Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 10946

1 Tuesday, 2 July 2002

2 [Closed session]

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Pages 10946-10977 redacted closed session

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 10978

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [Open session]

Page 10979

1 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session again. We still have to deal

2 with certain issues but, Mr. Ierace, I think the whole day was scheduled

3 for Witness Y.

4 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, it was anticipated that Witness Y

5 would finish either yesterday or this morning.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 MR. IERACE: The next witness is Mr. Mole, the unfortunate

8 Mr. Mole, because he has come twice before, already given evidence in two

9 parts in evidence in chief.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

11 MR. IERACE: Therefore, I would be anxious to complete him, since

12 not only is his evidence in chief already to have been in three parts, but

13 he has spend weeks, rather than days, sitting around waiting to give

14 evidence on past occasions. Could I respectfully suggest that we at least

15 complete evidence in chief of Mr. Mole? However, I am conscious of

16 time constraints, and if the break could happen before 10.30, I wish to

17 revise the list of exhibits in order to keep his evidence in chief as very

18 brief as possible.

19 But, thank you, Mr. President.

20 JUDGE ORIE: We have a few other issues as well. We still have

21 the 92 bis statements which we should hear the parties upon. It was

22 already indicated it should be done on Thursday or on Friday. We can't

23 leave that forever. So I would prefer to start with that, but let's just

24 first hear Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, regarding 92

Page 10980

1 bis, I am still waiting for the answers from the Prosecution. We said, so

2 that we can give our position, we have to have access to this pile of

3 documents that you may have received already. What we received is for

4 part important, that is important, is not legible because of bad copies

5 and so on. I have written to the Prosecution asking if we can have

6 something that was legible and visible, and we are still expecting an

7 answer. I really can't go any further until the Prosecution has answered

8 and brought us some copies that are clear and legible. Therefore, we

9 cannot give our position until the Prosecution has done its part of the

10 job.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.

12 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I don't recall that letter. Either it

13 was so long ago that we have dealt with it and I have put it out of my

14 mind or we have not received it. So perhaps during the break my friend

15 can give me a copy of it and I will check to see what's been done. Also

16 on 92 bis, I think last week, Mr. President, you asked that we do certain

17 things in relation to the material. We will check during the break that

18 those things have been done.

19 Certainly, there are some outstanding matters. There is also the

20 matter of the expert witnesses, one of whom is to give evidence this

21 Friday, hopefully. So perhaps in terms of 92 bis, my friend could clarify

22 his concern with us over the first break and we can perhaps at least sort

23 that out.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When you are talking about the expert

25 witnesses, you are talking about the experts Philips and Tabeau, I take

Page 10981

1 it.

2 MR. IERACE: Yes.

3 JUDGE ORIE: The decision will be given in due time as far as it's

4 not already very late. I have one question for the Defence at this very

5 moment. 92 bis under (E) says that "A party seeking to adduce a written

6 statement or transcript shall give fourteen days notice to the opposing

7 party, who may within seven days object."

8 Is it true that no objection has been filed?

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think that no objection has

10 been made in writing, but verbally, our position has been clearly stated

11 and I think that everyone knows this. I don't think that the text makes

12 it necessary for it to be a written objection.

13 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...please tell us

14 what your objections are about, apart from parts of the documents

15 being illegible.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Do you want us to state our

17 position now? I am not ready. I am going to have a look at it, and

18 perhaps after the break I would give you our position.

19 JUDGE ORIE: The Defence was requested to prepare for that by

20 last Thursday or Friday, and I know it is Tuesday now. And I also would

21 like to know because there was an objection filed at the previous occasion

22 of filing documents, but since that filing was withdrawn, the Chamber

23 wondered whether or not you considered that filing of objections to be a

24 repeated or -- it is unclear to us at this very moment what the position

25 of the Defence is. And we would like to know that so that we can take

Page 10982

1 decisions. If you say you can't do it now, then perhaps we

2 could use the remaining five minutes --

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] What I can do, unless you

6 want to pass a -- take a decision now, is that I can draft the position -

7 perhaps it would be clearer for everyone - the position of the Defence,

8 The chronology of the events and then you can have it by tonight or this

9 afternoon, then you can have it directly in writing. Perhaps that would

10 be the best thing to do.

11 JUDGE ORIE: We will consider that during the break, whether this

12 would be a solution. I don't know whether the Prosecution would oppose

13 against such a filing, at least such written communication, in respect of

14 92 bis.

15 MR. IERACE: Leaving to one side the issue of whether the Defence

16 has precluded itself by not complying with the filing timetable, I would

17 have no objection, Mr. President. There is also the matter of the report

18 of the Mr. Zarkovic [sic]. I appreciate there are outstanding matters.

19 JUDGE ORIE: I was waiting, as a matter of fact, for Mr. --

20 MR. IERACE: He arrived expectantly with five minutes to go

21 yesterday afternoon, but we did not get to him. I assume you mean

22 Mr. Stamp.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is Mr. Stamp there?

24 MR. IERACE: He was here yesterday afternoon. He is not here at

25 the moment.

Page 10983

1 JUDGE ORIE: I would have expected that he would give the answers.

2 Perhaps I could -- the question I would like to put to him is that since

3 there are two parts of the report that bear no signature at all, just

4 written text, typewritten text -- well, as far as I do understand the

5 Defence, could have been produced by anyone. On the other hand, I noticed

6 that, I would say, almost everything that would be in that part of the

7 text was dealt with during the examination of the witness.

8 So I wondered whether the Prosecution intended to argue on whether

9 or not signatures are needed for those specific two, I would say, further

10 elaborations of the report or that they would say, well, since this has

11 all been dealt with in the examination of the expert, we could also do

12 without.

13 That would have been my question to Mr. Stamp.

14 MR. IERACE: We will forward the question, Mr. President, and he

15 can attend at a time to suit your convenience, either immediately after

16 the break or perhaps before 1.45.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you -- yes. We have to consider at what

18 time we will deal with the matter.

19 Ms. Pilipovic.

20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Since you said "Madam Pilipovic" would also be fine,

22 I leave it up to you whether I should change the way I address you. I

23 would be glad to do so.

24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. As for the

25 position of the Defence regarding the motion which was given to the

Page 10984

1 Defence on the 29th of January, 2002, concerning the introduction of

2 evidence pursuant to 92 bis, we gave our position on the 4th of February,

3 2002. In that response, we elaborated our objection to the introduction

4 of evidence pursuant to 92 bis. We stated our position in respect of

5 every witness individually, that is the witnesses in respect of whom the

6 Prosecution was availing themselves to the 92 bis. After we received the

7 document on the 6th of June, that is the motion of the 6th of June, 2001,

8 which motion withdrew two statements. I believe one of them was the

9 Krestalica statement and I don't remember at this point the other one. We

10 were once again on that occasion given the material which was also given

11 to us for the first time on the 29th of January.

12 For these reasons, because we believe that we had already stated

13 our position regarding this material and the statements in question, we

14 did not feel the need to state our objection once again because the

15 documents in question were one and the same documents. So we still abide

16 by our position. And if it is necessary for the purposes of your

17 decision, Your Honour, we can state once again our response to the motion

18 regarding the evidence pursuant to 92 bis or we can put it in writing once

19 again during the break or in the afternoon; or we can also, after the

20 break, briefly explain once again why we object to the introduction of

21 evidence pursuant to 92 bis as it has been proposed by my learned

22 colleagues. Likewise, we would like to address the issue of the statement

23 of the late Hamdija Cavcic, after the decision was reached by the Appeals

24 Chamber on the 7th of June, 2002.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. That is a -- I would say a

Page 10985

1 separate issue that is 92 bis (C). But this is exactly the kind of

2 clarification the Chamber was seeking, whether the objections filed at an

3 earlier occasion would still stand as to the objection against the

4 documents that were filed again by the Prosecution.

5 So the only question that then remains is whether there are

6 any --

7 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: -- And then of course we would have to consider

9 whether any additional objections should have been filed or not. Rule 92

10 bis also says that the parties should be heard. If there are any

11 additional objections, please prepare to explain them briefly to the

12 Chamber.

13 We will then adjourn until 11.00.

14 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

15 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

16 [The witness entered court]

17 WITNESS: RICHARD MOLE [Resumed]

18 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Mole.

