1 Wednesday, 20 June 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: First I would like to give the Chamber's decision
6 in relation to a Defence submission. On the 11th of June, the Chamber
7 deferred its decision on the request for protective measures for three
8 Defence witnesses until such time as the Defence was able to provide
9 supplementing information, supporting the request. On the 18th of June
10 that information was provided. The Prosecution has no objection to the
11 Chamber granting the requested protective measures. In light of all the
12 circumstances, including the additional information provided by the
13 Defence and also in light of the relevant provisions of the Statute and
14 the Rules, the Chamber grants the motion and orders that witnesses T-5,
15 T-24, and T-54 testify using a pseudonym and with image distortion. The
16 reference to Witness T-54 should have been T-44.
17 So much for that matter. The next matter I wish to raise was the
18 oral motion made yesterday by the Defence for use of the Sarajevo field
19 offices, and I ask whether any consultation has taken place between the
20 parties about this matter in light of the submissions made by the
22 Ms. Isailovic.
23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We
24 cooperated with the Prosecutor and with Mr. Hogan, the investigator at
25 OTP. We're starting to collect useful information in order to be able to
1 use the field office in Belgrade and in Sarajevo. However, what will be
2 really useful for Defence is that the Victims and Witnesses Section
3 follow-up on this cooperation.
4 There are four witnesses involved who are living either outside
5 Sarajevo or Belgrade and to make sure that they can be here on time at the
6 scheduled time and day, Defence would like to obtain help from the Victims
7 and Witnesses Section. We made a request to the section and we were told
8 that we would have an answer in writing, but as of now we don't know yet
9 what the section is going to answer.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: But evidently, you have made some progress in
11 relation to the -- in relation to your requests? You are able to use the
12 field office? Is this matter that is outstanding relating to the Victims
13 and Witnesses Unit?
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, regarding the
15 premises, we were told that it was going to be okay. However, we've -- we
16 have contacted the witnesses last week and Defence wanted to go over there
17 during the week of June 25, but it's been postponed by a week now. And
18 we're still waiting and we're going to have to tell witnesses about the
19 change in dates. We -- we absolutely need help from the Witnesses and
20 Victims Section because the witnesses will only have to go to Belgrade or
21 Sarajevo instead of having to go all the way to The Hague.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: The question then, Ms. Isailovic, is whether the
24 motion still remains live or is it now moot?
25 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, it is because we
1 haven't received an answer from the Witnesses -- and Witnesses Section
2 yet. I don't really know what kind of ruling or decisions could be useful
3 to make sure that they help us. Otherwise, you know, we can have all the
4 witness -- all the premises available, but if we cannot move the witnesses
5 to the premises, it would be useless. We need to have the witnesses there
6 on time.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Waespi.
9 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a couple of points.
10 First of all, the field office told me they weren't aware of any request
11 by the Defence, and as soon as we informed them yesterday that the Defence
12 would like to use the ICTY wing and not the OTP wing, they immediately
13 reacted and they booked the dates. So if the Defence follows formally up
14 with a request to ICTY, then that could be accommodated. At the same
15 time, we gave the Defence an address of the war crimes registry, the local
16 registry in Sarajevo, who have proper offices, and the person in charge
17 responded, and I passed the details to the Defence, that they're happy to
18 accommodate the Defence in their offices as well. So there is lots of
19 options for the Defence which they have to follow-up now formally, and
20 again I think we have acted very, very swiftly as soon as we were
21 informed. I don't know what channels the Defence used prior to that, to
22 whom they talked, they did not talk to the Sarajevo field office and they
23 did not talk to OTP before making that oral motion yesterday. My feeling
24 is that there is absolutely no problem in accommodating these specific and
25 legitimate requests by the Defence, but that's just what I can offer to
1 the Defence and you, Mr. President.
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, please, this is all
3 the mail that Defence has made regarding this problem, it's a series of
4 letters. First one dates back to June 5th, which is when we started doing
5 something right after we decided not to call these witnesses to the --
6 here in The Hague --
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Interpretation] Who is it addressed to?
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] It's to the Registrar, Mr. Petrov
9 at OLAD, because for Defence it's our contact in order to contact the
10 different sections. The Defence has a very hard time finding its way in
11 this labyrinth, the administrative labyrinth of the Tribunal but obviously
12 this is the right address. After this we contacted the SS -- an SS
13 department, I believe that's what it's called, and we were told a very
14 bold answer saying it's not possible, which is why we decided to call on
15 the Bench to help us out. And as of -- as soon as we asked for the Bench
16 to help us out, things started moving. But I just wanted to show you that
17 we did do a lot of steps before.
18 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] There's one thing I don't
19 understand. I see that there are two wings in the Sarajevo field office,
20 that's what Mr. Waespi -- Mr. Waespi said. Obviously you wanted to use
21 the ICTY wing and not the OTP wing, which is normal. If there is an ICTY
22 wing, that's where you should go and the green light shouldn't come from
23 the Prosecution.
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] That's what we did.
25 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Then you said we were answered it
1 wasn't possible, but what isn't possible? You were not allowed to use the
2 premises or you were not -- are those the other facilities that you were
3 asking for witnesses that was not possible? But what facilities are we
4 talking about exactly? Transportation? Accommodation? I don't really
5 understand what was not possible.
6 There are two problems. On the one hand you've got the premises
7 and then you've got the other facilities, but you did not tell us exactly
8 which other facilities you were requesting.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Honourable Judges, in
10 this first letter sent to Mr. Petrov, which was the person at registry
11 that was in charge, we explained that we needed the premises, we needed a
12 printer; and secondly, we needed to make sure that the witnesses would be
13 there at the scheduled day and time, either in Sarajevo -- and we made a
14 whole schedule for the Witnesses and Victims Section. Of course we don't
15 have a lot of time available. I have to move over there, and
16 Mr. Tapuskovic needs me here in The Hague. So we put aside three days all
17 together for this trip -- or four days all together, because there's a
18 morning included, for the whole trip, the trip, the work over there, and
19 coming back.
20 We obtained an answer on June 18th, and the last answer was very
21 curt. It's -- came from the CMSS department telling us -- well, that's
22 what we -- saying that the hierarchy of CMSS had told this person that it
23 wouldn't be possible and that registry had nothing to do with the problem
24 that Defence could have. Basically, the answer we got that it was our
25 problem and that they were only there to certify things once the Bench has
1 accepted the statements after the entire procedure that the Prosecution
2 goes through.
3 So for almost two weeks we tried to find a solution, and finally
4 we called on the Bench. Maybe it's procedure but it does have to do with
5 substance. I mean, there is Rule -- Article 21, paragraph 4 of the
6 Statute of this Tribunal, equality of arms and fairness of the trial
7 requires that Defence be helped in what it needs to do. Defence has less
8 than Prosecution de facto, that's the way it is. Even in my own national
9 jurisdiction, the Prosecution depends from the state and has maybe more
10 resources, but we -- that's why we asked the Bench for this help.
11 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand now what
12 happened. The Witnesses and Victims Section is telling you that if --
13 bringing the witnesses here in The Hague, that's okay, but collecting a
14 statement, this is still investigation, and then that's Defence, that's
15 Defence's business. Is that what they're saying?
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, to tell you the truth, we
17 did not obtain a direct answer from this department, from CMSS. We
18 obtained a -- a comprehensive answer from the CMSS department encompassing
19 all departments in registry, saying it was not up to them to help Defence
20 in the steps it had to do. And these are our witnesses. We're no longer
21 in the investigation process. The investigation process is over, but we
22 did not collect written statements because we were not -- we didn't have
23 to do that during the preliminary procedure, we were not supposed to
24 collect these written statements. And unofficially we were told to do
25 this, to collect the statements anywhere in bars, restaurants, or
1 whatever, and I believe it was not very proper. You know, you can't
2 really contact anyone to talk about a specific case in a bar, in a
3 restaurant. I mean, the French law is extremely strict in this respect;
4 you cannot do this. You have to bring the witness to some decent place to
5 for the statement. Maybe I could ask them to come to my law office in
6 Paris, but that would cost too much money.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm going to ask the court deputy to bring this
8 matter to the attention of the Registrar and to report to us tomorrow.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: The next matter I wish to raise is a motion filed
11 by the Office of the Prosecutor -- let's move into private session, yes.
12 [Private session]
11 Pages 6906-6909 redacted. Private session.
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration again in
21 open session. It's a formality, but one that's very important.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
23 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps the usher can show the
3 paper now.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I wish to tender this document
6 under seal as a Defence exhibit.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be admitted as D247 under
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first I'd like to
11 hear some background information concerning the witness, and if I may I'd
12 like to ask for private session.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session.
14 [Private session]
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Witness, did you have anything to do with the Sarajevo-Romanija
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can you explain what sort of a relationship was it?
17 A. I was a member of the corps.
18 Q. Since when?
19 A. From the 13th of September, 1992.
20 Q. Can you tell me whether you know of the Army of
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Was there a separation line established between the Army of
24 Republika Srpska and the 1st Corps of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. When did that take place?
2 A. In my case, on the 12th of September, 1992.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we briefly look at the map
4 65 ter document number 02829.
5 Q. Witness, on this map can you indicate the separation line at which
6 you were, as you said a moment ago, on the 12th of September, 1992.
7 A. Around here, but this is a very small map.
8 Q. No, no, no. On the 12th of September, look at the two lines, the
9 yellow and the red one. Where were you on the 12th of September, 1992?
10 Where were your positions?
11 A. In my settlement, below here. That was the line on the 12th of
13 Q. Where was the line that was established and that survived
14 throughout the entire conflict?
15 A. There.
16 Q. In which brigade were you?
17 A. In the Ilidza Brigade.
18 Q. Can you tell us what those yellow and red lines represent? Do you
19 have any idea?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Can you tell us in the course of the conflict, as you were at the
22 separation line, where the line held by the Ilidza Brigade was?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Well, show us, please.
25 A. That's as far as I know. Nedzarici. I don't know about the other
2 Q. But the please use another colour to indicate the line where you
4 A. On the 12th of September or later?
5 Q. I'm asking you where you were at the separation line throughout
6 the entire conflict.
