16th - he already
12 started issuing orders to the EMD independently.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: So you -- if I understand you correctly, the El
14 Mujahid Detachment would not be involved in -- in these combat activities
15 and, therefore, need not be informed of the establishment of that forward
16 command post; is that correct?
17 A. I don't know if the EMD took part in this here, but I did not
18 issue any orders to them any more. That's why they are not here.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Oh, I see. It was after their -- they had been,
20 so to say, subordinated back to the 3rd Corps. Is that correct?
21 A. Even before that. Even before the order of the 23rd.
22 Could it please be scrolled up so that I see the heading.
23 Yes, yes, it was before the 23rd, because in this order it says,
24 "when the need ceases or on the 23rd."
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: I apologise. I'm not sure I completely understand
1 here. You said that you had stopped giving them orders. Why did you stop
2 giving them orders when the corps had not yet taken the El Mujahid
3 Detachment back from you?
4 A. I either didn't know where they were or the corps commander took
5 them under him. I really cannot respond to this point.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: But on the 17th of September, they were still
7 under your command, weren't they?
8 A. According to the order that will follow, yes. But from this, we
9 see -- well, the commander issued the order to them himself or I did not
10 know where they were, so I could not give them a task.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: I see. So it was a question of giving a task to
13 But could there have been any other reason why you would not
14 inform them of the establishment of the forward command post?
15 A. Then I received the task, as far as I can remember, to take the
16 lines, and it's probably that I concentrated only on that.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, General.
18 My last question relates to the reason why the El Mujahid
19 Detachment was re-subordinated from the 3rd Corps to you. Do you know?
20 A. Your Honour, the division's area of responsibility is something
21 that I talked about a few times. It was really the most difficult theatre
22 of war in that area, not only in terms of the configuration of the terrain
23 but also in terms of the enemy forces that were concentrated there. They
24 wanted to keep the area of Vozuca at all costs and their forces were
25 concentrated in that area the most. That is one thing.
1 Secondly, in that area - that is to say, Maglaj, Zavidovici - it
2 was an inhabited area. The population hadn't gone anywhere and they were
3 constantly under fire. In the zone of responsibility of my division,
4 during the course of that one year, over 25 corps units came at different
5 times to help the division. At that time, the most active theatre of war
6 and where the forces were concentrated - the corps forces, that is - was
7 the zone of this division.
8 I repeat, due to the fact that this zone was so difficult, the
9 situation was so special there, due to the significance of the roads and
10 the area of Vozuca, the road between Zavidovici and Ribnica -- or rather,
11 Zenica-Tuzla, all of that gave importance to the area of responsibility of
12 the 35th Division. And it so happened it was not of my own accord that I
13 came to that area. I was ordered to go there and I did what I could.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, General.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.
16 I'm sorry to have to go through some of the issues that have
17 already been traversed, but I'm trying to approach them from a completely
18 different -- a slightly different angle.
19 This morning you testified about measures that you would take if
20 members of the unit that were subordinated to you did not carry out
21 orders. You remember that? You said --
22 A. They would submit reports.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't understand that answer. I'm just trying to
24 orientate you. I'm trying to turn to -- to direct your attention to your
25 testimony this morning when you told the Chamber that -- about the
1 measures that you used to take when members of your subordinated units did
2 not carry out orders. I'm asking you: Do you remember that part of the
3 testimony this morning?
4 A. Yes. We discussed their failure to submit reports on combat
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Right. Now, I'm talking generally, just when your
7 units -- subordinated units did not -- did not carry out instructions you
8 said you sent them warnings and you repeated the warning. Do you remember
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: That -- I want you to think about that.
12 I know that the Prosecutor asked you what you would do in a
13 situation where non-compliance with instructions continued. And can you
14 just remind me, what did you say what would you do?
15 A. It seems to me that I said that I would undertake disciplinary
16 measures. I would summon the commanders to report or to a meeting. I
17 personally warned them about the gravity of the situation, not this time
18 to the whole commands but to the commanders themselves, and gave
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Now, you've told us about the number of
21 times, many times when the El Mujahedin Detachment did not comply with
22 instructions. Did you summon them for -- summon their commanders to come
23 and did they come?