19 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I am glad to see that you are back. It -- your

21 testimony is cut into small pieces until now, which we regret, but

22 sometimes we have no choice. Thank you, therefore, for coming back.

23 Mr. Ierace, I think you had not yet finished the

24 examination-in-chief, so would you please proceed.

25 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.

Page 10986

1 Examined by Mr. Ierace: [Continued]

2 Q. Mr. Mole, good morning.

3 A. Good morning.

4 Q. On the last occasion that you were here, you told us that there

5 was a perception that events elsewhere in Bosnia-Herzegovina impacted

6 literally on Sarajevo in that the city would be shelled indiscriminately.

7 Do you remember saying that?

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. And --

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President I have to ask

11 Mr. Ierace if he could quote the exact reference in the preceding

12 statement of Mr. Mole.

13 JUDGE ORIE: It has been a very long time, Mr. Ierace. So if you

14 could find the spot.

15 MR. IERACE: In LiveNote, it is page 9827.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Would you have a date, perhaps, first.

17 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President. It is the 1st of July and that

18 is the page number --

19 JUDGE ORIE: 1st of July?

20 MR. IERACE: I am sorry.

21 JUDGE ORIE: The 7th of June would be a --

22 MR. IERACE: 7th of June.

23 JUDGE ORIE: -- would be a better idea. And then it would be

24 page?

25 MR. IERACE: Page 9827.

Page 10987

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, appears that at least --

2 MR. IERACE: Line 9.

3 JUDGE ORIE: 9827. Yes, please proceed.

4 MR. IERACE:

5 Q. I will read the answer to remove any doubt. Do you remember

6 telling us this: "There was an accepted norm that if the Serb side failed

7 to achieve their objectives, and I use that in the wider context, so that

8 could be anything from a local complaint to something else that happened

9 within Bosnia, the general perception was that Sarajevo would suffer as a

10 result. This was always interpreted to mean that artillery fire would be

11 brought to bear on the city in response."

12 JUDGE ORIE: We are just reading. Let's first --

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I do not have

14 the same references as you do.

15 JUDGE ORIE: If you listen carefully, you will check whether it a

16 literal reading and I will assist you then.

17 Please proceed.

18 MR. IERACE:

19 Q. "There were instances where this was quite specifically made as

20 a threat.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you -- don't you have LiveNote on

22 your computer?

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have it, perhaps, but I took

24 the hard copy and on page 9, 8279, it was me addressing to you a question.

25 So I don't know if the reference given by Mr. Ierace is correct.

Page 10988

1 JUDGE ORIE: It is page 9827, English version, line 9.

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well then. I will look

3 it up on my computer.

4 MR. IERACE: We have a spare copy for my learned colleague.

5 JUDGE ORIE: If that would assist you.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That we have, I am sure.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

8 MR. IERACE:

9 Q. Now, did you share that general perception?

10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. And you said there were instances where this was quite

12 specifically made as a threat. Was it ever made as a threat to you by

13 General Galic?

14 A. Yes, it was made as a threat both individually by General Galic as

15 well as from Serb liaison officers which we had in the PTT building.

16 Q. Can you recollect any examples of General Galic making such a

17 threat to you?

18 A. The detailed instances would be noted in the two statements that I

19 have made with the dates. We have already, in my previous evidence,

20 identified that 10 years later specific dates are hard for me to recall

21 from memory, but there was a general perception that other events within

22 Bosnia were key pressure points which, if events were not going according

23 to the Serb side's plans, the city of Sarajevo, which was to all intents

24 and purposes in a hostage situation, would be used as a counter pressure

25 point for the events elsewhere in Sarajevo.

Page 10989

1 Q. And I think indeed you have already given that evidence. If I

2 can ask you to focus on the particular questions.

3 I think essentially you are saying you don't recall a specific

4 instances at this stage without the assistance of documents. Is that

5 correct?

6 A. That would be correct. But I remember certain pressure points

7 where what I have outlined did occur. For example, Brcko was a

8 pressure point which was mentioned frequently.

9 Q. By General Galic?

10 A. That I don't remember. I believe there was a place, Trebinje - I

11 think I have that in my statement - where reverses had occurred which

12 caused a threat to be applied to other cities beside Sarajevo. Zagreb, I

13 recall being one.

14 Q. Again, was that by General Galic?

15 A. I believe so.

16 Q. To you?

17 A. I believe so.

18 Q. All right. Now, did it reach the point where you became something

19 of a student as to what was happening elsewhere in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

20 A. One would be foolish in the situation that I found myself in not

21 to pay full attention to the events elsewhere in Bosnia.

22 Q. As a result of your anticipation of events elsewhere in Bosnia and

23 the possible impact on Sarajevo, did you ever take any steps to pre-empt

24 attacks on Sarajevo?

25 A. Whenever we in our briefings in each morning in the sector were

Page 10990

1 notified that events elsewhere in Bosnia had progressed one way or the

2 other, we would then be alerted to the possibility of repercussions within

3 our sector.

4 Q. And did you ever, in those circumstances, take any steps in order

5 to pre-empt attacks on Sarajevo? Did you ever send any messages, perhaps,

6 anything of that nature?

7 A. No. We would respond to complaints and observations from both

8 sides, and that would be the means by which we would then take action.

9 Q. Perhaps I am not making myself clear. I am not talking about

10 responses to attacks on the city which have already taken place but rather

11 if you observed that things were going badly for the Serb forces elsewhere

12 in Bosnia, given that pattern that you told us about, did you

13 ever seek to step in before there were retaliatory attacks on Sarajevo?

14 A. I understand. Because our meetings were frequent, these events

15 would be part of discussion, yes.

16 Q. And discussion with whom?

17 A. With General Galic.

18 Q. Now, to be specific, did you make clear to him that you didn't

19 want retaliatory action on Sarajevo as a result of Serb setbacks elsewhere

20 in Bosnia?

21 A. That would be included in the conversation, yes.

22 Q. Now, before I take you to some documents, while you were in

23 Sarajevo, did General Galic receive a promotion?

24 A. He did.

25 Q. From what rank to what rank?

Page 10991

1 A. Colonel to General.

2 Q. When was that, approximately?

3 A. November 1992.

4 Q. Did you ever discuss that with General Galic?

5 A. Yes, I congratulated him on his promotion.

6 Q. Did he ever explain to you why he understood he was being

7 promoted?

8 A. No.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Just regarding the speed.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Speaking the same language, I must have -- I

12 must ask you to slow down a bit.

13 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

14 MR. IERACE:

15 Q. I suppose this is trite to state, but is it the case in military

16 structures that one is promoted when one is perceived by their superiors

17 to be doing well?

18 A. Yes, but one would obviously have to condition that with which

19 activities had been seen to have been performed to such an extent that

20 promotion was granted. It could well have been from before the appearance

21 of Colonel, then General, Galic in Sarajevo.

22 Q. I would like to ask you some questions about some other

23 individuals in the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. Colonel Zarkovic, did you

24 ever meet him?

25 A. Yes, I did.

Page 10992

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 10993

1 Q. What was his position, as you recollect it?

2 A. Again, one would have to consider all the statements that I have

3 made --

4 Q. If you don't remember, then that is fine. Just tell us.

5 A. That would be correct.

6 Q. Although you don't remember his position, do you remember

7 anything of his general attitude in terms of whether he took a soft line,

8 a medium line, or whatever, by comparison to General Galic?

9 A. In my dealings with that individual, he was a reasonable,

10 intelligent and understanding person who would be of moderate views,

11 generally.

12 Q. How did that compare to General Galic's position, in a general

13 sense?

14 A. I thought that General Galic was much harder of line, more

15 dedicated of purpose.

16 Q. Colonel Kosovac?

17 A. If we are making the same comparison in terms of character, are

18 we?

19 Q. No, just what position did he have in the SRK, as you recollect

20 it?

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, first of all, I

22 didn't get the name of the individual in question, and secondly, I have to

23 object for reasons of relevance. I don't know how all these names can be

24 relevant to the case against General Galic.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 10994

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, would you please respond to the relevance

2 issue.