7 A. The first line was on the 12th of September, when we were
9 Q. Witness, I'm asking you when the lines were established
10 definitely. When were the lines established definitely? That's the line
11 I'm asking you about.
12 A. That's that.
13 Q. Were you adjoining another brigade towards the north?
14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat his answer; the
15 interpreter did not hear.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please repeat your answer. The interpreter did
17 not hear the answer. Please repeat it, Witness.
18 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
19 THE INTERPRETER: Again the interpreter did not hear. Could the
20 witness speak into the microphone, please.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, again your answer was not heard. Please
22 speak into the microphone, speak into the microphone, and repeat the
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Rajlovac Brigade.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Can you draw the lines where the Rajlovac Brigade was?
2 A. I don't know any more than this.
3 Q. Witness, you can't see the end of the position where you were.
4 You've drawn a line all around Nedzarici, but can you indicate where your
5 position ended towards Nedzarici. Could you just make a dash across the
6 line to indicate that.
7 A. Yes, it's like this.
8 Q. Could you now please explain to Their Honours the place where you
9 were and its relative position compared to the other geographical features
10 in the area.
11 A. Well, we were in a valley, and as there were mountains on all
12 sides, these were held by the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
13 Q. Well, it's not enough to say that. Can you say what mountains
14 those were?
15 A. Sokolje, Zuc, Mojmilo, Igman.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May this map be admitted into
17 evidence as a Defence exhibit.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As D200 --
20 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Mr. Tapuskovic, excuse me a minute,
21 I have a question, a clarification I would like to ask from the witness.
22 Witness, you joined the army, the Army of the Republika Srpska, on
23 the September 12th, 1992. Is that correct?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Okay. Well, how long did you
1 actually stay and what was your rank?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Until the end of the conflict. I
3 did not have any rank. I was just a private.
4 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I see. Thank you. This will be my
5 last question. The positions that you have just shown us, did they remain
6 stable from September 12th, 1992, all the way until you left the army?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the map will be admitted as -- sorry
10 for the interruption. The map will be admitted as D248.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Before the map disappears off the screen, can you tell us the
13 following: The line you drew where you were throughout the war, where
14 was it in relation to the house you lived in?
15 A. Well, it actually passed through the house.
16 Q. Can you draw the place.
17 A. [Marks]
18 Q. Witness, evidently we misunderstand one another. I'll ask you
19 about this later on, but my question now was: This line where you found
20 yourself at a certain point in time and which was the final and definite
21 separation line, in relation to your house, where was it?
22 A. Are you asking about the first conflict that occurred? Excuse me.
23 Q. I asked you when the lines that you have just drawn became
24 established definitely.
25 A. On the 5th of December, those here, and those others on the 13th
1 of September.
2 Q. Well, that's where the misunderstanding lies. And now I'm asking
3 you once again: What was there on these lines? What was your
4 geographical position when on the 5th of December you arrived at the
5 positions you marked here?
6 A. We were in a subordinate position because there were mountains all
7 around, as I said, Sokolje. We had a refrigerator truck in front, there
8 were railway tracks, and then an embankment some 10 or 15 metres away.
9 Q. Well, can you explain now or explain to the Judges what happened
10 before the 5th of December when those definite positions were taken up,
11 what happened around your house and in that area before the 5th of
12 December from the beginning of that year? Slowly, please.
13 A. There was an attack by the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, seven or
14 eight relatives of mine were killed.
15 Q. Witness, time has its course. You mentioned the 5th of December
16 and you mentioned the 12th of September. I'm asking you to explain first
17 what happened before the 12th of September from the beginning of 1992.
18 A. Well, there was practically no war then. We were in our
19 neighbourhood. We all lived there together, Serbs and Croats. We had
20 guards -- held guard together.
21 Q. Thank you. We've already marked this map.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at map 65 ter 2872.
23 If this eastern side could be enlarged, or rather, the western
24 side, sorry. Could we zoom-in on the west side. A little more, please.
25 Q. Can you now mark the place where you lived, where your house was.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And can this be done in closed
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... Yes.
4 In private session.
5 [Private session]
11 Pages 6919-6920 redacted. Private session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, could we see DD002523,
12 Q. Witness, the B/C/S text is a bit unclear, but could you please
13 carefully read the heading to Their Honours, first the heading.
14 A. "Command of the 102nd Motorised Brigade, Sarajevo, the 18th of
15 September, 1993."
16 Q. Thank you. Now, could you please read the introduction.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could that be enlarged.
18 Q. Please read it slowly.
19 A. "Based on the situation on the ground and in connection with the
20 Hladnjaca, cold storage depot, facility and large number of people" -- I
21 can't really see what it says there.
22 Q. You have to try hard.
23 A. "Through this important facility and in order to make it
24 operational, it is important to use this facility in a planned manner. To
25 that effect I hereby order:
1 "1. That the cool storage facility be used exclusively for
2 sniper nests as an observation post and firing positions of some weapons."
3 Q. Is that the facility from which you said that they fired day and
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And that's the facility that you could see very well?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I tender this into
9 evidence as Defence exhibit.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Admitted.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As D250, Your Honours.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown
14 Q. Witness, could you please read as slowly as possible first the
15 heading and then what follows underneath, and then all the way up until
16 item 1, and the entire item 1. Slowly, please.
17 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. --
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. Sachdeva wishes
19 to say something.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
21 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, as the Prosecution had done in their
22 case, I think it would be proper for the -- for counsel to ask the witness
23 first whether he has seen this document, whether he has read this document
24 before, whether he has been involved in the drafting of this document, and
25 then proceed on further questions, in my submission.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you should certainly establish the
2 provenance of the document and any relationship that the witness has with
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I showed previously
5 a document to the witness and this second document stems from the first
6 document. The witness told you that from the cold storage facility they
7 fired day and night. The second document speaks precisely of night
8 shooting with the night-sights. The witness spoke about having
9 experienced this. He certainly didn't draw-up this document himself.
10 This is a document coming from the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but even
11 before I showed the first document to the witness he said that from the
12 cold storage facility they opened sniper fire day and night. This second
13 document will precisely support what the witness said; namely, that he has
14 experienced this, as did people who were down there on the positions with
15 him. The witness spoke about the cold storage facility, and now this
16 document speaks about the fact that they opened fire during night from
17 weapons equipped with night-sights. It says here in the document that
18 these weapons have to be used 24 hours a day.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
20 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, at least from the English there --
21 it appears to me there is no indication that this document relates to the
22 cold storage facility, number one; and number two this is from the 5th of
23 March, 1993, the previous document was the 12th of September 1993. So I
24 don't see that there is a natural sequence in these two documents. And
25 maybe it's for the witness to comment on the document.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: The dates don't suggest a sequence, a
2 relationship. Is the witness in a position to clarify?
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Witness, can you answer this question. What you said about there
5 being fire round the clock, did that continue throughout the time when you
6 served as a soldier, until the end of the war?
7 A. Yes, from the 5th of December until the end of war.
8 Q. So there was firing?
9 A. Yes, there was firing, day and night.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Hence, I believe that this
11 witness is somebody who can read out this document because this is his
12 personal experience, and he can tell you about the consequences of this
13 constant round the clock shooting and the victims throughout the war.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the question you wish to ask him about
15 the document.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I wish to ask him whether
17 everything he said is in accordance with item 1 here. I will read it out,
18 if I may, by your leave.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, go ahead.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] "I hereby order:
21 "Engage all brigade snipers permanently, in all weather
22 conditions when possible. Weapons equipped with night-sights must be in
23 use round the clock."
24 Q. Witness, is this consistent with what you experienced during the
25 war with those two facilities that we mentioned earlier?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I ask that this document be
3 admitted into evidence as Defence exhibit.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I respectfully object to the
7 admission of this document into evidence. I do not, I submit, think that
8 the witness has established a connection with his testimony on this
9 document, and he has not been able to comment at all on the provenance of
10 this document. In fact, I believe it's the Prosecution's position that we
11 would not object to this document being tendered, but appropriately so
12 through a witness that can speak to it properly.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, why don't you ask the witness to
14 elaborate on the provisions of that first paragraph: "Engage all brigade
15 snipers permanently in all weather conditions ..."
16 Could he give some examples for -- that might assist.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That was going to be my next
18 question. Can the witness tell us something; namely, given what he said
19 about there being fire round the clock, could the witness tell us
20 something about civilian victims.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, there was fire non-stop. We
22 lost about 20 soldiers and civilians who walked by -- on the road by the
23 school going to the market and elsewhere.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: What period of time was this? What month and
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the 5th of December throughout
2 the entire war.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: What brigade are you talking about that was
5 engaged in this -- in this action, Witness?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ilidza Brigada, the one where I was.
7 I don't understand your question.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that the 1st or the 2nd Brigade?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I truly don't understand your
10 question. Which brigade? Why?
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this order says:
12 "Engage all brigade snipers," referring to all brigades. This order
13 refers to all brigades and that's what it says in item 1. And then below
14 this it says: "The snipers" -- it says here: "All snipers in possession
15 of all brigades," so the order was issued to all brigades by the
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, Mr. Tapuskovic, I think -- we are a little
19 confused. The document is headed: "Armed forces of the Republic of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina, command of the 2nd Motorised Brigade," it is signed by
21 "Safet Zajko," the commander, and the heading is: "More effective
22 engagement of snipers." What snipers? Snipers belonging to whom? His
23 snipers or snipers of the other side? That's not clear.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know in
25 which language it is not clear. The only language that I speak, the B/C/S
1 language, is clear as can be. It is an order of the Army of
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina where it says very clearly the following: "In order to
3 organise fire in a more planned, organised, efficient, and concentrated
4 manner and make your available forces more deadly, I hereby order:
5 " ... All brigades of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina to engage
6 all brigade snipers permanently in all weather conditions when possible.
7 Weapons equipped," and I highlight this, "weapons equipped with
8 night-sights must be in use round the clock."
