1 Wednesday, 30 October 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, since all the technical problems

6 seems -- seem to have been solved, would you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Case Number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus

8 Stanislav Galic.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. On my list are two

10 requests to address the Chamber. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I think you were the

11 first. Please proceed.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, and Your

13 Honours, thank you. The reason why we wanted to address your Chamber is

14 the following: It seems to be that there is a degradation which is very

15 regrettable, and that is what the Defence does not wish to have, which is

16 a bad relationship between the parties. It seems to be, that is what the

17 Defence thinks, that the Prosecution's policy is to waste as much time as

18 possible while the Defence is presenting its case.

19 The Defence underscores first that yesterday after the session

20 immediately we had a meeting with the section assisting the witnesses, and

21 they were complaining about the fact that some witnesses were staying here

22 for a very long time without being able to testify here. I apologise. I

23 am sorry. Thank you.

24 Without being able to testify here before your Chamber because the

25 sessions were continuing and developing in unsatisfactory fashion. This

1 is very symptomatic in terms of what is happening. We know and we have

2 already had this as a problem before this Chamber that in all the

3 languages there is a problem of homonymy. In French, for instance there

4 is "Dupont" and "Dupond" and of course the way we write these names,

5 family names, and we also have this in Serbian. There are many people

6 called Milosevic, many people called Dragan. As far as this witness is

7 concerned, the one that we are hearing today, and as far as the document

8 that he was questioned about yesterday, the famous report consisting of

9 some 20 pages, the Prosecution couldn't have possibly overlooked the fact

10 that if they were going to give us this document, there would be a break

11 in the proceedings because the Defence wanted to see what was happening

12 and to find out in detail what was going on and to confer with the

13 accused.

14 However, if only there was just a precaution taken to have a look

15 at it beforehand, and just asking the witness, were you there at this time

16 during these events, were you accused or charged in such-and-such a case,

17 then immediately the situation would have been clarified. And the

18 situation would have been even more clarified because considering that the

19 testimony under oath this witness said that he was in the trenches in his

20 area in Dobrinja. We know perfectly well in the proceedings the distance

21 which is real between Dobrinja I, II, III and IV and we know during the

22 war that the road between these locations is even longer because one had

23 to go in a roundabout way, and this problem of homonymy was there from the

24 start. Now, considering that the Prosecution did not want to proceed this

25 way, this was putting Defence in a very difficult position and the Defence

1 wishes to be categorical on this point saying that in this way, we are

2 doing two things. First of all, the Defence is being upset through in the

3 presentation of its case and they have succeeded in that. The second

4 thing, and this is even worse we are trying to put pressure on the

5 witnesses because the witnesses, who are waiting not knowing what is going

6 on, sometimes even half an hour, hours waiting, are certainly not in a

7 very good position to come and tell the truth before the Chamber.

8 Now, if this is going to be accepted, this is going to be

9 something completely rotten, and I am sorry that I am using this but that

10 is exactly what is going to happen. Now, the second point that I have to

11 underscore, is that if the Defence is trying as much as it is, and as it

12 is doing now, to intervene with the Prosecution and ask questions in

13 writing, the Defence would like to have some answers. If we are saying,

14 for such-and-such a meeting we want to do such-and-such a thing, could we

15 please have an answer. Could we have a reply rather than pretending that

16 there has been no steps taken on our side. We do not think that this is

17 something that is going to speed up the -- this case. And it is not going

18 to ensure a proper proceeding.

19 This is what I wanted to say, Mr. President. As far as the time

20 is concerned that we had to use in order to treat the problem of useless

21 document yesterday this time should definitely be taken off the time of

22 the Prosecution, and it should not be necessary that any other calculation

23 should be done considering that the proceedings have been carried out.

24 Thank you.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. Mr. Ierace, you also

1 asked a possibility to address the Chamber. Please proceed.

2 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. Firstly, we don't have

3 LiveNote, so perhaps while I speak, we can have some assistance.

4 Secondly, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, page 3, line 13 has referred to the -- an

5 allegation that the Prosecution is not assisting him with meetings. I do

6 not know what he is referring to so I can't respond to that.

7 One of the concerns expressed by Mr. Piletta-Zanin in what he just

8 said is that he has a backlog of witnesses and there has been some concern

9 expressed by the VWU to him about that. I think that the Defence should

10 look again at the witness timetables which they have given to the

11 Prosecution, the Trial Chamber, because it is apparent from those that

12 there is no allowance for cross-examination. The Defence is relying only

13 on its examination-in-chief times in order to construct its timetable.

14 They sometimes have two witnesses down for the one day with two

15 hours of testimony marked as expected for each of those two witnesses.

16 So there is simply no allowance for them to be dealt with properly. So

17 that is the fundamental problem, I think, with the timetable.

18 Mr. President, Mr. Piletta-Zanin has also suggested that there is

19 a bad relationship between the Defence and the Prosecution. I really

20 don't wish to engage in that type of debate. There isn't, from our point

21 of view. There have been a number of allegations made by the Defence in

22 writing and in court over the previous few weeks, allegations that we have

23 lied, that we have abruptly cancelled meetings. None of it is true. I

24 don't propose to go into any further detail.

25 Mr. President, the reason that I wanted to address you is that

1 yesterday we were informed that Mr. Mundis is allowed only an extra 30

2 minutes of cross-examination. This gives rise to two issues. You may

3 recall that on two occasions I have addressed you at length over the last

4 few weeks with the proposal which I might perhaps refer to as "the banking

5 proposal" in terms of the way in which the Prosecution conducts its

6 cross-examination, that is that overall examination, that is

7 cross-examination not exceed the combination of examination-in-chief and

8 re-examination. I note that both times I have done that, the Trial

9 Chamber has not responded, has not approved of it or indicated that it is

10 not acceptable.

11 I would be grateful if the Trial Chamber would respond to that and

12 if you are against the Prosecution, the Prosecution's proposal, I would

13 also be grateful for reasons. I would -- that would be helpful to the

14 Prosecution in the way it structures its response to the Defence case, to

15 have an indication as to whether that is an acceptable way for us to

16 conduct ourselves in terms of time limits. If one looks at the times so

17 far, leaving aside the current witness and leaving aside the witness who

18 is part heard who is to be recalled in December, then the Prosecution has

19 some four hours in credit. In other words, we have taken four hours less

20 than the Defence when you combine Defence examination-in-chief and

21 re-examination. And they are rough figures, but they are not gross

22 figures. In other words, where there have been long discussions rather

23 than the taking of evidence from witnesses, discussions in excess of five

24 minutes, those times have been excluded.

25 The second issue is that if one looks at the half hour allowance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 on the basis of the approach which applied up until now, that is that the

2 cross-examiner is allowed no more time than the examiner in chief took,

3 then there is also a considerable discrepancy. Last night, I took the

4 draft LiveNote transcript which gives times and looked at it closely. I

5 excluded virtually all interventions and it transpires from the figures

6 that the Prosecution has remaining one hour and 12 minutes if its time is

7 to match the time that the Defence was allowed in terms of examining this

8 witness.

9 Because there is such a discrepancy between that time and the half

10 hour that we have been allocated, I would be grateful if the Trial Chamber

11 would reconsider that half hour allowance.

12 Mr. President, our position is particularly difficult because we

13 are hearing for the first time in court evidence which is contradictory to

14 the Defence position up until this point, and again, in relation to this

15 witness, two examples will suffice: The position of the confrontation

16 lines and some aspects of the use of the church. There are, in other

17 words, substantial matters that we still we wish to cross-examine this

18 witness on. We see, for instance, that he has marked the front line

19 position on which he operated as including the airport. There has been

20 much in the Prosecution case about the targeting of civilians who cross

21 the airport at night.

22 Thank you, Mr. President.

23 It was pointed out to me that I have inadvertently referred to the

24 Defence where I should have referred to the Prosecution. That appears --

25 excuse me -- on page 6 at line 14, that is, we have heard evidence which

1 is -- I am sorry, in fact that is what I intended -- which is contrary to

2 the Defence position and I, in saying that, have in mind the Defence

3 position based on contrary propositions not being put to Prosecution

4 witnesses.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is how we understood your observation.

6 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, one or two minutes.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you very much,

8 Mr. President. First thing, I am making this observation that bearing in

9 mind what the Prosecution said, they don't know what I am saying, what I

10 am talking about. There is no comment. This is a letter from the 21st of

11 October certainly in a language of the Tribunal, so I am still asking for

12 a courteous answer. Now, as far as the rest is concerned, Mr. President,

13 every party is free, as you have said to use the time as they wish. And

14 the Prosecution has a huge advantage over the Defence because it is

15 represented by the people who come from originally from the Anglo-Saxon

16 law and they know exactly what the consequences of their acts and

17 strategies are.

18 The Prosecution wanted to undermine the credibility of this

19 witness asking him questions regarding his credibility. This has been a

20 complete defeat for the Prosecution. Was it the fault of the Defence? It

21 wasn't, but the time was wasted. If the Prosecution had used this time to

22 advance its case, we would not have been here. The second point saying

23 that useful interventions is not necessary of General Galic,

24 because -- General Galic, the Defence, because certainly we knew that the

25 Prosecution had to go on to another subject. We think this is opening the

1 door to all kinds of abuses of the proceedings and this is not the first

2 time.

3 I would like to remind you, for instance, witnesses, I believe

4 DP6, the Prosecution presented the same arguments, they wanted to say

5 how -- whether there were shooting at the trees to get rid of the leaves.

6 We cannot accept this. We are either talking about the facts or not and

7 so on. Now as far as the lines are concerned, we have always said that no

8 agreement was possible on the question -- on the matter of the lines

9 because our witnesses would come and say that the lines were not as what

10 the Prosecution said. So this is not something which is new. If the

11 lines were completely established then we would have already had the

12 agreements. We have contested -- just 30 more seconds, please, please.

13 Thank you.

14 We have contested fully the testimony of the Chief of Staff,

15 General Karavelic, and after, if you remember when we submitted other maps

16 to him, he rejected him and he said that these maps were no good, that

17 these were made by incapable people. So we couldn't use them because his

18 point was that this was done by people who didn't know anything about it.

19 Now, every time we could, we contested the positions, the lines of the

20 Prosecution witnesses. Now, as far as the tower is concerned, this is my

21 very last point, this is the fact that the Prosecution should have known,

22 they should have told us, and the Prosecution should have asked questions

23 of the witness themselves if the tower wasn't already destroyed and could

24 not have been used by a sniper because there was no protection.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, we are not at this moment

1 evaluating the evidence. I think it is clear your position. Sometimes it

2 strikes me how good both parties know what the other should do and at the

3 same time seems to function unsatisfactorily in view of the other.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It is just a little request

5 because sometimes it is a little disagreeable. Could we just move the

6 folders because I cannot see everyone and I don't know whether I am being

7 addressed or not.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We could ask Madam Registrar to -- if you need

9 any help, Madam Registrar. Yes. Now, I even can see General Galic which

10 was fine also.

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, indeed.

12 JUDGE ORIE: We have two different issues at this moment. First

13 of all, the relation between the parties whether they behave towards each

14 other in such a way that it is acceptable. And that is mainly outside of

15 court. If there is any problem in that respect, if meetings are held in

16 such a way that no progress is made, if parties blame each other for

17 misbehaving or -- then there is an easy solution. I will assist the

18 parties in the meetings and since I am usually in court during five hours

19 a day and since I have other work to do as well, these meetings would take

20 place at 7.30 in the morning. So if any of the parties thinks that

21 assistance is needed, they can call me and the next morning we will meet

22 for all practical matters at 7.30 in the morning. That is as far as

23 practical matters are concerned.

24 Then the time calculation as far as witness DP9 is concerned, I

25 have as data here -- let me just have a look. For DP9, I have

1 examination-in-chief by Ms. Pilipovic for half an hour on the first day.

2 Then examination-in-chief by Ms. Pilipovic yesterday for another 15

3 minutes. Then I have examination-in-chief by Mr. Piletta-Zanin for 25

4 minutes, that makes it all together two hours. Then I have

5 cross-examination by Mr. Mundis up until this moment for 40 minutes

6 yesterday before the break, half an hour after the break that would make

7 70 minutes up until now. 50 [Realtime transcript read in error "15"]

8 minutes remaining. When I said 30 minutes yesterday, I deducted some time

9 for the extra time needed to read the document which I thought at that

10 time was not a very efficient way of using the time. I cannot give you a

11 decision now on whether the banking system would be a good solution, but

12 perhaps the Chamber should express itself on that.

13 Let's just ask the witness to come in. I think, as a matter of

14 fact, but that is a very practical matter, the discussion on the time

15 still to be taken takes just as much time as the time you might need. So

16 sometimes perhaps, as the parties might have experienced, we are not that

17 rigid if the comes to the final five or six minutes. So if there would be

18 50 minutes available, but your calculation is a bit different.