3 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, it is part of the establishing the

4 texture of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, in other words, senior

5 subordinates to General Galic. You may recall there has been evidence

6 already as to some critical conversations with Colonel Zarkovic from other

7 witnesses. And it is therefore appropriate to bring out where he was in

8 the structure and his general attitude compared to that of the accused so

9 as to provide more of a context from -- for the earlier conversations.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is the first comparison you asked the

11 witness to make, I think, because you now say Colonel -- that is not

12 clearly in my mind. That is the second --

13 MR. IERACE: Kosovac, yes. And I don't seek a comparison between

14 him and General Galic in that sense. I propose to ask the witness if he

15 recollects the positions of Colonel Kosovac and two others

16 JUDGE ORIE: So you are not putting the same question to him.

17 Yes. So if you would then please repeat your question.

18 The name has become clear to you now, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I take

19 it.

20 Please proceed.

21 MR. IERACE:

22 Q. Do you recollect meeting a Colonel Kosovac?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 Q. Do you recollect his position?

25 A. No, I don't.

Page 10995

1 Q. Do you recollect --

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the name is

3 still not clear. I think I heard the word Kosovac but I am not sure.

4 Could my learned colleague spell it out so that we have it clear on the

5 record.

6 Secondly, the objection still stands to the extent that we do

7 not see how this witness can establish the structure of the Romanija

8 Corps. I don't think that that is the purpose of this testimony. Even if

9 it is, I don't know how this witness can assist us in this respect.

10 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the names of these people appear on

11 page 8 of the statement of the witness, taken on the 3rd of September

12 1997. I'm surprised that my friend --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the surprise is quite clear. If the statement

14 is in the hands, it is just for the Chamber perhaps of some importance. I

15 take it that it will be dealt with overnight. Yes, please. And then the

16 second issue?

17 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I respectfully submit it is obvious

18 that when an accused is charged with command responsibility, that it makes

19 perfect sense to lead evidence as to his senior subordinates.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The objection is denied. Please proceed.

21 MR. IERACE:

22 Q. Do you recollect whether Colonel Kosovac was relatively high or

23 low in the command structure for the Sarajevo Romanija Corps?

24 A. In relative terms, he was high in that structure.

25 Q. Colonel Pasic, do you recollect meeting him?

Page 10996

1 A. I do.

2 Q. Do you recollect his position?

3 A. Again, I recollected his position when I gave my statement in

4 1997. Further, five years have passed by so I would rather my statement

5 stood. I can't remember sitting here now.

6 Q. And finally, Vladimir Lukic?

7 A. Same applies.

8 Q. Thank you. Now, were there -- I think you referred to daily

9 meetings or at least meetings earlier this morning at which information

10 would be provided within the UN structure. Were there daily meetings?

11 A. Yes, there were.

12 Q. What part of the UN structure would conduct those meetings?

13 A. The United Nations presence in Sarajevo was a sector. That sector

14 had a headquarters and three battalions under command. Within that

15 structure and that headquarters, alongside the operations room of the

16 sector was the UNMO, UNMO organisation. The operations room of the sector

17 would have a morning "O" group, operations group meeting, and I

18 would have similar meetings in the evening with my senior officers.

19 Q. If I could summarise that evidence, are you saying that, each

20 morning, the operations unit conducted a meeting and, each evening, you

21 conducted a meeting for the UNMOs?

22 A. That would be correct.

23 Q. Did you attend the morning meetings?

24 A. Always I attended those meetings and had the opportunity to

25 speak.

Page 10997

1 Q. Did you ever hear it said at either an operation unit meeting or

2 the daily UNMO meetings that a United Nations investigation had

3 established that the source of fire of a shelling incident which occurred

4 within the territory controlled by the Bosnian government was also within

5 the territory controlled by the Bosnian government? In other words, did

6 you ever hear it said that a United Nations investigation had established

7 as a fact that Bosnian forces had fired on their own civilians?

8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic.

9 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't think I fully

10 understand what incident we are talking about. Could my learned colleague

11 be more precise, please, and give us the time framework.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, could you please respond to it, although

13 am I right in understanding that you are talking in rather general terms

14 but within the time period when the witness was in Sarajevo, I take it?

15 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because otherwise he couldn't have heard

17 anything over there.

18 MR. IERACE: Yes.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please answer the question. Yes.

20 THE WITNESS: I understand what you are asking. There was a

21 general perception that the Presidency side would benefit more on the

22 global scale if they were perceived to be the beleaguered party. To

23 maintain that image, I am sure - though I cannot give evidence of fact -

24 that incidents occurred where, to perpetuate that beleaguered viewpoint

25 and to increase the possibility of outside involvement from NATO and other

Page 10998

1 outside agencies, that the Presidency forces may well have fired upon

2 their own city to maintain that beleaguered viewpoint.

3 MR. IERACE:

4 Q. Now, would you please focus on the wording of the question --

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think I have

8 to intervene now. The word "beleagured" party is not in the transcript,

9 but I think we have all heard it by now. Could the witness please repeat

10 it for the record.

11 MR. IERACE: Perhaps the witness could read the answer on the

12 screen, Mr. President.

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] 19.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Mole, could you please look at page 50,

15 line 19, which is approximately in the middle of your screen. Did you

16 say, "perceived to be the beleaguered party"?

17 THE WITNESS: I did.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. For the French booth,

20 the word in question was "assieger," beleaguered, and not "belligerant,"

21 belligerent.

22 MR. IERACE:

23 Q. You say that they may well have fired upon their own city. Sir,

24 what I am asking is whether you are aware of any UN report conducted into

25 any incident during the time that you were in Sarajevo which established

Page 10999

1 that as a fact?

2 A. Remembering that the task of the UNMO group was not to

3 investigate in a police fashion the events to which we refer, I can only

4 tell you that there were incidents which were investigated and we

5 understand that there was an element of doubt as to the origin of the

6 fire that had done the damage.

7 Q. Thank you for that.

8 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I ask the witness be shown -- I

9 withdraw that.

10 Q. Just some other brief questions. Are you aware as to whether the

11 Serb forces had access to United Nations communications, in other words,

12 the ability to listen in to communications, for instance, between UNMOs?

13 A. Yes, they did. The liaison officers which were appointed by the

14 sector and were located in the PTT building had difficulty connecting

15 with their side outside the city, as telephone communications were in

16 doubt. As a result, we provided, that is, the United Nations provided,

17 communications facility for them to fulfill their task.

18 Q. Sir, given the time is very brief, if you could answer the

19 questions properly with a "yes" or "no," perhaps you could do that. Just

20 to assist you in order to overcome that problem, did you provide a piece

21 of equipment to them?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. What was the type of equipment?

24 A. A Motorola.

25 Q. Was that the type of equipment used by UNMOs?

Page 11000

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Did that give them the ability to listen in to UNMO conversations?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Did you ever see staff of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps with

5 Motorolas?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. All right. Now, you told us on an earlier occasion that you

8 travelled around the front line one day. What was the approximate length

9 of the front line around the city?

10 A. 64 kilometres.

11 Q. During your time in Sarajevo, what were the mortar sizes used by

12 the Serb forces, the Serb army forces?

13 A. Anything from 6-inch mortar to 122-millimetre mortar.

14 Q. Did you personally see mortars of the size of approximately 122

15 millimetres?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. On the Serb side?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Do you know whether the Bosnian government forces had mortars of a

20 similar size?

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I really have

22 to object to this question. A mortar does not have approximately 122, 60,

23 80 or so millimetres. We are talking about very exact calibres and we

24 know what calibres are we are talking about.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 11001

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, would you please respond to the

2 objection.

3 MR. IERACE: Well, Mr. President, it is a proper question. I am

4 aware of what the issue is which is operating in my friend's mind, and I

5 am sure that if I was to ask a leading question on it, he would be the

6 first to object. But I am happy to do that. Perhaps he can object if he

7 doesn't like the question.

8 Q. Are you sure the mortars were 122 millimetres exactly, or were

9 they another size?

10 A. There were many sizes. That one would be included.

11 Q. What I'm essentially asking is: Was it exactly 122 or 124 or 118

12 or some similar size that was used by the Serb forces?

13 A. 122.

14 Q. Now coming back to my following question: Do you know whether the

15 Bosnian government forces had mortars of a similar size to 122

16 millimetres?

17 A. They did.

18 MR. IERACE: I ask the witness be shown some documents,

19 Mr. President.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please assist, Madam Usher.

21 MR. IERACE: 354 is the first.

22 Q. Does the document you have just been handed appear to be a

23 photocopy of a daily sit-rep from you to Zagreb headquarters?