9 This is the order of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina which pertains
10 to brigades. In the previous document which spoke of a cold storage
11 facility you were able to see a location from which they fired. I
12 understand your hesitation, but this is a document that cannot be
13 contested in any way but it explains what the witness said. This is a
14 document that the witness is not familiar with; this is a document that I
15 obtained from the archives of Bosnia-Herzegovina. They did not have such
16 evidence in the Galic case, and now we're offering these pieces of
17 evidence which did not exist at the time of the Galic trial.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: The real problem is with the word "engage."
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: The difficulty the Chamber is having is that the
21 English version of your document does not reflect that the order is
22 addressed to all brigades; it only reflects that the order is addressed to
23 the snipers of the 2nd Motorised Brigade of the ABiH, hence the confusion.
24 Because we thought that if the area in which the witness was operating was
25 the area that fell under the previous document; namely, the 102nd
1 Motorised Brigade, then the Chamber had a difficulty in understanding why
2 suddenly the snipers of the 2nd Motorised Brigade, which we thought was
3 positioned somewhere else, was brought into the picture. But maybe the
4 interpretation can clarify the issue by verifying the translation of the
5 order in paragraph 1. Does it say: "Engage all brigade snipers
6 permanently ..."?
7 Or does it say: "Engage all the snipers in all the brigades ..."?
8 I don't know if the interpreters can help us out here.
9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that it says: "All
10 snipers in possession of brigades" --
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: We are listening to the interpretation.
12 THE INTERPRETER: We repeat: "All snipers in possession of
13 brigades," is literal translation of the text. This is item 1.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: So what is the -- the translation of the word
15 which we have in English "engage"? I'm asking the interpreter.
16 THE INTERPRETER: It says: "All snipers in possession of brigades
17 to be placed in permanent use in all weather conditions whenever
18 possible." This is sentence 1 of item 1.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. I was right. The problem is
21 Mr. Sachdeva, what's your understanding of it?
22 MR. SACHDEVA: My understanding now that the interpreters have
23 sought to clarify is that, firstly, the -- the word "engage" is not
24 contained in the B/C/S version, in the original version; secondly, that,
25 in my submission, it would be -- it would not be the case that a brigade
1 commander would be issuing an order to all brigades for snipers, if indeed
2 they were in those brigades, to be at the ready. And with respect to the
3 admission, I still assume my objection in that it is -- pre-dates the
4 indictment, it pre-dates the crimes that the accused is charged for. The
5 witness has not been able to establish a connection to this document from
6 his testimony, in my submission. And thirdly -- well, those two
7 submissions in terms of the objection, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: But, Mr. Tapuskovic, and then we'll rule.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If I may add something. This has
10 to do with night shooting, that's the first aspect. Secondly, I'm
11 certainly not going to testify here before you, I do not wish to do that,
12 but the 2nd Brigade later on became 102nd Brigade. This is what it was
13 renamed later. What is important, though, is that both of those brigades
14 were constantly positioned at Stup which was right above the heads of this
15 witness and other soldiers, but I don't want to testify about that. I
16 think it is sufficient to note that this witness said what happened from
17 the cold storage facility and that he said that there was night firing
18 from weapons which were equipped with night-sights.
19 This witness is just a private. Naturally, he has nothing to do
20 with this document. He had never seen it before. He didn't draft it or
21 have any contact with it. The essence is that there was firing from the
22 cold storage facility throughout the war. Now we heard that there was
23 shooting at night and that people, civilians, were killed in that area.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll admit it.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As D251, Your Honours.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, is this a good time
3 for a break?
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll take the break.
5 --- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 4.09 p.m.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Witness, I have to ask you something else to try and clear up some
10 matters before the Chamber. You said that until the 12th of September,
11 1992, the separation line went through your house?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You also said that the final separation line at which you spent
14 the whole war was established on the 5th of December?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can you tell me and explain what happened between the 12th of
17 September and the 5th of December?
18 A. There was sporadic fire and fighting until we reached the final
19 position. My settlement was also shelled.
20 Q. Thank you. Which brigade did you belong to?
21 A. The Ilidza Brigade.
22 Q. Who was your immediate superior?
23 A. Borislav Berjan platoon commander --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Company commander.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. What sort of orders did you receive? First of all, in what form,
2 in writing or orally?
3 A. Orally, over the radio or by telephone.
4 Q. What did they contain?
5 A. They stated that we should not open fire.
6 Q. What do you mean "not open fire"?
7 A. Well, to fire as little as possible, to preserve ammunition since
8 we were short of it.
9 Q. What period was that?
10 A. From 1993 onwards.
11 Q. When did you fire?
12 A. There was firing in 1992, from September until December, and then
13 there was a lull. We only returned fire when they opened fire at us or
14 when we were able to observe them.
15 Q. What do you mean when you were able to observe them?
16 A. While we were in the trenches, their soldiers.
17 Q. What could you see from those trenches in relation to the layout?
18 A. A few roofs, a few demolished houses, that's it, and the cold
19 storage plant.
20 Q. Where does the Miljacka go in relation to your position?
21 A. Between us and the Rajlovac Brigade; it separated us.
22 Q. During the war, were you able to observe something in the Miljacka
24 A. As of April 1992, we would come across corpses and we would
25 collect them.
1 Q. What was happening? What did you do with them and did it continue
2 throughout the war?
3 A. Yes, from 1992 until 1995. And those corpses would float down the
4 river from the direction of the city, the city of Sarajevo which was
5 controlled by the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
6 Q. Where does the Miljacka go?
7 A. I don't understand.
8 Q. In order to reach your positions in Ilidza, where was its bed?
9 How did it -- where did it run?
10 A. Through the centre of Sarajevo.
11 Q. What is Sarajevo in your terms?
12 A. Ilidza, Vogosca, all of it, but it goes through the very centre of
13 Sarajevo and Skenderija.
14 Q. How often did that happen and what did you do with the corpses you
15 pulled out?
16 A. They were taken to the Lakovo [phoen] cemetery and buried;
17 subsequently, they were exhumed.
18 Q. Were you able to find out who those people were?
19 A. I don't know anything about that.
20 Q. Do you know of a case in which people were trying to do something
21 else with the river?
22 A. As of 1994, Serbs, Croats, and Muslims used the Miljacka to leave
23 the city. They used its bed.
24 Q. Do you know of such a case in 1994 when something happened with
25 those people who tried to escape that way?
1 A. A number of them were killed when trying to leave. There was a
2 lady doctor; I personally pulled her out of the water.
3 Q. How did you find her?
4 A. She had a back-pack, she was swimming down the Miljacka trying to
5 reach us, and she was shot at from the direction of the railway.
6 Q. Do you know what her name was?
7 A. I think it was Maja, although I'm not sure. She left with her
8 husband, who was wounded as well.
9 Q. After he was wounded, where was he?
10 A. I think in Pale.
11 Q. Before that, when he got wounded, where was he?
12 A. We took him to the Zica hospital.
13 Q. Thank you. Do you know when General Dragomir Milosevic assumed
14 command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
15 A. I think sometime in 1994, although I'm not sure.
16 Q. Did you ever meet him?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Can you tell me anything about the fighting, the combat
19 operations? What did they look like in 1994?
20 A. In 1994, it was truce. The only thing that was going on was
21 sniping, but otherwise it was calm. But that lasted until November 1994.
22 Q. What sort of a weapon did you have, personally?
23 A. An automatic rifle.
24 Q. At the beginning of the conflict, did you see some other weapons
25 in Ilidza?
1 A. There were in Ilidza. There were some tanks and Pragas.
2 Q. What was the situation like towards the end of 1994?
3 A. I couldn't see that at that time because they were under the
4 control of the IFOR or whatever their name was, the UN in any case. It
5 was all under their control.
6 Q. What happened in November? What did it mean for your positions?
7 A. There was an all-out attack by the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina from
8 all directions, Trnovo the most and the environs. It lasted in November
9 and December.
10 Q. Could one feel it in Ilidza as well?
11 A. Yes, there was bombardment and shooting.
12 Q. From what direction?
13 A. From Hrasnica the most, Hrasnica and Butmir.
14 Q. Do you know of a tunnel which existed there, since you mentioned
16 A. Yes, I know of it. It has to do with the runway at the airport.
17 At that point in time, I could move to an observation post from which we
18 could follow what was going on with the tunnel.
19 Q. Were you able to observe anything concerning troop movements, and
20 please take it slowly?
21 A. There was constant movement of the troops, from the city and back,
22 and they were attacking us from there.
23 Q. It began in November. When did it cease or when did it stop?
24 A. By February, if I recall correctly.
25 Q. What happened then?
1 A. Then there was a lull again.
2 Q. You say "again," but please put it in a temporal context.
3 A. Five or six months in 1995.
4 Q. What happened after those five or six months?
5 A. Again there were attacks by the Muslims or the Army of B&H.
6 Q. What did it mean to you at the positions where you were in Ilidza
7 and in Stup and Hum?
8 A. The shelling went on incessantly, and they were not targeting
9 troops as much as they did civilians. There was shelling of the
10 settlement all the time.
11 Q. Can you tell me approximately how many casualties were there among
12 soldiers and civilians in the area where you spent the entire war?
13 A. At that time or --
14 Q. Particularly during the all-out offensive.
15 A. 10 or 15 soldiers and around 20 civilians.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no more
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
19 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Sachdeva:
21 Q. Good afternoon, Witness T-2. My name is Manoj Sachdeva and I'm a
22 lawyer for the Prosecution and I'm going to ask you a few questions this
24 MR. SACHDEVA: If I could ask just to start off with for Defence
25 Exhibit 250 to be brought up on the screen, please.
1 Q. Witness, you remember we -- you were answering questions about
2 this document to Defence counsel. You remember giving evidence about this
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you would agree with me, would you not, that -- that nowhere
6 in this document does it state that civilians are supposed to be engaged
7 by snipers, does it?
8 A. Well, the cold storage plant, from what I could see, both soldiers
9 and civilians were targeted from there .
10 Q. That's not what I'm asking you, I'm asking you to simply refer to
11 this document and to confirm that on this document there is no mention of
12 targeting of civilians. You agree with me, don't you?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: Can I ask for the next document to be brought up,
15 that's D251.
16 Q. Just bear with me, Witness, it takes a bit of time.
17 And you also remember giving evidence about this document. Is
18 that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And I want to ask you the same question, that you would agree with
21 me that there is no mention of engaging of civilians by snipers in this
22 document. Isn't that right?
