020716ED

Page 11658

1 and from official quarters. Well, in fact I will make two questions. The

2 first one is: What do you mean by "official quarters"?

3 A. We used to receive numerous reports from all sides. Each side

4 claims that they suffered from casualties and losses, and the same applies

5 to the other side. So we used to receive official documents. I do have

6 some specimen of these documents we used to receive then. Those reports

7 depict the losses and the casualties in the various sectors in Bosnia.

8 Those reports depict the casualties as a consequence of the attacks.

9 Those are routine reports reaching us from official quarters

10 relating to the losses and casualties and so on and so forth. In addition

11 to that, we used to monitor everything. We used to monitor the press

12 releases and the press coverage and extract what is of interest to us.

13 Obviously, we did not take this material only as far as it concerns us in

14 our daily business. We used to notice that the information coming from

15 our own sources, namely, the observers, those reports put it clearly that

16 the bombing of the Serbs was more intensive than the bombing coming out of

17 the Bosnian side outside Sarajevo.

18 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: What I would like to know is whether the UN

19 checked or used to check whether those reports and the reports of the mass

20 media were reliable, were accurate, or not?

21 A. Sir, I can tell you, under those circumstances, it was difficult,

22 quite impossible, to substantiate anything or to be sure 100 per cent

23 about the responsible party or who has done that. Obviously, the police

24 has carried out investigations in addition to other coverage made by the

25 observers. However, we did focus on the incidents within the UN area. We

Page 11659

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

13 English transcripts.

Page 11660

1 were not taking part in the investigation activities. We did not have the

2 adequate mechanism within the UN to follow this line of activities. The

3 investigation, first who did open fire, for example, we did not have this

4 activity listed in order to investigate.

5 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: General, when you mentioned the police, was it

6 the UN police or the BH police?

7 A. Yes, the police -- the police work is related generally to the

8 discipline matters. For example, like the incident I referred to the

9 effect that the car was stolen and the accused or the accused persons were

10 part of the Ukrainian Battalion, and we did enquire into this matter and

11 we took the necessary measures then.

12 In addition to that, the police used to accompany the UNHCR and

13 the Red Cross representatives in their daily work and the police used to

14 take part in preparing the reports concerning some illegal activities.

15 There is also a channel of command between the Sarajevo command and higher

16 hierarchy in order to let the flow of reports go smoothly.

17 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, General.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Judge El Mahdi also has one or more questions to you.

19 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] I would like you to clarify two

20 points. The first one is in relation to what you had said about the

21 headquarters. So you said that the headquarters of an officer who was

22 called Mustafa, if I remember correctly, was on the first floor of a

23 building. Did this -- was this building also -- were there also civilians

24 in this building or was it only used as headquarters?

25 A. I used to meet with Mustafa in a separate building, but he had his

Page 11661

1 own command and he had his own bodyguards from the Bosnian forces. And I

2 used to meet with him in his office, and the impression I got was that the

3 office was purely military and there were no signs of any civilians in the

4 office. But in the surroundings, there were houses, there were civilian

5 areas. But the building itself was occupied by military troops.

6 There were other times where I met with him in -- with Colonel

7 Siber in another building, but the building --

8 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] So you don't know of headquarters

9 which was located in a building that also included civilians or in a

10 building where civilians also lived?

11 A. I am not aware of what was happening in other HQs, but within

12 Sarajevo these are the two buildings that I was concerned with. I used to

13 have my meetings in three places: The Presidency, with the political and

14 military staff, and another meeting at HQ Sarajevo with Mustafa and

15 Colonel Siber, Chief of Staff of the Bosnian forces. These are the three

16 buildings where I had my meetings. Of course, the Presidency is known to

17 everybody, but the two other buildings where I had my meetings were

18 occupied by military troops.

19 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Did you have knowledge of an

20 agreement that the headquarters of both sides are not targeted or should

21 not be targeted?

22 A. Sir, that was one of the most confusing aspects that I witnessed

23 during my tenure there. There were some buildings that were never touched

24 or grazed by any bullets. However, it came to my knowledge that there

25 were rounds landing in the proximity of these buildings. Apart from the

Page 11662

1 Presidency, none of these buildings were touched by shrapnel or one --

2 during a visit by Mr. Boutros-Ghali, we were showing him where the rounds

3 were fired. The buildings, the HQs which were military, were not affected

4 by the shelling. There were signs of certain marks, but nothing major.

5 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] We spoke of a strategy in a sense

6 that the Presidency would have been targeted by the Bosniak side, by

7 themselves, in order to attract the attention of the international

8 community for propaganda purposes. Since you mentioned the visit of the

9 Secretary-General of the United Nations, so there is -- there are some

10 rumours that what -- when there was firing at the Presidency, that there

11 was some manipulations and that the firing was not coming from the Serb

12 side.

13 Were you aware of these rumours, at least?

14 A. Sir, I saw the marks of the shelling before the arrival of the

15 Secretary-General of the UN. I saw them myself.

16 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

17 My very last question: You said that the Bosniak side had mortars

18 of middle and small calibres and they did not have large-calibre mortars.

19 What do you mean by "middle calibre," "medium calibre"? To how many

20 millimetres would medium calibre go to?

21 A. It is well established that small calibre, 60 millimetres; medium

22 calibre, 88 millimetres; and higher go from 120 to 160.

23 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] 120 millimetres is large

24 calibre?

25 A. The higher calibres operate from fixed bases. They might have had

Page 11663

1 high calibre mortars. I was not in a position to visit the engagement

2 points or confrontation lines, but the calibre use depends on the mobility

3 the forces require. And a higher calibre requires a more sophisticated

4 measure of launching.

5 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Sir.

6 JUDGE ORIE: General, I have one question for you. You just

7 answered a question of Judge El Mahdi by saying that you saw the marks of

8 the shelling before the arrival of the Secretary-General of the UN. The

9 question was about BiH weapons firing at their own positions. And when

10 you say you saw the marks of the shelling, could you tell us how and

11 whether and how you could identify whether these were marks from Serbian

12 shelling or from BiH shelling?

13 A. Sir, I did not specify which party was responsible for the

14 shelling. I just saw marks of the shelling on the building. It is

15 difficult to determine the source of the shelling from these marks. Of

16 course, the Bosnian side always claimed or alleged that these marks were

17 caused by Serbian shelling. And of course, both sides always denied

18 responsibility and blamed the shelling on the other side. And that has

19 always been one of the main problems that we tried to settle. There was a

20 war of words, a war of allegations, more than a war of arms.

21 JUDGE ORIE: This perfectly clarifies your answer. I think I now

22 understand your answer better.

23 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. The

25 Defence just had an observation to make in the same sense, in relation to

Page 11664

1 the answer given by the General, just to find out whether the police that

2 he was talking about, whether that was BH police or UN police. He

3 answered "yes" to this question, but I think that a clarification would be

4 necessary because we don't know really -- we could perhaps conclude, but I

5 don't think it appears very clearly.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, it is Ms. Pilipovic who

7 deals with the examination of this witness, as I told you before. I also

8 told you that tandem operation at this moment was not allowed in this

9 sense. Yes.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. In this case, I am

11 very sorry.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: General, when you spoke of the police, you

14 said "yes," that was your answer, and then you explained what I understood

15 as the functions of the UN police. So when you said -- when you mentioned

16 investigations made by the police, you were referring to the BH police,

17 weren't you?

18 A. Sir, in the structure of the command there are the troops, there

19 are the observers, and there is a UN Military Police. When I speak

20 about the police, that is the police force within my command that

21 investigates reports, coordinates with humanitarian agencies, and all

22 these people are under my command. They investigate issues relating to

23 work concerning the UN. What happens with the Bosnian police is none of

24 my concern.

25 I used to confront the Bosnian police in cases where they

Page 11665

1 prevented movement of UN personnel into the compound, outside the

2 compound. And I remember I had a confrontation with one -- with a person

3 called Abdul Habib and another police commander, and I threatened them to

4 bring the whole issue into the open and tell the whole world that their

5 forces have been trying to hamper the movements of UN personnel. The only

6 time where we had contact with them is when they sent us a report about a

7 stolen vehicle and I initiated an inquiry within my structure about this

8 stolen vehicle, and otherwise I had no contact with these forces.

9 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: When you mentioned the police investigations,

10 were you referring to the BH police; yes or no?

11 A. No. I was talking about the police force of the UN.

12 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you very much.

13 JUDGE ORIE: General, this concludes your testimony in this Court.

14 It is important for the Chamber to hear the evidence, to hear the answers

15 put to you by both parties and by the Chamber itself. I thank you very

16 much for coming and testifying in this Court. And I wish you a safe trip

17 home again.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, can you please escort the witness out of

20 the courtroom.

21 [The witness withdrew]

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

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] May I just ask if

25 Ms. Pilipovic could be dealing with anything so that I can go and get the

Page 11666

1 witness, our expert who is waiting in the lawyers' chamber?

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

3 Mr. Ierace, I take it that Mr. Philipps is ready to continue his

4 examination.

5 MR. IERACE: As far as I know. It may take him a minute or two, I

6 should think, to set up the computer. Would a short adjournment of five

7 minutes be appropriate or so?

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Meanwhile, perhaps when he is doing so, I

9 perhaps should add something to what I said yesterday to you when you

10 asked whether you would get more time. I then did not have yet your

11 letter of the 15th of July which was, I take it, distributed to the

12 Defence and not to the Chamber. So I didn't know that. What we see, as a

13 matter of fact, on your schedule, as you indicated already in the letter

14 yourself, that you stretched more or less the time for each of the

15 witnesses, and having gone through what we can expect the Prosecution will

16 do, time can be gained considerably on the presentation of the evidence in

17 chief of the expert witnesses.