24 A. It does.

25 Q. I direct your attention firstly to the date. Is that the 20th of

Page 11002

1 October, 1992?

2 A. It is.

3 Q. I now direct your attention to paragraph 3 on page 1, and under

4 the heading "continuous affairs," do you refer to an incident the previous

5 day when police forces on the Serbian side took," to use your words,

6 "great exception to workers from Presidency area on mission," in relation

7 to some water repairs?

8 A. I see it.

9 Q. Do you relate that the Serbian police intended to arrest the

10 workers -- I will read on, quoting: "But only armed intervention by Serb

11 liaison officer and his guards with mission prevented this occurrence.

12 Once again, this provides a clear indication that there is not a

13 well-coordinated and unified command structure on either side."

14 Does that appear?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. In relation to that incident --

17 THE INTERPRETER: The French interpreter asks Mr. Ierace to repeat

18 the last question, please.

19 MR. IERACE:

20 Q. Does that appear?

21 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. President, the French booth has a sort of a

22 little bit of a problem. Could Mr. Ierace repeat the last question,

23 please, and the quotation?

24 JUDGE ORIE: Was that half the question in relation to that

25 incident or already the question: "Do you relate relating that the

Page 11003

1 Serbian police ..."?

2 THE INTERPRETER: In relation to that question, Mr. President.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you please repeat that, Mr. Ierace.

4 MR. IERACE: That is the whole question, Mr. President.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President now, we are at

6 it, and since I have the document in front of us, may I ask Mr. Ierace to

7 apply the same rule as it applies to me and to quote the whole sentence

8 and not just a portion of the text that he has picked out. Says the

9 quotation that I see in the record starts with a "but" if I am not

10 mistaken. Previous page, line 6.

11 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, we have extreme time concerns. I

12 withdraw the question. Might the document be returned, and I ask the

13 witness be given Exhibit 3689?

14 Q. Sir, was it the case that monthly reports were prepared

15 summarising the events, mostly on a daily basis, which had occurred over

16 that month?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. In many cases, would the entries in the monthly report come from

19 the daily sit-reps?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Do you have before you the senior military observer's end of the

22 month report for October?

23 A. I do.

24 MR. IERACE: Excuse me, Mr. President.

25 Mr. President, this document will have to be dealt with in closed

Page 11004

1 session.

2 JUDGE ORIE: We will then turn into closed session. I see it

3 bears an "R" number.

4 [Closed session]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [redacted]

14 [redacted]

15 [redacted]

16 [redacted]

17 [redacted]

18 [redacted]

19 [redacted]

20 [redacted]

21 [redacted]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

Page 11005

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Pages 11005-11008 redacted closed session

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 11009

1 week."

2 Were you the SMO who attended that meeting?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Is this reference to shelling of the city, a reference to shelling

5 of military targets or indiscriminate fire into the city, generally?

6 A. Indiscriminate.

7 Q. Is this an example of your earlier testimony to the effect that

8 the Serb forces would use indiscriminate fire as a means of bringing

9 pressure to bear on the Presidency?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. In this instance, did it work?

12 A. Yes. I reduced the level of violence by the meeting.

13 MR. IERACE: Might that document we returned. And might the

14 witness be shown another confidential exhibit which is -- excuse me. I am

15 sorry, Mr. President. This one is not a confidential exhibit so we can go

16 back into open session.

17 JUDGE ORIE: We will turn into open session again.

18 [Open session]

19 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session again.

20 MR. IERACE:

21 Q. Do you have before you a copy of your --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What is the witness supposed to have in front

23 of him? I think you said that the next document which was not identified.

24 MR. IERACE: I am definitely speeding up too much, Mr. President.

25 Exhibit 358.

Page 11010

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in order to

2 respect the quality, could Mr. Ierace please repeat the number which is

3 only appearing now. Thank you.

4 MR. IERACE: I don't understand, Mr. President.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think you have it in front of you with the

6 number on it.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. It was not appearing in

8 the transcript when I started my intervention. That is why I --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that is what I just

10 indicated. It clearly is in the transcript. If you start intervening when

11 the -- those who are responsible for the transcript have not even been

12 able to identify an issue, if you have the document in front of you, just

13 wait and see whether we all have the same document in front of us, and if

14 it does not appear in the transcript, the tiny yellow paper will do. Do

15 not interfere and intervene at a too early stage.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I did not have

17 a document before me. I was looking in my folder without a reference. I

18 did not have a document.

19 JUDGE ORIE: The document showed to the witness always are

20 distributed. So even if you would not have had it in front of you at that

21 very -- I wouldn't say minute but at that very second, it would have been

22 there in five seconds. That is exactly what I am asking you to do, is to

23 first see what happens, unless there is very technical objection, and not

24 intervene unnecessarily.

25 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Mr. President the reference in page 62, line

Page 11011

1 22, and it is the exact reference.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

3 MR. IERACE:

4 Q. Would you please go to the entry for the 7th of November --

5 sorry. Yes, the 7th of November. Is this the second sentence: "General

6 alert declared by Presidency in city in response to Serb threat of dire

7 consequences if the approximately 6.000 refugees were not allowed to leave

8 the city by 1400 hours today"?

9 Does that appear?

10 A. Yes, I see that.

11 Q. All right. And does the balance of the entry make clear that the

12 refugees included apparently some Croatian people who wanted to travel to

13 Kiseljak?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Would you now go to the entry for the 8th of November -- I

16 withdraw that. Is that another example of a threat -- I withdraw that.

17 Would you please go to the following day's entry, in particular

18 over the page, the first line: "Yesterday's threat by Serbs to Presidency

19 of dire consequences if the approximately 6.000 refugees were not allowed

20 to leave the city were apparently not followed through in any large

21 measure, although general shelling activity somewhat heavier today." Do

22 you see that entry?

23 A. I do.

24 Q. Do those two entries, that is for the 7th and 8th, illustrate

25 again that same pattern of threatening the use of indiscriminate fire if

Page 11012

1 the political or other objectives of the Serb forces were not met?

2 A. It does. And the second incident was one I referred to about half

3 an hour ago.

4 Q. Indeed. Do you mean the words which immediately follow on from

5 where I stopped quoting?

6 A. It relates to the Croatian attack on Nevesinje.

7 Q. Yes, I'll come to that now. Does the entry go on to read, "At

8 approximately 900 hours, received message from Serbian liaison GP at

9 Lukavica concerning Croatian attack on ... " And perhaps you could

10 pronounce that word.

11 A. Nevesinje.

12 Q. "[Approximately 24 kilometres south-east of Mostar] Serbs

13 indicated that six villages had already been burnt. Serbs threatened

14 that if attack did not cease by 1100 hours, that they would reply by

15 shelling Dubrovnik, Slavonski Brod, Cantat and Zagreb. As requested,

16 message was passed to General Morillon who was in the sector headquarters

17 and he dealt with it from there."

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I object

20 again in relation to the areas, to the territories, which are not covered

21 by the indictment. This is the same kind of objection that I made in

22 relation to Breza and Zupca and now in relation to Dubrovnik and Slavonski

23 Brod. So really, General Galic did not have any kind of authority. It

24 was nothing to do with his corps of the army. So if we are going to look

25 at the behaviour of third parties, of nothing to do with the other corps,

Page 11013

1 if we are going to align them with the person of General Galic, this is

2 not what the Defence can accept.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.

4 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, my next question was going to be, in

5 view of his earlier evidence, whether he has any understanding of General

6 Galic being involved in that threat.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will

8 apologise but this is very difficult thing to swallow. We know very

9 well that General Galic had nothing to do with Dubrovnik. We know that

10 very well, but I think that we are wasting time and we are going to waste

11 a lot of time. The position of the Defence is to reiterate this

12 position. We are only interested in Sarajevo according to what is written

13 in the indictment. Why are we now going to be asking questions about

14 Dubrovnik? Dubrovnik, let us remind ourselves, is many kilometres away

15 from Sarajevo, and it is not admissible fundamentally and specifically.