24 A. Yes, I did invite. Most frequently Aiman would come and one
25 Moatez appeared.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: So they -- they did finally obey your orders. Is
2 that -- is that what you are saying? Because now when you called them,
3 they do come.
4 A. This situation arose once and they appeared.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: And did they give you a satisfactory explanation of
6 their conduct?
7 A. They said -- well, I can relate what they told to me: "En-Shala,
8 God willing, everything is going to be okay." This was their response.
9 I could not really do much or maintain frequent contacts with them
10 or try to prevail over them the same way that I succeeded in prevailing
11 upon the commander of the 4th Manoeuvre Battalion when I threatened him
12 that he would be replaced. My purview and my authority powers were not
13 such that I could threaten the same threat to the EMD.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do I -- do I understand from that answer that in
15 fact you were not satisfied with their response?
16 A. Yes, correct.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: And when you were not satisfied with their
18 response, what did you do with the situation?
19 A. I informed the corps command.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
21 Could we please have Exhibit 455 on the screen. Could we -- could
22 we -- how many pages is this document? I'm sorry, I -- I'm not quite sure
23 of the page I'm looking for.
24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm looking for -- for the page that deals with the
1 El Mujahedin Detachment refusing to forward prisoners of war and
3 If -- Mr. Registrar, if you are able to help us.
4 MR. NEUNER: If I may assist, it is number 6 in the order, and
5 it's page 7 of the English version.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Neuner.
7 MR. NEUNER: And page 3 -- the last page, actually, of the B/C/S
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 If you might remind me. I don't want to go back to page 1.
11 Mr. -- Mr. Hasanagic, this document is addressed to?
12 A. Addressed to the corps command.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: And this would be an example of the action you took
14 where you were not able to -- to resolve the problem yourself. You would
15 then report to the 3rd Corps -- the corps commander?
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you know if the corps commander did do anything
18 about this specific problem that you reported of prisoners and captured
19 documents not being handed over?
20 A. It's possible that he did it directly, because he had
21 communication with the El Mujahedin Detachment and maybe the relevant
22 organs from the command of the corps did something, but I did not
23 personally receive any advice or information about what the command did.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are speculating. Are you speculating? I don't
25 want you to speculate. I'm just asking -- my question really was: Do you
1 know? If you don't know, just say you don't know.
2 A. I don't know. I don't know. I apologise. I don't know.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
4 Okay. You -- you also testified, sir, about the fact that you
5 never knew anything about the establishment of the Mujahedin, their
6 numbers and all those things. Do you remember that?
7 A. That's correct.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: But you also said, in response to a question from
9 the Defence, that you do know that not all the Mujahedins that operated in
10 Central Bosnia were part of the El Mujahedin Detachment. Do you remember
12 A. Yes.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I was a bit surprised at that, because if you don't
14 know the strength of the El Mujahedin Detachment, how -- how do you know
15 that any Mujahedin that you see is not a member of the El Mujahedin?
16 A. I answered your question to the effect that they did not wear
17 insignia and that apart from them, that there were units in Zeljezno -- I
18 mean there were Arabs also in Zeljezno Polje, it seems to me, in Tesanj
19 and in Zavidovici.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Who did not wear insignia?
21 A. They did not wear the army's insignia. The El Mujahedin
22 Detachment did not wear such insignia.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's right. Now, if you didn't -- that's
24 precisely my point. They didn't wear the insignia of the army of Bosnia
25 and Herzegovina. Now, did those Mujahedin that you say were not members
1 of the El Mujahedin Detachment, did they wear any distinctive signs?
2 A. No, they did not.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: So then my question, then, is just that: How --
4 how do you know that there are Mujahedin out there in somewhere Central
5 Bosnia who are not members of the El Mujahedin Detachment if you do not
6 know the establishment of the El Mujahedin Detachment?
7 A. I do not know the establishment of the detachment, but I know that
8 they were established as part of the 3rd Corps. This, I did say.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are -- sorry, you are not answering my
10 question, unless you say -- unless you don't understand my question.