18 When the expert witnesses appear, we have read the reports in

19 detail. So there is no need -- we had the experience, I think last week

20 or the week before with Mr. Stamp, who took, for example, 45 minutes

21 correcting minor adjustments in the expert witness report. You may take

22 it that the Chamber knows the content of the report. So a very short

23 introduction or perhaps a highlighting of a few items that could be better

24 understood by a further explanation will do. But, otherwise, we should

25 proceed as soon as possible to the cross-examination. And of course, if

Page 11667

1 then certain issues might turn out to be very unclear, then, of course,

2 there will be granted a bit more time in re-examination in order to

3 clarify them. The Chamber is concerned about to hear what it has read

4 already extensively. That is my first observation.

5 The second observation is the Chamber indicated to the Prosecution

6 that it might be wise to prepare for filling in a lot of time as far as

7 the expert takes and Hinchliffe were concerned. The scheduling, as we see

8 it now, leaves no room for that. I mean, Mr. Hinchliffe is just at the

9 end of your list, so there is nothing to fill in any more. The same is

10 not perhaps true for Mr. Higgs, but I would say that on the total of seven

11 days, approximately, that has been scheduled for the expert witnesses,

12 there might be three days you could save on that.

13 I am just indicating since I only -- since I felt yesterday that

14 you felt that it was difficult to find those times, to give you just some

15 guidance as where the Chamber would seek to gain that time.

16 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, two matters: First a general

17 observation and then a specific question.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 MR. IERACE: The general observation is that the Prosecution is in

20 an extremely difficult position. We will do our best. And in due course,

21 I will update you. Some of the issues which contribute to our

22 difficulties are that it takes time to organise witnesses to travel to

23 The Hague, and I really have no confidence in our ability to stick to a

24 timetable. And I say that with the qualification that a number of various

25 matters contribute to that. And again, the last witness is a prime

Page 11668

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

13 English transcripts.

Page 11669

1 example. One hour and 20 minutes in chief and he finishes an hour into

2 the second day, for a number of reasons. I do emphasise that, for a

3 number of reasons.

4 Mr. President, in relation to the specific query, tomorrow we call

5 General Karavelic. One of the matters that I will deal with through him,

6 various maps which relate to the scheduled sniping and shelling incidents.

7 Rather than have him correct the confrontation line positions on those

8 maps, it would save, I think, considerable time if he did that this

9 afternoon and then, during his testimony, explain what he had done and why

10 he had done it.

11 So, Mr. President, I would be grateful if in due course you could

12 give us some guidance in that regard.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I will let you know, I think, after the first

14 break.

15 Madam Usher, can you please escort Mr. Philipps into the

16 courtroom.

17 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, again while we are waiting on

18 Mr. Philipps, I should say something about Mr. Hinchliffe. I assure you

19 that there was no other place we could place -- no other position in the

20 timetable for us to place Mr. Hinchliffe. I was very mindful of what you

21 said to us.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

23 MR. IERACE: Given his unavailability for any time other than the

24 last week, the alternative was to move (redacted), and a lot of

25 negotiations and preparation had gone into organising those two days for

Page 11670

1 (redacted).

2 [The witness entered court]

3 JUDGE ORIE: Could you give us an estimate on how much time you

4 would still need with Mr. Philipps in chief?

5 MR. IERACE: I am hopeful I can do it in an hour, Mr. President.

6 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that the technicians need a little

7 bit more time for the set up. Is there any reason why it is different now

8 from what it was?

9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

10 JUDGE ORIE: Since the technician still needs some time, perhaps

11 we could do, at the same time, some other things. I asked the Defence to

12 give some clarification by the beginning of this week of the time, the

13 number of witnesses and the time they think they would need to present the

14 Defence case. Could you give us a global idea of that, Ms. Pilipovic.

15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence is

16 working on a concept which it would present to the Chamber. In view of

17 the problem with the arrival of the witnesses, we are still not able at

18 the moment to give the Chamber definite information about a schedule, how

19 many witnesses the Defence would be able to call in presenting their case.

20 I expect that we will be able to provide the Chamber with a

21 provisional schedule by Friday. I wanted also to say to the Chamber that

22 the Defence expert who wanted to be present during the examination of Mr.

23 Hinchliffe, which has been changed to the 2nd of August 2002, will be able

24 to be in The Hague during those two days. The only problem we had is the

25 problem with the visa, which he hasn't received that - but we expect this

Page 11671

1 problem to be resolved - even though the request for the visa was

2 submitted on the 15th of June.

3 JUDGE ORIE: If there are any problems remaining as far as the

4 visa is concerned, inform the Chamber so that we can, if necessary,

5 intervene. But let's first give it the ordinary course. But

6 Ms. Pilipovic, I would like you -- I mean, I do understand that the

7 Defence is not able yet to give a definite list and a definite schedule,

8 but what do you have approximately in mind. Are we talking about 40

9 witnesses, 80 witnesses, 180 witnesses? That is what I asked the Defence

10 to do, is to give us an impression of what we could expect.

11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence at this

12 point, and this is not official, expects to have about 100 witnesses on

13 its list. But, like I said, the problem is that we are here in The Hague

14 all of the time, so we are not able to get in touch with our investigators

15 and the expert advisors. So that we are not able at this point to inform

16 the Chamber about a schedule, particularly when we are speaking about

17 witnesses.

18 JUDGE ORIE: If you are talking about 100 witnesses, let's just

19 take it as a starting point. I am not expressing any view of the Chamber

20 on whether that would be acceptable or not. But how much time did you

21 have in mind, the presentation of the Defence case would then take, two

22 months, five months, one year and-a-half?

23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if we remained with

24 this number of witnesses I mentioned, it might vary. It might be a

25 smaller number of witnesses, depending on your decision. At this point,

Page 11685

1 [Open session]

2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, can you please escort Mr. Philipps into

3 the courtroom.

4 [The witness entered court]

5 WITNESS: RICHARD PHILIPPS [Resumed]

6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Philipps. May I remind you that

7 you are still bound by the solemn declaration that you gave at the

8 beginning of your testimony.

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, please proceed.

11 Examined by Mr. Ierace: [Continued]

12 Q. Good morning. Mr. Philipps. I think on the last occasion, we got

13 as far as slide number 45. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes, I think it is 44 or 45.

15 Q. Can you go back to slide 44, if you can. As we proceed from this

16 point, I think now that you have explained most of the symbols and the

17 manner in which you have structured the chart, we should be able to

18 increase the pace, and perhaps you can draw our attention to only matters

19 that are of a different type to what you have already explained.

20 So in that regard, with that in mind, could you please explain

21 this slide?

22 A. This slide shows the brigade headquarters of the 3rd Sarajevo

23 Light Infantry Brigade, which replaced or took the place of the Vogosca

24 Brigade, and consequently the Vogosca operational group no longer existed,

25 as this brigade took on all of the brigades that had previously been part

Page 11686

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

13 English transcripts.

Page 11687

1 of the Vogosca operational group, with the exception of the

2 Ilijas Brigade.

3 Q. And I take it from the information on the slide that it occurred

4 by March 1994. Is that correct?

5 A. Yes. Between October 1993 and March 1994.

6 Q. Please continue.

7 A. The next slide shows three of the battalions that formed part of

8 the 3rd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade. On the left we can see a

9 battalion which previously was the Rajlovac Brigade; in the centre, a

10 battalion of the 3rd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade; and on the right,

11 the Kosevo or Radava Brigade, which became the 5th battalion of the 3rd

12 Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade.

13 Q. On the chart, are those developments indicated by a broken red

14 line with arrowheads?

15 A. On the main chart, that is correct. A red line indicates the

16 actual change of those brigade positions.

17 Q. Would you please point to that.

18 A. [Indicates]

19 Q. Thank you. Please continue.

20 A. The next slide shows three more battalions of the Sarajevo -- the

21 3rd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade.

22 Q. The next slide being number 46, is that correct?

23 A. Number 46.

24 Q. Could you please include the number of the slide as you go to each

25 new one? Please continue.

Page 11688

1 A. The next slide, which is number 47, shows the logistics battalion

2 of the 3rd Brigade, which was there to support that brigade with supplies,

3 transport, et cetera.

4 The next slide, which is slide number 48, returns to the main

5 chart. You will have noticed that no artillery was shown in the 3rd

6 Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade. In fact, it did have artillery. All its

7 artillery came from what was previously the Vogosca Brigade. So I have

8 not repeated all the artillery that I have previously shown under the

9 Vogosca Brigade.

10 Slide number 48 shows the position of the Kosevo Brigade which, as

11 we have already seen, between October 1993 and March 1994, became part of

12 the 3rd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade. Up until October 1993, the

13 brigade consisted of the following. This is slide number 49.

14 Q. Just before you move on to that. On the main chart, above and

15 beneath the red dotted arrow that we referred to previously showing the

16 development of the Kosevo Light Infantry Brigade into part of the 3rd

17 Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade, you have the words "moved and downsized

18 by January 1994." Is that correct?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. Please continue.

21 A. Slide number 49 shows the headquarters of the Kosevo Brigade.

22 This brigade is an example of one of those brigades I have mentioned

23 earlier which was slightly smaller than the other brigades. Indeed, it

24 was really only the size of perhaps a reinforced battalion. We can see

25 in this slide of note that the commander of the brigade,

Page 11689

1 Momcilo Krajisnik, his rank was actually only sergeant.

2 Slide number 50 shows two units within the Kosevo Brigade: one

3 unidentified unit, which probably became the Radava or was the Radava

4 Battalion, and was an attached artillery unit.

5 Slide number 51 returns to the main chart.

6 Q. Incidentally, while you are on the main chart, in terms of the

7 universal structure of a corps, is there sometimes another level of

8 organisation between the brigades and the corps headquarters? Or is it

9 typically a brigade and then the corps headquarters?

10 A. In some armies, a corps can be divided into divisions which

11 consist of a number of brigades. In the case of the Sarajevo Romanija

12 Corps, the corps is divided up simply into brigades, and for part of that

13 time had an operational group which covered a few of those brigades as

14 discussed. So in the case, in fact, of the VRS in general, and

15 specifically the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, there are no divisions, only

16 brigades.