16 And not even to speak about Zagreb because Zagreb was even mentioned last

17 time. Thank you.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Even without this mentioning of Zagreb, the

19 objection was clear to the Chamber.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would prefer to discuss further the

22 matter the objection during the break. If it would be possible for you,

23 Mr. Ierace, to touch on a different subject.

24 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President. Could I briefly respond to my

25 friend's concern so that you will have the benefit of that argument during

Page 11014

1 the break?

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I am aware that now and then I am perhaps too

3 quick in consulting my colleagues rather than first listen better to the

4 parties. I apologise for that.

5 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, it is necessary, I think, to clarify

6 with the witness what involvement, if any, General Galic had within that

7 threat as he understands it because of the witness's earlier evidence,

8 which the witness himself has referred to --

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

10 JUDGE ORIE: I know --

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Are we going to be speaking of

12 this before the witness? That is what I want to know.

13 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...not of

14 everything, perhaps, but I am carefully listening to Mr. Ierace, and I

15 take it that usually the parties, if they touch ground of which they

16 think it would be better to discuss the matter in the absence of the

17 witness, they will ask the Chamber. And the Chamber is very alert on that

18 as well.

19 Please proceed.

20 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. You recall that the

21 witness, in fact, drew the attention to the Trial Chamber to this entry in

22 the document and said words to the effect, "This is something I was

23 talking about earlier," something like that. Earlier, I had asked him of

24 instances of threats regarding General Galic. Accepting for the sake of

25 the argument that the witness -- that there is no connection, the

Page 11015

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 11016

1 relevance is, firstly, the background of other evidence that Sarajevo was

2 a lever in the Bosnia-wide context.

3 The second point of relevance is that the threat emanated from the

4 Serb liaison officer at Lukavica, which has obvious significance. In

5 other words, to the extent that General Galic, according to this witness's

6 evidence, was instrumental in threatening action against Sarajevo in order

7 to achieve Bosnia-wide objectives, this one coming through Lukavica

8 further makes clear the role of Lukavica in at least a communication point

9 for these coordinated connections between events.

10 Thank you, Mr. President. That is all I wish to say on that.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Would you then -- yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, when we start

13 after the next break, the Defence would clearly like to make an

14 intervention following by what the Prosecution just spoke before the

15 witness. Thank you very much.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps to have just before the break so that we can

17 consider whatever you have to say --

18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed, but then I have to do

19 it in the absence of the witness. Thank you.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Ierace, would you please take care that a

21 couple of minutes before we start the break that you interrupt the

22 examination-in-chief and ask the witness then, not now, to leave the

23 courtroom before we have the break.

24 MR. IERACE: I will, Mr. President.

25 Q. Sir, the next entry is the 22nd of November.

Page 11017

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, just to be

2 very precise and very clear, I have to indicate now that the Defence

3 believes that its rights have been offended and one of the positions that

4 I am going to explain later, I now have to make a general observation, is

5 that this way of proceeding is offending the rights of the Defence. I

6 will explain a little later. And I don't think the follow-up testimony

7 should be possible. Thank you.

8 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you touch upon a different subject

9 now. Yes, please proceed.

10 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.

11 Q. Sir, in relation to the entry for the 22nd of November 1992, did

12 you note that there was a high level of activity with 192 rounds incoming

13 to the Presidency side and two rounds incoming to the Serb side?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. If you read four lines down, do these words appear: "Today,

16 General Morillon requested an update on the activity in the sector, and

17 when appraised of the heavy shelling into the city, directed that the

18 Serbs be asked the reason for this activity. When asked, the Serbs

19 answered that the shelling was in response to a mid-morning attack by

20 Presidency forces against Hresa," spelled H-r-e-s-a, "grid 4058. The

21 attack was said to have been made by infantry supported by hand-held

22 anti-tank weapons. Furthermore, they indicated that the artillery then

23 followed the retreating forces back into the city. It should be noted

24 that the UNMO position observing Hresa was unaware of any infantry attacks

25 to the area. Furthermore, the pattern of shelling by the Serbs did not

Page 11018

1 indicate a specific operation in support of forces in Hresa but was widely

2 spread throughout the city. Shelling into the city still continues at the

3 time of writing of this report."

4 Do you see those words?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Is the city referred to Sarajevo?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Is this another example of the relationship between -- I withdraw

9 that.

10 Essentially, you seem to be saying in that entry that the

11 explanation provided by the representatives of the Serb forces was quite

12 inconsistent with your own independent observations by the UNMOs. Is that

13 correct?

14 A. That is absolutely true.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. I am up

16 because I believe that this is a leading question.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.

18 MR. IERACE: It is a leading question, Mr. President, and it is

19 leading in the sense that it summarises quite fairly, I would suggest,

20 what the passage says, and I have taken the step of reading the passage

21 out. Therefore, although leading, it is not, in my respectful submission,

22 objectionable for that reason.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied.

25 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

Page 11019

1 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. Might that document be

2 returned. Might the witness be shown document 511.

3 Q. Sir, is this a memorandum from you to the Sector Commander dated

4 the 11th of December, 1992, on the subject of an upsurge in violence, to

5 use the subheading, between the 1st and 10th of December, 1992?

6 A. It is.

7 Q. Would you please go to paragraph 12 which is on the second page.

8 I draw your attention to about the third sentence at paragraph 12,

9 approximately four lines down. Indeed, six lines down. "The Serbs still

10 maintain their pressure on the city by an occasional random round or two

11 into the city and no noticeable change in activity level from before the

12 ceasefire on the periphery of the city."

13 The observation you made there of "an occasional random round

14 or two into the city," with what frequently did that type of shelling

15 pattern occur?

16 A. What I am indicating is the random shelling which we became

17 familiar with daily throughout my tour did not vary necessarily according

18 to military objectives. So in specific answer to your question, this

19 brief relates to a particular conflict, but my indication in paragraph 12

20 shows that the random shelling in the city was not related to military

21 objectives related to in this document.

22 Q. Thank you for that.

23 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, might that document we returned. And

24 would this be a convenient time?

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Usher, may I ask you to escort Mr. Mole

Page 11020

1 out of the courtroom, since we have to deal with the procedural matter in

2 your absence, Mr. Mole. I take it that we will resume at 10 minutes

3 to 1.00.

4 [The witness withdrew]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

7 Mr. President, the sequence of events that happened earlier was perhaps a

8 demonstration that sometimes rapidity doesn't serve us well. What I

9 asked was that the witness leaves and my advice wasn't followed, but

10 never mind. But what we want to raise is an objection of principle. Why?

11 Because this witness was not interrogated in a normal way, examined in a

12 certain way. Simply, the Prosecution pleaded before the witness not to

13 ask him questions but of such grave things, serious things, for the

14 accused, like the Lukavica had a very important role in the organisation

15 and coordination of all the other events as distinct that we know, that we

16 should know, in Sarajevo and those in Dubrovnik.

17 Now, the Prosecution gave us a thesis here, a version, it clearly

18 stated before the witness that Lukavica or General Galic was nothing else

19 but responsible for this connection of these events on various levels.

20 Consequently, not asking questions by stating it here officially and

21 publicly before the witness, the Prosecution has obviously put the witness

22 in a position of being biased. No matter -- however we look at the

23 problem, they have made him --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ask you one thing, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. Would

25 it be possible that the Prosecution summarised what is essentially the

Page 11021

1 content of the entry on the 8th of November, 1992?

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] But I had the impression here

3 not of a summary. We were told a lot more in what Mr. Ierace said than

4 just the entry that you mentioned. I think what is here being entered

5 into evidence is the personal responsibility of General Galic in the

6 framework of the events that took place in Dubrovnik and Sarajevo as being

7 a machine that General Galic was responsible for. That was more or

8 less the thesis by the Prosecution, and the Prosecution obviously stated

9 this and put General Galic in Lukavica, exposed them as such. And on one

10 hand, we are here outside the territorial framework of the indictment, and

11 on the other hand, we are here stating things in front of the witness and

12 his testimony hasn't finished yet.

13 MR. IERACE: Very quickly, Mr. President.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

15 MR. IERACE: At no stage did I suggest that General Galic had

16 personal responsibility for events in Dubrovnik. This is the document of

17 the witness. I have said nothing in my submissions which is not, in fact,

18 the evidence of this witness already and that is why I did not ask that

19 the witness be taken from the courtroom. The issue is simply that the

20 witness himself has, on the face of the -- his evidence, drawn a

21 connection between General Galic and this incident, at least potentially,

22 by saying, not in response to any question from me, that this aspect of

23 his report is what he was referring to earlier in his evidence.