23 A. Not in the text, but from what I could see, yes.
24 Q. But not -- but not on this document. Isn't that right?
25 A. Not according to the document.
1 Q. Now, you remember answering questions from counsel about --
2 about -- I'll just get that. One second. Yes. Counsel was asking you
3 about your evidence that there was fire round the clock, and you answered:
4 "Yes, there was fire non-stop. We lost about 20 soldiers and civilians
5 who walked by the road going to the school and market and elsewhere."
6 Do you remember giving that evidence?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. When you spoke about the civilians, can you tell the Court a date
9 where you know of a civilian being targeted?
10 A. Not a date.
11 Q. Can you give me the name of the civilian that you know of being
12 targeted by snipers?
13 A. Yes, children, Mladen Stjepanovic and Igor, I can't recall his
14 last name. They were my neighbours attending the primary school there.
15 Q. And you saw them being targeted. Is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And where were they when they were targeted?
18 A. My mother-in-law has a house close to the school. That was the
19 route. It happened 30 metres away from me.
20 Q. And did you see that happen?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Where did the shots come from?
23 A. The only direction possible was from the cold storage plant, it
24 was the only place from which they could see it.
25 Q. You don't know that it came from there, do you?
1 A. Well, most likely it wasn't from the direction of the school. It
2 was from the direction of the plant.
3 Q. Which year was this?
4 A. 1993.
5 Q. What month?
6 A. I can't recall exactly. April, May, June.
7 Q. So you're not sure if it's in April or May or June. Did -- was
8 this reported to the police?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. When was it reported to the police?
11 A. Right away, as soon as it happened.
12 Q. Who reported it to the police?
13 A. The command of my company did.
14 Q. And which person in the command of your company did that?
15 A. Borislav Berjan, or the officer on duty. I don't know exactly.
16 Q. You don't know who reported it to the police?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Do you have the document or do you have the report that was given
19 to the police?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Before you gave testimony today, did you inform Defence counsel
22 about this incident?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you tell the Defence counsel that you -- that this was
25 reported and that there would have been a record of this offence?
1 A. No, I didn't talk about it.
2 Q. And these civilians were -- you were close to these civilians,
3 were you not?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And when you say -- when I say you were, I mean you and your
6 fellow soldiers. Is that right?
7 A. No. I was. We were repairing my mother-in-law's house which had
8 been damaged.
9 Q. Now, you also spoke about the confrontation lines. You remember
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: And if I could go back to I believe it's map 249,
14 Q. And I understand, Witness, that the line where you've written the
15 "C" is the line where you were positioned. Is that right?
16 A. That was on the 12th of September.
17 Q. But it is not your evidence that on the 12th of September, 1992,
18 the area just across from that line towards the bottom of the page was
19 ABiH territory. That's not what you're saying, is it?
20 A. I didn't understand your question.
21 Q. Okay. Let's try and take this slowly. You see the line there.
22 You've just drawn a line and you've got the letter "C" on top of that
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And I understand that that is a line that you say was the
1 confrontation line on the 12th of September, 1992?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And if you see just across from that line towards the bottom of
4 the page, I believe that the word is there Doglodi. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And what I'm asking you is that area, and in fact the area beyond
7 that, that was VRS territory, was it not?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can I ask you with a pen just to write the letters VRS there,
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. Very well. I think there's been a misunderstanding, but just to
13 the other side of that line that was also VRS territory, was it not?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Is it your evidence that that area beyond that line is ABiH
16 territory? Is that what you're telling the Court?
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that point in time, yes.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a moment.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness has
21 already explained very well. VRS was above that line, and he's already
22 said that. He can continue answering questions now, but the area up there
23 was VRS territory. I would like the witness to be asked precise
24 questions to avoid introducing unnecessary confusion.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, in relation to that line where the C is
1 marked, will you mark the area that was under the control of the VRS.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Army of Republika Srpska.
3 That's what you're asking?
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I have done that.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: And the other side of the line, who was in
7 control of that?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 If I could ask for the map -- I think it was the first map the
12 Defence had the witness mark, D248, I think.
13 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Was this map discussed in private session?
15 MR. SACHDEVA: The one that was just on the screen?
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: D249.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the last map, that
18 was the one that was discussed in private session.
19 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President, I believe it was. My apologies
20 for that.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic should have brought this to our
23 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: In the result that no -- no damage has been done,
25 no prejudice.
1 MR. SACHDEVA: If I ...
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 MR. SACHDEVA: If I could have -- that's it. This is the map.
4 Thank you.
5 Q. Witness, you remember marking this map earlier on today?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And -- well, firstly, the red line -- you see the red line there,
8 don't you?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you see that the red line depicts the VRS confrontation line.
11 You agree with that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you agree with the fact that everything beyond that red line
14 is VRS territory?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, before I ask you about the AOR of the Ilidza Brigade - and
17 we'll keep this map here for that purpose - but I want to just confirm
18 with you that the commander of the brigade from 1993 at least until the
19 end of the war was Vladimir Radojcic. Is that right?
20 A. I think so, yes.
21 Q. And it's right that prior to his tenure as commander, the
22 commander was a person called Pero Despojevic. Is that right?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Despotovic, excuse me.
25 A. No, no, that's not correct.
1 Q. Who was the commander in the beginning of the Ilidza Brigade?
2 A. All know is that his last name was Borovina and he was killed.
3 Q. And in the Ilidza Brigade, how many battalions were there?
4 A. I couldn't tell you.
5 Q. But you know that there was a 1st and a 4th Battalion. You know
7 A. I don't know. I belonged to the 1st. I haven't heard of the 4th.
8 Q. And the 1st Battalion, as you've indicated on the map, had
9 Nedzarici in its area of responsibility. Isn't that right?
10 A. I don't know what battalion they were. I know only about my own.
11 I never went to Nedzarici.
12 Q. But you have drawn on the blue line -- you see that you've drawn
13 with the blue line the area of Nedzarici within the Ilidza Brigade. Isn't
14 that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So there was a battalion within the Ilidza Brigade in Nedzarici.
17 Isn't that right?
18 A. I circled this only as Serb territory under the Army of Republika
19 Srpska, but as for the battalion I really wouldn't know.
20 Q. Yes, my question was not about the battalion. Counsel asked you
21 to identify the area of responsibility of the Ilidza Brigade, and you did
22 that with the blue line. So my question is this: That there would have
23 been a battalion within the area called Nedzarici which is within the
24 Ilidza Brigade. Would you agree with that?
25 A. I know they held Kasindol and down here I circled that. I don't
2 Q. And in Nedzarici there was a barracks there. Is that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And at that barracks there were weapons of the Ilidza Brigade.
5 Isn't that also right?
6 A. I don't know that. I was never in Nedzarici.
7 Q. You also know that the Institute of the Blind was in Nedzarici.
8 You know that, don't you?
9 A. Yes, before the war. I knew about it before the war.
10 Q. And during the war the Institute of the Blind was within the VRS
11 area of responsibility, was it not?
12 A. I don't know. I never went to Nedzarici during the war.
13 Q. Well, Witness, you have drawn here the AOR of the Ilidza Brigade,
14 and you can see from the map that the Ilidza Brigade controlled Nedzarici.
15 Do you agree with me with what you've drawn?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you have also just said that the Institute for the Blind was
18 in Nedzarici. That's correct, is it not?
19 A. Well, it goes through there, but I can't pin-point within 10 or 15
20 metres which bit belonged to the Serbs or the Muslims because I was never
21 there during the war.
22 Q. But in your time with the Ilidza Brigade, you -- as you said, you
23 were in communication with your commanders of the battalion through radio
24 and telephone. Is that right?
25 A. Only with the company commander, I as a private.
1 Q. And is it your evidence that you have never -- you have no
2 information as to whether the Institute for the Blind was under VRS
3 territory in Nedzarici?
4 A. No.
5 Q. And what about the School of Theology, which was also in
7 A. I really don't know where that is, no.
8 Q. Maybe I can help you.
9 MR. SACHDEVA: If I can ask for Prosecution Exhibit 304 to be
10 brought up on the screen, please.
11 Q. Witness, before I ask you some further questions, when you met
12 with Defence counsel you explained to Defence counsel the -- the extent of
13 your knowledge. Isn't that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you also -- in doing that, you also explained to Defence
16 counsel that you would be conversant with the information regarding the
17 confrontation lines within the Ilidza Brigade. Isn't that also right?
18 A. Yes, where I was, not the entire zone, not the entire area.
19 Q. And you also told counsel that you would be conversant with the
20 weaponry that the Ilidza Brigade had. Isn't that also right?
21 A. Only what I saw. Of course I couldn't see all the weapons in the
22 Ilidza Brigade.
23 Q. Well, of course you would agree with me that you don't have to see
24 a weapon to know what weapons exist. Isn't that right? You can see
25 requests, you can see -- you can have information from your colleagues,
1 you can have information from your company commander. You agree with
2 that, don't you?
3 A. No. I was just an ordinary private. Nobody told me about
5 Q. Okay. Let me try and help you now with respect to the
6 Institute for the Blind. Now, you see where there is a red line with the
7 letter "B." You see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And you know that that red line is -- runs along the road called
10 Lukavica Cesta?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And that road is in ABiH territory, is it not?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you see those arrows there pointing towards the letter "B,"
15 you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And those arrows emanate from the area of Nedzarici. Is that
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And that area of Nedzarici was controlled by the VRS, was it not?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And that road, the road that you just spoke about, the
23 Lukavica Cesta, you must have heard during your time with the
24 Ilidza Brigade that that road was known as the road of death. Did you
25 hear that?
1 A. No. I know that Nedzarici was called the positions of death, but
2 I didn't know that.
3 Q. Perhaps Nedzarici was called the positions of death because it was
4 from there that the SRK soldiers would snipe at civilians taking that
5 road, the Lukavica Cesta. Isn't that correct?
6 A. No, that's not correct. They were killed there every day, 10, 20
7 men, that's what I heard, because there were buildings overlooking them
8 and they were sniped at. Mojmilo was higher up and they were shot at with
10 Q. So when you say "they were shot at," you are referring to the SRK
11 soldiers. Isn't that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And it's correct that when they were shot at, as you have earlier
14 testified, they would return fire. Is that right?