17 Q. Please continue.

18 A. This slide number 51 indicates the position of the 1st Romanija

19 Infantry Brigade in the Sarajevo Romanija Corps.

20 Q. Before you go to the next slide, you told us, I think on the

21 first day that you gave evidence, that you have placed the various

22 brigades on the chart in the order in which they operated around Sarajevo,

23 I think you said in a clockwise direction. Going back to the 3rd Sarajevo

24 Light Infantry Brigade, could you tell us in approximate terms whereabouts

25 they were placed geographically around Sarajevo?

Page 11690

1 A. The 3rd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade took over the positions

2 of the Rajlovac Brigade which was positioned in Rajlovac. The Vogosca

3 Brigade, which was in Vogosca, and the Kosevo brigade, which was in the

4 Kosevo area, all of those being in a clockwise direction to the north of

5 Sarajevo. This means that the 3rd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade, when

6 it was formed, was formed in a position that made it next to the 1st

7 Romania Infantry Brigade.

8 Q. And whereabouts was that geographically?

9 A. The 1st Romania Infantry Brigade covered the area from the edge

10 of Kosevo in a direction all the way around the outside of Sarajevo to

11 the borders of Grbavica.

12 Q. In other words, does that mean extending from the north-east to

13 the east, to the south-east and to the south?

14 A. That's correct. And also facing outward from Sarajevo itself.

15 Q. When you say "facing outward," what do you mean by that?

16 A. There was also a front for the Sarajevo Romanija Corps which was

17 outside Sarajevo, that is, the brigades themselves were not always simply

18 facing inwards to Sarajevo but were also facing outwards to the ABiH

19 around Sarajevo.

20 Q. We have heard evidence in the trial about Mount Trebevic. Was

21 Mount Trebevic within the territorial control of the 1st Romania Infantry

22 Brigade, do you know?

23 A. I certainly have evidence or have information to show that parts

24 of the 1st Romania Infantry Brigade held parts of Trebevic. But I would

25 be hard pressed to draw an exact line as to the boundary between the 1st

Page 11691

1 Romania Infantry Brigade and the 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade.

2 Q. I will draw to your attention two other places. If you know which

3 brigade they were in in terms of territory, please indicate. The first is

4 Poljine.

5 A. I would have to consult a map to know that.

6 Q. And Spicasta Stijena?

7 A. Spicasta Stijena, at one time, may have been within the boundary

8 of the Kosevo Brigade and later may have been within the boundary of the

9 1st Romania Infantry Brigade.

10 Q. Please continue.

11 A. That is an area just to the north of Sedrenik in Sarajevo.

12 Q. Please continue.

13 A. This slide, number 52, shows the brigade headquarters of the 1st

14 Romania Infantry Brigade.

15 Q. Just before you leave that slide, Dragomir Milosevic appears on

16 it as the brigade commander between September and January 1993. Is that

17 correct?

18 A. Yes, he is shown as the brigade commander for those dates.

19 Q. You gave evidence that he was the deputy corps commander, I think,

20 at a later point. Did he go directly from this position to that position?

21 A. I would have to check whether he went directly from this position

22 to become the Chief of Staff. I would have the check the dates.

23 Q. Please continue.

24 A. Dragomir Milosevic here shown did not strictly hand over directly

25 to the new brigade commander, Colonel Vlado Lizdek. There was not a

Page 11692

1 direct handover between the two, Dragomir Milosevic having left that post

2 before Colonel Vlado Lizdek arrived, and hence the dotted line with the

3 word "gap" between the two.

4 The only other fact worth noting about the 1st Romanija Infantry

5 Brigade, like many of the other large-sized brigades or normal-sized

6 brigades, [Realtime transcript read in error "sized brigades or large

7 brigades"] it attempted to form the headquarters which matched the staff

8 positions of the corps headquarters.

9 Slide number 53 shows the infantry battalions within the

10 1st Romanija Brigade.

11 Q. If I could just ask you to pause there for a moment. I take you

12 back to the last observation you made on the previous slide. The only

13 other fact worth noting, the 1st Infantry Brigade, like any other sized

14 brigades or large brigades, attempted to form the headquarters which

15 matched staff positions of the corps headquarters. Could you please

16 explain that?

17 A. The brigade headquarters would have a staff which dealt with the

18 staff of the corps headquarters. And so where it was possible, the

19 brigade commander would attempt to have an operations staff officer to

20 match the operations department in the corps headquarters so that

21 information could be passed from one to another, simply, and also

22 replicate the three other staff positions, that is, either with

23 logistics or each of those staff positions.

24 Q. You referred to the territory occupied by that brigade, and it

25 might be thought that that was a relatively large territory or certainly a

Page 11693

1 considerable length of the confrontation line around Sarajevo. Is that

2 relevant to the characteristic you observed about the structure of the

3 brigade? Is there any connection, do you think?

4 A. The length of the front of this particular brigade relates to the

5 type of ground that the brigade was holding. Most of the ground that

6 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade held was in open country or mountainous

7 areas, and many fewer troops are required to hold a longer length of front

8 in such an area. So, for example, a battalion might be able to hold

9 several kilometres of ground in an open area, whereas in an urban

10 environment it can only hold a very narrow front.

11 Q. Let me put it to you this way: Are you aware of any reason as to

12 why that brigade had an attempted replication of the corps command

13 structure?

14 A. I think it was an attempt of all brigades to match the staff

15 within the corps so that they could communicate easily with the corps

16 headquarters.

17 Q. Please continue.

18 A. The next slide is number 54 and shows the supporting arms for the

19 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade, that is, first of all, two artillery

20 batteries, one consisting of 76-millimetre mountain guns and the other an

21 anti-aircraft battery of 20-millimetre cannons.

22 Q. By way of explanation of the diagram on the screen, do you mean to

23 indicate that you found one reference to four mountain guns, 76

24 millimetre, and a reference to three 20-millimetre anti-aircraft cannons?

25 A. That is correct. In this case, the information came directly from

Page 11694

1 the brigade commander himself.

2 Q. And in a general sense in relation to armaments indicated on the

3 chart, do you say that this was the entirety of the armaments or rather

4 that you simply indicate the armaments of which you have some awareness

5 of their existence through documents?

6 A. In this case, I am not sure whether there are more artillery

7 pieces attached to the 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade, but I do know that

8 on certain occasions, artillery was temporarily attached from the corps,

9 that is, from the mixed artillery regiment belonging to the corps. There

10 may be other artillery units within the 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade, but

11 I do not have information on them, if they do exist.

12 Q. All right. Please continue.

13 A. The next slide is number 55 and shows the other supporting arms

14 for the 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade, such as military police, engineers,

15 logistics. The only interesting fact here is that on the 25th of May,

16 1993, part of the organisation of the Ministry of Interior, the MUP, was

17 temporarily attached to the 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade. It seems

18 quite -- this is the only occasion where I have seen Ministry of Interior

19 troops being temporarily attached, not normally forming part, of course,

20 of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps.

21 Slide number 56 returns to the main chart and shows the position

22 of the 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade.

23 Slide number 57 shows the brigade headquarters of the 1st Sarajevo

24 Mechanised Brigade. This brigade was again a normal-sized brigade, that

25 is, a relatively full strength brigade in comparison to the Rajlovac,

Page 11695

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

13 English transcripts.

Page 11696

1 Kosevo or 2nd Infantry Brigade.

2 Q. Where was its location, geographically?

3 A. The 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade held a position from Grbavica

4 around to the south of Sarajevo as far as Lukavica and slightly south of

5 Lukavica.

6 Slight number 58 shows what was the 3rd Battalion of the

7 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade. This battalion was detached at some

8 period - I am not sure when - from the 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade to

9 the 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade. It was the case that the brigade

10 commander had felt that his front was too large and he could not hold

11 Grbavica as well as the other parts of his front. And so the 3rd

12 Battalion of the 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade was resubordinated to the

13 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade.

14 Slide number 59 shows two more battalions of the Sarajevo 1st

15 Mechanised Brigade, an armoured battalion and an infantry battalion called

16 the Kasindol Battalion. The armoured battalion that is of note is

17 equipped with a number of T-55 tanks and also the M-80 mechanised infantry

18 combat vehicle.

19 Slide number 60 continues to show three more battalions, part of

20 the 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade and a sniper platoon attached to the

21 brigade. It is worth noting that the mechanised battalion on the top left

22 may not have been part of the 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade, as I only

23 have the formation order of that battalion and no information as to its

24 existence or use after that date.

25 Slide number 61 shows the supporting arms for the 1st Sarajevo

Page 11697

1 Mechanised Brigade, specifically, a mixed artillery battalion consisting

2 of 155-millimetre Howitzers and 120-millimetre mortars, and also a

3 self-propelled light anti-aircraft battalion consisting of anti-aircraft

4 cannons of varying size, mostly mounted on trucks or similar vehicles.

5 Slide number 62 continues with the brigade supporting arms of the

6 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade, a logistics battalion, a military police

7 company, an engineer unit, and a communications company.

8 Slide number 63 returns to the main diagram and this time shows

9 the corps supporting arms, that is, all the units directly subordinated to

10 the corps headquarters that were there to support the work of the corps

11 and of the brigades.

12 Starting from the left, first of all, the slide shows the

13 4th Mixed Anti-tank Artillery Regiment.

14 Q. Let me stop you there for a moment. On the chart, these units,

15 these regiments and so on, appear at the bottom, which might suggest at

16 first glance that the relative significance of them was less than, not

17 only the brigades but also the battalions, even the companies and the

18 platoons. If you had an unrestricted chart in terms of area, where would

19 they go in terms of indicating their significance?

20 A. Two points arise here: One is that they are subordinate to the

21 corps headquarters in the same way that brigades are subordinate to the

22 corps headquarters.

23 Q. Do you mean by that immediately subordinate?

24 A. That is correct. The corps headquarters and the corps command

25 would give direct orders to these units, in the same way -- or to the

Page 11698

1 commanders of these units, in the same way that the corps command would

2 give direct orders to brigade headquarters and to brigade commanders.

3 Q. Now, looking ahead a little, it seems that the -- these regiments

4 had attached to them artillery batteries and the like, in other words, the

5 same type of armaments that we have seen subordinated within the brigades.