24 What I seek to do is to ask him if there is a connection and if

25 indeed General Galic was involved in the conveyance of this threat.

Page 11022

1 Assuming that his answer is, on reflection, no, General Galic was not

2 involved with this particular incident, it still has relevance to the

3 Prosecution case because it comes through Lukavica and simply makes the

4 point that the evidence of this witness and others to the effect that

5 General Galic threatened to indiscriminately fire against Sarajevo, if

6 events did not work out according to the wishes of the Serb forces

7 elsewhere in Bosnia, that his forward headquarters, to use the words of

8 the Defence, were where this threat came from. In other words, that

9 threats in relation to events elsewhere in Bosnia which involved action

10 against places elsewhere in Bosnia also came through Lukavica, at least on

11 this one instance. To emphasise my point, I am not saying that General

12 Galic is responsible for events that took place in Dubrovnik. It is not

13 part of this indictment to explore what General Galic did beyond Sarajevo

14 in this time frame. Thank you, Mr. President.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I can see that

16 at the same time that Mr. Ierace is saying that General Galic is not

17 responsible of this, he is saying that Lukavica is, and this is exactly

18 where the problem lies. This is here just a synonym, really, a metonymy,

19 really.

20 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...until 10 minutes

21 to 1.00.

22 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

23 --- On resuming at 12.56 p.m.

24 JUDGE ORIE: As far as the objection by the Defence is concerned,

25 the alleged threats the document P358 is about are directly related to

Page 11023

1 the Croatian-Serbian armed conflict, at quite a distance from Sarajevo,

2 and relates to retaliation against cities that are similarly far away

3 from Sarajevo, and Dubrovnik, Slavonski Brod, Zagreb, all on Croatian

4 territory. I did not mention Cantat because the Chamber had not enough

5 time to identify whether Cantat is also on Croatian territory. If it is,

6 then it would even strengthen the reasoning of this decision.

7 Therefore, the Chamber considers that the possible Lukavica

8 involvement in passing the alleged threats not of assistance for the

9 determination of its decision it has to make. Therefore, the objection is

10 sustained.

11 The witness may be brought in again.

12 [The witness entered court]

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. If we can perhaps

16 ask the witness to remain outside for perhaps 30 seconds.

17 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...unfortunately, Mr.

18 Piletta-Zanin only asked me to have another 30 seconds in your absence

19 when you were already in the courtroom. I apologise.

20 [The witness stands down]

21 JUDGE ORIE: In quizzes, they say: Your 30 seconds have started

22 now, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Briefly, our objection was

24 that in view of the allegations of the Prosecution in the framework of

25 this witness, this was something very similar to what has already been

Page 11024

1 prohibited by the Chamber. Thank you.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] For the interpretation, I was

4 not speaking of anything that should have been prohibited by the Chamber.

5 I am sorry. I was referring to a principle. It is prohibited to make

6 contact during the examination with the witness in order to explain what

7 the position is.

8 JUDGE ORIE: I am not quite sure that I followed you. Let me just

9 read for one second. In English, you say: "It is prohibited to make

10 contact with the witness during the examination in order to explain what

11 the position is." It is not quite clear to me.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No. What I said before the

13 break, Mr. President, is the following: The fact for the Prosecution to

14 have actually pleaded in front of the witness and to have exposed their

15 position has, to a certain effect, pre-formed, generally speaking, the

16 witness for the examination. So it is the same as making contact with the

17 witness during the examination, which is not permissible. Since the

18 Prosecution has decided to proceed in this way, this witness has to a

19 certain extent now been tainted because of this way of proceeding.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if one would accept your

22 reasoning, then it would certainly be limited to the subject and not in

23 general contaminate this witness. I stress, "if" you would have already

24 followed that.

25 Therefore, the Prosecution may continue to examine the witness.

Page 11025

1 Could you please bring in the witness, Madam Usher.

2 [The witness entered court]

3 [Prosecution counsel confer]

4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

5 MR. IERACE: Might the witness be shown Exhibit 618.

6 Q. Sir, do you have before you the Senior Military Observer's end of

7 month report for December?

8 A. I do.

9 Q. You have told us that you were relieved by Lieutenant Colonel

10 Cutler at the end of December, I think around the 25th or 26th. Is that

11 correct?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. Therefore, his signature appears on the report on the last page.

14 Is that so?

15 A. That is true.

16 Q. In fact, the entries up until the changeover date reflect your

17 period. Is that correct?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. And does that part of the report essentially constitute your

20 portion of it?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Now, you have told us that in the first 10 days or so of December,

23 there was fierce fighting in the area of Otes. Is that the case?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You have also told us that there was a very high number of shells

Page 11026

1 that landed on the Sarajevan side during that battle. Is that correct?

2 A. Within the area of Otes, I said, yes.

3 Q. Now, I will firstly take you to a number of references in the

4 report on various days in relation to whether there was shelling elsewhere

5 in the city during that period. Do you understand?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. In that context, firstly, I take you to the entry for the 5th of

8 December, 1992.

9 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise. I have

10 a technical problem. Exhibit 618, pursuant to the documents that have

11 been provided by the Prosecution, is 620, in order to avoid any confusion.

12 We are talking about the monthly report for the month of December as

13 Exhibit number 620 and not 618. The problem concerns only the numbering,

14 so that we should not be misled later on.

15 JUDGE ORIE: I have in front of me P618, which starts at the

16 bottom 00411996.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, but the

18 problem is that this document was disclosed, at least that is what it

19 seems, for the same period of time under number 620 and I think that we

20 have exactly the same copies.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Do you recognise the number just indicated by me as

22 the ERN number at the bottom of the page?

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] On the document that we have

24 now, yes. But not on 620, which is the same document. I don't know if we

25 risk having any problems because of this.

Page 11027

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, is the last page, last three

2 digits 008?

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, of course.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Meanwhile, the other pages are there as well. But

5 that is now document P618 the witness is questioned about.

6 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace. If the number is wrong on the top,

7 you change it so that we have all the same numbers. I did that several

8 times when the wrong numbers were put on Defence exhibits and it causes no

9 problems.

10 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.

11 MR. IERACE:

12 Q. Do you have the entry for the 7th of December, 1992, open in front

13 of you?

14 A. I do.

15 Q. Does it read: "Medium level of activity today with 259 rounds

16 incoming to Presidency side and 114 rounds incoming to Serb side."

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. "Total rounds recording outgoing from Serb positions, 93; from

19 Presidency positions, 71."

20 Now, firstly, does that illustrate the incompleteness of the UNMO

21 recordings, in other words, they are not consistent because of

22 difficulties that the UNMOs had in recording all shells?

23 A. It demonstrates the fact that we did not monitor all weapons on

24 the Serb side.

25 Q. All right.

Page 11028

1 The next words read: "Shelling widely dispersed throughout city."

2 Is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Now, firstly, what is meant by those words in terms of whether the

5 fire was understood to be against military targets or indiscriminate fire?

6 A. I think you must take it exactly as it is read.

7 Q. Does that mean you don't know?

8 A. No, it means that shelling was widely dispersed throughout the

9 city.

10 Q. All right. Do you know whether that wide dispersal of fire

11 reflected indiscriminate fire on that occasion?

12 A. It would indicate that not all the targets were military targets.

13 Q. All right.

14 Now, I draw your attention to a further passage under that date.

15 If you count down nine lines, the end of the ninth line has the words, "at

16 approx." Do you see that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. "At approx 072000 A December, Serbs threatened to renew shelling

19 of city if Presidency shelling of Lukavica did not cease. Presumably

20 Serbs not satisfied with response because as of 072130 A December, Serbs

21 have commenced shelling of city."

22 Do you see those words?

23 A. I do.

24 Q. Now, firstly, does 072000 A indicate the 7th of December?

25 A. Yes. 8.00 in the evening.

Page 11029

1 Q. And the other reference, I take it, therefore, is the 7th of

2 December at 9.30 in the evening?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. Is that another example of the Serb forces threatening to shell

5 indiscriminately the city if they did not receive what they wanted and,

6 indeed, carrying out the threat?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Would you please go to the following day, the 8th of December.