19 MR. IERACE: Especially in relation to the cross-examination by

20 Mr. Mundis yesterday. That seems to be the problem. Where you have 70

21 minutes, Mr. Present, I have 40. That is quite a difference.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that. Of course, I rely on the

23 information I got from the Registry, and there of course it depends on

24 what you deduct and what you do not deduct and whether an objection should

25 be deduced or not. And that is also a matter of, I would say, of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 assessment and interpretation of the usefulness of the -- let's just be

2 very practical. Let's call the witness and let's start and if both

3 parties -- you are nodding "no," Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. This was

5 just something that I was saying to myself in relation to what you were

6 saying. I wasn't speaking.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Be very careful because before you are nodding

8 "no" to yourself, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, because that is a risky adventure.

9 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Mr. President, it has disappeared, but page 10

10 line 2, is "50," 5-0, and not "15."

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, 50 minutes, 5-0, that is correct. Let's just

12 start. Let's see whether the parties could try to work as efficient as

13 possible and see where we come.

14 [The witness entered court]

15 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning. Please be seated, Mr. DP9.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I remind you that you are still bound by

18 the solemn declaration you gave the day before yesterday.

19 Mr. Mundis, please proceed.

20 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

21 WITNESS: WITNESS DP9 [Resumed]

22 [Witness answered through interpreter]

23 Cross-examined by Mr. Mundis: [Continued]

24 Q. Good morning, Witness.

25 A. Good morning

1 MR. MUNDIS: I would ask with the assistance of the usher that the

2 witness be shown Defence Exhibit 1771, and while that is being done --

3 Q. Witness, was your platoon mobile or did it remain more or less

4 static throughout the period from September 1992 through August 1994?

5 A. It was mobile.

6 Q. I would ask you to take a look now at the map, Defence Exhibit

7 1771. You've indicated on this map the SRK line as it existed during the

8 relevant time period, that is, September 1992 through August 1994; is that

9 correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. In light of the fact that your platoon was mobile, did your

12 platoon operate at various times during that period across the entire

13 length of that confrontation line or only in selected parts of that

14 confrontation line?

15 A. Along certain parts of that confrontation line.

16 MR. MUNDIS: I would ask that the witness be handed a thin blue

17 marker.

18 Q. Witness, if you would please place blue X's along the -- those

19 parts of the SRK confrontation line that your platoon operated on during

20 this period. If you could place the blue X's right on top of the solid

21 black line that you drew yesterday.

22 A. [Marks]

23 Q. Okay, Witness. During the time period from September 1992 through

24 August 1994, based on the markings you have made on the map, it's correct

25 that your platoon was at three different locations along the confrontation

1 line then; is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. I would like to draw your attention to the last X that you made,

4 that is the one at the top or the north-eastern part of the confrontation

5 line. Can you please point to that with the pointer.

6 A. [Indicates]

7 Q. Thank you, Witness. That building that you are pointing to, that

8 entire building was on the SRK side of the line; is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. The rectangular building to the south-west of the building that

11 you just indicated was also entirely on the SRK side of the confrontation

12 line; is that correct?

13 A. Do you mean this building?

14 Q. Yes, I do.

15 A. I think it was as well, but I wasn't in that building.

16 Q. Can you please place blue circles around both of those buildings.

17 A. [Marks]

18 Q. Thank you, Witness.

19 MR. MUNDIS: For the record the witness has drawn one large oval

20 around both of the buildings in question.

21 Q. Witness, did your platoon have a fixed headquarters, that is a

22 specific building where your platoons headquarters was located?

23 A. The platoon did not have a fixed headquarters.

24 Q. Would it be fair to say that the platoon commander operated with

25 the platoon along the three points that you have marked with an X along

1 the confrontation line?

2 A. We weren't at all three of these parts at the same time that I

3 have marked, but at different time periods. And the platoon commander was

4 present either with the part of the platoon he was with or in the company

5 command.

6 Q. Witness, yesterday you told us that behind the SRK lines, that is,

7 towards the rear, your unit had its logistical and support components. Do

8 you remember telling us that?

9 A. Yes. Yes.

10 Q. Are the area or areas where these logistical units were located

11 from September 1992 through August 1994, are those areas visible on this

12 map?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Can you please place blue -- a blue X or X's at the location where

15 the logistical support units were located in the rear areas.

16 A. [Marks]

17 Q. Witness, can you please circle the two X's that you have just made

18 and next to the circles write the letter "L."

19 A. [Marks]

20 Q. Thank you. You also mentioned yesterday that there were former

21 barracks in the area towards the rear of your lines. Is that former

22 barracks visible on this map or the location of that former barracks?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Witness, you told us yesterday that Bosnian Serb civilians who

25 lived in this area were also relocated back from the front lines for their

1 own safety. Are the areas where these civilians were relocated visible on

2 this map?

3 A. The civilians who abandoned their homes because of the combat

4 operations went to different areas, and I really don't know where they

5 were relocated to.

6 Q. Do you know where the location of your company headquarters was

7 during this time period September 1992 through August 1994?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Can you please place an X on the map where your company

10 headquarters was located.

11 A. [Marks]

12 Q. Can you please circle that X and next to it write the letters

13 "COHQ." "COH" and if there is no "Q" in your alphabet, a "Y" would be

14 sufficient.

15 A. [Marks]

16 Q. That's fine. Witness, do you know the location of where your

17 battalion headquarters was located?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Can you please place an X at that location.

20 A. That location is not visible on this map.

21 Q. Thank you. How about the location of your brigade headquarters,

22 is that visible on the map?

23 A. I don't know exactly where it was, that is, the brigade

24 headquarters. But it wasn't in these areas, that's for sure. I know

25 that.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. Witness, you also told us yesterday that you had been to Lukavica

2 Barracks; is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Do you recall how many times you visited that facility between

5 September 1992 and August 1994?

6 A. I don't know exactly, but I went there several times, maybe four,

7 three, or five times. I don't know exactly.

8 Q. Do you recall within that overall time period, approximately when

9 you were at Lukavica Barracks?

10 A. In the Lukavica Barracks, I was there most often in 1993.

11 Q. Witness, do you recall why you went to Lukavica Barracks?

12 A. There was a health clinic in the barracks and as I had some

13 medical problems I went there. And for a while, I was treated there at

14 the clinic.

15 Q. From Lukavica Barracks to the Veljine church, the distance, as the

16 crow flies, was between 1.000 and 1500 metres; is that correct?

17 A. I don't know exactly what the distance is. Perhaps one should

18 measure it. And it depends from which spot in the barracks, as the

19 barracks is quite enormous.

20 Q. From the Lukavica Barracks compound you could see the tower of the

21 Veljine church, is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Witness DP9, at any time did you have the occasion to meet with

24 General Galic?

25 A. No.

1 Q. At any time did you have the opportunity to speak with

2 General Galic over a telephone or field radio or any other electronic

3 device?

4 A. No, sir.

5 Q. At any time when you were either at your positions along the front

6 line or at Lukavica Barracks, did you ever see General Galic?

7 A. I don't remember seeing him ever.

8 Q. I would like you, again, to look at D1771, the map that's to your

9 right. Yesterday, you told us about ABiH trenches in front of the school

10 building in Dobrinja. Do you remember saying that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Can you please point to the school building.

13 A. [Indicates]

14 Q. Can you please circle that building with a blue pen.

15 A. [Marks]

16 Q. And next to that write the letter "S."

17 A. [Marks]

18 Q. Witness DP9, during the early parts of the conflict in Dobrinja,

19 the ABiH forces were actually in that school building, were they not?

20 A. At the beginning of the conflict, I don't know who was in the

21 school at Dobrinja. I think that even for a while it was vacant and the

22 ABiH forces were in a private house some 50 kilometers -- metres away

23 parallel with the school close to a wood.

24 Q. Do you know if the ABiH forces were ever in the school building?

25 A. The ABiH forces were certainly in the school from 1993, I know

1 that for sure, until the end of the combat operations in this area.

2 Q. Looking at the confrontation lines that you've drawn on the

3 south-west part of the school building, approximately how far were the

4 confrontation lines apart at that location?

5 A. Do you mean these lines? Are you referring to these?

6 Q. Yes. From where your pen is towards the school. Towards the

7 school. Yes.

8 A. This one?

9 Q. From the location of the school to the location where you drew the

10 "X." How far is that?

11 A. The width of two-track road, two-lane road and the schoolyard, it

12 would be about 50 metres.

13 Q. Now, the ABiH trench line or front line that you drew, you

14 indicated yesterday that there was a trench along that front line; is that

15 correct?

16 A. The trench went from the school building towards the front lines

17 towards the Bijelo Polje road. There were other trenches also across the

18 road in front of the positions, and so on.

19 Q. In the area to the south-east of the school where you have drawn

20 the ABiH line from that position to the SRK line and particularly where

21 you've drawn the "X" towards the south-eastern portion of the map,

22 approximately how far was that distance?

23 A. You mean from here to here?

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. The distance is a bit bigger as between there is a football pitch

1 and a clearing, about 300 metres perhaps.

2 Q. Do you recall, Witness --

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to

4 specify what the witness has said because the south-east indication is not

5 clear enough because the line comes back towards the school. So I would

6 like to make the transcript more precise. Thank you.

7 JUDGE ORIE: The witness pointed at the distance between the most

8 easterly position of his platoon and the ABiH lines close to the school in

9 a south-eastern direction.

10 Please proceed.

11 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

12 Q. Witness, do you recall when those trenches on the ABiH side were

13 dug or constructed?

14 A. In the period from 1993 and 1994.

15 Q. And, Witness, it is your testimony then that the ABiH forces left

16 the school building and dug trenches directly towards the SRK front line

17 during 1993 and 1994?

18 A. I didn't say that. They didn't leave the school again until the

19 end of the war. After the trenches were dug out, some other units came

20 there. According to information from the command, they were units that

21 were not even within the same formation.

22 Q. Thank you, Witness. Now, you told us yesterday that the tower of

23 the Veljine church was hit below the dome and that part of the wall fell

24 down is that correct?

25 A. The tower of the church was hit below the cupola and seriously

1 damaged.

2 Q. I take it from that answer that the upper parts of the church were

3 completely destroyed?

4 A. Only the dome remained on the lateral walls.

5 Q. Was the -- did part of the church tower actually collapse; is that

6 what you're telling us?

7 A. The front and back wall of the church tower collapsed in the top

8 part of it just below the dome.

9 Q. Is it fair to say that the church tower was totally destroyed?

10 A. No, not entirely.

11 Q. What part of the church tower remained standing? And I take it by

12 "tower" you are referring to the bell tower of the church?

13 A. Yes, I am referring to the bell tower of the church.

14 Q. What part of the bell tower of the church remained standing?

15 A. The whole tower remained standing. Only, as I said, the top part

16 was seriously damaged, whereas the bottom part which hadn't been hit

17 wasn't damaged at all.

18 Q. You told us that the reconstruction of the church commenced after

19 the Dayton Agreement; is that correct?

20 A. As far as I know, because I was already leaving by then, that is

21 right.

22 Q. Do you remember, Witness, when the Dayton Agreement was signed?

23 A. I think it was at the end of 1995.

24 Q. Do you recall if it was in December 1995, more precisely?

25 A. I don't know the exact date when the Dayton Agreement was signed.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. Approximately when after the Dayton Agreement was signed did the

2 reconstruction work begin on the church?

3 A. I think it could have been in 1996 that some works on the church

4 started.

5 Q. Do you recall if the work started in January or March or May or

6 July or what month in 1996?

7 A. Believe me, I really don't know. I didn't really pay that much

8 attention to that. I had quite different problems to deal with regarding

9 my own accommodation.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I must object to this

11 question. I think what is important to know is whether this was after the

12 war, rather than whether it was in April, May or June. I don't really see

13 the point of this line of questioning, the more so that the witness

14 doesn't know.

15 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that this specification as far as

16 months are concerned will become relevant in your next questions?

17 MR. MUNDIS: In the next several questions, Mr. President.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then please proceed.

19 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you.

20 Q. Witness, do you recall how long it took to rebuild the church

21 tower?

22 A. I think the reconstruction was done in stages and that it lasted a

23 long time, but exactly how long I am unable to say. I don't know.

24 Q. When you say, Witness, "a long time" do you mean a period of

25 months or a period of a couple of years, two or three years?

1 A. I think it lasted more than one calendar year.

2 Q. The Veljine church, Witness, is in its present condition, seems to

3 be -- the facade of the building seems to be stucco or plaster, and seems

4 to be painted white; is that correct?

5 A. The facade of the church is white, and I don't know that it was

6 done with plaster.

7 Q. Fair enough, Witness. Do you know when the building was painted

8 white or when the colour of the church became white?

9 A. I am afraid I don't know when that was exactly, but when the

10 reconstruction was completed the facade was done at the end.

11 MR. MUNDIS: I would ask that the witness be shown what has been

12 marked as Prosecution Exhibit 3753.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please assist.

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

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We are going to object to this

17 exhibit.