6 Is the effect of what you are saying that the corps command had at its

7 disposal similar artillery which it could immediately command rather than

8 through the brigades?

9 A. That is correct. The idea of the corps supporting arms is that

10 they are able to be used to directly support the corps itself, that is,

11 the brigades that were fighting on the ground could be supported directly

12 by the corps supporting arms, such as artillery, engineers, et cetera.

13 Q. Now, more specifically, how would that chain of command work,

14 starting from the position of the corps commander, General Galic? What

15 are the steps from him to the corps artillery?

16 A. If he wished to write an order, and in fact we have been provided

17 with several orders relating to operations, then a set of orders would

18 be given --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I have

21 two observations to make. First of all, this issue seems to me to be that

22 this is a leading question that should not be admitted, but the answer was

23 given already. And then the second issue, the question that we are

24 talking about now, I believe that it brings confusion because we are

25 talking about the artillery corps, but without much precision. Are we

Page 11699

1 talking about artillery which was attached to a brigade? Are we talking

2 about the artillery which is subordinated to what we can see now? I

3 believe that things are still unclear. Thank you.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, is there anything in particular that you

5 would like to respond to that?

6 MR. IERACE: Yes. Firstly, it is not a leading question. And

7 secondly, the witness has already clearly explained that we are now

8 talking about corps artillery, that is, artillery attached directly to the

9 corps command rather than indirectly through the brigade structure.

10 Thank you.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the objection is denied. Please continue.

12 MR. IERACE:

13 Q. Please continue, Mr. Philipps.

14 A. The corps supporting arms are --

15 Q. Perhaps if I could interrupt you. You said that you saw a set of

16 orders. Where did those orders come from? In other words, how did you

17 obtain them, ultimately?

18 A. The orders themselves were part of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps

19 documents provided by the Defence and relates to orders and instructions

20 to the brigades within the Sarajevo Romanija Corps and also to the corps

21 supporting arms. So, for example, a document will talk about -- will talk

22 and give orders to specific brigades, as well as to specific regiments

23 that are directly subordinated to the corps headquarters. And those are

24 the -- those units that are directly subordinate to the corps headquarters

25 are listed along the bottom of the chart.

Page 11700

1 Q. Please continue. I think you were taking us to slide 64, which is

2 the first of those regiments attached directly to the corps command, that

3 is, the corps headquarters?

4 A. The slide number 64 shows the 4th Mixed Anti-tank Artillery

5 Regiment. This regiment consisted of a number of subunits. I have

6 identified three artillery batteries that were part of the 4th Mixed

7 Anti-tank Artillery Regiment. It may have had more artillery units as

8 part of it. But I have identified three. As such, they are referred to

9 as artillery batteries. I do not have information as to the number of

10 Howitzers within each battery, but I would expect a minimum of four, and

11 possibly more, in each battery.

12 Q. Given what you said earlier to the effect that --

13 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I notice that --

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

15 apologise, but I believe that the rhythm does not allow for perfect

16 interpretation. I believe that a whole half sentence escaped the

17 attention of the French booth. And also I believe, as I'm following also

18 the B/C/S booth, perhaps if we can slow down. I believe that the French

19 booth just interpreted the 4th Battalion and I think what was not

20 translated was that this was anti-tank unit. Thank you.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it then you will slow down a bit,

22 Mr. Ierace, and that we now understand that Mr. Piletta-Zanin has added

23 something to the translation.

24 Please proceed. I will follow the French booth from now on.

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

Page 11701

1 Q. You have explained where the brigades were located geographically.

2 Given the nature of these regiments, do you have any information as to

3 whether they were in fixed permanent positions or not?

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we do not have the

6 interpretation, General Galic and myself.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there any specific reason why B/C/S

8 translation is not there?

9 THE INTERPRETER: It seems to be a technical problem,

10 Mr. President.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any specific technical problem?

12 Yes. I do understand that it has been restored. So please

13 proceed.

14 MR. IERACE:

15 Q. I will repeat the question: Were these regiments in permanent

16 geographic positions or not?

17 A. I do not have any information as to the exact location of this

18 unit or whether it moved.

19 Q. By this unit, do you mean this regiment or do you mean the corps

20 artillery, generally?

21 A. I have no specific information about locations of corps artillery

22 except that battery that was detached to the 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade

23 for a short period of time.

24 Q. All right. Please continue, Mr. Philipps.

25 A. Slide number 65 shows the 4th Mixed Artillery Regiment. In this

Page 11702

1 case, I've shown one artillery battery with artillery of two different

2 calibres: one rocket battery and a further artillery battery which was

3 detached to the Rogatica Brigade sometime on the 23rd of May, 1993.

4 Q. I take it the Rogatica brigade was outside the Sarajevo theatre.

5 Is that the case?

6 A. At that time it did not form part of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps.

7 Q. You have a question mark after "rocket battery." Why is that?

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

9 apologise. Everything is extremely technical here. I am trying to

10 follow. I am just going to give you one example to show you the rapidity.

11 The booth did not interpret two different calibres. They were speaking

12 about other calibres, different calibres, and now it is two different

13 calibres. This is only due to the rhythm.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, and perhaps Mr. Philipps as well.

15 MR. IERACE: Yes.

16 Q. What is the significance of the question mark after "rocket

17 battery" and after the reference to the 130 millimetre M-46?

18 A. The question mark after the word "rocket battery," I myself have

19 used the term "rocket battery" and hence I have put the question mark. I

20 had information from a document which showed a unit, a battery-sized unit,

21 containing 128-millimetre Organj type of equipment which I have

22 interpreted and is, in fact, a rocket. And so I have termed it a "rocket

23 battery," and hence the question mark. The term "rocket battery," I

24 believe is not used in the document itself.

25 The question mark after the 130 millimetre M-46, the M-46 is what

Page 11703

1 I have interpreted as being the type of weapon used. The only, as I

2 understand, the 130 millimetre was given in the document, but the actual

3 type of weapon, the M-46, is something that I have included through

4 analysis and therefore have put in the question mark.

5 Q. Please continue.

6 A. On the right of this diagram is also shown a T-12, and this is a

7 type of anti-tank weapon with a calibre of 100 millimetres.

8 Slide number 66 of the corps supporting arms shows the 4th Light

9 Anti-aircraft Artillery Regiment. I have shown only one battery as being

10 part of this regiment, as I only have information on that one battery.

11 There may have been more batteries and, indeed, within a regiment one

12 would expect several more batteries. The battery shown is divided into

13 two parts, two light anti-aircraft platoons with a variety of

14 anti-aircraft cannons.

15 Q. Just in relation to the anti-aircraft cannons, do you know

16 whether the larger calibres were independently mobile or on a trailer or

17 in some other form, and in particular, what mobility they had?

18 A. Within where it is shown the 2nd Light Anti-aircraft Platoon,

19 these guns were of varying mobility. Some were relatively small and had

20 wheels and could be manhandled or towed, and some were relatively large,

21 such as the 40 millimetre anti-aircraft gun, and would have to be moved by

22 towing, but was not self-propelled.

23 Q. Before you move on, we have heard evidence of the existence of

24 APCs which had guns mounted on them. Whereabouts did APCs fit in to this

25 chart?

Page 11704

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

13 English transcripts.

Page 11705

1 A. We saw previously in the 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade that

2 there was an armoured battalion. And within that armoured battalion,

3 there were T-55 tanks and mechanised infantry combat vehicles, sometimes

4 called APCs or armoured personnel carriers.

5 Q. Would you briefly explain to us the essential difference between

6 an armoured battalion and a mechanised battalion?

7 A. Generally speaking, an armoured battalion would consist mostly of

8 tanks with a few mechanised infantry combat vehicles, whereas a mechanised

9 battalion mostly consists of mechanised armoured vehicles, not tanks. It

10 is to do with the ratio generally and the type of equipment between the

11 two organisations.

12 Q. And, again, what is an example of a mechanised armoured vehicle?

13 A. The one that we see or that we have a document relating to is

14 actually called a Praga, P-r-a-g-a. And this vehicle is armed with a

15 20-millimetre cannon.

16 Q. All right. Please continue.

17 A. Slide number 67 shows the 4th Military Police Battalion directly

18 subordinated to the corps headquarters.

19 Q. Now, just stopping there for a moment. On slide 67, you are

20 saying, I take it, that you have seen documentary evidence from more than

21 one source, given the firmness of the line, that there was a military

22 police battalion attached directly to the corps headquarters. Is that

23 correct?

24 A. That's correct.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Pilipovic.

Page 11706

1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] We don't have the interpretation,

2 Your Honour. I didn't even hear the question of my learned colleague. I

3 didn't hear it and General Galic didn't hear it.

4 MR. IERACE: I am happy to repeat it for the benefit of the

5 accused.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

7 MR. IERACE:

8 Q. The question was: "Now, just stopping there for a moment. On

9 slide 67, you are saying, I take it, that you have seen documentary

10 evidence from more than one source, given the firmness of the line, that

11 there was a military police battalion attached directly to the corps

12 headquarters. Is that correct?" Answer: "That's correct."

13 Please continue.

14 A. Slide number 68 shows the 4th Communications Battalion that was

15 responsible for the communications within the corps headquarters and from

16 the corps headquarters to the brigades.

17 Slide number 69 shows the headquarters of the 4th Engineer

18 Battalion.

19 Q. I apologise. In relation to the communications battalion attached

20 to the corps headquarters, did the documents give you any insight as to

21 the nature of their responsibilities?

22 A. Not specifically without me speculating, which would not be of

23 value.

24 Q. All right. Please continue.

25 A. Slide number 69 shows the 4th Engineer Battalion. The units

Page 11707

1 subordinated to this battalion are shown probably in part, and here they

2 consist of an obstacle construction group, a mobile obstacle construction

3 group, and a group for road maintenance. There would probably be other

4 squadrons or companies that formed part of this battalion, but I have no

5 information on those.

6 Slide number 70 shows the 4th Transport Battalion, responsible for

7 providing transport in the form of trucks to the corps headquarters and in

8 assistance to supplying the brigades.