9 Does that refer to "An extremely high level of activity today with 991

10 rounds incoming to Presidency side."

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. If you go down further --

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, first of all,

14 the booth is asking the speakers to slow down. I have to make a similar

15 request but I also have to go back to something that was mentioned at

16 the bottom of page 80, line 25: The word "indiscriminately" does not

17 appear in the quoted text, which makes the question a leading one, to

18 which we have to object.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.

20 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, it is a leading question, and if you

21 wish it to be struck out, I am happy to go back and approach it in a

22 different way.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

24 MR. IERACE:

25 Q. Please go back to the entry for the 7th of December, 1992. What,

Page 11030

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 11031

1 if anything, did you understand by the threat and I now quote your

2 words: "Serbs threatened to renew shelling of city."

3 A. Their response would be a general shelling of the city, not

4 necessarily military targets.

5 Q. Would you please now go to the 8th of December, 1992. I have read

6 out the first part of the first sentence. Would you now go to the fourth

7 line. Do these words appear: "Shelling widely dispersed throughout

8 city"?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. What did you mean by those words in terms of the nature of the

11 targets?

12 A. I was referring to specific areas of confrontation, and the

13 "shelling widely dispersed widely throughout city" quote would relate to

14 rounds landing in areas which were not necessarily related to those events

15 on the front line.

16 Q. Would you now go further down the entry for that date. Would you

17 please count down to about 12 lines, the line commencing with the letters

18 "DSMO" in capitals?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. At the end of that line, do you see the word "indiscriminate"?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do these words appear --

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, once again, I

24 have to ask the speakers to slow down, please. I can no longer take notes

25 and it --

Page 11032

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin --

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] 81.14, for example.

3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...slow down is such

4 good enough. Is there any specific issue you would like to raise apart

5 from that?

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I will be happy to do so,

7 Mr. President. The speed is such that on page 81, line 14, I was not --

8 JUDGE ORIE: I don't want to have introductions like, "The speed

9 was such that I could not read this." You just tell us: Page so and so,

10 line that and that, I need a clarification. Something like that. I

11 don't want speeches all the time. So please indicate why you have a

12 problem and what the problem is.

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We might as well continue.

14 Thank you.

15 MR. IERACE:

16 Q. Do these words appear: "Indiscriminate shelling of city

17 intensifying"?

18 A. They do.

19 Q. And that is for the same day as the earlier words: "Shelling

20 widely dispersed throughout city." Is that correct?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. Are you therefore saying that the shelling --

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am really

24 very sorry but once again I am asking the speakers to slow down because

25 otherwise, I will -- I can just leave because I cannot perform my work.

Page 11033

1 Very often, I have to verify the text which is full of mistakes. I have

2 to react and I don't have always the time to do that. Thank you very

3 much.

4 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...clear that a

5 single request for slowing down would do. And the speech you made was six

6 lines. One line next time for complaining about the speed.

7 Could you please slow down, Mr. Ierace.

8 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President.

9 Q. Now, the -- this indiscriminate fire that was taking place during

10 the Otes battle or the Otes conflict, did you see any connection between

11 the two or not?

12 A. That would be the reason that we would determine fire to be

13 indiscriminate, if it bore no relation to military activity.

14 Consequently, the fire to which you refer, which is that general fire upon

15 the city, would be indiscriminate because there were no apparent military

16 targets.

17 Q. Beyond that, did you form any view as to whether there was any

18 reasoning behind apparently, objectively, the increased incidence of

19 indiscriminate fire and the battle going on in the western part of

20 Sarajevo?

21 A. All fire that was incoming to the city of Sarajevo was analyzed

22 along what the objective of that fire would be. If it wasn't seen to be

23 in response to any military events, one can only assume that the

24 indiscriminate fire was being used to fashion terror because there was no

25 military objective.

Page 11034

1 Q. All right. The 9th of December, 1992, three lines down. I read

2 the words: "Shelling widely dispersed throughout city." Do those words

3 appear?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. 10th of December, three lines down: "Shelling widely dispersed

6 throughout city." Correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. 11th of December, three lines down: "Shelling widely dispersed

9 throughout city." Correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. 12th of December, four lines down: "Shelling widely dispersed

12 throughout city." Correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Six lines down in the same entry, I read: "The attacks upon

15 Lukavica reported yesterday seem to have abated without causing the usual

16 severe response against the Presidency and inner city." Do those words

17 appear?

18 A. Yes, they do.

19 Q. When you say, "the usual severe response," what do you mean?

20 A. It was a usual modus operandi that random shelling of the city of

21 Sarajevo would occur if certain other events were having been brought to

22 the attention of the Presidency side, not fulfilled.

23 Q. All right.

24 Now, following Otes, that is the fighting in Otes, was there a

25 fresh outbreak of fighting in the area of Zuc?

Page 11035

1 A. Yes, there was.

2 Q. The 13th of December, four lines down: "Shelling throughout the

3 city with a concentration on Zuc." Do those words appear?

4 A. They do.

5 Q. Would you please now go to --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please use your microphone,

9 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Page 85

11 line 22, for the benefit of the booth, there is no date.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the English transcript indicates that

14 is to be corrected later.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we all have seen that it was the 13th of

16 December.

17 MR. IERACE: Yes.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

19 MR. IERACE: That completes examination-in-chief, Mr. President.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ierace.

21 MR. IERACE: If that document could be returned.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, is it you who is going to

23 cross-examine the witness? Before giving you an opportunity to do so --

24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Just Mr. Ierace and Ms. Pilipovic, what do we

Page 11036

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 11037

1 expect the following days to happen? The examination-in-chief of Mr.

2 Mole altogether took far more than four hours.

3 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President, but a lot of that was reading

4 passages, objections, countless.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. But At least it will take a couple of

6 hours to cross-examine the witness. How is the schedule --

7 MR. IERACE: I understand, Mr. President.

8 JUDGE ORIE: I would like you to -- I mean, it is you who is going

9 to prepare for calling the next witnesses. So what do you have in mind?

10 MR. IERACE: I had in mind, Mr. President, that the

11 cross-examination of Mr. Mole would be completed tomorrow, and following

12 that, rather than immediately call Mr. Fraser, perhaps we could deal with

13 some of the outstanding issues.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

15 MR. IERACE: I anticipate that Mr. Fraser will be very short in

16 chief, perhaps one hour at the very most, and that we would also on

17 Thursday commence, if not finish, Mr. Bergeron, so that we can at least

18 start Mr. Philips on Friday. That is a very tight schedule but it would

19 allow for some legal argument tomorrow after Mole -- I am sorry, after

20 Mr. Mole.

21 JUDGE ORIE: So you say we -- tomorrow it would just be Mr. Mole

22 then and on Thursday it would be -- perhaps I lost a bit track. But I --

23 MR. IERACE: Mr. Fraser.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Because you earlier indicated that Mr. Fraser would

25 be on the 15th of July, or am I mistaken?

Page 11038

1 MR. IERACE: Initially, Mr. Fraser was down for the 28th of June,

2 and when Witness AD ran over, we indicated we would call him after

3 Mr. Mole.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And Mr. Mole was still at the 15th of July and

5 so that is where the mistake comes from. So then Mr. Fraser, and for

6 Thursday you would say?

7 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. Fraser Thursday morning, perhaps starting

8 tomorrow afternoon, depending on how we go with Mr. Mole and the legal

9 issues. Following Mr. Fraser, then Mr. Bergeron, who also will be brief.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

11 MR. IERACE: And then Mr. Philips on Friday.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 MR. IERACE: And Mr. Philips would finish on Friday part heard, so

14 that General Van Baal could commence Monday morning. And Mr. Philips

15 would be back in the witness box after Mr. Van -- excuse me. Perhaps that

16 is as far as I need it take it at this stage.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, that is clear to me. I am not talking

18 in terms of optimism or pessimism because it is also a matter of the

19 parties and how they deal with the matters.

20 I have one question to the Defence: If there would be any

21 additional observation to be made on 92 bis, how much time would that

22 take? Or would you rather do it in writing, which is perfectly -- I

23 mean, so in addition to the earlier filing, let's just assume for the

24 sake of argument that could be considered to be a filing in response to

25 the later filing of the Prosecution. How much time would the additional

Page 11039

1 argument on 92 bis take?