18 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President -- excuse me, Mr. President. If we

19 could ask the witness to remove his headphones during the course of this

20 objection, please.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's what I wanted to say.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Please give us the reason for your objection,

24 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

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

1 this kind of exhibit seems to be in our version there is a different ERN

2 number, but it's not here. These kind of exhibits we would like to know

3 very precisely when did Prosecution find out about this, where did it come

4 from, particularly for the photographs 1, 2, 3, 4, for all of them, about

5 the work that was done on the church. The reason why we are asking this

6 question is the following: There is a principle in the Rules which says

7 that if there are exculpatory elements and the Prosecution knows about

8 them, they need to hand it over to the Defence. So that the case with

9 proceed properly and justly. We do not -- cannot imagine that they have

10 only received these photograph as few hours or a few days ago. We think

11 that this type of photograph about the work that was done on the church,

12 these photographs must have been in the possession of the Prosecution some

13 time ago. So if they have had in their files such photographs and this

14 photograph in particular, now, for instance, if they had them during the

15 time when they were presenting their own case.

16 So, was it possible to see the work on the photographs or the

17 damage?

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So I take it that the Defence considers these

19 photographs to be of an exculpatory nature and therefore they would have

20 had to have been disclosed before.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Mr. President.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please respond, Mr. Mundis.

23 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. Present, I would prefer doing this in the absence

24 of the witness for the simple reason that he seems to be looking at the

25 monitor and I may have to mention some dates.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness

2 out of the courtroom.

3 [The witness stands down]

4 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, if I may, three points very briefly.

5 The first one I would need a further elaboration from the Defence as to

6 how exactly these photos are exculpatory or what their position is as to

7 the nature, the exculpatory nature of these photographs to further respond

8 to that.

9 JUDGE ORIE: May I already ask one question about that. Usually

10 only disclosed at a late time what one would expect that if they really

11 are exculpatory, that the parties who considers them to be exculpatory

12 because it introduces an exculpatory aspect in their case, so that is

13 still a bit of a puzzle to me. So we would like to know about this later.

14 But you may continue your --

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

16 JUDGE ORIE: No, after Mr. Mundis has made his second and third

17 observation, you will get an opportunity to respond.

18 MR. MUNDIS: The second point, Mr. President, is that as the

19 Chamber is aware from the discussion yesterday the Prosecution was put on

20 notice on the 21st of October, that is, some nine days ago, that this

21 witness would be testifying about the destruction, alleged destruction of

22 the bell tower of the Veljine church. That was completely new information

23 to the Prosecution. We began undertaking a review of material that we

24 have in house and as Mr. Ierace indicated to you yesterday, in the middle

25 of the morning yesterday, we were able to obtain these photographs. Our

1 position is that these photographs may have been disclosed earlier to the

2 Defence, but for the fact that we had no idea whatsoever that this issue

3 would become one which the Defence would deem to be relevant in the sense

4 that we only discovered this nine days ago.

5 With respect to when these photographs were taken, I can tell the

6 Chamber that these photographs were taken in August of 1996, and the next

7 line of questions to be put to the witness will go to that very issue as

8 to the condition of the church in August of 1996 and whether or not these

9 photographs accurately depict the church as it existed at that time.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

11 MR. MUNDIS: As well as during the indictment period, Mr.

12 President. We will put a series of questions concerning the condition of

13 the church during the indictment period.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, please respond

15 to the exculpatory nature of these photographs.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, gladly, Mr. President, I

17 will reply to the Prosecution in application of Rule 90(H) and also I will

18 reply to the Prosecution. We believe that if a sniper should be located

19 anywhere in the top -- on top floors of a tower where he has no protection

20 because of the wall, back or front, or the side walls which the witness

21 has said disappeared, then there is no practical possibility to snipe

22 because a sniper has to be protected. So his own protection is not

23 ensured, so this is a very important element. Another element, Mr.

24 President, that is what I discovered today, is that the Prosecution had

25 these elements much more beforehand and they did not disclose them.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Now, if we had known for each of the incidents in Dobrinja, for

2 instance, that this happened from the tower, if the tower -- that the

3 tower had been damaged, then we would have been able to ask a line of

4 questions of exculpatory character asking the witness saying, "isn't it

5 true that this tower was open and it was not possible to place the snipers

6 there. Wasn't it true that if a sniper was there, then the tanks from the

7 Jusuf barracks would immediately fire and shoot the -- shoot them down."

8 Now, we believe that these elements were intentionally hidden because they

9 needed several hours to find them in their files.

10 Now these exhibits show that the sniper's nest, as it is called,

11 was not such, technically it was impossible, and we were not able to ask

12 Prosecution witnesses about this, because this information which should

13 have been communicated to us was not and that is the reason why we believe

14 that it is disloyal to produce them now, especially since they are of an

15 exculpatory nature to produce them now, because we would have wanted to

16 have them at the time when witnesses of the Prosecution were heard. And

17 now we retroactively underscore that we have great reserve towards this,

18 that our rights were offended during each testimony of these witnesses

19 because the information was not given to us. Thank you.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis. One short reply.

21 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a very quick comment.

22 Mr. Piletta-Zanin in the Prosecution's submission has got the issue

23 slightly confused. The fact of the matter is, he says that if they had

24 known with respect to the incidents that the tower was destroyed, they

25 would have put that to the witnesses. The fact of the matter is, we had

1 numerous witnesses testifying about the existence of the church and the

2 only information to date during the course of the entire trial with

3 respect to damage to the church has come from the Defence witness, not

4 from any Prosecution witnesses. There is, to date with the exception of

5 this witness, there has been no evidence whatsoever that this church tower

6 was damaged in any way whatsoever. And second of all, if I could just

7 draw to the attention of the Chamber that this witness has just testified

8 that from Lukavica Barracks, the church tower was visible and I don't push

9 that issue any further other than to point out that Lukavica Barracks was

10 the headquarters of the accused. Thank you, Mr. President.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, just briefly on the observations

12 made by Mr. Mundis.

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I don't understand anything

14 any more and I have to admit it. Because if I find myself in a legal

15 position and I see a photograph with considerable works on all four of the

16 sides, with all the work that is being done, although I am not an

17 architect, we can see that there were considerable damages, since there

18 was considerable work. Now the Prosecution is saying that these questions

19 cannot be put to the witnesses in the fact that the Defence doesn't know

20 anything about this, and perhaps because I am speaking in French I am

21 being misunderstood, but I believe that I am sufficiently clear.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just -- I do see that the mere fact that works

23 are done at the church are considered by the Defence to be exculpatory

24 where as the Prosecution says that it was only through Defence witnesses

25 that attention was paid to what I would say was a substantial damage to

1 the church.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, if I may, I believe there is a

4 misunderstanding here about the nature of the scaffolding that is visible

5 in the photo as well as the crane that can be seen. I would simply like

6 to draw to the attention of the Trial Chamber the testimony of, in

7 particular, two witnesses. The first one being Ismet Hadzic and in

8 particular the Word transcript at page 12250 and the testimony of Refik

9 Sokolar again the Word transcript, page 3622, both of those witnesses

10 testified and there are other witnesses I can say too, as well, both of

11 those witnesses testified that the church had scaffolding on the tower

12 throughout the period of the war.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's not in my recollection at this very

14 moment, but I take it that since the sources have been given, that the

15 Defence could check the correctness of the observation just made.

16 Well, the Chamber, of course, is not in a position to give any

17 decision at this moment without having heard at least the questions and

18 the answers of that witness. If it would turn out that in violation of

19 the Rules, the photographs has not been disclosed at an earlier stage, we

20 have to see what decision should be taken in that respect. But we will

21 first allow the Prosecution to continue.

22 Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness into the courtroom

23 again.

24 [The witness entered court]

25 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated. Thank you for your patience,

1 Mr. DP9.

2 Mr. Mundis, please proceed.

3 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Again I would ask that the

4 witness be shown Prosecution Exhibit 3753.

5 Q. Witness, do you recognise the building in the centre of the

6 photograph that is before you?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. What is that building?

9 A. This is the Orthodox church in Veljine or one of its parts, the

10 tower.

11 Q. Can you please take the thin blue marker and circle what you have

12 described as "the tower."

13 A. [Marks]

14 Q. Previously you've talked about a part that you have referred to as

15 "the dome." Is the part that you have referred to as "the dome" visible

16 in this photograph?

17 A. This is the visible dome of the church, yes.

18 Q. When you use the term "dome," are you referring to the extreme top

19 of the bell tower?

20 A. On its roof.

21 Q. The roof of the bell tower is what you have referred to as the

22 dome; is that correct?

23 A. Yes. It's this.

24 Q. Can you please place a circle around the dome.

25 A. [Marks]

1 Q. Inside that circle, please write the letter "D."

2 A. [Marks]

3 Q. On the photograph before you, can you please mark that part of the

4 bell tower which was destroyed by the tank fire.

5 A. Here you can only see a part of the damage.

6 Q. Inside the circle that you've just drawn, please place an "X."

7 A. [Marks]

8 Q. The area inside the circle with the "X" in it, Witness, is that

9 the only part of the bell tower that was damaged?

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I object to

11 this question for a very good reason: Is that the witness said we can

12 only see one part of the damage. So if we only see one part of the

13 damage, therefore -- okay, very well, very well I don't say anything.

14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... the photograph,

15 and the logic of possible answers is a different matter and if you would

16 like to make such remarks, then we should ask the witness to take off his

17 earphones. So if you think you should stand by your objection, then we

18 have to ask the --

19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please put his microphone on.

20 Counsel, microphone.

21 [Defence counsel and accused confer]

22 JUDGE ORIE: Taking off the headphones, in case we are using words

23 that are recognisable on the screen.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this witness

25 said earlier, asked by question is that what was on the photograph was not

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 all of the damage. Now, if it is only this damage that existed, if what

2 we asking -- if we put this question then it is contradictory to what he

3 testified already.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please respond to the objection.

5 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I believe the question was: "Was that

6 the only part of the bell tower that was damaged?" I can certainly show

7 the witness additional photographs from this packet and ask him to

8 clarify.

9 JUDGE ORIE: I think the -- let me just try to find it. Yes, it

10 is not quite clear because the answer was: "Here you can only see a part

11 of the damage" without clear reference to --

12 Let me ask you, Witness DP9, when you said -- yes. When you just

13 told us that this was the only part of the damage you could see, did you

14 intend to say that this was only part of the damage done to the bell tower

15 that you could see or that this was only part of the damage done to the

16 church as a whole? So bell tower and other parts of the church as well

17 that you could see?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were other damages on the

19 church, and this is just some of the damage that we can see on the

20 photograph.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but some of the damage of what? Some of the

22 damage to the bell tower or some of the damage to the church as whole? I

23 mean, was there other damage done to the bell tower? Or was the other

24 damage on other parts of the church --

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I think that one part can also

1 be seen on this photograph if we look at it very closely. In the

2 background you can see the light, which means that the back wall has also

3 been destroyed by the shelling when the church was shelled. And a

4 commission of priests and civilians came and also with an officer,

5 commission of the army because this was a facility --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me stop you there. You say we see damage

7 at the front wall just below the dome, but you say since you can see

8 light, there is also damage at the other side of the bell tower. Was

9 there more damage on the bell tower, apart from the front and the back

10 wall you just referred to?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The pillars for the bells were also

12 damaged on the inside, and also the inside of the bell tower was also

13 damaged.

14 JUDGE ORIE: But on the outside of the bell tower, there was no

15 more damage. Is that how I am to understand your answer?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Lower down what you can't see on

17 this photograph, there is another damage caused by a rocket launcher but

18 you cannot see this detail on the photograph.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Because it is hidden by the bush or is that the

20 reason why you can't see it?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You cannot see it because of the

22 bushes. It is hidden by the bushes.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.

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

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. --

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am simply to say, we have

2 looked at the hour. Even if we take ten minutes off, we now believe that

3 we are much further than the half an hour that was given earlier. We just

4 wanted to state this. Thank you.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I do agree with you, that it takes more than the half

6 hour granted. As you noticed, the Prosecution stressed once again that

7 the banking system should be used. Let me just confer.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

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

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. --

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Just before your decision, I

12 just want to say that the banking system was not proposed by the

13 Prosecution during its case, and we did not have this opportunity during

14 the Prosecution case. So I think that things should always seem to be

15 fair.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, in banking terms, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the

17 banking system consists of building up credit. If you would look at the

18 building up of credit in your case, I am afraid that the bank would have

19 been closed to you. On the average, you used 20 more hours from the

20 Prosecution and that almost on from the beginning. I don't think it would

21 have greatly assisted the Defence to use the banking system. We give no

22 final decision on that, but you may at least continue on until the break

23 and we will then more thoroughly discuss it.

24 Mr. Mundis, you may proceed.

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

1 Q. Witness DP9, do you -- let me begin again. Witness DP9, the

2 photograph that you see before you was taken from the area controlled by

3 the ABiH during the war; is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you know, based on the condition of the building, the brush

6 that you see and trees in the foreground and the condition of the white

7 building on the right-hand side of the photograph, do you have any rough

8 idea of when this photograph was taken?