9 Q. Is the reference to Lukavica a reference to their location?

10 A. The headquarters of the 4th Transport Battalion was located in the

11 forward command post at Lukavica, but most of the transport battalion

12 itself would have been located elsewhere.

13 Q. You just referred to Lukavica as the forward command post --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. I am trying to follow

16 what is going on in the B/C/S booth, and I believe that it is still going

17 very fast. I have the impression that the last thing was not interpreted

18 because things are going very quickly. I just wanted to let you know.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Please keep in mind the speed.

20 MR. IERACE:

21 Q. You referred to Lukavica as the forward command post. What do you

22 understand by "forward command post," and was that a reference in the

23 documentation?

24 A. I perhaps should have been more specific. When referring to

25 Lukavica, I am referring to the corps forward command post which was in

Page 11708

1 that location and co-located with other parts of the corps, such as some

2 of the staff officers.

3 Q. Were there references to Lukavica as being the corps forward

4 command post in the documentation that you received from the Defence?

5 A. I believe there are multiple references to Lukavica as the corps

6 forward command post.

7 Q. The terminology "forward command post" perhaps suggests that there

8 was a more central command post. Is that understanding of the language

9 correct or not?

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the way that

11 the question has been asked seems to make it a leading question.

12 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I wonder if this is really an issue.

13 But in any event, the first part was not leading. I will rephrase the

14 second sentence.

15 Q. Did you see any documentation which emanated from the Defence

16 which cast any light on whether there was a more central command post?

17 A. As I understand it, a corps headquarters or the corps headquarters

18 in question would have several command posts, a forward command post at

19 Lukavica, and really the main headquarters where most of the logistics

20 work would be done, and that, I believe, was in Pale, though I would have

21 to check the document. And the forward command post itself was capable of

22 moving with the corps commander to wherever he chose to move it, whereas

23 the main corps headquarters would generally stay within the same place.

24 Q. Did you see any references in the documentation from the Defence

25 to any other forward command posts for the SRK?

Page 11709

1 A. I would have to check the documents again. But I believe at one

2 time the forward command post was moved to a position north of Sarajevo or

3 elsewhere. This may have occurred, but I would have to check the

4 documents.

5 Q. All right. Please continue.

6 A. Slide number 71 shows the 4th Medical Battalion. Information

7 underneath also shows there was a Sarajevo military medical centre which

8 also was responsible for the medical services for the corps.

9 Slide number 72 shows the 4th Reconnaissance Company. This

10 organisation would be responsible for specific reconnaissance tasks

11 directed by the corps headquarters.

12 Slide number 73 shows an atomic, biological and chemical defence

13 company sometimes termed "NBC Defence Company" or in B/C/S, that would be

14 ABHO. The function of this company was biological and chemical defence,

15 that is, issuing warning and notices of any use by the enemy of any of

16 these means. And that is the concluding slide.

17 Q. All right. On the chart to the right of the box which encapsules

18 the corps operational staff, there appear two small boxes. The first and

19 closest is titled "Pretis factory." Could you explain that to us.

20 A. I included this box on the chart as the Pretis factory was the

21 main supplier of shells.

22 Q. Do you know where that was?

23 A. The Pretis factory was to the north of Sarajevo, in Vogosca.

24 Q. Would you please point out that box on the chart.

25 A. [Indicates]

Page 11710

1 Q. Thank you. Would you also now explain the box which appears to

2 its right, and for the record, that reads as follows: Novo Sarajevo

3 Chetnik detachment - November 1993 - July 1995, there under a green

4 forefigure as opposed to a head and shoulders. Underneath that, capitals

5 Alexic and capitals Slavko. Underneath that, " - November 1993 - ."

6 Underneath that, dot commander.

7 A. This part of the chart represents a unit which is not or does not

8 appear to be subordinated to the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, but which

9 operated within the corps area. There is no documentation that quotes

10 a "VP" number or vojni post number for this organisation.

11 Q. When you say that it does not appear to be subordinated, do you

12 refer to the documents or material other than the documents?

13 A. That is referring to all documentation that I have consulted.

14 Q. All right. And what was the source of information for the dates

15 which appear in the box?

16 A. I would have to check and look up the index to the reference.

17 Q. What was the source of information for the title of the box?

18 A. Again, this would be a direct translation from one of the

19 documents.

20 Q. Do I take it, therefore, that there was a document, indeed, it

21 would seem a document which referred to the unit in those terms and

22 referred to those dates?

23 A. Again, I would have to check precisely which document or indeed

24 statement refers to this box.

25 Q. Is that source indicated in the document attached to your

Page 11711

1 statement, that is, the approximately 60-page document listing the

2 sources?

3 A. It should be in that alphabetically under the list both of units

4 and of individuals.

5 Q. Now, in relation to the corps as a whole, by examining the

6 documents, did you discern chains or lines of communication, firstly, in a

7 downwards direction, that is, from the corps commander?

8 A. The lines on the diagram represent chains of command as well as

9 chains of communication. The reason I say that is, quite clearly, brigade

10 commanders would communicate with each other, but I have not shown those

11 lines on the diagram. I have only shown those lines relating to direct

12 command of units and of subunits.

13 Q. Do you refer to lines of communication in both directions when you

14 say that, or one direction? In other words, up and down the chain of

15 command or just down?

16 A. Yes. These lines represent a chain of command, and by definition,

17 a chain of command provides orders in one direction and receives

18 information and intelligence in the other direction. So the lines

19 represent a flow of information as well as command between the formations

20 units and subunits.

21 Q. You have referred in your explanation to infantry brigades,

22 mechanised brigades, and light infantry brigades. Could you please

23 explain the essential difference or differences between them.

24 A. Generally speaking, this relates to the equipment and to, in the

25 case of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, the number of troops within an

Page 11719

1 almost not imaginable that the witness would know by heart all of these

2 documents. You know, apparently, what the document is about. So in order

3 to save time, I would say that you confront then the witness with the

4 document if you want to know more about the document but not ask six,

5 seven, eight questions about the document of which apparently the witness

6 has no -- nothing in his memory at this moment. Yes.

7 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I must stress the

8 Defence was not able to have a look at this document, no matter how hard

9 we tried and tried to find certain documents according to the ERN

10 numbers. Unfortunately, for technical reasons, this was not possible.

11 And particularly would like to stress that when we are talking about the

12 documents that were disclosed to the Prosecution by the Defence, the ERN

13 number for the Defence has no meaning. It is not much of an information.

14 It is not likely the Defence would be able to locate this document. So

15 the list of the documents of the Defence that the Prosecution received is

16 determined by dates and other numbers.

17 Yesterday I told my learned colleague that we would like to have

18 dates for documents. But at the moment I would just like to stress, the

19 Defence was never able to have a look at this document. Thank you.

20 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would it take you to retrieve that

21 document, Mr. Philipps?

22 THE WITNESS: It should be possible to retrieve it either from our

23 system within a relatively short period of time, half an hour, I would

24 have thought.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Since we are just talking about the retrieval

Page 11720

1 of documents, would there be a way of making a request to retrieve

2 documents, Mr. Ierace, while Mr. Philipps is questioned? Of course,

3 starting from the assumption that the Defence has had no opportunity to

4 see the document, but perhaps you would first comment on that.

5 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, yes. You may remember that, in May, I

6 raised this issue whether you required the Prosecution to file a copy of

7 all of these documents since they are already either been disclosed to the

8 Defence or they have come from the Defence.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MR. IERACE: And I mean before May. Might I suggest, Mr.

11 President, there may be a hard copy set that the witness could refer to.

12 Perhaps, through you, I could enquire of the witness as to whether there

13 is a hard copy set in existence, one set.

14 JUDGE ORIE: And would that be a hard copy set with the following

15 order of the ERN numbers?

16 MR. IERACE: Yes.

17 JUDGE ORIE: So that would mean that if the hard copy set would be

18 here --

19 MR. IERACE: Then the witness could immediately locate the

20 document. I am not sure there is, but perhaps the witness could be asked.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could you please --

22 THE WITNESS: Unfortunately, there is only a partial hard copy

23 set, and most of the documents are maintained and held either obviously in

24 the vault or for us to consult them, are in software, in soft copy.

25 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, if they are available in soft copy, I

Page 11721

1 wonder whether over the next break we could arrange for a laptop to be

2 made available to the witness so that he can at least bring up the

3 document.

4 JUDGE ORIE: The soft copy would be a scanned copy of the --

5 THE WITNESS: If the document is in key file, the it would be a

6 scanned copy, but only if the document is in key file.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, I do understand. Would it be

8 possible -- of course, the Chamber was not very inclined to be presented

9 with a few thousand documents because we wouldn't read them at all.

10 Therefore, we didn't ask them to be filed. But I do understand that there

11 has been either disclosure or they come from the Defence.

12 How have you structured the access to your -- to the documents you

13 disclosed to the Prosecution? I mean, how could you find a document in

14 your set of documents you disclosed to the Prosecution, Ms. Pilipovic?

15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence was not

16 able to identify the documents that had ERN numbers given by the

17 Prosecution and that were Defence exhibits.

18 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. But how did you organise to have

19 systematical access to your own documents? I mean, if you say, "We can't

20 work with the ERN numbers that were later assigned to the documents."

21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, according to the

22 dates.

23 JUDGE ORIE: According to the dates you have the -- yes. So you

24 have them --

25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. If these are

Page 11722

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

13 English transcripts.

Page 11723

1 reports -- I apologise. If these are reports, I think that Mr. Philipps

2 could have noticed this. These were chronologically listed by years and

3 dates, and when there are orders and other documents, they are listed by

4 dates, that is, day/month/year, and this is the system the Defence had and

5 this is how we listed our documents and this is how we disclosed them.

6 Now, once the document is given an ERN number the Defence has no

7 use because we have -- we don't know which document this is if we don't

8 have a date. I have raised this on several occasions at meetings with my

9 learned colleague, but we obviously haven't been able to establish a good

10 communication in view of this matter. Thank you.