15 A. No. For the most part -- first of all, it was snipers non-stop.
16 I heard that in Nedzarici both civilians and soldiers were being killed by
18 Q. But you also said in evidence that when asked a question by
19 counsel whether you were -- when you spoke to your company commander, do
20 you remember that evidence, and you said to the Court that you were
21 ordered not to fire. Do you remember that evidence?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Throughout the cross, or rather,
1 throughout the examination-in-chief, the Defence never asked the witness
2 anything about Nedzarici, and with reference to the line he drew around
3 the places where he was at, his positions, I asked him to draw a line
4 showing up to where he had been. He never mentioned Nedzarici once
5 because he never managed to get to Nedzarici once during the war. I
6 therefore fail to understand why he's being asked anything about
7 Nedzarici, when his area of responsibility is where he explained it was,
8 and he never mentioned Nedzarici once.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, the reason why I have -- and I tried
11 to elicit that from the witness. The reason why I persisted in these
12 questions was because -- and again in my submission this illustrates the
13 insufficiency of the 65 ter summary. In the summary it clearly states
14 that the witness will give evidence with respect to the confrontation line
15 between the two warring parties within the zone of the Ilidza Brigade and
16 Nedzarici is within the zone of the Ilidza Brigade. And that's the reason
17 why I'm asking these questions.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Where are you leading to?
19 MR. SACHDEVA: May I continue?
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
21 MR. SACHDEVA:
22 Q. Now, Witness, when counsel asked you about the orders that your
23 company commander gave you with respect to firing, and you said: "Well,
24 the order was to fire as little as possible," to preserve ammunition. Do
25 you remember saying that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And then you also said that: "We only returned fire when they
3 opened fire at us or when we were able to observe them." You remember
4 saying that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And presumably, these orders that you received were echoed
7 throughout the other battalions and companies in the Ilidza Brigade. Is
8 that right? In other words, they should fire only in retaliation?
9 A. I didn't hear anybody say that.
10 Q. So when you have just given evidence that -- well, you've told the
11 Court that you don't know anything about Nedzarici, but you've just given
12 evidence that you heard that civilians and soldiers were killed in
13 Nedzarici. So what are you saying? Are you saying that you know or you
14 don't know?
15 A. I only heard about that.
16 Q. And so you must have heard that soldiers from the SRK would fire
17 rifles and sniping rifles at civilians within the ABiH territory. You
18 must have heard that?
19 A. I didn't hear that, no.
20 Q. And you heard that soldiers in Nedzarici would fire from the
21 Institute of the Blind into ABiH territory?
22 A. I don't know where the Institute for the Blind is, let alone that
23 they fired from it.
24 Q. You never heard that SRK -- the SRK army had soldiers at the
25 Institute of the Blind?
1 A. No, no.
2 Q. And you never heard that the soldiers of the SRK were in the
3 School of Theology? You never heard that either?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Now, I want to ask you about the weapons, since you've told --
6 told us about some weapons that you had in Ilidza. It's correct, is it
7 not, that the Ilidza Brigade had mortars?
8 A. Probably. I didn't see the mortars. I told you about the two
9 tanks and the Praga.
10 Q. And did you also hear about the use of modified air-bombs in the
11 period 1994 to 1995?
12 A. Yes, I did hear that in 1994 some fighters of ours were trying
13 this and they were killed somewhere near Trnovo and Treskavica then and
14 never again.
15 Q. And they were killed because these weapons, these modified
16 air-bombs, were inaccurate weapons, weren't they?
17 A. I really don't know that. I know they were trying it out and they
18 were killed; that's what we heard. And I never saw -- heard it again.
19 Q. And you never heard that they were used after that and they were
20 fired into the -- into the city of Sarajevo from your brigade?
21 A. No.
22 Q. I'd like to show you a document, Witness, and that is 65 ter
24 Witness, you see a document on your screen and you can see that it
25 emanates from the Ilidza Brigade command. Is that right?
1 A. Probably.
2 Q. And if we go to the -- the second page, you would also see that
3 this document is -- emanates from your commander, the brigade commander,
4 Vladimir Radojcic.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: If we can go to the next page, please.
6 Q. Do you see his name there?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So you would agree that this is an authentic Ilidza Brigade
9 document, SRK document?
10 A. I think so, but I don't know. It should be, yes.
11 Q. And you can see there in the beginning --
12 MR. SACHDEVA: If we go to the first page again. Sorry.
13 Q. You agree with me that it says in the beginning that: "According
14 to the order of the SRK commander on the 18th of June..." the Ilidza
15 Brigade that is, when they say "we," "launched an attack towards Stupska
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And you agree that this is an offensive action, is it not?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And you also see down there on the list of ammunition that's
21 requested, you will see the 2.000 bullets -- 2.000 pieces for a
22 7.9-millimetre sniper -- sniper bullets. Do you see that requested there?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you see the request in number 12 and 13 for the 450,
25 82-millimetre shells and the 120-millimetre mortar shells respectively.
1 Do you see that there?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: And moving on to the next page -- no, actually, we
4 can stick to this page in the B/C/S, please, if we can scroll down -- no,
5 I apologise, it's the next page.
6 Q. You will see there, Witness, at item 23, you will see the request
7 for an FAB aerial bomb, ten pieces. Do you see that there?
8 A. It says here "auto bomb," a couple. I don't understand. "FAB auto
9 bomb," that's what it says there.
10 Q. I put to you that it says: "Avio-bomb, FAB, ten pieces." That's
11 what it reads.
12 A. It's possible.
13 Q. The Ilidza Brigade did use aerial bombs, didn't they?
14 A. I don't know about that.
15 Q. Why would there be a request for aerial bombs if they were not
16 intended for use?
17 A. You have to ask Vladimir Radojcic that, not me.
18 Q. And your commander was a professional military man, was he not?
19 A. I think so.
20 Q. And he was fighting a war at this time, was he not?
21 A. I don't understand your question.
22 Q. He was a fighting a war at this time -- in fact, he was engaged in
23 an offensive operation?
24 A. I think he was the brigade commander.
25 Q. And you would agree that as a professional military man and
1 someone who was engaged in military action, the request that he would ask
2 for -- these requests for ammunition would be genuine and serious
3 requests, intending to use -- for intent to use these weapons. You would
4 agree with that, would you not?
5 A. I really don't know that. You need to ask him that, not me.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this document into
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As P775, Your Honours.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: And if I could now ask for 65 ter 03209, please.
11 Q. Now, Witness, this is another document on the screen and this is
12 dated the 1st of July, 1995, that is -- and the previous document was
13 dated the 28th of June. And you will see that this emanates again from
14 the Ilidza Brigade command. Do you see that at the top?
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
16 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't know whether the
18 interpreters made a mistake. I wrote down the first document, its date,
19 and I wrote down the 18th of June, 1995, not the 28th of June. I don't
20 know whether this is relevant in relation to other undisputed facts, but
21 the --
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is it the 18th or the 28th?
23 MR. SACHDEVA: The first one -- the one I just showed before was
24 the 28th of June, 1995.
25 Q. Now, Witness, if you also look at this document and if you look at
1 the next -- the last page, you'll also see that it is signed -- that it
2 emanates from your commander, Vladimir Radojcic. Do you see that there?
3 A. [No interpretation]
4 Q. And similarly, you would agree that this is an authentic document
5 from the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
6 A. [No interpretation]
7 Q. Now, if you look at the list, you will see at the first page,
8 please. You would agree that the document -- the request inter alia is
9 for 20.000, 7.9-millimetre bullets. Do you see that there?
10 A. [No interpretation]
11 Q. And the request is also for 70.000 pieces of -- 70.000 bullets for
12 7.62-millimetre automatic and semi--automatic rifles. Do you see that,
13 the first item?
14 A. [No interpretation]
15 Q. And if you move to the next page, please --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You will see again at item 13 and 14 the request for 350,
18 82-millimetre mortars and 251, 120-millimetre mortars respectively. Do
19 you see that there?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And at the bottom, number 22 and 23, it's clearly indicated there,
22 is it not, that the request is for ten FAB 250 aerial bombs and five FAB
23 105 aerial bombs. Do you see that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. It's clear, is it not, Witness, that the Ilidza Brigade was not
1 lacking in ammunition or weapons. Isn't that right?
2 A. I don't know that. I only know about my own positions; namely,
3 that we lacked ammunition.
4 Q. But you agree that this is a document requesting a substantial
5 amount of ammunition for this brigade. You agree with that, don't you?
6 A. No. This is not much. I don't know why this is important. I
7 don't see why this is a large quantity of ammunition.
8 Q. Do you know what a FAB 250 aerial bomb can do, one bomb? Do you
9 know what damage it can cause?
10 A. I don't know. I didn't see.
11 Q. You must have heard of the TV building in Sarajevo. You know the
12 TV building, don't you?
13 A. Yes, I heard about that, but I also heard that it was the Muslims
14 who placed an explosive.
15 Q. You did not hear that the TV building was hit by an aerial bomb,
16 modified air-bomb, fired from SRK territory?
17 A. No.
18 Q. You don't know that the SRK command, in fact, congratulated its
19 troops for hitting the TV tower?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Witness, I put it to you that the SRK and the Ilidza Brigade were
22 not lacking in ammunition and weapons and, in fact, used all these weapons
23 that they requested.
24 A. It is my position that that is not the case. I was there on the
25 ground, you weren't.
1 Q. So you're telling the Court that you know for a fact that these
2 weapons weren't used by the Ilidza Brigade. Is that what you're saying?
3 A. Not the Ilidza Brigade, at least to my knowledge.
4 Q. Let me try and understand you. You are saying that the brigade
5 that you are part of did not use these weapons? You know that for a fact?
6 A. I didn't say that it was certainly so. I just said to my
8 Q. And in fact your knowledge is quite limited, is it not?
9 A. Yes. I'm just talking about my own situation, about what I know.
10 Q. And, in fact, you don't know at all that the SRK soldiers at the
11 Institute of the -- Institute for the Blind, you don't know if it's right
12 they were not firing at civilians in the confrontation lines. You don't
13 know that, do you?