9 A. It is possible that it was made from summer of 1992 until the end

10 of the war.

11 Q. So, Witness, this photograph that you see before you accurately

12 depicts the Veljine church throughout the period from September 1992

13 through August 1994, and in fact, up until the end of the war; is that

14 correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Witness, I would ask you just to look at the remaining photographs

17 that comprise Exhibit 3753, just take a moment and look at those

18 photographs, please.

19 Witness DP9, do all five of the photographs that you just looked

20 at, Prosecution Exhibit 3753, do all of those photographs accurately

21 depict the condition of the Veljine church from September 1992 through the

22 conclusion of the war?

23 A. These photographs depict one side of the church and all of the

24 photographs show the same side of the church.

25 Q. Fair enough, Witness. But the question was: Do they reflect the

1 condition of the church from September 1992 through the conclusion of the

2 war?

3 JUDGE ORIE: May I -- the witness tells us that you can only see

4 one side. Is it your question that it depicts only that side damage --

5 MR. MUNDIS: Clearly.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Would you then --

7 MR. MUNDIS:

8 Q. Witness, what is visible in the five photographs, the visible part

9 of the church, is that an accurate reflection of the state of the church

10 with respect to those parts which are visible from September 1992 through

11 August 1994, and in fact, to the end of the war?

12 A. Yes. That is the church in Veljine and this side that we can see,

13 this is what it looked like in the war.

14 Q. And, Witness, all of the photographs in P3753 were taken from

15 areas that, during the war, were controlled by forces of the Army of

16 Bosnia-Herzegovina; isn't that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Witness DP9, looking at the first photograph in the bundle, to the

19 left of the Veljine church, we see what appears to be a construction

20 crane. Do you see that?

21 A. Yes, I can see it.

22 Q. Witness, was that crane at that location throughout the war or at

23 least from September 1992 onwards until the conclusion of the war?

24 A. The crane, the construction crane was there before the war and

25 during the war.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. Present, I note the time.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. How much time would you still need, Mr. Mundis,

3 since we have to consider how much time should be granted?

4 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I will review my notes during the

5 break, but I would think 15 to 20 minutes I could complete this witness.

6 JUDGE ORIE: We will consider whether such time will be granted to

7 you.

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

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Regarding this question, two

11 things. What we would want for the Prosecution to do, if you allow it, is

12 to use the break to find out when exactly this photograph was taken. I

13 think that is the least of the things that we should know, exactly, so

14 that we can --

15 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... said by the

16 Prosecution in the absence of the witness. We are not going to repeat it

17 now.

18 MR. IERACE: But, Mr. President, might I inform you that I

19 informed Mr. Piletta-Zanin yesterday --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, apart from whether you did it yesterday, the

21 Chamber even knows because it has been said by the Prosecution.

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And the second point is that

23 we believe that the Prosecution has gone well beyond the time allocated.

24 Thank you.

25 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn until 11.00.

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

2 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

3 JUDGE ORIE: As far as time is concerned, the Chamber does not

4 adopt generally the banking system. It is not a matter of building up

5 credit and then use that credit at a later stage. The Chamber will, as it

6 has done also during the presentation of the Prosecution case, always take

7 into consideration all circumstances, that would mean as a starting point,

8 the time used for the examination-in-chief, but also sometimes the

9 importance of the issues on which the witness was questioned by the

10 cross-examining party, also the way the time has been used until that

11 moment. So we take into consideration everything all together, and the

12 Chamber is always open for, if there are any miscalculations, please tell

13 us. On the other hand, we are no accountants, we are no bookkeepers, but

14 we try to keep it as strict as possible, but always in view of what

15 happens during the examination of the witness.

16 Then in respect of this witness, so having considered everything

17 the way the time was used, a lot of details on positions for half an hour

18 approximately, but on the other hand, the importance of other issues that

19 have been raised that there is not more than 10 minutes available to the

20 Prosecution from now on.

21 Mr. Usher, could you -- yes, Mr. Ierace

22 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, thank you for the reason why the

23 banking system is not adopted. There remains an issue as to the

24 methodology in being applied in determine the times.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

1 MR. IERACE: One solution to that is for the Prosecution to

2 produce a hard copy of the transcript indicating what times the

3 Prosecution thinks have been taken by the Defence and Prosecution. That

4 method would allow any party to check the methodology used by the

5 Prosecution.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the parties would provide the Chamber with

7 their view on what is the time used, of course they can always submit it

8 to the Chamber. You said that earphones off the time used or not, witness

9 out of the courtroom, is that time used or is it not time used. It also

10 depends on the kind of objections, the reasonableness of the objection.

11 So there are a lot of circumstances to be taken into consideration, and if

12 the parties would disagree and would do the bookkeeping for the Chamber.

13 As you know the most accountants, how do you call this, the auditor firms,

14 they would also review on whether the bookkeeping is not only correct but

15 whether it is in accordance with the rules.

16 So I am not saying that the Chamber will be the auditor, but it

17 could assist under circumstance where the parties greatly disagree on the

18 time spent, and we will then take that into consideration among all the

19 other factors I just mentioned. So it is not -- we are not a bookkeeping

20 firm here. At this moment I haven't taken into consideration. In this

21 respect now, it is 10 minutes for this witness, so that's the decision of

22 the Chamber for the moment, not more than 10 minutes.

23 MR. IERACE: I don't contest that, of course, Mr. President, but

24 do I understand you to be saying that the 10 minutes is based on a

25 comparison with the time taken by the Prosecution and an interpretation of

1 the relevant --

2 JUDGE ORIE: And the interpretation of the relevance and the time

3 used and many many factors.

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

5 JUDGE ORIE:

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

7 JUDGE ORIE: I should put a bonus on effective use of time.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]

9 JUDGE ORIE: We have no English translation at this very moment.

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

11 continues]... time in that manner. We cannot definitely, we cannot do

12 what you have suggested. I am so sorry for that, but I don't have --

13 JUDGE ORIE: I am not suggesting anything. If the parties want to

14 submit anything in that respect, that they are free to do so.

15 Please, Mr. Usher, could you escort the witness into the

16 courtroom.

17 [The witness entered court]

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. DP9, please be seated. Mr. Mundis.

19 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. I would ask that the

20 witness be shown Prosecution Exhibit 3274D.

21 Q. Witness, yesterday you were asked about some buildings that appear

22 below the blue arrow marked on this photograph. Do you remember that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. The buildings visible below the blue arrow were not at that

25 location or weren't present during the war; isn't that right?

1 A. Throughout the war and before the war, there were private houses

2 there of the airport locality, the Airport Settlement.

3 Q. Do you know approximately how far from the place this photograph

4 was taken that Airport Settlement is located?

5 A. The locality that is shown here is located at the end of this

6 avenue which could be at some distance of about perhaps 400, 500 metres.

7 I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly.

8 Q. Witness, the area of the Airport Settlement that is visible

9 beneath the blue arrow in the photograph do you know which side of the

10 conflict controlled that part of the Airport Settlement during the war?

11 A. One part, one half on this side by the buildings of the Dobrinja V

12 and III were held by the BH Army forces and the rest towards Nedzarici was

13 under the control of the Republika Srpska Army.

14 Q. Can you please use the pointer, not the pen, the pointer and point

15 to that area visible that was controlled by the VRS.

16 A. You cannot see it on this photograph, this part held by the

17 Republika Srpska Army. It is hidden by these buildings here.

18 Q. Thank you, Witness.

19 MR. MUNDIS: That photograph may be returned to the Registrar,

20 please.

21 Q. Earlier this morning, Witness, you marked three X's along the SRK

22 confrontation line in Dobrinja where your platoon was deployed during the

23 war. Do you remember doing that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. From any of those locations could you see the Sarajevo airport

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 runway?

2 A. The Sarajevo airport runway could only be seen partially in the

3 part known as Donji Kotorac which is on the line, located on the line held

4 by the Republika Srpska Army.

5 Q. At any time during the period from September 1992 through August

6 1994, were you at a position along the SRK controlled confrontation line

7 where you could see the airport during night-time hours?

8 A. No I was not at those positions.

9 Q. At any time during the period September 1992 through August 1994,

10 did you have an occasion to view the Sarajevo airport runway during

11 night-time hours or after sunset, more specifically?

12 A. No, I didn't observe that no.

13 Q. Witness DP9, yesterday you told us that you met with two people

14 from the defence team in the spring of this year. The woman's name was

15 Snjezana Prodanovic.

16 A. I think that is correct. Her first name was Snjezana, that's for

17 sure.

18 Q. And the gentleman's name was Milenko Radovic; is that correct?

19 A. Yes, the last name is Radovic and I believe his first name is

20 Milenko.

21 Q. Thank you, Witness.

22 MR. MUNDIS: One moment, please. No further questions,

23 Mr. President.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mundis. I see that you only took six

25 minutes. Yes, please.

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. We will try and be

2 very brief. I have two questions in connection with the questions put by

3 the Prosecution.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.

5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

6 Re-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:

7 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, you were asked about the destruction of

8 the top part of this tower, and my question is the following: The areas

9 destroyed, did they face the positions held by the BH Army?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Thank you very much. I am talking about the high points of the

12 tower, on that side had the wall entirely disappeared or not? Could you

13 describe that for us, please.

14 A. The walls had partially disappeared on the upper part of the bell

15 tower.

16 Q. As far as you know this part without walls, could it be easily hit

17 by the opposing party on the territory controlled by the BH?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. In your testimony, Witness, you used the word "suicide." Under

20 these particular circumstances that you have described, would that

21 apply --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.

23 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President. My recollection was that

24 that was during direct examination and not during cross-examination.

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Quite right, yes. But as we

1 are now -- and I think that the Prosecution put questions regarding this

2 part of the facade -- and this witness having referred to suicide, I

3 thought it was appropriate to connect the two.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the destruction of the church was

5 in general terms an issue that was dealt with by the Defence during

6 examination-in-chief. So that would make it already questionable whether

7 any additional questions, unless there would be very specific new

8 elements, I would say that this is not a new element, especially because

9 if you are talking about suicide, that is exactly the words used during

10 the examination-in-chief. Apart from that, you said you had two

11 questions. This was the fourth one. If you have one more question,

12 please proceed.

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't think

14 that I said that I had only two questions.

15 JUDGE ORIE: That's what -- let me just have a look.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I may have said two or three

17 questions which is an expression, my manner of speech.

18 JUDGE ORIE: That stands for 20 or 30? No, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if

19 you have one -- if you have another question in relation to an issue that

20 has been raised for the first time in the cross-examination, please

21 proceed.

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will have only a

23 few.

24 Q. I think following a question put to you by the Prosecution, you

25 spoke of a sniper. Do you remember that?

1 A. Yes, I do.

2 Q. Thank you. As this question was raised by the Prosecution, do you

3 know of a person who might have been wounded in the area controlled by

4 your army and I imply the whole area, the whole zone by sniper fire coming

5 from the other side?

6 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

8 MR. MUNDIS: I would ask that the witness remove his headphones,

9 please.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you please take your headphones off.

11 Please proceed.

12 MR. MUNDIS: The question seems to go to ABiH sniping into SRK

13 controlled areas and that was certainly not a topic that was raised by the

14 Prosecution during its cross-examination of the witness.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes Mr. President. But if

17 this witness, as he said saw sniper rifles I think it would be logical to

18 ask him whether there were any on the other side. Maybe he saw them on

19 the other side. And this question hasn't been put to him. And whether he

20 might know were the people close, not so close to him were hit by a

21 sniper. It seems to me quite logical.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Questions are allowed in relation to issues that were

23 raise for the first time in examination-in-chief. If you would give this

24 a very wide interpretation you could re-open the case because for similar

25 reasons, you could say if you saw rifles, you would have to know whether

1 there was any other weaponry, so that would open the way to questions

2 about machine-guns or even mortars. One question in this respect I will

3 allow to you, but in general if sniping is used --

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

5 Q. As I was saying, Witness, do you know of any people on this side

6 of the line, that is your side, may have been hit by sniper fire?

7 A. Yes, there were such cases.

8 Q. Could you perhaps give us some information about it --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Is this contested by the Prosecution that people were

10 hit by snipers at the side of the --

11 [Prosecution counsel confer]

12 MR. MUNDIS: That is not contested, Mr. President.

13 JUDGE ORIE: So there is no need to ask further questions to that,

14 Mr. Piletta-Zanin. Please proceed.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. Thank

16 you very much.

17 Mr. President, the last question I should like to put to the

18 witness has to do with certain instructions because many questions have

19 been put to this witness about hierarchy and orders, and I have only one

20 question in that same area, if I may. Thank you.

21 Q. Witness, questions have been asked about orders. Did you receive

22 any precise instructions not to affect civilians, and if so, on what

23 occasions?

24 A. Such orders were issued many times, I don't know how frequently,

25 and they were repeated from time to time. I don't know why because it was

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 sufficient to say it once. Maybe somebody had intervened or something had

2 happened to prompt this, but I don't know anything about it.