11 JUDGE ORIE: So that means that you would be -- do I understand

12 you well, Mr. Philipps, that if you make reference to two sources, that

13 the first one -- that the first date you indicate for Mr. Sipcic, July

14 1992, that this would have been a document which dates from July 1992,

15 although no specific date?

16 THE WITNESS: That's correct. Or from a witness statement that

17 Tomislav Sipcic was the corps commander in July 1992.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But if we see, for example, in the -- in your

19 reference to Tomislav Sipcic an ERN number saying "appointment of Mr.

20 Zubic," that would not be a witness statement, that would be a document.

21 Yes. So let's try to see what we can do for the rest of our -- of

22 the cross-examination, see whether with the help of the computer perhaps

23 to be in one way or the other, even if it would be not just a source of

24 refreshment for your memory, because I can imagine that it would not be

25 easy to put that in our system, having your own laptop already attached to

Page 11724

1 our system. I am wondering whether your system would allow if you

2 would attach a small printer to it, to print a copy right away so that we

3 can then put it on the ELMO.

4 THE WITNESS: I would have to ask whether they would be able to

5 set up what would be a key file printer, and the system would have to be

6 attached to part of the OTP network for that.

7 JUDGE ORIE: So it can't be -- I do understand now.

8 Mr. Ierace.

9 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, first of all a suggestion. If

10 Mr. Philipps was to have at his disposal, alongside his chair, the hard

11 copies that do exist, that would be of help. We now have a copy of the

12 document that Ms. Pilipovic has questioned the witness about. In the same

13 fashion, I can arrange for someone here to obtain them as quickly as

14 possible.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if Ms. Pilipovic already could provide a list

16 -- I don't know whether you are asking a lot of questions about certain

17 documents, that if you would already give the ERN numbers, because they

18 are related to persons, as in this case with Mr. Sipcic, two possible

19 documents that could be of assistance. So I take it that you have looked

20 in the list whether you can find something in order to see whether you

21 could confront the witness with.

22 Do you have a list of documents you would like to ask questions

23 about?

24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, again, I have to

25 stress that the documents that the Defence had disclosed cannot be

Page 11725

1 identified with ERN numbers. Specifically, the Defence is interested in a

2 document on the basis of which Mr. Philipps gave his explanation about the

3 operation tactical group, Vogosca. This is one part of the question, for

4 instance.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but Ms. Pilipovic, you start with

6 Tomislav Sipcic. You start asking about dates. And the report makes

7 clear, and the witness has testified that the sources he used in this

8 respect, that we find them in the annexes. At least there is a fair

9 chance that what you would like to know, you will find them in the ERN

10 numbers that are mentioned in the annexes. If I can find the ERN numbers

11 in 30 seconds and that would be, I think, true for most of the names

12 mentioned, you just look on the list and you see the sources used by the

13 expert, with their ERN numbers. Even if you could not correlate them to

14 your own material, at least we have the ERN numbers.

15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the problem is that

16 the system, as my learned colleague has already raised, I am repeating, I

17 am reiterating this, that the system that we received from our colleagues

18 is not working in relation to the material that was provided to us on the

19 diskette and has the ERN numbers. We have not been able to identify the

20 documents.

21 JUDGE ORIE: I still do not understand. If you are talking about

22 Mr. Sipcic, you will find two ERN numbers in the annex. So I take it that

23 if you want to examine the witness on the sources he used, that at least

24 you look at those documents mentioned in the annex. And as a matter of

25 fact, that is what you are doing, you are asking questions about the

Page 11726

1 appointment of Mr. Zubic. You are asking when was he appointed, is there

2 a signature on it --

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

4 JUDGE ORIE: So you knew what the ERN number is and you could

5 have prepared for that, isn't it?

6 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have to repeat that

7 the system isn't functioning. The Defence has not been able to open the

8 system and look at the document so that I can conclude from the document

9 whether this was signed by Mr. Sipcic and the date of the document. That

10 is the problem. That is the reason why I asked my question, phrased it in

11 such a way, asking Mr. Philipps whether he knew if this document had been

12 signed by Mr. Sipcic.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but now we see that the Prosecution is able to

14 produce the document within a couple of minutes. Did you ask a copy of

15 this specific ERN number to be -- when did you do that?

16 Yes, Mr. Ierace, please respond.

17 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, they did not.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Would you then indicate, Ms. Pilipovic, when you

19 asked for a copy of ERN number 07096601-070966.

20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in order to prepare

21 for the cross-examination of Mr. Philipps, the Defence asked on several

22 occasions, we requested from my learned colleagues certain documents in

23 relation to Mr. Philipps' report. Specifically this document now under

24 this number, the Defence did not ask specifically for this document but

25 we asked for all other documents, and our learned colleagues said that

Page 11727

1 this is quite a voluminous number of documents and that they could not all

2 be disclosed to the Defence. We even asked for it yesterday, but

3 Mr. Ierace told us that he was not able to speak to Mr. Philipps.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Ierace.

5 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, twice separately in the last hour

6 Ms. Pilipovic has said to you that she specifically has asked me on a

7 number of occasions at meetings for the dates of the documents supplied by

8 the Defence which are relied upon Mr. Philipps.

9 Mr. President, she went on to say perhaps there was a

10 misunderstanding. Well, indeed, there has been a misunderstanding if she

11 believes she has asked me for those dates. She has, however, repeatedly

12 asked me for copies of all of the documents, and I have replied to her

13 that the documents have already been disclosed to her or have been

14 provided by her to us.

15 Mr. President, had she pointed out to me that she requires the

16 dates of the documents which the Defence has provided and which are listed

17 in the report, then I would certainly have responded that we would have

18 given her those dates.

19 Today, one hour ago, was the first time I became aware of her

20 problem. Over that last hour, I have noticed that it seems, in any event,

21 from the annex to the report, that a number of the references do include

22 either dates or other references. We will now do our best to provide her

23 with copies of documents that she can't locate because there is no date

24 reference, so that she can continue her cross-examination. And perhaps at

25 the end of the next break, or at the beginning, if she has it now, she can

Page 11728

1 provide us with a copy of the ERN numbers of the documents she has not

2 been able to locate.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will adjourn now. I think it is of little

4 use to continue to hear the one party blaming the other either for not

5 understanding or for not specifically enough asking information. What the

6 Chamber wants is that the cross-examination can take place in such a way

7 that it not be unnecessarily, at least for the future, bothered by the

8 type of incident we dealt with the last 20 minutes.

9 Ms. Pilipovic, you certainly have in mind on what persons you are

10 going to ask questions during the next half an hour or three quarters of

11 an hour. Please find if it is about persons, within five or 10 minutes,

12 and if that is possible, the specific ERN numbers mentioned in respect to

13 that name or in respect of those units you would like to ask questions

14 about and give them, I would say within the next 10 minutes, to Mr.

15 Ierace. And if Mr. Ierace could please see whether someone could retrieve

16 these documents, and at the same time, we try to have the hard copies in

17 court. And if we could do anything with the computer, fine; if not, we at

18 least will try to continue to ask questions about the report.

19 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, might I add one further thing.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MR. IERACE: I had repeatedly asked the Defence to indicate which

22 parts of this report they dispute.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 MR. IERACE: And there is a more fundamental question in relation

25 to this document. Is it in dispute that Mr. Sipcic was the corps

Page 11729

1 commander on that date?

2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, could you please tell us whether that

3 is in dispute?

4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is -- it is not

5 in dispute. It is not contested Mr. Sipcic was the corps commander, but

6 the Defence does not have a document and does not have the exact dates,

7 the exact data until when Mr. Sipcic was the corps commander.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Is the exact date of importance for the Defence case?

9 I mean, is it -- if it would have been the end of June 1992 or -- well,

10 apart from we have no date yet, it is not one of the conclusions of this

11 expert. He says, "I found sources in July 1992 and August 1992 that these

12 documents indicate that Mr. Sipcic at that time was corps commander."

13 That is how I understand it. He doesn't say when he became it. Is it of

14 relevance for the Defence case when he became that?

15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is important for

16 the Defence until when he was the commander, and the Defence does not have

17 this information on the basis of what we have been given.

18 JUDGE ORIE: No. But am I right in understanding, Mr. Philipps,

19 that you have drawn no conclusions as to up to what moment Mr. Sipcic was

20 corps commander?

21 THE WITNESS: I have no specific date for when he left the post.

22 JUDGE ORIE: So you have, on the basis of your expertise, you have

23 no specific data that would enable you to tell us when Tomislav Sipcic

24 terminated his office as corps commander?

25 THE WITNESS: That is correct. That is also why there is a dotted

Page 11730

1 line --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do undertake that you have explained that from

3 the very beginning.

4 Ms. Pilipovic, Mr. Philipps is not here to give the facts.

5 Mr. Philipps is here because on the basis of the facts that he has seen --

6 on the basis of the documents he has seen and the information he received,

7 he has -- on the basis of the expertise, he has created, according to his

8 expertise, would have been the structure of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps.

9 We have had perhaps in the past similar difficulties that you want experts

10 to give us the facts, rather than their expertise.

11 If you would have asked, do you have any additional information

12 which would allow you to tell the Court when Mr. Tomislav Sipcic gave up

13 his position or finished being corps commander, the answer would have been

14 known and we would not have expended 20 minutes. So please keep in mind

15 that whatever, first of all, that try to understand what the role of an

16 expert is, what we can expect from an expert, and that is conclusions

17 structuring the data he had available. Ask him questions about that, not

18 about underlying facts of which he has no knowledge. And please keep

19 that in mind when you make your list of ERN numbers. We will adjourn

20 until 1.00.

21 --- Recess taken at 12.38 p.m.

22 --- On resuming at 1.01 p.m.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.

24 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I have received a list from the

25 Defence. We will copy the documents. I notice that some of the documents

Page 11731

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

13 English transcripts.

Page 11732

1 which are requested are documents which have a date and appear to be

2 Defence documents. I make the point only to emphasise that the

3 Prosecution has 13 sitting days left in which to complete its case, and we

4 are anxious that time not be wasted.