11 Let me try -- do you want me to try and put it to you differently?
12 Maybe -- maybe I'm not coming across clearly.
13 I am saying you don't know the establishment -- the establishment
14 of the El Mujahedin Detachment. You see Mujahedins all over Bosnia and
15 Herzegovina. How do you know that a particular Mujahedin is or is not a
16 member of the El Mujahedin Detachment?
17 A. That, I don't know.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: So when you then said that you do know that not all
19 Mujahedin in Central Bosnia belonged to the El Mujahedin Detachment, you
20 couldn't have been correct. Were you mistaken?
21 A. Probably I was mistaken. But what I did say is that I heard from
22 civilians that there were Mujahedin in those places, locations that I
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may have said that. Maybe it slipped me. But
25 I think I'm hearing that for the first time. I didn't get the impression
1 that you said you got this knowledge from information from civilians.
2 A. I think I did. I can't recall really.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. That's fine. Let's leave it at that point.
4 At least you have given me an answer.
5 You testified about a meeting that you had with the commander of
6 the army and, I think you said, the command of the corps when you saw
7 Mujahedin in the corridor, the El Mujahedin -- some El Mujahedin people in
8 the corridor. Do you remember that testimony?
9 A. Yes. I saw Aiman only, but policemen who were there or soldiers
10 who were there, as they said to me later, "We had seen some Mujahedin."
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Am I right to say that you also testified
12 that you were not -- you cannot say whether they did or did not talk to
13 the commander of the army and the commander of the 3rd Corps on that
15 A. I said that I could not say whether they did or they did not.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you also said that you were the host of these
17 two gentlemen.
18 A. Yes.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: As the host, were you not with them until when they
20 left and saw them off?
21 A. I wasn't with them for a period of time, but I did see them off,
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Oh, it was just for a period of time that you were
24 not with them.
25 A. Correct.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: How long a period of time? Are you able to say?
2 A. It's difficult for me to remember. 15-odd minutes. Difficult to
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Can I follow up on certain answers that you
5 gave this morning to Judge Harhoff. You -- you just said in answer to his
6 questions that the El Mujahedin Detachment obtained a tank platoon from
7 the 3rd Corps, got the tanks, three tanks, from the 3rd Corps.
8 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: You also indicated yesterday in testimony that the
10 El Mujahedin Detachment was -- did not accept assistance from you. They
11 didn't accept assistance from you and they didn't give you reports of what
12 arms and ammunition they had.
13 A. No, they did not submit reports on weapons and munition except for
14 that one occasion when they proposed the plan for the Proljece operation.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure. I understand. But generally, they didn't
16 give you these reports.
17 A. No, they didn't.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: And generally they didn't accept assistance from
20 A. Mostly.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, based on this -- these three tanks that they
22 were given, is it fair to infer that they were getting assistance from
23 somewhere else within the army outside your 35th Division?
24 A. I think I could not say generally, but for that specific and
25 particular mission, yes.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's the specific mission that you are aware of.
2 A. Yes. Yes.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Every time you gave them orders to go to combat,
4 they went to combat, even without tanks.
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: But without you having given them any arms.
7 A. No.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Doesn't that suggest they must get the arms
10 A. Yes. But I said that they must have received and be supplied with
11 equipment some -- from somewhere else.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I am mindful of a document that was shown to
13 you indicating that they received money from -- from some NGOs. I'm
14 mindful of that, but -- but I'm asking --
15 A. Yes, and this is what I saw for the first time yesterday.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's true. But it's just that now you're talking
17 about this -- these tanks that came from the 3rd Corps.
18 Yes, Madam Vidovic.
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise for
20 interrupting, but the witness's testimony was not to the effect that the
21 tanks came from the 3rd Corps but that he saw an order stating that. And
22 you can -- may check the transcript. You can see that he did not say that
23 he saw the tanks coming. This is a completely different thing.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: We don't need to look at the transcript. I accept
25 that and let's just clear it up.
1 You -- it's your testimony, sir, that you are not saying you saw
2 the tanks but you saw an order allocating tanks to the El Mujahedin
3 Detachment? Is that your testimony?
4 A. Yes, there was this order. Yes.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
6 Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, you also said to Judge Harhoff that you wanted
9 to exercise control and be able to see what they do in action. When you
10 were -- they were engaged in that operation where they were using the
11 tanks -- or did you see the tanks?