3 Q. And as far as you know, were those orders respected?

4 A. Along the part of the front line that I held, together with men

5 who were present with me, orders were strictly carried out and observed.

6 Q. Thank you, Witness.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Nieto-Navia has one or more questions for you.

9 Questioned by the Court:

10 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like the

11 Exhibit 1771 to be put on the ELMO.

12 During your examination you mentioned some parking lots which were

13 close to the ABiH area. With the pointer, could you please point to those

14 parking lots?

15 A. [Indicates]

16 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Using a green or a red pen could you put an

17 "X" on those places.

18 A. [Marks]

19 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: We don't need the map any more. The President

20 says that maybe you should put a "P" close to each of the X's. "P."

21 A. [Marks]

22 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you. Now I would like the exhibit P3753

23 to be shown to the witness. That is the set of photographs. It is just

24 for some clarification. You told us that during the war both the crane

25 and this scaffolding was there during the war; is that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: The first photograph that you have there, the

3 first one, you told us that photograph was taken from the ABiH-controlled

4 area; is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Could you go to the last photograph. Could

7 you point to the dome, to the cupola there.

8 A. [Indicates]

9 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Was this photograph taken from the same side?

10 A. Yes, from a different angle.

11 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: From a different angle, but from the same

12 side?

13 A. Yes.

14 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: No more questions, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Judge El Mahdi has also a question for you.

16 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.

17 [Interpretation] Could you please inform me on the basis of the

18 photograph, that same photograph, yes, Exhibit P3753, and if I understood

19 you correctly you said that this photograph, according to you, was taken

20 from the part of the town that was under the control of the BH Army; isn't

21 that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] During the period, that is, from

24 September 1992 until August 1994, were you in a position to watch -- see

25 the tower from that position? Let me explain myself. Were you in a

1 position during that period of time to know what the damage was or the

2 condition of the tower viewed from the side of the town that was

3 controlled by the BH Army?

4 A. I was much closer to the church, some 30 to 50 metres away from

5 where I was able to see it. But I wasn't able to see it from this

6 position because it was held by the BH Army.

7 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] You mean where the photo was

8 taken, that was not under the control of the BH?

9 A. The position from which the photograph was taken was under the

10 control of the BH Army.

11 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. But to make it quite clear,

12 you can't confirm that you were in a position to note the condition of the

13 tower from the position held by the BH? I am trying to explain myself.

14 A. No, I am afraid I don't quite understand.

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

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I don't know whether one can

17 hear the French channel. I think an error was made in the translation

18 which is causing confusion. I don't know whether his Excellency is

19 listening to the French channel. I don't know whether it was

20 misinterpreted because I was listening to the other channel.

21 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] I see. Thank you very much.

22 What I am asking you, I am asking myself actually, I am wondering,

23 how you can state what the exact condition of the tower was viewed from

24 the area that was under the control of the other side, of the other party?

25 A. I should like to show you on the photograph where the positions of

1 the Army of Republika Srpska was, where I was, when the tower of the

2 church was devastated, and then probably things will become clearer. In

3 front of the church and in front of this thicket there was a defence

4 trench of the Army of Republika Srpska. It is about 30 to 50 metres from

5 the church and one can see much better and clearer the damage done than

6 from positions of the BH Army whose closest position was in this building

7 and the side building attached.

8 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] I see. So you were stationed

9 close to the church; is that right?

10 A. Yes.

11 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I have got one or more questions to you as well,

13 Mr. DP9. You have answered questions in relation to the meeting that you

14 had with the investigators of the Defence in the spring of this year. And

15 you told us that you did not discuss with them matters such as

16 confrontation lines at that very moment, but that they wanted to have your

17 data and that they wanted to know whether you would be able to testify in

18 The Hague.

19 What did you discuss with them in respect of the content of your

20 testimony, if you can answer?

21 A. I think that they were interested in knowing in which part of the

22 battlefield I was located in the period when combat operations were

23 ongoing, and also whether I was willing to testify about that here in this

24 court.

25 JUDGE ORIE: So you discussed with them where you were positioned

1 during the armed conflict is that correct?

2 A. No. This was globally speaking, whether I was on this side, on

3 Grbavica but not actual positions.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say just the area where you were, where

5 your unit was located during the armed conflict; is that correct?

6 A. Precisely.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you go in any detail in other respects such

8 as destruction of the church? Did you discuss that with them.

9 A. No, I didn't. At the time I spent a short time with them.

10 Believe me, I wouldn't even recognise them now.

11 JUDGE ORIE: You say "short time" can I think of 10 minutes, one

12 hour, three hours? What should I understand by "a short time"?

13 A. Maybe some 20 minutes.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then you then only talked to in more detail

15 when you arrived in The Hague; is that correct?

16 A. Yes. We had a more detailed discussion then.

17 JUDGE ORIE: In between you had no other discussions with members

18 of the Defence team, between this meeting of 20 minutes approximately and

19 your arrival in The Hague?

20 A. I spoke to Madam Pilipovic in Kerac [phoen]. I was called up on

21 the phone to check whether I had a passport, whether I would obtain a

22 passport, and whether I could travel here.

23 JUDGE ORIE: But you then did not discuss the content of your

24 testimony or did you?

25 A. We didn't discuss the content of the testimony because I wasn't

1 even sure that I would be coming. Everything was still uncertain at the

2 time.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you tell me, this first meeting of 20

4 minutes, did you take the initiative or were you approached by members of

5 the Defence team?

6 A. Members of the Defence team came to see me because they had

7 learned from some sources of their own and they wanted to ask me whether I

8 would be willing to testify in The Hague Tribunal. I hadn't known them

9 from before. And to tell you the truth, I was a bit surprised how they

10 had come to see me.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for your answers.

12 Mr. DP9, this concludes your testimony in this court. We know

13 it's a long way, and we know that you had to wait for a long time here.

14 We would like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague, because

15 answers to questions of all parties and questions of the Bench are

16 important for the determinations this Chamber will have to make. So I

17 thank you again for coming to The Hague, for testifying, and I wish you a

18 safe trip home again.

19 Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness out of the

20 courtroom.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I should also like to thank this

22 Tribunal and all those present for the confidence shown in me and for the

23 time they had spent and for the patience they had shown, and I hope I have

24 been of a little assistance to this Tribunal which would give me a great

25 deal of pleasure. Thank you.

1 [The witness withdrew]

2 JUDGE ORIE: I see you are on your feet, Mr. Ierace. What I would

3 like to do first is deal with the documents with respect to DP9 and then I

4 will give you an opportunity to deal with the Chamber.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D1769 under seal, pseudonym sheet; Exhibit

6 D1770, map marked by witness; Exhibit D1771, map marked by witness;

7 Exhibit P3753, black and white copies of five photographs.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Are there any objections?

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have an

10 objection to make in principle but we believe that the justice has to

11 follow its course. We believe that in spite of the fact that we were in

12 some way obstructed in our proceedings, and we underscore this, and in the

13 sense that many questions were asked by your Chamber about the position

14 and the situation of the tower at the time of the events, we believe that

15 we should not fight a lost battle but we believe that we were upset in the

16 preparation of this, because it was the obligation, it was the obligation

17 of the Prosecution to submit these documents. That was their duty of

18 communication. Also the exculpatory evidence.

19 Now, if the Prosecution wishes to withdraw this, that would be

20 welcome. If not, we will -- we will --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could you --

22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Defect in procedure.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please explain in perhaps 30 seconds again

24 what exactly -- because I hear the Prosecution saying more or less that

25 this is inculpatory evidence rather than exculpatory evidence. It is

1 always nice that both parties see advantages in the material presented to

2 the court. But what exactly makes this photographs of such a character --

3 that would make the -- that would put the Prosecution under the obligation

4 to disclose them to you, since they had to consider them to be

5 exculpatory.

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. On

7 several occasions we supported this position of the -- the support of the

8 Prosecution thesis that this was just a sniper nest. This is what the

9 Prosecution says, and I believe that was the case of the Prosecution.

10 Now, if we had seen these photographs and if we had seen the practical

11 impossibility during the time of the war for a man to hide himself behind

12 the wall which didn't exist to use this position to shoot at anyone, then

13 we would have asked these questions of the Prosecution witnesses bearing

14 in mind that this point is something that could have been seen, that it

15 would have been possible to see this sniper the moment that he climbed up

16 there, he would have been seen. We were not able to ask these questions

17 because these photographs were not shown to us. They were hidden from us.

18 I have used up my 30 seconds. Thank you.

19 JUDGE ORIE: I understand what you mean. I think it would be wise

20 to take a decision after the next break in respect of this objection. So,

21 therefore the other exhibits are admitted into evidence, D1769 under seal,

22 and that we still owe you a decision on 3753 and that's a Prosecution

23 document.

24 Then -- yes, Mr. Ierace.

25 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, as it happens, that was the topic that

1 I wanted --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I should have given you to opportunity to

3 respond to the objection.

4 MR. IERACE: That's all right. Mr. President. Mr. President, I

5 find it extraordinary for the Defence to suggest that these photographs

6 should have been disclosed to them before they raised as an issue whether

7 there was significant destruction to the bell tower. And in support of my

8 position, I note that they maintain that the photographs are exculpatory.

9 Mr. President, it wasn't until this morning that the Prosecution

10 discovered that the crane which appears in the photograph was in fact

11 there during the war. That was as a result of some enquiries made this

12 morning, before court, just before court with some individuals in

13 Sarajevo, namely, General Hadzic. So the position up until the last week

14 was that there was no issue as to the condition of the tower, and then as

15 a result of a letter sent to the Prosecution, we learn for the first time

16 there is an issue, we go through our material, and we find that although

17 we didn't have a photograph of the church during the conflict, the best we

18 had was a photograph taken in August of 1996.

19 And then this morning we discover in fact as it appears in this

20 photograph in August of 1996, was the way it was during the war. There is

21 nothing unreasonable about the position taken by the Prosecution in

22 relation to these photographs in terms of disclosure. It simply

23 reiterates the common sense behind the rules of the Tribunal that the

24 Defence should make reasonable enquiries and make clear of what is an

25 issue and what is not by compliance with Rule 90(H) during the Prosecution

1 case. Thank you.

2 JUDGE ORIE: I granted you more time than I granted the Defence.

3 But this will really be the last round. Let me just try to summarise. I

4 do understand that the Prosecution says that this picture shows clearly

5 that there was a position to fire from, let me use general terms, where

6 the Defence says that this picture clearly shows that if you would be on

7 that position, that you would be exposed to -- well, whatever kind of

8 risks, and therefore, certainly would not be a position that you would

9 fire from. Is that --

10 MR. IERACE: Well, no --

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] As far as we are concerned,

12 Mr. President.

13 MR. IERACE: I don't know whether you meant to say it,

14 Mr. President, but you sought to summarise the position of the

15 Prosecution --

16 JUDGE ORIE: As far as inculpatory or exculpatory.

17 MR. IERACE: When you look at the hole beneath the cupola, it

18 appears to have even sides. Not the sort of hole one would expect from a

19 tank shell. We don't accept that the tower was hit by a tank or that that

20 hole was --

21 JUDGE ORIE: I am not saying, but let's just -- let's stay away

22 from all the details of the damage done, but the relevant of the tower was

23 such --

24 MR. IERACE: The relevance is whether this photograph appeared to

25 a reasonable Prosecutor to depict shell damage. It does not.

1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, what we are

2 saying in relation to the production of the piece itself, of the exhibit

3 itself, is that the Prosecution having possession of these documents and

4 seeing them they could think that this was also the situation before,

5 before the war. Before -- sorry, the Dayton Agreement. So what we are

6 saying is that loyally, if the Prosecution had given this to us, then we

7 would have been able to submit these documents to our witnesses during the

8 preparation of the case. Looking at the facts, covering them immediately,

9 and possibly examine, that is, cross-examine more profoundly the

10 Prosecution witnesses in relation to the famous Dobrinja incidents.

11 Now, the situation of the photographs is such that if this was how

12 it was during the war, then they could have communicated them to us. If

13 we had seen these photographs, the story would have been very different.

14 JUDGE ORIE: So, if I do rightly understand you, the position of

15 the Defence is that if these documents, these photographs would have been

16 known to the Defence, it might have given the Defence an opportunity to

17 elicit exculpatory evidence from the potential witnesses. We will give

18 you a decision after the break.

19 The next witness to be called will be --

20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This is a witness without

21 protective measures so we can give his name. This is Mr. Vukovic.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Usher, could you please escort

23 Mr. Vukovic --

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Gordan.

25 [The witness entered court]

1 JUDGE ORIE: Can you hear me in a language you understand?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vukovic, because I take it that you are

4 Mr. Vukovic, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a

5 solemn declaration that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and

6 nothing but the truth. The text of this declaration will be handed out to

7 you now by the usher. May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation I solemnly declare that I will speak

9 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated. Mr. Vukovic,

11 you will first be examined by counsel for the Defence.