5 Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, on a number of occasions,

6 we have asked the Defence to simply indicate which parts of the chart

7 they dispute. They have not done so. Present in court is their expert

8 and, of course, the accused. I think it appropriate that by the time

9 cross-examination is completed, the Trial Chamber clearly understands

10 which parts of the chart are in dispute. Thank you, Mr. President.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will consider that.

12 Cross-examination will not be finished by a quarter to 2.00, I

13 take it. Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic, and I would rather forget about

14 as soon as possible the last 20 minutes and see whether we can

15 constructively proceed.

16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. The

17 Defence would just like to clarify why it is -- this document of July 1992

18 and August 1992 is relevant. It is because the Defence has information

19 that in July --

20 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... in English at

21 this very moment, or is it my -- I am on channel 4 and I --

22 THE INTERPRETER: We have technical difficulties, Mr. President.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there are technical difficulties, as far as I

24 understand. I was informed during the break that, before the break, part

25 of the difficulties were due to having only one functioning microphone in

Page 11733

1 one of the booths. Have the -- as soon as the problems have been solved,

2 I would like to be informed.

3 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, do you hear the translation in

4 English now?

5 JUDGE ORIE: I now hear a voice in English. So let's start to

6 resume -- let's just resume.

7 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just one

8 clarification, with your permission. The need of the Defence to have the

9 document of July-August 1992 is because the Defence has unofficial

10 information that Mr. Sipcic was not the corps commander in July and

11 August. And such a document which would now indicate that he was the

12 corps commander in July and August would be important for the Defence

13 because, as of now, the Defence does not have such a document. And I will

14 continue.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.

16 MR. IERACE: I have a copy, Mr. President.

17 JUDGE ORIE: I think no one says that Mr. Sipcic was the corps

18 commander. I think that until now - and I don't know what the relevance

19 is - but until now, the expert has testified that on the basis of, as far

20 as I can see, two documents, he has drawn the conclusion that Mr. Sipcic,

21 at the dates of these documents, was the corps commander. So let's try to

22 be very precise and let's try to well understand what an expert can tell

23 us and what an expert cannot tell us. And I see that we have the

24 documents now.

25 So both of the documents are available to you now, Ms. Pilipovic.

Page 11734

1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Would it be possible that you continue perhaps on

3 another subject and that the members of the Defence team then perhaps

4 study the documents so that we can continue?

5 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

6 Q. Mr. Philipps, regarding your testimony in the chart when you are

7 talking about the assistant corps commander, specifically for morale,

8 logistics, security -- to be more precise, I am talking about slide 7. So

9 when you are talking about Mr. Lugonja, could you please explain to us

10 whether the assistant corps commander for security and for logistics, did

11 I understand it wrongly, we are talking about transcript, page 54, 21, 23,

12 when you are talking about these posts, you are talking about the

13 headquarters sector.

14 Could you please clarify what you said regarding these matters

15 regarding the deputy assistant commander for morale, security, and

16 logistics? Are these people also part of the corps staff?

17 A. As I understand it from the documents, these individuals are part

18 of the corps staff and are heads of specific staff departments. So, for

19 example, Colonel Lugonja was the head of the security and intelligence

20 staff department and Colonel Aleksa Krsmanovic was the head of the

21 logistics staff department.

22 Q. Mr. Philipps, when you say "the staff," could you be more

23 specific? Which part of which staff is the sector, as you call it, for

24 morale, security, and logistics?

25 A. They are all part of the corps headquarters of the Sarajevo

Page 11735

1 Romanija Corps, which is divided into various staff sections.

2 Q. Mr. Philipps, when you were analysing the documents, did you

3 notice that there is a difference between the corps staff and the corps

4 command?

5 A. Yes. In some respects there is a command system which functions

6 and the staff are there to facilitate that command. So there is a

7 distinction between a staff officer who has no executive power as a staff

8 officer and an officer who is in command who has executive powers.

9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Philipps. Mr. Philipps, slide number 16, you

10 talked about the operative tactical group, Vogosca.

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Mr. Philipps, when you were explaining the operative tactical

13 group Vogosca, in the transcript on page 11, 548, lines 12 to 15, you said

14 that it seems that this operational or tactical group was formed in order

15 to achieve better control over the brigades, on the opposite side

16 of Sarajevo from the corps command. Did I understand correctly what you

17 responded in your answer to the question and when you were clarifying the

18 tasks of the Vogosca operational tactical group?

19 A. As I understand it, the reason for forming such a group would be

20 so that those brigades could all act together in some way so that improves

21 the command and control of those brigades.

22 Q. Could you please first clarify for us based on which document you

23 stated that this -- the name of this group is the Vogosca operational

24 tactical group?

25 A. I would have to refer to my notes and look that up, if that is

Page 11736

1 possible.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so, Mr. Philipps.

3 THE WITNESS: On page 18 of 63 of my ERN references, I have

4 various references to reports, including particularly a document, the last

5 on the list, referring to the forming of the TG Vogosca.

6 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. As far as I could understand, Mr. Philipps, you are talking about

8 the Vogosca tactical group.

9 A. Yes. What I have here is -- I have put Vogosca

10 operational/tactical group, as there seem to be the terms used on several

11 occasions. It is possible, of course, that they are two separate

12 organisations, one a Vogosca operational group the other one a Vogosca

13 tactical group.

14 Q. Mr. Philipps, when you confirmed for us that the forming of the

15 operational or tactical group Vogosca was with the task of achieving

16 better control on the opposite side of Sarajevo from the corps command,

17 are you in fact telling us that this was a permanent command group, a

18 tactical group?

19 A. I do not believe it was permanent, as I have information about it

20 being reformed at certain times. So my analysis would be that it was

21 formed and reformed at different times, depending on the situation that

22 occurred.

23 Q. When you say it was disbanded and formed, can you please tell us,

24 from the period from the 15th of September 1992 up until September 1994,

25 how many times was the group formed and reformed, if you know this?

Page 11737

1 A. I could not say how many times this formation or re-formation

2 occurred. I only have the fact that it came into existence on a specific

3 date and that it was reformed on another date. So at least two

4 incarnations.

5 Q. Mr. Philipps, since you have told us and cited the brigades which

6 comprised the Vogosca tactical group, can you please tell us whether those

7 four brigades which you linked with the diagram -- in the diagram in

8 relation to the Vogosca, so the Ilidza, Rajlovac, Vogosca brigades, so

9 were they part of this group, the Vogosca group, or did this composition

10 change from time to time?

11 A. As I understand it, those brigades or parts of those brigades

12 formed part of the operational tactical group at various times. It may

13 be that at one time all of them were part of it or it may be at other

14 times that only some of them or part of each brigade was within the

15 tactical operational group.

16 Q. Did I understand you properly that it is your position that these

17 four brigades were practically -- when they were formed, they were always

18 part of the Vogosca tactical group, but this was only a question of how

19 much of each of these brigades would go into the formation of this group?

20 A. As I understand it, the first date I have for the formation of

21 the Vogosca operational tactical group was the 15th of September, 1992.

22 Since those brigades existed before that date, I don't think the brigades

23 were formed as part of the group. As far as I can tell, the group was

24 brought together for specific purposes and may have used all the brigade

25 or may have used parts of the brigades.

Page 11738

1 Q. Mr. Philipps, do you have any knowledge about September 1992 when

2 you said that the Vogosca tactical group was formed? Do you know the task

3 why this group was formed? Do you maybe have some information about this

4 in your documents?

5 A. It may be that there is information within my list of documents

6 relating to the reason of the formation of the group. But I was not

7 using that as part of my analysis. So I am afraid I do not know why the

8 group itself, specifically for what combat operation it was formed.

9 Q. So what you are saying, for July 1993, when you say that

10 Mr. Dragan Josipovic was appointed as commander of the Vogosca tactical

11 group, are you -- do you have information for that period when it was

12 formed and why it was formed?

13 JUDGE ORIE: May I just intervene and ask whether those who are

14 listening to the English channel have any translation? I have not really

15 for the last eight lines. So it seems I have a personal technical

16 problem. If there would be anyone who can see why I have a problem --

17 perhaps there is someone who thinks that I shouldn't listen any more. I

18 think it has changed now.

19 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the translation now?

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I can hear the translation again. So it is the

21 same problem. I will try to read meanwhile, if no one else has a problem.

22 But As soon as someone else has a problem in hearing the English

23 channel, I would like to know. And if the text appears on the screen,

24 even if I would not hear it, I take it that unless anyone informs he that

25 he is not hearing the English channel, I will then read and the problem

Page 11739

1 will be solved after -- during the break.

2 Please proceed.

3 THE WITNESS: As I understand it, this date of July 1993 falls

4 within the period of the operation known as Lukavac 1993. It may be that

5 the formation of this operation or tactical group or the re-formation of

6 it at this date was related to Lukavac 1993.

7 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Mr. Philipps, in your analysis of the documents which you analysed

9 in preparation for your expert testimony, did you have available the

10 orders of the commander of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps or a report about

11 the formation or reformation of the Vogosca tactical group?

12 A. In order to check which document I referred to, I would have to

13 look at the date relating to my list in the index. But I have a daily

14 report by at that time Colonel Stanislav Galic, which makes me think that

15 refers to the earlier period, rather than to July. So perhaps some of the

16 other documents such as the order by Colonel Dragan Marcetic relating to

17 the forming of the tactical group could refer to that period, but I would

18 need to refer to the document.

19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence would

20 like to show Mr. Philipps a document, it is a report, of the command of

21 the Sarajevo Romanija Corps signed by Major General Stanislav Galic. It

22 is dated July 7, 1993. Perhaps Mr. Philipps had the opportunity of seeing

23 this document before.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Madam Usher, would you please assist.

25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to have a

Page 11740

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

13 English transcripts.

Page 11741

1 number for this document, please.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you...

3 THE REGISTRAR: D14.

4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Mr. Philipps, do you recognise this document?

6 A. It would be wrong to say that I recognise it specifically, but

7 it -- if it is among the Defence documents that were disclosed, then it

8 would be among those documents that I have read when preparing my report.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.