14 A. No, I don't know. No.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I'd like tender this document.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As P776, Your Honours.
18 MR. SACHDEVA: And if I could ask for 65 ter 03309, please.
19 Q. Witness, you know the area of Hrasnica, don't you?
20 A. I have heard of Hrasnica, but I'm not familiar with it.
21 Q. And you know that Hrasnica is a residential area, is it not?
22 A. It is quite far from Sarajevo.
23 Q. That's not what I asked. I'm asking you that you would agree that
24 Hrasnica, whether it's far or close to Sarajevo, is a residential area?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Similarly, you would agree that Sokolovic kolonija is also a
2 residential area?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And the same question for Butmir, you also agree with that?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: If we could --
7 Q. Well, let me just start by asking you to confirm that this is
8 another document from the Ilidza Infantry Brigade from the 21st of June,
9 1995. Do you see that at the top?
10 A. Yes, it's written. I don't see it in the stamp.
11 Q. Do you see that it's a daily report and you see that it was sent
12 to the SRK command at the forward command post to -- in Vogosca. You see
14 A. Yes, I see that, but there's no stamp. I could have written this,
15 so I'm not going to confirm anything.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: If we go to the last page, please.
17 Q. And I know that the -- the copy is not the best copy, but you can
18 see -- on the left-hand side, you can see that it indicates that this came
19 from Vladimir Radojcic, the commander of the Ilidza Brigade. You see
20 that, don't you? I understand that it's not the best copy. I'm just
21 putting to you that that's where it comes from.
22 A. [No interpretation]
23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat his answer.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It just says this here. There is no
25 stamp whatsoever, and you're telling me that this is authoritative.
1 MR. SACHDEVA:
2 Q. I didn't say it was authoritative. I'm asking you to confirm that
3 this -- what's written here is the brigade commander, Vladimir Radojcic.
4 You see that there, don't you?
5 A. I cannot confirm that.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Perhaps we can --
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this witness,
10 having seen signatures on documents, he already stated twice that he
11 believed the documents to be authentic. I have no objection to having
12 this document admitted, but what the witness is saying is that he does not
13 believe this to be authentic, because he doesn't see the signature. In
14 the two previous cases, he was able to confirm that, even though the
15 documents were not familiar to him. And we had no objections either. We
16 do not object to having this document admitted if my learned friend wishes
17 that, but this witness cannot confirm the authenticity of this document if
18 the signature is missing.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, proceed, Mr. Sachdeva.
20 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I would just note that the previous
21 two documents were -- they were in a similar fashion to this document, in
22 that the top part where it says the document emanates from was not stamped
23 and he confirmed the authenticity of those documents. So in my submission
24 there's no discrepancy, no difference, between this document and the
25 previous two documents, but anyway I'll proceed.
1 Now, I'd like to move to the second page, please. And if it can
2 be scrolled up. Okay.
3 Q. Now, Witness, in the second paragraph on this page you'll see
4 where it's written: "We confined civilian population to shelters by
5 artillery attacks ..."
6 Do you see that sentence there?
7 A. Do I need to read it out?
8 Q. Well, first tell me if you see that sentence. "Teritorije
9 Vezali" --
10 A. [No interpretation]
11 Q. And it says here that: "We confined civilian population to
12 shelters by artillery attacks on chosen targets along the depth of enemy
13 territory, especially in the area of responsibility of the 104 Mountain
14 Brigade, that is in Hrasnica, Sokolovici kolonija, and Butmir." Do you
15 see that sentence there?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. It's clear, is it not, Witness, that the Ilidza Brigade was firing
18 artillery on areas where civilians were present?
19 A. I truly don't know that. I'm not familiar with that.
20 Q. Do --
21 A. It's possible, but I don't know.
22 Q. It's possible. And you would also agree that the fact that this
23 is contained in this report I suggest implies that the Ilidza Brigade knew
24 that they were firing on civilians or on civilian areas. Do you agree
25 with that?
1 A. I'm not aware of that. It's possible, but I'm not aware of that.
2 I personally don't know that because we didn't see civilians.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this document into
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
6 THE REGISTRAR: As P777 [Realtime transcript read in error "776"],
7 Your Honours.
8 MR. SACHDEVA:
9 Q. Now, Witness, you started off by giving evidence about the -- the
10 events that took place from April 1992 through to September 1992. You
11 remember giving that evidence?
12 A. Yes.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic. Not insisting?
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I need to verify something.
15 MR. SACHDEVA:
16 Q. And you would agree, would you not, Witness, that prior to the
17 onset of the conflict, Ilidza -- the municipality of Ilidza which you
18 lived in contained all ethnicities, that is --
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. Mr. Tapuskovic has a point.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] According to the transcript, both
21 of these last documents were admitted into evidence as 776, both 3209 and
22 3309 were admitted as 776 according to the transcript. This is what's
23 confusing me and I ask that it be corrected.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: They're both admitted. The court deputy will see
25 that any correction that is needed is made.
1 Let's proceed.
2 MR. SACHDEVA:
3 Q. Witness, I was asking you about the time-period just before the
4 onset of the conflict, and in Ilidza municipality there were Croats,
5 Bosniaks, Bosniak Muslims, and Serbs living together. Isn't that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And before the conflict, they were living together in relative
8 harmony. Isn't that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And once the conflict started, a degree of suspicion came on
11 between the different ethnicities. Is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And it is also right that at that time a decision was made to act
14 upon an earlier decision to create the municipality of Ilidza -- to create
15 the municipality of Ilidza to be a majority municipality with only Serbs
16 living there. Do you agree with that?
17 A. I don't know. I'm not aware of that.
18 Q. But you know that at that time where you were present and where
19 you were living, you know that Muslims and non-Serbs were rounded up and
20 detained in facilities such as Kasindol and such as the hospital. You
21 heard of that, did you not?
22 A. No, I never heard of that -- about Kasindol.
23 Q. You heard that the Energoinvest was also a facility where
24 non-Serbs were detained and incarcerated. You heard that as well, right?
25 A. No, I didn't.
1 Q. In fact, it's correct, is it not, that from that time-period
2 non-Serbs, Muslims, and Croats were expelled from Ilidza municipality,
3 weren't they?
4 A. I'm not aware of that.
5 Q. You know who Nedjeljko Prstojevic is, don't you?
6 A. President of the Ilidza municipality.
7 Q. And he was, as you've just said, the president of the Ilidza
8 municipality, he was an influential person in that municipality. Isn't
9 that right?
10 A. That's how it should be.
11 Q. And it's also right that he was the main architect, one of the
12 main architects, in that municipality for the expulsion of Muslims and
13 other non-Serbs from Ilidza. That's also right, is it not?
14 A. I don't know. I'm not aware of that.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I'd like to play an intercept.
16 The ter number is 03297.
17 Q. Witness, I'm going to play an intercept, a recording, of a
18 conversation, a conversation that Nedjeljko Prstojevic was a part of and
19 then I want you to hear this, and then I'm going to ask you some
21 [Audiotape played]
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't hear anything.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: The witness is not hearing. Should we start
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's too much noise.
1 MR. SACHDEVA:
2 Q. Well, Witness, this is how it is. And you can just try and listen
3 as carefully as possible. I would ask you to do that.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: There will be some noise, but you may be able to
5 hear. Listen carefully.
6 Let's start again.
7 [Audiotape played]
8 MR. SACHDEVA:
9 Q. Witness, you heard there, did you not, that there was discussion
10 about expelling the Muslims from Ilidza? Did you hear that?
11 A. Poorly. I may have understood 10 per cent of the entire
12 conversation. I apologise.
13 MR. SACHDEVA: But, Mr. President, we do have a B/C/S transcript
14 that I could also show the witness.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's rather long, isn't it?
16 MR. SACHDEVA: It is long, and I wanted to play it for contextual
17 reasons, but of course with the transcript we can go straight to the
18 salient point.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I think you can if you wish to.
20 Mr. Tapuskovic.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first of all,
22 whatever is written down we need to know by what means it was taken down.
23 I've listened to this intercept before, and I was unable to understand
24 much. In order for the transcript to be credible, it would have had to
25 have been done by someone reliable. We need to know who did it and who
1 authorised the transcript as such. We know nothing about that. We have a
2 very poor recording and then a text of sorts. I have listened to this
3 intercept before, and while doing so I wasn't able to grasp much.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva, Mr. Tapuskovic is raising arguments
5 about the admissibility of the transcript.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President, and I anticipated what I
7 appear -- what I believe to be an objection. I would say that this
8 transcript has been authenticated by the participant Nedjeljko Prstojevic
9 himself during his testimony as a Prosecution witness in the Krajisnik
10 case and the intercept has been admitted as Exhibit P796 in that case. I
11 understand it was on the 19th of July, 2005. And therefore, pursuant to
12 Rule 89, the exhibit has been admitted in an earlier proceeding and the
13 Trial Chamber is entitled to take judicial notice of that exhibit.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll take the break to digest this one. We'll
15 consider it and we adjourn for 20 minutes.
16 --- Recess taken at 5.36 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 6.00 p.m.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva, what is the provision of the Rules
19 on which you rely?
20 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. In fact, I had
21 before the break said Rule 89, and in fact in my submission that can
22 apply, but particularly I'm speaking to Rule 94(B), judicial notice.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Microphone not activated]
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: "At the request of the party or proprio motu, a
1 Trial Chamber, after hearing the parties, may decide to take judicial
2 notice of adjudicated facts or documentary evidence from other
3 proceedings ... relating to matters at issue in the current proceedings."
4 And you say this falls under the heading of adjudicated facts or
5 documentary evidence?
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Documentary evidence, Mr. President. You would
7 recall that prior to the commencement of trial the Prosecution filed a
8 motion regarding exhibits United Nations reports that had been admitted
9 into evidence in the Galic and the -- I understand the Galic and the
10 Slobodan Milosevic case; in other words, they had been admitted, their
11 authenticity had been verified, and on that basis under Rule 94(B) we ask
12 for the admission of those documents and the Trial Chamber granted the
13 Prosecution request. So in my submission this intercept which has been
14 authenticated by the participant himself during live testimony in the
15 Krajisnik case would fall under the same category. And I also submit that
16 it is, indeed, relevant to the matters at hand in this case.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Please explain why.