12 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

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

14 leave, I will begin the examination of this witness and then

15 Madam Pilipovic will continue.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

18 WITNESS: GORDAN VUKOVIC

19 [Witness answered through interpreter]

20 Examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:

21 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness.

22 A. Good morning.

23 Q. Could you please approach the microphone so that we can hear you

24 very well. Please. Thank you.

25 Witness, could you please tell us what is your professional

1 occupation?

2 A. I have a university degree.

3 Q. Could you please be more precise.

4 A. I have a degree in political sciences in University of Sarajevo in

5 1984.

6 THE REGISTRAR: I have a request for Mr. Piletta-Zanin to move

7 closer to the microphone as well, please.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps to put it on.

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I

10 apologise. I was reading the questions on my computer. I will try.

11 Thank you.

12 Q. What was your employment possibility at the end of your university

13 studies?

14 A. Well, I couldn't find a steady job. I was doing temporary jobs

15 until about 1991.

16 Q. What did you do then, please?

17 A. In 1991, and there was a public announcement, for 1991, for

18 admitting professional soldiers, contract soldiers, This was then several

19 years before the war and I saw this as a possibility to find employment,

20 to find a job.

21 Q. Thank you. From then, from when were you a professional soldier,

22 from which moment?

23 A. I started to work from the 15th of January 1992.

24 Q. Thank you. What was or what were at the time that you mentioned,

25 what were the areas where you were quartered, where you were stationed?

1 A. I was at the Viktor Bubanj Barracks in Sarajevo.

2 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us in which part of the town, in which

3 neighbourhood is Viktor Bubanj Barracks located?

4 A. The Viktor Bubanj Barracks is located in the settlement of

5 Svrakino Selo.

6 Q. Could you please tell us a little more about the location in terms

7 of a municipality in Sarajevo?

8 A. This is the municipality, I think it is called Aneks.

9 Q. Very well. So we are absolutely certain about the location of

10 this neighbourhood, this area was it near Novi Grad, Stari Grad, could you

11 please just tell us little more about it, a little more details about it?

12 A. This is municipality of Novi Grad.

13 Q. Thank you. Now, Witness, for how long did you stay in the

14 barracks?

15 A. I stayed there until the 2nd of May 1992.

16 Q. Could you please repeat -- repeat the year?

17 A. 1992.

18 Q. What happened on the 2nd of May, 1992?

19 A. Then from the superior command we received an order to go towards

20 the main command which was located in Bistrik because it was surrounded by

21 Muslim units.

22 Q. Thank you. You say "we." When you say, "we," who do you mean

23 exactly?

24 A. I mean the JNA, Yugoslav People's Army.

25 Q. Thank you. At the time of these events, this Yugoslav People's

1 Army, as you knew it in your department or in your company, what was its

2 ethnic composition?

3 A. It was multi-ethnic. It was a multi-ethnic unit.

4 Q. Could you please mention the ethnicities that you are aware of and

5 whose members you saw in your unit?

6 A. Yes. I can say that the commander of the unit, for instance, was

7 a commander, his deputy a Muslim, his second deputy was a Croat.

8 Q. Thank you very much. You indicated that this position was

9 encircled by Muslim forces. Could you give us a little more details about

10 this attack?

11 A. You mean the main headquarters?

12 Q. I am referring to the second position that you indicated where you

13 were meant to go to.

14 A. Yes. After the command, we had to retreat to Lukavica.

15 Q. What was the reason that you had to retreat?

16 A. As the whole command had to withdraw, it was not able to do so

17 because the column that was formed to move towards Lukavica was attacked

18 by the Muslim army and we were captured there. We were imprisoned. And

19 after two days of captivity, roughly, after an exchange that was arranged

20 through UNPROFOR, we were transferred to Lukavica.

21 Q. Did you in any way whatsoever provoke that attack?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Thank you. The forces that attacked you at the time, how were

24 they organised as far as you were able to see, of course, that is --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.

1 MR. MUNDIS: Prosecution objects again on the grounds of relevance

2 given the pre-indictment period nature of this testimony.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

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

5 respond gladly. The broad thesis of the Prosecution was that there was a

6 plan prepared long ago that General Galic was the legitimate or

7 illegitimate inheritor of that plan, and that he implemented. The

8 submission, opposition of the defence is that not only there was no plan,

9 but that what is more, the Muslim forces initiated plans against the

10 Serbian forces. And I think this is quite in order. Perhaps we should

11 have asked the witness to take off his headphones. I apologise.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's not what you are asking the witness.

13 Yes, Mr. Mundis.

14 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the Prosecution's position is that

15 whichever side initiated the armed conflict is of no relevance. The

16 Prosecution has charged the accused with specific alleged unlawful acts in

17 the conduct of the hostilities, not with who started or which parted

18 started the hostilities. So for that reason, the Prosecution will renew

19 its objection on the grounds of relevance.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber deems that it is not without relevance.

22 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, having listened to your explanation, I think the

23 questions are related to, as you told us, plans and that would not, under

24 all circumstances, require many details perhaps, but the objection is

25 denied.

1 Please proceed.

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 Q. Witness, these forces that were attacking your barracks or your

4 military quarters, did they appear to you to be organised,

5 well-structured? What can you tell us about them?

6 A. In any event they were organised since they were able to attack a

7 legal army, the Yugoslav People's Army.

8 Q. When you speak of an attack did you suffer fire? Were you exposed

9 to fire? Did you receive fire, incoming fire?

10 A. Yes, fire was opened against us.

11 Q. And this fire, for instance could you recognise it as coming from

12 automatic weapons, weapons of war, in general terms?

13 A. There was fire opened from automatic weapons and from Zoljas,

14 hand-held rocket launchers.

15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I was just checking,

16 Mr. President, the translation. One of the translations I heard was a

17 mortar. I heard a mortar.

18 Q. Witness, can we now focus on the question of uniforms. These

19 persons who were attacking you --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I think I give you some guidance

21 how to deal with these issues. You are filling in what you heard on one

22 of the translations. We still do not know, since it does not appear in

23 the other translation.

24 When you answered the question of the weapons used when fire was

25 opened on you, what type of weapons did you mention?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mentioned automatic rifles and

2 light hand-held rocket launchers that we call Zoljas.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

5 Q. Let me come back to the question of uniforms. These forces that

6 were attacking you, could they be recognised on the basis of the uniforms

7 they wore or any kind of insignia or anything that they may have worn?

8 A. Most of the soldiers had camouflage uniforms with caps with

9 ljiljans which was the insignia -- with lilies, which was the insignia of

10 the Patriotic League which existed as a military formation.

11 Q. Witness, under which conditions did you have to leave the

12 barracks? When I say "conditions" I mean did you do it because you had

13 to, did you have time to organise yourself or were you forced to leave?

14 A. It was arranged with UNPROFOR that we should withdraw to Lukavica

15 under their escort. In those days at the army command, the president at

16 the time of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Alija Izetbegovic,

17 arrived, and that should have been a guarantee for the safe withdrawal of

18 the column from the barracks. Because it is well known that Muslims

19 rarely respect agreements reached. And the president was supposed to have

20 provided some sort of a guarantee that this would be observed, that the

21 agreement would be observed.

22 Q. Thank you. During your urgent withdrawal, did you have time to

23 empty the warehouses and to take with you the military materiel?

24 A. No. We only took what we had at hand.

25 Q. Witness, what happened, if you know, with the military materiel

1 that you were unable to take with you during the withdrawal?

2 A. It fell into the hands of the Muslim units.

3 Q. When I say "materiel" what exactly do you mean? Equipment? What

4 exactly do you mean under that term?

5 A. Automatic rifles, pistols, hand-held launchers, Zoljas, and APCs

6 that we had in our possession.

7 Q. Was there also communication equipment?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Were there uniforms, too?

10 A. Yes, uniforms.

11 Q. And also protection material?

12 A. Yes. There were some uniforms and also they took some uniforms

13 off us.

14 Q. When you talk about being captured, what was the treatment you

15 were given?

16 A. Specifically in my case, I was treated with extreme brutality.

17 Q. Could you tell us about that in this Chamber?

18 MR. MUNDIS: Objection.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.

21 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, again, this line of questions seems to

22 the Prosecution to be irrelevant.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin. Could we ask the witness -- may I

24 ask you first, one thing: Do you understand any French or English?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

1 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you to take your earphones off.

2 Please, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. It is true,

4 Mr. President, that the question of relevance of questions does not appear

5 at first glance, but what is important is to know whether important

6 violations of humanitarian law may have been committed in another place

7 and whether this witness is aware of this. And this is a line of

8 questioning which will lead us to reveal the brutality of treatment and

9 the fact --

10 JUDGE ORIE: I think no one stops you, unless you would like

11 to -- yes. Please proceed.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The type of violations which

13 were committed so that we might understand things properly, namely,

14 Mr. President in relation to this essential question which is the alleged

15 existence of a plan and the existence of a blind campaign of destruction,

16 a random campaign of destruction that is alleged.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.

18 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, either immediately before the

19 commencement of the Defence case or shortly after it commenced, the

20 Prosecution filed a motion with respect to the Defence of tu quoque and/or

21 reprisals. The Defence countered that that was not their intention,

22 however, the first three or four lines of Mr. Piletta-Zanin's last

23 response describes precisely the Defence of tu quoque, and I fail to see

24 how, in the latter part of his answer, he made the link between the type

25 of violations and the existence of a plan. That link is not clear in my

1 mind and again it seems that notwithstanding the repeated denials of the

2 Defence, that we are once again on the border of crossing into the -- what

3 the Prosecution claims is a forbidden defence of tu quoque and/or

4 reprisals.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber does not understand the observations made

7 by Mr. Piletta-Zanin as referring to tu quoque immediately. On the other

8 hand, Mr. Piletta-Zanin you are asking about brutal treatment in an

9 individual case outside the scope of the -- the time of the indictment

10 period. The Chamber thinks that as such the relevance of that could be

11 not very high. So if there is a link to the Defence you want to -- the

12 line of the Defence, please come to your point then. Let's not stick into

13 individual -- yes.

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

15 JUDGE ORIE: So the question can be answered and then please come

16 to come to your point or choose another line of questioning.

17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Quite. Thank you very much.

18 Mr. President I should like to underline the following: I never mentioned

19 tu quoque, never. I never referred to it.

20 JUDGE ORIE: No, the Chamber has not understood your observations

21 as referring to tu quoque. So would the witness please put his headphones

22 up again.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 Q. Witness, just in two or three words, could you tell us what was

25 the treatment that you personally suffered on that occasion, and if you

1 know, by your comrades.

2 A. I said that I personally was treated extremely brutally. Because

3 when we were brought into the hall where we were held they brought with

4 them a paper, an alleged statement that I was supposed to sign and which

5 later on they would read on television or whenever they wanted to do with

6 it. As I refused to sign it, then they took me to the basement of the

7 building where they beat me virtually all night. And when I got there, I

8 saw quite a number of other officers and soldiers that had been beaten and

9 mistreated.

10 Q. My first question: What was the type of statement that they

11 wanted you to sign? Could you tell us what it was about?

12 A. I am unable to say exactly because I refused to sign it. So they

13 didn't let me read it even.

14 Q. And that statement was supposed to have been read or shown on a TV

15 programme?

16 A. Yes. It was probably meant to serve their propaganda that they

17 used over the media throughout the war against us.

18 Q. Thank you, Witness. I will move on to another subject.

19 And that is, what view you had from certain windows of the

20 barracks, what were you able to see from those windows from the barracks?

21 A. You mean the Lukavica Barracks?

22 Q. No. I am sorry. I am talking about the first barracks, the

23 Bubanj Barracks.

24 A. From the Viktor Bubanj Barracks, one could see Alipasino Polje and

25 the Mojmilo hill above us.

1 Q. Thank you. Before this period that we are referring to, that is

2 immediately prior to the attack on the 2nd of May 1992, what were you able

3 to notice on Mojmilo hill, please?

4 A. Towards the end of March and the beginning of April, we were able

5 to see large groups of, males men, on Mojmilo hill engaging in some sort

6 of works. Later on with binoculars, we were able to see them digging

7 trenches. And talking to our superior officers, we learnt that they were

8 digging trenches.

9 Q. Could you be relatively precise regarding the dates? You said

10 "end of March." Is that the date that you can confirm?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Thank you. You indicated that these were groups of men. Do you

13 know who they were? Were you able to identify who they were?

14 A. As the distance was large, it was not possible to identify them.

15 Q. Very well. And those groups were they groups that one could

16 recognise as belonging to a particular structure?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. What can you tell us about that?

19 A. With the help of binoculars, one could notice on some of the

20 soldiers insignia, the insignia of the Patriotic League, so they were

21 obviously Muslim formations.

22 Q. Could you simply describe the insignia for us very briefly?

23 A. When I say "insignia of the Patriotic League" it is the present

24 day marks or badges used by Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is, the badge with

25 the lilies.