12 A. I said that I was exercising control, but I did not see those
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You did not see the tanks. Okay.
15 Can we just go to a couple of pages backwards.
16 You may have answered this question to Judge Harhoff, but I'm not
17 quite sure I heard you. When you said the current leadership trusted the
18 EMD more than the division command, did you say that leadership was the
19 clergy in Zavidovici or was it somebody else?
20 A. And the authorities at Zavidovici. The then-current authorities
21 in Zavidovici.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. And then you also said that the then-current
23 authorities in Zavidovici asked that of the higher instances. That's at
24 page 74, line 1. If I may just --
25 A. Yes.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Right. And who are the higher instances or what
2 are the higher instances?
3 A. The authorities that functioned in this State of Bosnia and
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah. You see, you -- you have told us about the
6 authorities in Zavidovici. Now, the higher authorities in the State of
7 Bosnia and Herzegovina, which ones specifically? Which operate at which
9 A. I can't remember specifically which level. First, the canton and
10 then the federation -- no, the canton and the republic or the state. I
11 can't recall how it functions at that time.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. But are we then to -- to deduce from your
13 evidence that you are saying not only did they enjoy the -- or let me --
14 let me ask you a question first: Did the higher instances then accede to
15 the request of the authorities from Zavidovici?
16 A. No, they did not. I remained the chief of that division until the
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon?
19 A. They did not accede. I remained in my position and division
20 remained in Zavidovici.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: What had been the request of the -- these
22 authorities? That you be removed? I thought -- I thought you were
23 talking about the protection. We were talking -- we were talking with
24 Judge Harhoff about the protection that was afforded the El Mujahedin
25 Detachment by the authorities in Zavidovici and that the -- the
1 authorities in Zavidovici asked that of higher instances.
2 A. No. I said they believed the EMD more than they did the command
3 of the 35th Division.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Who? The -- who? The authorities of Zavidovici?
5 A. Yes. Yes.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: And did the authorities at higher instance also
7 believe the EMD more than the -- they believed the division?
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's Correction: Trust more than, not
9 believe more. I apologise.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did the higher instances also trust the EMD more
11 than the division?
12 A. I don't know that. I don't know that. But the information that
13 was sent from Zavidovici did not have the desired effect.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Finally, you did say also at page 74 today, lines
15 14 to 16, that the corps commander already then, in terms of one of the
16 coordinations, already started issuing orders to the EMD independently.
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you able to give a time line as to when you
19 first noticed that he gave these orders directly without coming via you?
20 A. I think this was after the 12th, when activities started towards
21 the north -- north and Blizna, and particularly when it -- we accomplished
22 the Blizna target, around the 15th or 16th, and beyond that date.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: 15th and 16th of ...?
24 A. September.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: 1995.
1 A. 1995.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. And -- [Previous translation
3 continues] ... --
4 A. And --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, finish off. Finish off what you wanted to
6 say, sir.
7 A. And as early as on the 11th and the 12th, during the coordination
8 meetings, activities towards the north were being directed by the corps
9 commander himself.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 Yes, Mr. Neuner.
12 MR. NEUNER: I just want to follow up on a few questions made by
13 Your Honour Harhoff about command and control of the El Mujahedin
14 Detachment, particularly in combat situations. And this is page 68 and 69
15 of today's transcript.
16 Further re-examination by Mr. Neuner:
17 Q. I want to show you a document, Exhibit 449. And I'm particularly
18 interested in number 1 of that document.
19 We see it's from the 16th of July, 1995, that document. Could you
20 explain briefly to which combat operations the document may relate to.
21 A. Proljece II.
22 Q. Thank you. And if you look at number 1, you see that there are a
23 couple of persons at the command post of the El Mujahedin Detachment here.