18 MR. SACHDEVA: Why it is relevant? It's relevant primarily
19 because the Defence counsel, not just with this witness but with other
20 witnesses, has been submitting that the onset of the conflict was started
21 by the ABiH or by the Bosnian Muslims, and in that effort the
22 municipalities were overrun -- the outer-lying municipalities were overrun
23 by the Bosnian Muslims. And in our rebuttal we are putting to witnesses
24 and to the Court that, in fact, those outer-lying municipalities were - I
25 won't use the word cleansed - but non-Serbs were moved out forcibly from
1 those municipalities.
2 I accept that with regard to the case at hand, with regard to the
3 charges the accused is -- has to meet, it is not strictly relevant. I
4 agree with that. However, the Prosecution has been forced to lead this
5 evidence or to put these propositions to the witnesses, given the fact
6 that they have been permitted to -- or the Defence has been permitted to
7 lead this type of evidence with every witness that they have brought here.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Why did you refer to the Trial Chamber's earlier
9 ruling? You say that this requests is on all fours with it.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: The earlier ruling, that was at the commencement of
11 the trial.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
13 MR. SACHDEVA: And I refer to that with respect to the provision
14 Rule 94(B), in that the Prosecution had asked for documents -- UN
15 documents that had been admitted in the Galic proceeding and also of the
16 Slobodan Milosevic proceeding, and under that rule we asked for these
17 documents to be given judicial notice and admitted into evidence, and the
18 ruling was in our favour, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, Mr. Prosecutor, wouldn't it suffice for the
20 Chamber to accept the fact that these areas were in the end under the
21 control of the SRK? Do we need to lead or to accept evidence as to why
22 this happened? I mean, the end result is clear I think and is probably
23 not disputed by the Defence.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, Your Honour, Judge Harhoff, I agree
25 with that; however, the Defence have themselves made an issue as to how
1 these areas became under SRK control. And in the Prosecution's -- the
2 Prosecution's position is that that is, indeed, not how the events
3 progressed. And in fact, those outer-lying municipalities were
4 deliberately -- the non-Serbs were deliberately moved out of those areas.
5 But I -- the Prosecution agrees, and we have, in fact, from the very
6 beginning of the Defence case reiterated our position that these facts do
7 not impact on the guilt or innocence of the accused.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'd rather not go
10 into all of the matters touched upon by Mr. Sachdeva. First of all, there
11 was no mention here of who persecuted who and it is not encompassed by the
12 indictment. We have been saying all the while, though, that the entire
13 population of those areas were affected by it, the people of Sarajevo, and
14 we've tried to explain what Sarajevo is. They were affected in various
15 ways and we have tried to explain how civilians were affected on both
16 sides, in the general chaos that existed.
17 Concerning persecutions of any sort, well I -- we think there were
18 none, apart from the things that happened in such a chaos in Sarajevo is
19 quite specific. I wouldn't dwell on that any further. Rather what is of
20 importance is something else. In the Krajisnik case and in the Milosevic
21 case, one of them, of course, was not completed due to the passing away of
22 the accused; and as for the other, we only have the trial judgement for
23 the time being. As Defence counsel, I tried to object to the authenticity
24 of this document, and Mr. Sachdeva himself mentioned Rule 89. Such a
25 document, as the one we had before us, falls precisely under Rule 89(D):
1 "A Chamber may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially
2 outweighed by the need to ensure a fair trial."
3 It is precisely this document, or rather, this intercept,
4 something which falls under that provision with regard of the facts I've
5 tried to explain to the Chamber. The way presented by the Prosecutor,
6 strictly speaking and according to this Rule, this document may not be
7 admitted, first and foremost because of the wording of the Rule; and
8 second of all, neither of the cases referred to have been completed. That
9 is our position.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the -- the prejudicial effect which is --
11 that you -- you cite in relation to 89(D)? What is the -- what would be
12 the prejudicial effect of admitting this document? Or, to put it another
13 way, what is the issue of fairness that becomes relevant in considering
14 this issue?
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this document has
16 not been forwarded to us in a way for us to be able to have a position on
17 its essence. To be honest, I listened to the tape before, and I can't
18 tell you anything, or I can't decipher a single fact that would have to do
19 with this case. I see no connection with this testimony and this case,
20 particularly so since the date is the 14th of June, 1992. At that time,
21 we submit, the lines of defence had not been defined. According to
22 certain witnesses that we are to hear, these were formed significantly
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: The other point that you make is that the
25 judgement from which -- or the decision from which this documentary
1 evidence comes is not final in that it's on appeal. Is that what you say?
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that is what I meant.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: And that is one of the requirements for the --
4 for judicial notice to be taken, under 94(B)? That's your argument?
5 Mr. Sachdeva, briefly.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, firstly, that from a strict
7 statutory interpretation of 94(B) that is not a requirement that needs to
8 have gone through a second-instance hearing or proceeding. It simply
9 says: "Proceedings before -- other proceedings of the Tribunal relating to
10 matters at issue."
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: The case on judicial notice establishes that
12 quite clearly. In the decision that we gave, I recollect it to be in
13 setting out the various factors, we identified that. And if I'm not
14 mistaken, that may even have been commented on by the Appeals Chamber.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: It -- it may -- it may refer to the facts that have
16 been decided -- the facts that have been decided in a first-instance
17 proceeding. But I submit that if a document has been admitted in a
18 proceeding and -- one would not expect a document to be admitted in a
19 proceeding of this Tribunal if its authenticity and provenance had not
20 been established at that time.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see, you're saying that the finality criterion
22 only applies to adjudicated facts, not to documentary evidence?
23 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm going to give the decision tomorrow morning
1 on this question of the admissibility of the transcript. So let us move
3 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 If I could ask for 65 ter 03298, please, to be brought up.
5 Q. Witness, before this document comes on the screen, you would agree
6 that once the non-Serbs from Ilidza municipality were forcibly moved out
7 of Ilidza, they were not allowed to return, were they?
8 A. Whether they were forced to move out or not, I don't know.
9 Q. But they were not allowed to return, were they?
10 A. During the time of war operations, they probably did not. They
11 were not allowed to.
12 Q. And you see a document now on your screen. It's from the -- the
13 Republika Srpska Ilidza Serb municipality, the war commission, and you see
14 Nedjeljko Prstojevic's name at the bottom. You see that there?
15 A. Yes, only the signature.
16 Q. And you see that the decision, at least the first sentence it
17 reads: "The return of Muslims and Croats to the territory of Ilidza Serb
18 municipality is forbidden for security reasons, as well as because the
19 necessary conditions for their return do not exist.
20 "With regard to that, crossing the border by Croats and Muslims
21 in the direction of Ilidza municipality is also forbidden, unless they
22 have written authorisation from the proper authorities."
23 So I put it to you that this conforms with your evidence that they
24 were not allowed to return?
25 A. I don't know whether they were allowed to come back or not. I
1 don't understand this document, really. Because Croats came to Ilidza
2 throughout the war.
3 Q. When I asked you if -- I asked you -- or I put to you that they
4 were not allowed to return and your answer to me was: "During the time of
5 war operations they probably did not, they were not allowed to."
6 And that answer conforms with this document, does it not?
7 A. No, because there was movement of weapons as well as people. For
8 example, the people from Kiseljak that had to do with the HVO, therefore
9 that had nothing to do with this. The Croatian army could enter Ilidza.
10 Q. Witness, you can read this document, and on this document there is
11 no mention of the HVO or the ABiH. It speaks about Croats and Muslims
12 returning to the territory, doesn't it?
13 A. I don't know. I'm telling you what I know about it.
14 Q. I'm not --
15 A. -- they came to Ilidza in civilian clothes.
16 Q. I'm not asking you about -- I'm asking you what is written in this
17 document, and in this document there is no mention of the HVO or the ABiH.
18 It speaks only of the return of Muslims and Croats to Ilidza. You agree
19 with that, don't you?
20 A. No, I don't understand this. I know there were both Muslims and
21 Croats in Ilidza.
22 Q. So your previous answer when you answered the question and you
23 said they were not allowed to return, are you changing that answer now?
24 Is that what you're saying to the Court?
25 A. Yes. I did not understand the question then. I do know, however,
1 that Serbs, Croats, and Muslims lived together in Ilidza. Some may have
2 left, though.
3 Q. I'm not talking about whether they lived together in Ilidza at
4 that time. I'm simply putting to you that once the war started in 1993
5 and 1994 Croat and Muslim civilians were not allowed to return to the Serb
6 majority municipality of Ilidza. Do you agree with that or not?
7 A. Strictly speaking, in 1993 and 1994, some Croats were returning to
8 my settlement. That's why I gave you the answer as I did. And as for
9 this stated here that they were prohibited from coming back, I don't know
10 about that. I know that some of them communicated with Kiseljak.
11 Q. Kiseljak is not Ilidza, is it?
12 A. No.
13 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this document into
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's admitted.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As P778, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] You have made your ruling;
19 however, I object. I'd like to say that the witness rejected all of this.
20 He said something quite to the contrary, which is that both Croats and
21 Muslims came to Ilidza throughout the war. I will pose some questions of
22 the witness of that nature later; however, the witness said that he knew
23 nothing about this document.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic is right. The document is not to
1 be admitted.
2 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, that concludes my cross-examination.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have a few
5 Re-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:
6 Q. [Interpretation] Having in mind the few last things you just said,
7 can you tell us a few names, names of Croats who came to Ilidza throughout
8 the war from Kiseljak?
9 A. I know their first names. I don't know their last names, but
10 those people still are down there.
11 Q. I guess it's not that important then, since this document was not
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show the
14 Prosecution document to the witness, this being P776.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, what's the question?
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. You can see this document before you, but first let me remind
19 you. You said that the orders were to save up ammunition. Is that
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Without going back to all of that, can you tell us what did it
23 look like during the times of that offensive that summer, did you have
24 sufficient ammunition?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Please have a look at the document now. What is the date?