2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, bearing in mind that

3 within the framework of the Prosecutor's motion which streamlines or,

4 rather, categorizes the statements, in particular, statements for the

5 purposes of establishing authenticity, we still have not received the

6 response as far as the illegibility is concerned. We are talking about a

7 group of witnesses who would testify pursuant to 92 bis, and I think that

8 we would need altogether 30 minutes to argue our case and also as a

9 response to the motion of the Prosecution to introduce into evidence the

10 statement of the late Hamdija Cavcic, also pursuant to 92 bis.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say that for 92 bis you would need an

12 30 additional minutes, apart from what has been filed already.

13 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it may take less

14 than 30 minutes. I am now looking at the documentation.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then please proceed to cross-examine the

16 witness, Mr. Mole.

17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Before I

18 proceed with the cross-examination of Mr. Mole, let me just say that we

19 have the approval of the Chamber, for the purposes of efficiency, to --

20 for me to share the cross-examination with my colleague, Mr.

21 Piletta-Zanin. I will begin the cross-examination, and at one point in

22 time, Mr. Piletta-Zanin will take over.

23 Cross-examined by Ms. Pilipovic:

24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mole, good afternoon.

25 A. Good afternoon.

Page 11040

1 Q. Mr. Mole, can you confirm for us that on the 1st, the 2nd, the

2 3rd of September, 1997, you gave a statement to the investigators of the

3 Office of the Prosecutor?

4 A. I did.

5 Q. Can you confirm that on the 9th and the 11th of April, 2002, you

6 had another interview with the representatives of the Office of the

7 Prosecutor?

8 A. I did.

9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Mole.

10 You took over as the commander of a group of UN military observers

11 in the sector of Sarajevo in September 1992. Could you give us the exact

12 date when your function started and also tell us the date when you

13 completed it.

14 A. I started the 16th of September, 1992 and completed, I believe it

15 was the 27th, 28th of December, 1992.

16 Q. Mr. Mole, by taking over as a commander of an UNMO group, you said

17 that the military observers were divided into two groups. One of them was

18 working in the town of Sarajevo under the control -- that is in the part

19 of the town which was under the BH Presidency control and that the other

20 group was working under the territory which was under the control of the

21 VSR. I am referring to the Papa and Lima positions.

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. Can you tell us, Mr. Mole, what agreement provided for the

24 deployment of the UNMOs?

25 A. The Airport Agreement, which was signed in June of 1992.

Page 11041

1 Q. As part of that Airport Agreement which was signed in June 1992,

2 was there an additional agreement which was signed as a part thereof and

3 which referred to the collection of heavy weapon?

4 A. I don't believe it was an additional agreement. I think it was

5 part of the Airport Agreement.

6 Q. Is it true that both sides, and when I say "both sides," I am

7 referring to the BH Presidency forces and the forces of the Sarajevo

8 Romanija Corps, that is the army of Republika Srpska, that both sides

9 agreed to the part which referred to the collection of heavy weapon?

10 A. Yes, they did.

11 Q. You testified about the positions of UN military observers, Papa

12 and Lima positions. In view of the fact that you took over on the 16th of

13 September, 1992, can you tell us how these two locations were selected,

14 according to which criteria, when it comes to the deployment of UN

15 military observers on both sides?

16 A. Lists of heavy weapons were submitted to the United Nations, as

17 was their location. So that would be one series of locations which UN

18 observers would occupy. We were also asked to cover the city in terms of

19 observing as much of it as possible. Those would be the two key aims of

20 deployment of the military observers.

21 Q. Mr. Mole, can you confirm for us whether this agreement which you

22 said was submitted to the United Nations was, indeed, accepted by the

23 United Nations?

24 A. I am sorry, can you identify which agreement you refer to?

25 Q. I am referring to the agreement which was part of the Airport

Page 11042

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 11043

1 Agreement of June 1992, which included an annex on the collection of heavy

2 weapons. That is the agreement which served as the basis for deployment

3 and selection of positions of UNMOs on both sides, that is the agreement

4 which was part of the Airport Agreement and which concerned the collection

5 of heavy weapons. You said that it had been submitted at one point to

6 the United Nations. What I want to know is whether you have any personal

7 knowledge whether this agreement was indeed accepted by the United

8 Nations?

9 A. You understand you speak of an agreement before I was in Sarajevo?

10 But I understand your question. For the fact that we invoked heavy weapon

11 collection points indicates that the United Nations accepted the Airport

12 Agreement.

13 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge or is it something that you

14 have just formed your opinion on?

15 A. I am sorry, do I have personal knowledge of what?

16 Q. Let me try to rephrase the question. First of all, can you

17 confirm for us that before you took over your duty, your predecessor was

18 Mr. Richard Gray?

19 A. Confirmed.

20 Q. Can you also confirm that Mr. Gray took part in the drafting and

21 the signing of this agreement?

22 A. I believe so, but I wasn't there.

23 Q. Mr. Mole, when I asked you about your personal knowledge as

24 regards the acceptance of the agreement on the collection of heavy

25 weapons by the United Nations, and when I wanted to know whether this was

Page 11044

1 your personal opinion or personal knowledge, I was referring to the fact

2 that Mr. Gray, who took part in the drafting and signing of this

3 agreement, and you have just confirmed that, stated that the United

4 Nations never actually accepted this agreement, never actually agreed to

5 this agreement. Did you have any such information?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Mr. Mole, as regards the Airport Agreement from June 1992, in your

8 opinion, was that agreement entered into for the purpose of disengaging

9 the warring factions inside the town?

10 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the question reads in English: "For

11 the purpose of disengaging the warring factions inside," and I emphasise

12 that word, "the town." Since the witness is relying as well on the

13 English translation, perhaps my friend could clarify what she means by

14 "inside the town," given that the confrontation lines and the warring

15 parties were widely dispersed.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, these words --

17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --

18 JUDGE ORIE: -- were words you used, I take it? I think it is

19 the --

20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said in the town

21 and I was referring to the statement which I have in front of me. I can

22 quote one line from that statement, that being the statement by the

23 witness, Mr. Mole. For purposes of precision, I will quote and I will ask

24 the witness to confirm for us whether that was really the case. The

25 Airport Agreement from June 1992 --

Page 11045

1 MR. IERACE: Mr. President --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Just first, Ms. Pilipovic, finish.

3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is page 00 --

4 MR. IERACE: There are two statements, Mr. President.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I wasn't aware of that.

6 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this portion is on

7 page 00908149 in the B/C/S version of the text in paragraph 4, and I need

8 only one line from that statement.

9 Q. "The Airport Agreement from June 1992 was a small step which was

10 taken with the purpose of separating..." "A small step taken in the

11 attempt to separate the factions in the city."

12 Mr. Mole, can you confirm that this is what you stated?

13 A. No, I can't. You have just read two completely different

14 sentences to me.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mole, the question is: Whether the agreement --

16 whether the purpose of the agreement was to separate the warring factions

17 and I take it, in Sarajevo.

18 THE WITNESS: If the question is expressed in that fashion, I

19 agree.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic. Just in order

21 to clarify, city, town, Sarajevo, creates all kind of problems. If we are

22 aware of that, perhaps then we would not concentrate on city itself, there

23 are specific reasons to.

24 Please proceed.

25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 11046

1 Q. Mr. Mole, you also stated that this was a significant agreement

2 for the Serb side. Can you clarify, please, what you meant when you said

3 that the agreement was a significant one for the Serb side.

4 A. In that the main features of the Airport Agreement involved the

5 collection of heavy weapons which the Serb side had the majority of, and

6 also giving up to the United Nations the airport itself which, up until

7 the agreement, the Serb side controlled, is a significant element of the

8 June agreement related strongly to the Serb side.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, if I look at the clock, would --

10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: -- would have to adjourn. Mr. Mole, we are not

12 sitting in the afternoon, we are just sitting in the morning, which means

13 in a minute I will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9.00. I did not

14 remind you this morning, but I take it was self-explanatory for you that

15 the testimony you gave today was still under the binding of the solemn

16 declaration you gave at the beginning of your testimony. The same will be

17 true for tomorrow. I take it that you had that in mind when you testified

18 today in this court?

19 THE WITNESS: I understood that, sir, yes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn until tomorrow morning 9.00.

21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

22 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,

23 the 3rd day of July, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.

24

25