24 And I'm referring to the commander of the 328th Mountain Brigade and the
25 commander of the 329th Mountain Brigade and the commander of the 5th
1 Manoeuvre Battalion. And then there are a few persons, as you can see,
2 who represent at this command post the 35th Division. I'm referring to
3 Muharem Ismicic. Who is Muharem Ismicic?
4 A. Operations officer.
5 Q. Of the 35th Division.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And who is Eniz Omicevic?
8 A. Operations officer.
9 Q. And Suad Hasagic?
10 A. He is from the moral guidance organ.
11 Q. And then it says here: "The tasks of these officers," in the
12 following sentence, "will be to offer necessary assistance for RiK using
13 their troops and to carry out the requested" - it's a little bit illegible
14 here - "and through the 35th Division."
15 Could you explain what is meant here.
16 A. If some assistance is required, in terms of command and control,
17 this group of people can help. And if something should be resolved among
18 the units -- or rather, the commanders of these units; and if some
19 requests are to be addressed to the command of the 35th Division. Normal
20 activity, that is.
21 Q. I want to show you another document, Exhibit 464, the document
22 from the 6th of September, 1995 we can see here.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, these questions that
25 are put by the Prosecutor -- or rather, the one that he put in relation to
1 the previous document, that is the document that he brought in during the
2 examination-in-chief. He dealt with it. I cross-examined on it. And I
3 used this document for that. If anything had remained uncleared, he could
4 have dealt with it during the re-examination.
5 The questions that he put in relation to the previous document did
6 not come from the questions put by His Honour Judge Harhoff at all. These
7 questions were clearly answered by the witness.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner.
9 MR. NEUNER: I -- Mr. Harhoff had inquired how command and control
10 was exercised during combat operations, and I just wanted to dwell on this
11 one particular point. If Your Honours believe it is not necessary, I'm
12 prepared to move on. I believe it relates exactly to the --
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: I must say that I put a question to the witness.
14 The witness gave his answer. And let's just leave it at that.
15 MR. NEUNER: Okay.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: So I think you should move on.
17 MR. NEUNER: Then I want to just clarify another issue relating to
18 Judge Harhoff's questions and a document which was shown from the 17th of
19 September, 1995. It's page 74 and 75 of today's transcript.
20 Q. And the question was whether the El Mujahedin Detachment were at
21 this time still under your control or under the control of the 3rd Corps,
22 if I remember correctly now.
23 I just wanted to show you a document, Exhibit 479, which is from
24 about the same time period. We can see here in the B/C/S it's from the
25 22nd of September, 1995, five days later.
1 And I'm interested in the second-last paragraph of B/C/S; and in
2 the English, it's page 3 of the translation.
3 If you look at the second-last paragraph, it says here that some
4 80 soldiers have been re-subordinated to the El Mujahedin Detachment. How
5 would you describe looking at this information the situation of command
6 and control over the El Mujahedin Detachment on the 22nd of September,
8 A. I am talking about our forces and I am giving orders to my 328th
9 Brigade, and that is the time when the corps commander's order came, on
10 that day or the next day when the EMD was taken out of my composition.
11 This is an order to my 328th Brigade because that brigade was supposed to
12 take up lines and I ordered them in relation to these forces; where
13 reference is made to Ozren, indepth, how difficult this front line is, and
14 so on.
15 Q. If you are re-subordinating 80 soldiers from the 328th Brigade to
16 the El Mujahedin, how would you describe the relationship to the El
17 Mujahedin Detachment in this moment?
18 A. It is already a corps unit. It will carry out this task as a
19 corps unit and that is why I am re-subordinating my forces to them.
20 MR. NEUNER: No further questions.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic?
22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will have some
24 Could the witness please have a look at Exhibit 508.
25 Actually, Your Honour, before we get to that, could the witness
1 please first look at PT2389 in order to have an easier understanding of
2 what it is that I wish to look at.
3 Further cross-examination by Ms. Vidovic:
4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Hasanagic, could you please look at this
6 Your Honours, I tried to get this document to understand what
7 Mr. Hasanagic is speaking about. I believe that this Defence document was
8 supposed to come in accordance with Rule 68, but we located it as PT and
9 its date is the 12th of August, 1995.
10 And it says: "The army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the 3rd Corps, the
11 security department," and what is referred to are areas -- are relations
12 in the area of responsibility of the 35th Division and it's sent to the
13 security administration of the army.