2 A. The 1st of July, 1995.
3 Q. You've said already that this was a request to receive ammunition.
4 What it says here about the 28th of June, does that correspond to what
5 was happening during the offensive you mentioned?
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I read this to
7 the witness?
8 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] To try and make it easier. Let's
11 have a look at what it says.
12 Q. From the 28th of June, 1995 --
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva is on his feet.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I object to that question because
15 the witness has maintained in his evidence in chief and in
16 cross-examination that he can only speak to events within his AOR, and
17 that did not include Nedzarici and Stup, as I understand it.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this document that
19 was not authored by the witness and that he knows nothing about since he
20 could not confirm its authenticity was introduced by the Prosecution
21 exactly through this witness. He knows of the offensive, of the lack of
22 ammunition. Therefore, I don't believe we can limit the right of Defence
23 now to examine the witness on this document, particularly with a view of
24 what is stated here, and that is that they suffered constant artillery and
25 infantry fire by the enemy and that they were forced to defend themselves
1 and to defend this object of considerable strategic importance. It cannot
2 be irrelevant. We need to pursue this further with this witness which has
3 already been confirmed by the witness.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: He's not saying that it's irrelevant. He's
5 saying that the witness had previously, in examination-in-chief and in
6 cross-examination, confirmed that he could only speak with certainty about
7 matters within his AOR. That is what -- AOR means area --
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Area of responsibility, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- Area of responsibility, and his AOR does not
10 include Stup and Nedzarici. It's not a question of relevance.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I understand the
12 issue at hand. However, the question was whether they did or did not have
13 weapons. He said that there was no ammunition, and in that regard this is
14 very important. This is a request for ammunition which was lacking, and
15 it is stated why it was made, because the context was as described here.
16 They asked for ammunition; whether they received it or not, I don't know.
17 But it proves that they did not have sufficient quantities --
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me ask the witness.
19 What is the basis of any knowledge that you have about this matter
20 in relation to Stup and Nedzarici, considering that it is outside your
21 area of responsibility?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know anything about these
23 events. All I know is that there was no ammunition at the time. That's
24 what I know.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well.
1 Move on, Mr. Tapuskovic.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The same problem arises with
3 another document that has been admitted into evidence, but I don't want to
4 dwell on it, and that's document 776. I don't know whether that number
5 still holds good or whether it's been given another number?
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me ask the court deputy. Is that -- what's
7 the number of this exhibit?
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this is P776.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know. The previous
10 document we found it under number P776, but the dates are different. Are
11 they -- do they both have the same number?
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, my records show that 65 ter
13 number 03209 was tendered and admitted as P776, followed by 65 ter
14 number 03309, which was tendered and admitted as P777.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: We follow the numbering given by the court
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] In that case, let's see document
19 Q. There you see there's mention here of certain actions linked to
20 Hrasnica and the airport. You said that you observed troop movements
21 below the airport and Hrasnica. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes. There's also mention of Doglade, where I was.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Doglade area is
24 mentioned here, Doglada. Let the witness look at the date and reply, if
25 he can.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I've already said.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Under 1, can you read it. Is that what was happening at the time?
4 A. Yes. Should I read it out loud?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. "The enemy -- during last night and today, the enemy carried out
7 combat activities on our defence lines provoking from infantry weapons in
8 the region of Doglade and combined artillery-infantry attack in the region
9 of Nedzarici ..."
10 Q. Thank you, thank you.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.
12 Q. Does this correspond to what actually happened?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Prosecutor, since the witness is about to
17 leave, we thought it might be prudent if the Chamber could pronounce its
18 decision on the issue that is pending; namely, on the admissibility of the
19 transcripts of the conversation. And one issue which I did not understand
20 fully was whether the -- whether the transcript was admitted into evidence
21 in the Krajisnik trial and authenticated by one of the persons who spoke
22 in the intercepts and who was called as a witness in Krajisnik. Is that
23 correctly understood?
24 In other words, Mr. Sachdeva, what is your basis for claiming that
25 this has been authenticated?
1 MR. SACHDEVA: Your Honour, the participant, Nedjeljko Prstojevic,
2 testified in Krajisnik as a Prosecution witness.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: And did he confirm that he was speaking -- that it
4 was his voice on the intercept?
5 MR. SACHDEVA: I understand that he did, and I understand that he
6 confirmed the contents of the intercept.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can you show us to any paragraph in the Krajisnik
9 MR. SACHDEVA: I -- the judgement -- I understand that it was
10 admitted on the 19th of July, 2005, and that the exhibit is 795 and it
11 was through Prstojevic's testimony.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: But I understand that if -- if it has to be
13 adjudicated, then I suppose it will have to be found somewhere in the
14 judgement, would it not?
15 MR. SACHDEVA: Your Honour, I don't believe that is the case --
16 that that needs to be the case. With respect to -- with respect to
17 documents or exhibits that have been admitted in an earlier proceeding,
18 the supposition is that they have been authenticated in that proceeding.
19 And therefore, in the interests of efficiency and time, these documents
20 can be admitted again. And in fact --
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: All you have to show is that the document was
22 admitted in the earlier proceeding?
23 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President. And in fact the -- I refer
24 again to the -- to the precedent set by this Trial Chamber with respect to
25 the documents that were admitted in Galic and Slobodan Milosevic, albeit
1 the case did not finish. It is not the case that every single document
2 that was admitted was mentioned in the judgement; however, the documents
3 were authenticated in that proceeding and admitted on that basis.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: I accept that.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: In fact, I have here the decision of the Trial
6 Chamber of the 24th of January this year on that issue, and in the
7 relevant part it reads: "Considering that in order to take judicial
8 notice of documents, the Trial Chamber must be satisfied that the
9 documentary evidence for which notice is sought, A, was tendered and
10 received as evidence in other proceedings."
11 Then there is a footnote, footnote 4, in which is cited the
12 Milutinovic case; Prosecutor versus Bizimungu et al., an ICTR case; and
13 Prosecutor versus Nikolic, a decision of the Appeals Chamber on the 1st of
14 April, 2005, paragraph 45, where the Appeals Chamber concurs with the
15 Bizimungu Trial Chamber in concluding that documents do not need to be
16 adjudicated, as is the case for facts for which judicial notice is sought.
17 In other words, the Chamber in previous proceedings does not need
18 to have pronounced a specific and unchallenged or unchallengeable decision
19 on the contents of the document, simply to have admitted the document into
21 That's the end of footnote 4.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: That supports the position taken by the
24 Prosecutor, and the Chamber, by majority, will admit the document, that
25 is, the transcript.
1 Judge Harhoff is not satisfied as to its relevance. Judge Harhoff
2 dissents. That means, therefore, that we should allow any questions --
3 did you have further questions on this or you were -- you just sought its
4 admission? So the issue now is whether Mr. Tapuskovic has any questions
5 in re-examination.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Well, Mr. President, I did put a question to the
7 witness and the witness had told the Court that he was not able to -- I
8 believe his answer was that he could only hear 10 per cent of the
9 intercept. And therefore, the prospects of the transcript was raised --
10 of showing the witness the transcript.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, I see, so you want to show it to him now,
12 show him the transcript?
13 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, so he can see the transcript, and I can put
14 the question to him.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, and to put particular passages in it to him?
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let that be done. We should try to and get this
18 witness out of here by the end of the proceedings.
19 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, if it assists, although I understand
20 the ruling has been made, I could provide the transcript reference.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, go ahead.
22 MR. SACHDEVA: If it may assist, I understand a ruling has been
23 made, but I can provide the transcript reference in Krajisnik when the --
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Microphone not activated]
25 Further cross-examination by Mr. Sachdeva:
1 Q. Now, Witness, the intercept we heard, you told the Court you could
2 only hear 10 per cent of that intercept. Now we have a transcript -- we
3 have a transcript from that recording on the screen.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: And if we could go to --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: If we can go down -- if we can scroll further down,
7 please, and on the English as well. Further down, please. We'll have to
8 go to the next page. I'm sorry. Please scroll down. I think we have to
9 go to the next page. I apologise. Okay. That's fine -- if you can go
10 back up to the top. And I understand that's on the B/C/S that would also
11 be page 3.
12 Q. Witness, you see now on the right-hand side of the screen you see
13 where it says -- where it's recording Nedjeljko Prstojevic and it says:
14 "Well, what should we do? Would it be good if we gave it a thought and
15 if we organised people from outside to expel them all. Nobody needs to be
16 shot or killed. Everyone expelled."
17 Do you see that there?
18 A. No. Yes, I can see it now.
19 Q. Do you see it? And so my question after reading this transcript
20 of a conversation that Prstojevic had, and has confirmed in a proceeding
21 in this Tribunal, I put it to you that the non-Serbs, and the Muslims in
22 particular, were expelled from Ilidza municipality in the early part of
23 the conflict. Would you agree with that?
24 A. No.
25 MR. SACHDEVA: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Anything on that, that particular issue?
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, just on that issue.
3 Further re-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:
4 Q. [Interpretation] Prstojevic, Nedjeljko Prstojevic was what, did
5 you say?
6 A. The president of the municipality.
7 Q. Did he have any military authority?
8 A. No.
9 Q. In whose name was he speaking, do you know?
10 A. No, I don't.
11 Q. Well, read what it says here. What --
12 "Well, what shall we do? Would it be good to give it some
13 thought." When somebody says in our language "to give it some thought,"
14 what does that mean?
15 A. Well, it can happen but maybe not.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, regarding this exhibit, 65 ter
19 number 03297, the audio portion will be admitted as P778 and the
20 transcript will be admitted as P779.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have a request concerning D248.
23 We marked something on the map and that was saved, then we added
24 something, and I would like that to be saved also. I understand it is
25 still within the computer's domain and is still able to be saved as an
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that so, it's still within the computer's
4 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, we saved it just in case
5 Defence counsel wanted to tender it at a later time.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you have been anticipated.
7 Witness T-2, that concludes your evidence. We thank you for
8 giving it. You may now leave, but we are going to adjourn in any event.
9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, this exhibit is to be admitted.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the map with additional markings
12 will be admitted as D252.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And then we are adjourned.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.51 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 21st day of June,
17 2007, at 2:15 p.m.