10 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I have been given a copy of the

11 document accompanied by what appears to be a translation into English.

12 Might I just clarify that the translation is a partial translation, that

13 is, it relates only to numbered paragraph 2 of the original.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Pilipovic.

15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. In view of the

16 instructions of the Chamber, we translated only the part that is relevant

17 for us to have the witness clarify that part, so that is under item 2 of

18 this is document.

19 Q. Mr. Philipps, is this a report, a combat report with the situation

20 at 17 hours, and was it submitted from -- by Major General Stanislav Galic

21 to the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska.

22 Is that what you conclude from this document?

23 A. Yes. It follows the standard format of a report from the corps

24 headquarters to the Main Staff of the VRS.

25 Q. Mr. Philipps, in item 2 of this document we have information that

Page 11742

1 all the units are in full combat readiness and tactical group Vogosca, the

2 Ilidza, and the Igman Brigade are prepared for possible interventions in

3 the direction of attack of the enemy.

4 Mr. Philipps, we have a report here which talks about the tactical

5 readiness of the Vogosca tactical group, is this correct, the

6 combat readiness of the Vogosca tactical group?

7 A. That is correct, and of two other brigades.

8 Q. Mr. Philipps, when you said "of the two other brigades" as well,

9 am I to conclude that these two brigades did not form a part of the

10 Vogosca tactical group?

11 A. From the wording, I would assume that the tactical group Vogosca,

12 the Ilidza Brigade, and the Igman Brigade were all separate units.

13 Q. Mr. Philipps, are we to conclude that the Ilidza Brigade and the

14 Igman Brigade in the period of 1993 -- that is, from this report, could we

15 conclude that the Ilijas and the Igman Brigade were not part of the

16 Vogosca tactical group? Ilidza Brigade and Igman Brigade.

17 A. Yes, that would be a conclusion from this document on that date.

18 Q. On slide 16 of your chart, when you give your explanations and

19 tell us which brigades are part of the Vogosca tactical group, would you

20 agree with me that on the part of the chart where you say that as part of

21 the Vogosca tactical group for 1993 Ilidza Brigade was also included?

22 Would you agree with me that this is perhaps not quite correct

23 when we are talking about this period of time?

24 A. On that particular date, based on this document, it appears that

25 the Ilidza Brigade was not part of the operational tactical group Vogosca,

Page 11743

1 but may have been part of it on another date.

2 Q. Mr. Philipps, on the basis of your knowledge and information,

3 could you perhaps explain to us, is there a difference between an

4 operational and tactical group?

5 A. The two words mean something quite different; they relate to a

6 level of command. It is possible that the words are confused and are

7 frequently confused in English, but I suspect as tactical military terms

8 they would not be confused in B/C/S.

9 Q. Mr. Philipps, could you tell us on which level is the operational

10 group, in your opinion, and on which level is a tactical group, which

11 levels are we talking about? Tactical group Vogosca or operational group

12 Vogosca, what are the levels?

13 A. The level normally of an operational group is considered to be at

14 the level of a division or at the level of a multiple number of brigades,

15 whereas a tactical group is much smaller and relates normally to the size

16 of a battalion.

17 Q. Mr. Philipps, I would like us to look at slide number 64, please.

18 This is the -- this is about the -- it is the mixed anti-tank artillery

19 regiment. It is that square there.

20 Mr. Philipps, could you repeat for us exactly which units did you

21 include as being part of the 4th Mixed Anti-tank Artillery Regiment.

22 A. In my diagram I show a series of artillery batteries, in fact,

23 three artillery batteries. Now, a regiment would normally consist of a

24 number of battalions, and each of those battalions would consist of a

25 number of batteries. So, here we are seeing only a very small part of

Page 11744

1 what is in the 4th mixed anti-tank artillery regiment. It is also worth

2 here noting that 155-millimetre Howitzer is not an anti-tank weapon, but

3 an artillery weapon.

4 Q. Mr. Philipps, could you tell us on the basis of which documents

5 did you ascertain that as part of the 4th Mixed Anti-tank Artillery

6 Regiment, three artillery batteries are part of that regiment and those

7 artillery batteries that have Howitzers?

8 Mr. Philipps, let us just use the time. Could you perhaps clarify

9 for us what kind of tasks or missions would a mixed anti-tank artillery

10 regiment be used?

11 A. I am afraid that would fall beyond the scope of my analysis. I

12 can only surmise, which would be of no value.

13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Philipps.

14 A. Would you like me to answer your previous question?

15 Q. Yes. Thank you.

16 A. I will need to look up in the index the reference about the

17 artillery batteries.

18 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, if I could assist, it may be on page 4

19 of the 63-page document.

20 JUDGE ORIE: At least on page 4, the 4th Mixed Anti-tank Artillery

21 Regiment appears in the middle of the page.

22 THE WITNESS: The artillery batteries themselves are referred to

23 individually on page 9, there is artillery battery 1, 2, and 3, and that

24 refers to the supplementary index and that relates to a statement with an

25 ERN reference number and a particular page number.

Page 11745

1 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, just in relation to that, the letter

2 that is referred to was filed with the report and gives notice that there

3 is a further document to come. That further document was forwarded to the

4 Defence and copied to the Trial Chamber, I think dated the 31st of May. I

5 don't know that that has actually been formally filed and it should be.

6 But in any event, I think everyone has copy of it. But perhaps I should

7 give notice that I intend to file it at the conclusion of this witness's

8 evidence. Thank you. I should say, tender it, not file it.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 THE WITNESS: I refer to ERN 00400589, which was the source. That

11 is a specific page. I happen to have a hard copy of part of that

12 document, if that is of value. It explains that the Howitzers were under

13 corps command and mentions the individual Colonel Jovo Bartula or

14 Bartula Jovo was in charge there. And the relationship therefore between

15 the battery and the commander at that period has been used to identify

16 those batteries.

17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Mr. Philipps, could you please tell us the date of this document,

19 please.

20 A. The document is in fact a transcript of a witness statement taken

21 between the 13th and 19th of May, 1996. And the specific dates of the

22 equipment referred to are simply referred as 1993 and some of 1994.

23 Q. Mr. Philipps, when you identified these three artillery

24 batteries, that they were part of the 4th mixed anti-tank artillery

25 regiment, could you perhaps tell us for which tasks or missions is the

Page 11746

1 4th Mixed Anti-tank Artillery Regiment used?

2 A. I think I mentioned earlier that, from my experience, I can

3 surmise what it was used for. I was surprised to see artillery within

4 such a unit which would normally be used for anti-tank purposes. However,

5 the basis of this diagram is the information with which I am provided, and

6 if I am provided with information, then I assess it and put it on to the

7 chart. That is why the batteries themselves have dotted lines.

8 Q. Mr. Philipps, could you tell us what weapons are used, or a part

9 of, for a mixed anti-tank artillery regiment, as far as you know, if you

10 know?

11 A. I would normally expect to find towed anti-tank weapons and other

12 types of anti-tank weapon, such as the T-12 100 millimetre weapon we saw

13 on another diagram and other types of anti-tank missiles, perhaps. This

14 may include various missiles of Russian design. But again, this is really

15 speculation. They are anti-tank weapons, basically.

16 Q. Mr. Philipps, are you then saying that Howitzers are not part of a

17 mixed anti-tank artillery regiment? Howitzers, 155 millimetres?

18 A. My detailed knowledge of the order of battle is such that I would

19 not discount the placing of equipment in an unusual position just because,

20 in a standard way, you would not expect to find it. For within the

21 organisation of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, I have found several pieces

22 of equipment in places where I would not expect to find them.

23 And, therefore I did not discount the fact that Howitzers could be within

24 an anti-tank artillery regiment, even though they are not for the purposes

25 of anti-tank fire.

Page 11747

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

13 English transcripts.

Page 11748

1 Q. Mr. Philipps, do you have any other information on the basis of

2 which you believe this to be the way a mixed anti-tank artillery regiment

3 is organised, that is, all the elements that this 4th Mixed Anti-tank

4 Artillery Regiment consists of?

5 A. I could have spent some time looking at the structure of this

6 organisation when it -- when it was previously part of the JNA. But I

7 felt that this would not be helpful, as I was studying a separate entity

8 to what was the 4th Corps of the JNA, and the Sarajevo Romanija Corps is

9 not the 4th Corps of the JNA. It contains elements of it, but to

10 extrapolate what was in the 4th Corps into what is in the Sarajevo

11 Romanija Corps, I felt would not have been helpful or, indeed, accurate.

12 Q. Mr. Philipps, when you were speaking about the Ilijas Brigade, you

13 said that it was a brigade with the largest number of soldiers. Could you

14 tell us, on the basis of the documents, what was the front line, how

15 long was the front line of the Ilijas Brigade?

16 A. I am afraid my analysis did not cover exactly the lengths of front

17 lines of organisations. It really only covered the structure of those

18 organisations and their rough position in and around Sarajevo. It is

19 worth here noting that the Ilijas Brigade had a front facing away from,

20 mostly away from Sarajevo.

21 Q. Mr. Philipps, when you were anaylsing the documents and you

22 created this structure, you worked on the structure of the Ilijas

23 Brigade, did you find in documents and information that a Mrakovo

24 Battalion is mentioned in any of these documents?

25 A. I have not found a specific mention of the Mrakovo Battalion

Page 11749

1 itself.

2 Q. Mr. Philipps, could you tell us, if you know, who issues orders to

3 a commander of a section within a fire group of a battalion where mortars

4 are included? Do you have such knowledge? Who is giving orders to the

5 commander of a mortar section?

6 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I would be grateful if -- the way the

7 question is presently phrased, it is not clear what sources of knowledge,

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 JUDGE ORIE: It is a quarter to 2.00. Ms. Pilipovic, I did

21 understand that your question was to be understood as a very general

22 question, such as, would under these circumstances, and if so, what would

23 be similar to what the witness testified before, is what would you

24 expect under normal circumstances. I think that is how I understood the

25 question. If I am wrong, then please tell me.