14 Mr. Hasanagic, before you answer some questions related to these
15 documents -- or rather, this document, I would like to ask you the
16 following: In response to the questions put by His Honour Judge Moloto,
17 you mentioned the authorities in general in Zavidovici and then you said
18 it can be the canton, the republic. I'm asking you now to give a precise
19 answer. What is it that you were referring to here? Civilian authorities
20 that protected the Mujahedin from Zavidovici and the cantons, or is it
21 military authorities? Could you tell us that?
22 A. Civilian structures of authority.
23 Q. I see. And then further on, when you said "several authorities in
24 the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina," did you -- or rather, "higher
25 authority in Bosnia-Herzegovina," did you refer to the military or
1 civilian authorities?
2 A. Civilian authorities.
3 Q. Please, now I'd like to draw your attention to this document. Do
4 you agree -- or rather, first of all, I believe that the Prosecutor showed
5 you this document during your proofing, because you keep talking about
6 this document, this report about relations in the field. But anyway, I
7 wish to ask you the following: Please look at the second sentence here.
8 It says: "The civilian structures express their distrust in the division
9 command, considering it a burden for Zavidovici municipality."
10 Is that the document that you were referring to, that you had seen
12 A. Yes. Yes.
13 Q. Please look further down, and you will see --
14 Your Honours, I believe -- well, could the English version please
15 be scrolled down so that you can see this in English.
16 "Asim Camdzic," can you see that name?
17 Please go to page 2 in English.
18 Look at this, Mr. Hasanagic. This is what it says: "In terms of
19 individuals from the SDA said" - that's the Party of Democratic Action;
20 right -- "some SDA members were openly belittling the results of the units
21 of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina and they were glorifying the results
22 of the Asim Camdzic unit and the El Mujahedin Detachment at religious
23 gatherings, which created a certain amount of distrust among citizens in
24 the commands of the units of the BH army."
25 And now a bit further down, could you have a look. It says: "The
1 lack of SDA political activity in the field, which would throw light on
2 the objectives of our fight, the mobilisation of conscripts," and so on
3 and so forth, and many problems that the 35th Division had with the
4 civilian authorities of Zavidovici is -- are being referred to.
5 Mr. Hasanagic, this is actually what I want to ask you: The many
6 documents you saw - and you accept that you were supposed to be in
7 command, but it's on paper - as for the El Mujahedin Detachment, did you
8 have more influence over them or these people here, the civilian
9 authorities, as shown by this document, the civilian authorities of
10 Zavidovici and so on?
11 A. My attitude towards the EMD was only of a military nature, in
12 terms of the task that they were supposed to be carrying out. As for all
13 the rest, you can see from this piece of information that it is the
14 civilian authorities in the territory of Zavidovici that had influence
15 over them.
16 Q. I don't understand your answer when you say from a military point
17 of view. So from a military point of view, it would mean that they obeyed
18 you? Did they obey your orders or not, Mr. Hasanagic? Please be more
19 specific -- please be clearer. This is not clear, what you've said.
20 A. No, if you want me to be clear.
21 Q. Very well.
22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is -- well, I had
23 only two more documents related to documents -- they really are important.
24 Do I have time to continue now and you will remember -- well, they really
25 are important for me. I really wanted to put questions in relation to the
1 Prosecutor's questions. Perhaps not more than six minutes. I'll be very
2 brief, if possible.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please go on, Madam Vidovic.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm told we haven't got any other case this
7 afternoon in this court.
8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
9 Please, Your Honours, could this document please be assigned a
10 number, as an exhibit.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
12 please be given an exhibit number.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 509.
14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Hasanagic, please, as for the behaviour of the El Mujahedin
16 unit in combat, except for the fact that this unit was not obedient, they
17 attacked when they wished to, you could not control them. But apart from
18 that fact, did you ever have any knowledge that these people were beating
19 or killing someone? You personally, did you know about that or were you
20 receiving different information?
21 A. I do not recall.
22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, now I'd like the
23 witness to have a look at Exhibit 508 that the Prosecutor showed him
24 today. This question is related to Exhibit 508, and the Trial Chamber has
25 allowed me to show it to him; to the witness, that is.