1 Q. Thank you, Witness. Let us now move on to Lukavica.

2 Could you tell us from the time when you were evacuated to

3 Lukavica, what rank did you have and what position did you hold?

4 A. In Lukavica I was an ordinary soldier, and as I had been hurt,

5 injured, I was relieved of certain activities. So I mainly worked in

6 logistics and I did guard duty.

7 Q. Witness, when you spoke of logistics, can you be more precise?

8 A. Actually I was in charge of the equipment in the possession of our

9 company or rather our battalion in Lukavica.

10 Q. Could you tell us what your military unit was that you belonged to

11 at that moment?

12 A. It was the Military Police.

13 Q. Thank you very much. So you're testifying that you engaged in

14 activities of the police, that you served in the police?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Witness, did you engage in police investigations, for the army of

17 course?

18 A. With respect to the soldiers, yes.

19 Q. Thank you. Witness, your group or team of policemen, did you have

20 to intervene sometimes if a soldier committed acts which were not in

21 conformity with the rules or military ethics?

22 A. There were such cases.

23 Q. Witness, when such cases occurred were you in a position to have

24 sanctions declared and possibly actually implemented?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Witness, did you have occasion to visit locations close to the

2 front or on the front during the period when you were at Lukavica?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Could you tell us until when you stayed at Lukavica?

5 A. I stayed in Lukavica until the 17th of October, 1993.

6 Q. Thank you very much. Throughout that period of your stay there,

7 were you able, now with greater precision please, visit locations of fire,

8 firing positions? I am talking about heavy weapons.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the line of

12 questions that we are going to put now will refer to heavy weapons. Maybe

13 it is the time for the break. I don't know.

14 JUDGE ORIE: You say heavy weapons take more time than light

15 weapons. Yes. We will adjourn until ten minutes to 1.00.

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

17 --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.

18 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber owes the party still a decision on the P

19 Exhibit, the photographs on the church. It will be given at a later

20 stage.

21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you,

22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, just to use the

24 opportunity of the break, we wanted to show a tape now, and the number

25 that was given was 34812. The Prosecution had received this tape as well

1 as the translation of the transcript, and we would ask --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We wanted the technical booth

4 to start with the very first segment and then the very last. So if we can

5 start with the very first excerpt and then if we can fast forward to the

6 very last segment.

7 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the Prosecution objects to the showing

8 of the videotape on two grounds. First --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Could we deal with it in the presence of the witness

10 or should we ask him to take his earphones off?

11 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, if I just perhaps give you in the

12 briefest possible terms the grounds, then we can determine if that might

13 be necessary.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you can do it in such a way then -- one

15 moment please.

16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.

18 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the Prosecution objects on the grounds

19 of relevance, and if the Trial Chamber were to have the benefit of the

20 transcript, the Prosecution asserts that it would become quite apparent

21 that the tape is, in our submission, irrelevant, and also we would object

22 on the grounds that no foundation has been laid with the current witness

23 for the showing of the videotape and in the absence of such a proper

24 foundation, the Prosecution suggests that the tape should not be shown.

25 Thank you.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I ask you to take your headphones off.

2 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, would you perhaps first answer the last

3 question.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Gladly. As far as the

5 second reason is concerned, that is --

6 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... to respond to the

7 last issue, and the last issue that there was no relation with this

8 witness. So that is -- so that's not about relevance, that is -- we don't

9 have to read the transcript, but what is the relation? What do you show

10 the tape to this witness?

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, but that is exactly what

12 I was going to say, Mr. President, just to respond to the very last

13 question. If we view this tape, we will know why. We will see the

14 barracks in question, that is the Viktor Bubanj Barracks at the time when

15 it was attacked, and we will also see, which is very important, this

16 witness because I cannot point to him because that will give him ideas. I

17 don't want to give his name. But we will see him among the prisoners.

18 And that is important that in relation to his credibility that he is

19 telling us things that are real. These are things that happened. But not

20 only this.

21 What is important to see is the situation, the state of these

22 people and not for any kind of tu quoque defence but this tape which is a

23 historical tape, doesn't give us an image of an aggressor's army but the

24 reality is, these are soldiers, conscripts that were ambushed exiting the

25 barracks. And that is extremely important in terms of strategic

1 questions. Because if the plan was made then, then we would have expected

2 armed combatants, armed to the teeth, and I believe that justice should be

3 able to view it properly. That's as far as the second point is concerned.

4 And I am going to stop here. Thank you.

5 JUDGE ORIE: How much time does the tape take?

6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It very brief. We are just

7 talking about a few minutes, Mr. President. And only a few seconds for

8 some other excerpts, so it is not a very long video.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE ORIE: We did allow questions to the witness in respect of

11 the attack before. It would be inconsistent not to allow then further

12 clarification of this. We allow that as you heard, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, in

13 respect of what was the plan and that much details perhaps would not be

14 necessary under all circumstances. If it is just a couple of minutes.

15 But one of the things -- I do understand that it is not tu quoque. It is

16 not as I understand part of a Defence of self-defence; is that correct?

17 Is my understanding correct? So it's just a demonstration as you tell us

18 to give an impression of the state in which soldiers at that time found

19 themselves in order to demonstrate that this is not a situation where a

20 plan was waged or that -- I do understand you well. Yes.

21 Okay. Then the technical booth asks you not to say that you want

22 to see the first and the last sequence, but how many sequences are there

23 between the first and the last?

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I propose that

25 we proceed in the following manner: We have the distribution but I don't

1 know whether it corresponds to the excerpts. Can we start with the tape

2 and then if I say stop, we can fast forward to the end.

3 JUDGE ORIE: The better way of doing this is to prepare it with

4 the technicians before. We will see how much time it takes and we will

5 then see. So let's start with the tape and you give clear instructions,

6 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, to the booth. Please do it in English. That might be

7 easier.

8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. If we at

9 the beginning of the tape, could we please start the tape with a normal

10 speed. Thank you.

11 [Videotape played]

12 "At the 2nd Army District Command damages caused by yesterday's

13 attack that lasted until afternoon and evening are more than visible.

14 Here, shoot this horror... Lead the reporters on. Please film all this.

15 Colonel, what happened here? Here have a look at it all."

16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, I would like the tape to

17 continue, please. Could we please continue.

18 [Videotape played]

19 "The following private soldiers have been identified. Slobodan

20 Jelic, Predrag Cerovic, Srecko Jovanovic, Miodrag Dzurovic, Zdravko

21 Tomovic. Several other soldiers have not been identified. Lethal wounds

22 were inflicted by the shrapnel from an exploded mine, bullets fired by

23 hand firearms fired at close range. Colonel Dr. Budimir Radulovic has

24 been killed with a shot fired at the back of his head, while he was seated

25 in the back of an ambulance bearing clear Red Cross markings. Colonel

1 Miro Sokic has been killed by a bullet fired to his head from a distance

2 not greater than 50 centimetres. Colonel Gradimir Petrovic was killed

3 with a shot to his back. Colonel Enes Tasso and about a dozen soldiers

4 have been heavily wounded.

5 "About 120 JNA soldiers have been taken prisoner. Several JNA

6 officers have taken part in the assassination and taking prisoner of the

7 JNA soldiers, namely Captain Refik Cesko and Lieutenant-Colonel Esad Tokic

8 and that deserted the 2nd Army District Command together with Colonel

9 Vehbija Karic."

10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. That will be all.

11 Thank you very much.

12 Q. Witness, we just saw a clip, a video clip. Can you confirm these

13 facts as they were shown on video?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Thank you. More precisely, these persons that we see seated, did

16 you know them? Is this a location where you were?

17 A. This is the location where I was, yes.

18 Q. Were you among these people, among these men?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Thank you. We were told of a number of officers who were killed.

21 Could you please tell us how these people were killed -- how these men

22 were killed, if you know?

23 A. Some were killed when the convoy was attacked, when it left the

24 army district command, when the shooting started. Some of them were in

25 the lorry, some of them were in the cars and then they were shot at and

1 they were killed and some were even in ambulance vehicles.

2 Q. You say that they were shot while they were inside ambulances?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Thank you. Witness, I would like to come back to the line of

5 questioning earlier about heavy weapons. Were you able to visit some

6 sites, battery sites of mortars, grenade launchers; yes or no?

7 A. Some of them, yes.

8 Q. Thank you. Witness, in a general way did it happen that the

9 soldiers would get drunk, that they would get intoxicated, drink more than

10 normal?

11 A. There were such cases.

12 Q. Thank you. Witness, if this took considerable proportions in

13 terms of duty what was the response of your police force, of your police

14 service?

15 A. If they were too aggressive, then we had a detention place they

16 would be taken, and they would stay there for a night until they calmed

17 down. And if they weren't too aggressive, they would be taken to the

18 barracks to sober up.

19 Q. Thank you. If a soldier came to his post that drunk, that is

20 incapable of doing anything whatsoever that would be reasonable and that

21 you knew of that, what would have been or what would be the response of

22 your service? What measure, if any, would you have taken?

23 A. Our measure was to take him off the post, of the position, because

24 if he was in that state he would not be able to carry out his duty.

25 Q. Is that what the instruction said from your military hierarchy?

1 A. That was the instructions that we received from the superior

2 command.

3 Q. Thank you. With respect to these instructions in the army, were

4 there instructions with respect to the problems of civilians, the

5 shooting, the firing, and the civilians?

6 A. Yes, there were instructions.

7 Q. Could you tell us what were these instructions, what kind of

8 instructions were they?

9 A. We received instructions from the immediate superiors, that is,

10 from our company commander, from the battalion commander, and the

11 instructions they received from the Corps Commander, and this was a

12 written order that they received which was not to fire at civilians and

13 civilian facilities.

14 Q. What was the frequency that these orders, if ever, were repeated?

15 A. These -- they were repeated most often at unit meetings, which

16 means once a week. Because there would be many new soldiers coming, so

17 there was a need to repeat this order, to bear it in mind all the time,

18 since if something unexpected happened so that the other side, the

19 opposing side, wouldn't make use of it from media point of view.

20 Q. Thank you. You are speaking about new soldiers. Did any orders

21 come about the soldiers?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Thank you. Inversely, Witness, if the soldiers didn't respect

24 these orders, if, I am saying "if," would you have been able to find that

25 out, to know this?

1 A. If the orders were not respected, then we did [Realtime transcript

2 read in error "didn't"] know about it.

3 Q. Very well. Did it occur, and I am speaking in general, I am not

4 talking about the problem of shooting, but did it ever happen in general

5 that soldiers would not carry out certain orders or they would carry them

6 out badly, deliberately, would you then be able to intervene?

7 A. When we are talking about my unit, there were no such --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just ask for a clarification. The question

9 was put to you that if -- no -- yes. If the soldiers would not respect

10 these orders, orders about not aiming at civilians, and it was repeated,

11 "if," would you have been able to find that out, to know this? What was

12 your answer to that question? I am just asking you to repeat your

13 question [sic] because there might be a translation problem.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we found out about such a thing,

15 then we would undertake certain measures.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Would you find out? The question was -- your answer

17 started with: "If the orders were not respected," and then did you say

18 you would find out or that you would not find out?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We would find out for some.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was listening to the French channel and that

21 is what I understood the answer to be, where in the English translation, I

22 find the opposite.

23 Please proceed.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed. Indeed. Thank

25 you for this correction. I was hearing the Serbian and the French and I

1 didn't notice the transcript.

2 Q. So I am asking the question in relation to other units, Witness.

3 Did you hear that colleagues who had the same duties as you did, that

4 these were Military Policemen, that they could have been taking sanctions

5 with respect to other units, intervening with respect to other units?

6 A. I don't know about that.

7 Q. Very well. I now would like to come back to the instructions that

8 were given with respect to opening of fire. If you know that instructions

9 were given to open fire as a rule, only as returning fire, as a response?

10 A. That was a strict order just to open fire in response to fire

11 being opened against us.

12 Q. You spoke about -- I am sorry. You spoke about the logistics

13 earlier, Witness. Would this also include ammunition?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Thank you. Witness, in relation to the control of the ammunition,

16 what could you tell the Chamber particularly with respect to the opening

17 of fire, and I am talking about small arms fire and later we can talk

18 about heavy weapons.

19 A. I did not understand the question.

20 Q. In terms of the control ammunition, that is the quantities that

21 could be used, quantities of ammunition that could be use would respect to

22 small arms, were there any instructions that were given to you by the

23 command in terms of logistics, in terms of economising on the ammunition,

24 and so on?

25 A. Yes, there were certain instructions given specifically from the

1 superiors. We were told what the quantity of ammunition is to be issued

2 to certain units. I would receive this order and I would carry it out.

3 Q. Thank you very much. Was this the same situation, and I am

4 talking about economising on the ammunition, when we are talking about

5 heavy weapons, artillery in particular, if you know?

6 A. I think so.

7 Q. Why do you think so?

8 A. We didn't have -- I mean, we didn't have too much ammunition so

9 the order was given to strictly respect it, every bullet, every grenade

10 had to be justified.