1 Q. Please, Witness, could you have a look at this document once
2 again, the document shown to you by the Prosecutor today. And you can see
3 that this is a document of the security service department. Do you agree
4 that it is being submitted to the state security centre in Zenica for some
6 A. When I saw it, I was also surprised what the reason was -- I mean,
7 why it was being sent to them. I don't know what the reason is.
8 Q. You will agree that the police did have authority over everything
9 that is outside army control?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, this is something different. We don't have time to discuss
12 it, but here attached to this document is obviously what it says here:
13 "Attachment. Official note." Do you agree that this is an attachment to
14 what was sent to the police?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now I'm asking you the following: It says here in the first
17 paragraph: "In the most recent offensive operations in the Vozuca
18 battlefield, land forces 35th Division area of responsibility, the El
19 Mujahid detachment was active along the main axis and has fully achieved
20 its task. The detachment's behaviour in completing the combat assignment
21 was fully disciplined and the assignment was carried out with a high
22 surprise factor."
23 Please, does this document not show that the 3rd Corps was
24 receiving information that these people, if they were engaged, then they
25 were disciplined in fighting, in combat? Do you agree?
1 A. That is what this note refers to.
2 Q. Did you perhaps - you personally - send them different
4 A. This information and reports that I sent, we looked at them. I
5 sent them as they were.
6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if at this point in
7 time -- well, you showed today -- actually, Judge Moloto did, His Honour
8 Judge Moloto showed Exhibit 455. I would like the witness to have a look
9 at it for a moment again in relation to the questions put by His Honour
10 Judge Moloto.
11 Q. Do you see this document?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The Prosecutor showed it to you and then I showed it to you again.
14 And in relation to this, I asked you yesterday: "Please, is it correct
15 that those 11 prisoners who were taken prisoner in June were handed over
16 without any problems to the military police of the 3rd Corps? Did you
17 know of that?" What is referred to here is a problem --
18 On page 2, Your Honours. Could we show page 2 for a moment and
19 then I'll go back to page 1. Actually, page 3. Sorry about that.
20 For the record, Your Honours, it says "June," and actually it
21 should say "July"." Page 98, line 15.
22 A few moments ago, His Honour Judge Moloto showed you this part
23 where there is a specific reference to problems of access to prisoners of
24 war and documentation. And again you repeated -- I did not get an answer.
25 I did not get an answer from the corps."
1 Please, did you ask, then - may I ask you that - what happened to
2 these 11 prisoners and this problem here? Did you wonder what happened to
3 these people?
4 A. My information was that they went to Zenica and that they were
5 exchanged. I have already said that.
6 Q. So you knew they were exchanged. Did you ever hear of them being
7 beaten, maltreated, killed?
8 A. I did not receive such information.
9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we now look at
10 page 1 of this same document for a moment.
11 Q. I would like to ask you to look at number 3, "Morale." 3(a) on
12 page 1. And could we have the English version on too. Could it please be
13 displayed so that you can see 3(a). Could we have the English version as
14 well. Right.
15 Mr. Hasanagic, please, do you agree that here in this part, in the
16 second sentence, it says: "As for combat morale and security, the El
17 Mujahedin unit has great influence and with their morale and way of life
18 they have become a role model to our soldiers"?
19 Now, I want to ask you the following, Mr. Hasanagic: Please, you
20 signed this report; isn't that right? Didn't you sign it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Well, I believe, Mr. Hasanagic, that you would not have signed
23 this document had you had information about criminal conduct of the EMD,
24 the mistreatment of prisoners, killings. Am I right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did you have such information?
2 A. I did not have such knowledge.
3 Q. Did you ever pass this on to the higher command, the 3rd Corps?
4 A. I don't think I did.
5 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. No further
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Vidovic.
8 Mr. Hasanagic, this brings us to the conclusion of your
9 testimony. On behalf of the Trial Chamber, may I thank you for taking
10 time off your schedule to come and testify. You are now excused. You may
11 stand down. Once again, thank you for coming.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: And have a --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: And have a nice trip back home.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: The matter stands adjourned to Monday, the 1st of
19 October at quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, Courtroom II.
20 Court adjourned.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.56 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Monday, the 1st day of
23 October, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.