11 Q. Thank you. Since we are talking about weapons and ammunition --

12 no, I withdraw that. Let us leave the area of ammunition. And I would

13 like, Witness, if you can tell us, if in the area that you knew,

14 destructions occurred? And when I talk about destructions, I mean

15 buildings, all different buildings, civilian, military and so on.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. What scope was the destruction, please?

18 A. The destruction was large, large-scale. As far as we could see,

19 there was a great deal of damage more to civilian facilities as well.

20 Q. How can you explain the fact that important damage was done to

21 civilian facilities?

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Mundis.

23 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, perhaps the witness could be asked to

24 clarify. It is a bit unclear from the record exactly which area the

25 witness is referring to.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. It is not clear on

2 whether we are talking about damages on one or the other side of the

3 confrontation line.

4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am talking of

5 the zone that the witness was familiar with as a soldier. So I am talking

6 about from May 1992 to October 1993, the area that he was in as a soldier.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's different. If you just have asked it to

8 the witness because you very often ask witnesses about damage on the other

9 side of the confrontation line rather than their own side. So, instead of

10 justifying yourself, you perhaps ask the witness.

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. I am starting with this

12 side and then I will go on to the other.

13 Q. Witness, on your side what was the damage inflicted? Was that

14 your answer? Were you referring to your side of the confrontation line?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. So my second question is the following: How can you explain these

17 large-scale damages to civilian property?

18 A. In this part of the town where the barracks was is the part of

19 Dobrinja under the control of our forces. And the Muslims attempted

20 several attacks across the confrontation line, and they often opened fire

21 from infantry weapons as well as from artillery weapons.

22 Q. Which were the artillery weapons used?

23 A. Most frequently they used anti-aircraft machine-guns, and I think

24 there were also tanks and mortars used.

25 Q. As you mentioned mortars, what calibre did the BH Army have in

1 their possession?

2 A. I am unable to say.

3 Q. Do you know the number of tanks that the BH forces had in their

4 possession, as far as you know?

5 A. I would not be able to give you a precise answer.

6 Q. Do you know from where fire was opened on Lukavica?

7 A. They opened fire from Mojmilo hill and Dobrinja, the part of

8 Dobrinja under their control and from a barracks, Jusuf Dzonlic, Barracks

9 Jusuf Dzonlic on Alipasino Polje.

10 Q. Did they open fire on several occasions?

11 A. They did.

12 Q. Throughout the period when you were at Lukavica?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you. Witness, we will continue with this line of

15 questioning. Regarding the damage itself, and I am referring in general

16 terms to Sarajevo, could you tell us where the greatest damage was, in

17 general terms?

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Mundis.

19 MR. MUNDIS: Objection. No foundation has been laid for this type

20 of question, Mr. President. He is talking in terms of the entire city of

21 Sarajevo.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, a person who

24 lived for a certain number of years in Sarajevo and who had the position

25 of a police officer, has information as a professional, as a man, as a

1 soldier, and this information is invaluable. I don't think it is

2 necessary to have all these elements to be able to answer a question of

3 principle.

4 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether this is a question of principle

5 where the greatest damage was in general terms. It seems to me rather a

6 question of facts. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, when asking the witness, could you

7 ask him about the source of his knowledge and perhaps also in view of

8 time, because I did hear that he was evacuated at a certain moment. Yes.

9 Please proceed.

10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone. Microphone.

11 Microphone.

12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

13 Q. With respect to the question that we would like to put to you, and

14 that is: Where, mainly, was the greatest amount of destruction in

15 Sarajevo, if you know that? How do you know that? What are your sources,

16 that would be my first question.

17 A. Large-scale damage was inflicted on the part of Dobrinja under our

18 control.

19 Q. I am interrupting you. Before answering, how did you come to know

20 what you are now perhaps going to tell us? Where is the -- what is the

21 origin of your knowledge?

22 A. I was on the spot.

23 Q. Very well. But as for other parts of Sarajevo, did you know about

24 them?

25 A. As regards other parts of Sarajevo, I knew it on the basis of

1 information we received from other persons, from our superiors and from

2 other soldiers.

3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, may I continue?

4 JUDGE ORIE: You may continue, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, but this

5 is -- this would, unless there are reasons for you to say otherwise,

6 hearsay as such is not inadmissible. But of course the source of the

7 hearsay, if there would be better evidence to assess the reliability of

8 this information other sources would have to be preferred, as you will

9 understand.

10 Please proceed.

11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

12 Q. Witness, could you please answer the question regarding the zone

13 you are familiar with, that is Dobrinja?

14 A. Regarding Dobrinja, the part of Dobrinja that was under Serbian

15 control, we went there a couple of times to Dobrinja. We had some

16 interventions to do there, and we could see destruction done to civilian

17 facilities and the church that was located there.

18 Q. Thank you very much. And this destruction, was it mostly close to

19 the lines; yes or no?

20 A. [No interpretation]

21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat his answer, please.

22 JUDGE ORIE: [Interpretation] We didn't hear the answer to the

23 question by the witness.

24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am sorry. I am going to ask

25 him to repeat his answer. But I think I heard him say yes.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if we ask a witness to repeat a

3 certain answer because the translation has not been complete, I guided you

4 several times that it is not up to you to tell us already what you heard

5 the answer was. Would you please refrain from that.

6 Please proceed.

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

8 Q. You told us the sources of your information. What happened,

9 Witness, with the people who fled from the parts of Sarajevo that were

10 under BH control?

11 A. There was a lot of fleeing and they would come to the command for

12 an information interview.

13 Q. When you are talking about "information interviews" was this

14 intelligence work; yes or no?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. On that basis, were you also able to obtain strategic and

17 intelligence information?

18 A. Yes one could collect quite a lot of information in this way.

19 Q. And this kind of information could it refer to certain facilities

20 in the town of Sarajevo under BH control?

21 A. I think so, yes.

22 Q. I can understand that you have concern about confidentiality, but

23 without violating your duty, are you talking about military targets?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you very much. Were there many such people who were

1 bringing information with them?

2 A. Yes, there were many.

3 Q. Do you know Dragonov; yes or no?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Witness, I should now like to ask you a certain number of

6 questions concerning the situation of civilian areas that were not under

7 BH control. In those areas, were there any systems of protection for

8 civilians, as far as you know?

9 A. Yes, there was a system of protection. Specifically, in front of

10 the barracks, there was a protection against infantry weapons. So the

11 protective devices had to be put up so they wouldn't be hit by the

12 opposing force.

13 Q. Describe that protection. What did it consist of?

14 A. At first there were sandbags and later on when fire was stronger,

15 there were pipes that were laid along the road to protect both vehicles

16 and civilians from enemy fire.

17 Q. When you talk about enemy fire, what can you tell us about the

18 frequency of combat in the zone you were familiar with? Were they

19 frequent conflicts? What type of weapons were used?

20 A. The fighting was frequent. Infantry weapons were used most,

21 coupled with anti-aircraft guns and heavy machine-guns.

22 Q. Witness, you spoke of protection in the area of Lukavica. Do you

23 know whether there was such protection in other areas?

24 A. In the zones I went to, there was protection, yes.

25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please.

1 [Defence counsel and accused confers]

2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]

3 Q. What zones are you referring to and what type of protection,

4 please?

5 A. I am talking about Grbavica, Vraca and a part of Dobrinja.

6 Q. Thank you. And what type of protection?

7 A. There was protection consisting of sandbags, old vehicles,

8 something that would provide protection to civilians against enemy fire.

9 Q. Witness, the question may be obvious for you, but not for me.

10 From which did the civilians in this part of the town that you are

11 referring to want to protect themselves?

12 A. They sought to protect themselves from enemy fire, from infantry

13 weapons and...

14 Q. When you talk about enemy fire, are you referring only to infantry

15 weapons, but also to some other weapons, as your answer wasn't quite

16 finished?

17 A. Yes, I was.

18 Q. Could you tell us which weapons?

19 A. We knew that the enemy side had heavy weapons, and we had to take

20 steps to protect ourselves of that type of projectiles coming from heavy

21 weapons.

22 Q. Thank you. And were such -- was such fire from heavy weapons

23 frequent?

24 A. Quite frequent.

25 Q. Thank you. In each of the zones that you mentioned, are you

1 referring to all the zones that you have listed?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Thank you. Do you personally know any civilians who suffered as a

4 result of this fire coming either from infantry or artillery weapons?

5 A. I did see quite a lot of people who were wounded with fire from

6 infantry and artillery weapons but I couldn't remember their names.

7 Q. When you say "several" according to an estimate of the number of

8 civilians wounded, would you say that they were many or that they were an

9 exception, if you could tell us?

10 A. There were many.

11 Q. Witness, let us now pass on to another point and that is some

12 geographical issues. What could you tell us regarding the features, the

13 elevated features, the following ones: Zuc, Mojmilo, Hum, Kobilja Glava,

14 and the wood, and Zuc, Mojmilo and Hum. Let me repeat myself.

15 A. These are elevations used by the Muslim forces.

16 Q. Sedam Suma, the Seven Woods area, do you know who was in that

17 zone?

18 A. I couldn't give you an answer.

19 Q. Thank you. As regards the other two that I mentioned, the small

20 and the high?

21 A. I cannot tell you.

22 Q. Colina Kapa?

23 A. I don't know about that either. No, I don't.

24 Q. We will move on, Witness. And I would like to ask you something

25 about relationships with UNPROFOR. As a police officer, Military Police

1 officer were you informed of problems that arose in connection with the

2 transport conducted by UN forces and which may have contained some

3 smuggled goods, military goods intended for one or other side?

4 A. I personally was not informed about that. Or could you be more

5 precise, please?

6 Q. I will be glad to. My question was badly worded and I apologise

7 for this. Does the name "Oxygen" does it ring a well? A code name

8 "Oxygen"?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Did you ever hear that there was arms trafficking organised, and

11 if yes, what can you tell us about it or the smuggling of weapons?

12 A. I heard stories about that, but I couldn't give you a specific

13 answer.

14 Q. On the basis of the information that you were able to collect from

15 these examinations, did you know whether the BH forces had mobile

16 mortars? They are mortars mounted on small lorries that could be easily

17 moved around depending on needs or the will of the persons using them.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Did you know about that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Were you able to confront the stories that you heard from these

22 different people to corroborate the truth of what you heard?

23 A. We had several reports which we compared amongst themselves later

24 on.

25 Q. Thank you very much. What could you tell us, Witness, about the

1 enclave of certain areas that remained under the control of the Serb

2 authorities in Sarajevo? I am referring, for instance, to Grbavica and

3 some other such enclave.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.

5 MR. MUNDIS: It is not clear, Mr. President, what that question is

6 going to.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] May I answer?

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I would be glad to. Witness

10 will you please remove your headphones.

11 Mr. President, one of the submissions of the Prosecution is to

12 assert that Sarajevo was a town under siege, and that it was arbitrarily

13 attacked by Serb forces from the heights. What we wish to prove is the

14 thesis of partition and saying that on the Serb side there were pockets

15 from which the people could no longer leave. And I think that this is an

16 important element.

17 JUDGE ORIE: I think -- it is not relevance that Mr. Mundis is

18 complaining about, objecting against, but that the question was not clear,

19 that you could not know what answer to what question an answer would be

20 given to. Your question was, you asked first about mortars mounted on

21 small lorries, whether he had any knowledge about that. The answer was

22 "yes." Then your next question was: "Were you able to confront the

23 stories that you heard from these different people to corroborate the

24 truth of what you heard?" So I take it that is still about mobile mortars.

25 Then the next question was: "What could you tell us, Witness, about the

1 enclave of certain areas that remained under the control of the Serb

2 authorities of Sarajevo? I am referring to Grbavica and some other such

3 enclave."

4 It is not clear to Mr. Mundis, and I share his view, what you are

5 actually asking the witness. So could you please clarify what

6 specifically you want to know from the witness.

7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, what I don't

8 understand is why you referred to my two previous questions that have

9 nothing to do with this. It is a completely different line of

10 questioning. I have ended with the mortars. What I wanted to know is

11 what the witness knows --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What the witness knows about what?

13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am going to tell you.

14 JUDGE ORIE: If you ask it in such a way that Mr. Mundis

15 understand it, that I understand it, then there would be a fair chance

16 that the witness would understand it as well. We will have to adjourn

17 anyhow. So you have a lot of hours' time unless you would like to put the

18 question to the witness now, you can do it. But otherwise in

19 reformulating your question, you have a couple of hours.

20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

21 JUDGE ORIE: I was just informed that not as it is usual, this

22 courtroom will be used again at a quarter past 2.00, but already at 2.00.

23 So I must -- although I gave you an opportunity to reformulate your

24 question, I'd invite you to do that tomorrow. If you want to tender the

25 videotape would you please give it a number so that we can decide on it

1 tomorrow. Since this courtroom will be used at 2.00, we will adjourn

2 until tomorrow morning at 9.00 and then we will continue.

3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

4 1.47 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,

5 the 31st day of October, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25