1 Friday, 4 March 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
6 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Court Deputy.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
8 number IT-01-48-T, the Prosecutor versus Sefer Halilovic.
9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
10 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
11 Mr. Morrissey, are you ready to start?
12 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, I am, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.
14 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you.
15 WITNESS: JUSUF JASAREVIC [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Cross-examined by Mr. Morrissey: [Continued]
18 Q. Yes. Mr. Jasarevic, I'm going to move now to another document.
19 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness please be shown the document
20 which is -- it's Defence 65 ter D29. The ERN number is DD00.0084, and
21 it's to be MFI235.
22 Q. Whilst that's being brought up, Mr. Jasarevic, could I indicate
23 that this document I'm going to show you appears to be a report of sorts
24 from Namik Dzankovic to you, and you mentioned the document yesterday that
25 came to you at some stage in October. And I'll get you to look at this
1 document and then you can tell us about what you see.
2 [Defence counsel confer]
3 A. Yes, I've seen the document.
4 Q. Very well. And in its Bosnian original, which you have, that's
5 on a single page; is that correct?
6 A. Yes. But I only see the first half of -- of a half of that page.
7 Actually, I'm seeing the other half of it. But probably if -- I need to
8 see the whole thing to see it.
9 Q. Very well. Well, your -- feel free to be proactive and explain
10 when you need to see another part of the document.
11 Is that a -- a report by Namik Dzankovic to you, a report
12 compiled by him or dated by him on the 29th of September but received by
13 you at a later time?
14 A. Yes. And in the lower left corner it says that I received it on
15 the 10th of October, 1993. At the top of the document, you can see the
16 text, my suggestions, tasks. This is written by hand.
17 Q. Yes. Okay. Well, what I have in mind is just to ask you to
18 explain something about the text from -- from Dzankovic and then I want to
19 move forward to -- to ask you some questions about the -- about what you
20 wrote on the document.
21 Just excuse me, please, one moment while I organise myself.
22 Thank you. My apologies. Now, first of all, I'm going to ask
23 you about the text itself from Dzankovic. It appears that at the time he
24 was still on the terrain in Jablanica. Is that in accordance with your
25 recollection of the matter?
1 A. I can't conclude whether he was in Jablanica in that period or
2 not. He probably had to send the document from somewhere, so he probably
3 sent it to them. And you can see at the top which institution he cites
4 where he's sending it from, and it says "IKM of the Supreme Command
5 Staff." That is the place where he sent it from. He had to send it from
7 Q. Yes, I understand. And it's -- in the text, there are a couple
8 of matters which are referred to which I'd like your comment on, bearing
9 in mind what you said yesterday about the realism or otherwise of his
11 Would you look, please, at a paragraph which begins with the
12 words "As concerns eyewitness statements, there are no eyewitnesses here
13 in Jablanica ..." Do you have that part of the text?
14 A. Yes, I can see it. But allow me before that to say that I would
15 actually just like to give a little contribution.
16 Note the reality. From this document, you can see that Dzankovic
17 does not have certain information at his disposal. For example, he says
18 at the beginning of the text -- could you please scroll the first part of
19 the text down. He begins the sentence: "In the territory of Grabovica,"
20 and so on, "a massacre took place," and it says that 30 people lived
21 there. And we know that actually that's the number of people who were
22 killed. And we know that almost 20 people were saved. So this is just
23 one detail indicating that Dzankovic in this respect did not have the
24 proper information.
25 Could we scroll the text up, please, now that -- so that we can
1 see the part of the text that you were referring to.
2 I see that other passage now, which starts: "As far as
3 eyewitness statements are concerned, there are none here in Jablanica."
4 In my opinion, this is a very important moment here. Namely, if 14
5 adults, two girls, and then those two friends, cousins, son-in-law who was
6 brought there by Mr. Zuka and then they left early -- so we had there a
7 competent 20 person who could be included in the category of eyewitnesses,
8 and of course they're not there on the 29th. It's a pity that this hadn't
9 been done before. This would be a very important and strong detail for
10 the further conduct of the investigation, especially in the pre-criminal
11 part of it.
12 I would just like to point that this is an important moment here,
13 this second part of the passage. Two details are mentioned which are
14 important, in my opinion. Here it is mentioned a name -- actually, the
15 text was underlined by me, this "Samir Pezo" here and the unit which is
16 being accentuated here. Samir Pezo is a person who did certain actions,
17 who prevented the sending and the movement and the participation in combat
18 activities by members of the Croat and Serb nationalities so that they
19 would not be liquidated by members of Celo's assault detachment. This is
20 important. I am saying this here.
21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I certainly want you to go
22 on with your explanation, but I just want to interpose a question here.
23 In your handwritten notes at the top of the page, in English -- you see,
24 we have them all typed out, but on the copy in B/C/S that you have, it's
25 quite clear that you were the person who wrote certain handwritten notes.
1 And I just want to read those out -- because the Tribunal is looking in
2 English, I'll read out those notes and you tell me if this reflects your
3 handwritten notes in the Bosnian language.
4 Your Honours, this is at the top part of the document.
5 "Vahid, give a task to the SVB military service of the 1st Corps
6 to conduct an interview with Samir Pezo and take his statements, send a
7 telegram to Namik" - there's an unclear word there from our point of
8 view - "send a telegram to Namik to return it to the UB," and then some
9 initials follow
10 Now, because we're looking at the English, could I just ask you
11 to confirm that what I've just read out to you constitutes a notation
12 placed on the document later on by you.
13 A. Your Honours, basically it's just as we heard. But I would like
14 to adjust a little bit. But this is the gist of it. I am addressing
15 Vahid - that is the person Vahid Bogunic, who we mentioned before; he is
16 my deputy at my post - where I literally tell him the following: "Task
17 the military service of the 1st Corps to carry out an interview with Semir
18 Pezo and take statement."
19 The second task, since this is already the 10th of October of
20 1993, is to send a dispatch to him for him to return to the administration
21 because obviously from this function that he was in, as a member of the
22 investigation team or the scout team, and in view of the time that had
23 passed, I felt that there was no longer any need for him to do anything
24 down there.
25 I think that this task, to send a dispatch to Namik to return,
1 probably as far as I remember ensued based on some other documents also,
2 in the sense of ceasing and desisting those activities down there.
3 Otherwise, I wouldn't issue Namik such a task, since he was under the
4 jurisdiction of Mr. Sefer Halilovic.
5 Q. Yes. And although I'm -- I want you to continue with -- with
6 your previous explanation, but just to clarify those two matters. With
7 respect to Dzankovic and his return, the normal course of events is that
8 it would be up to Halilovic to tell him to come back to Sarajevo so long
9 as the inspection team was still in existence; is that correct?
10 A. I agree. I just clarified that. From this distance, I cannot
11 explain that detail, but I feel that by that time the unit had -- units
12 had already returned. So it was probably based on some documents. It was
13 written on the basis of some document, because I didn't have any right to
14 take a person from the inspection team unless there was some grounds for
16 Q. Yes. I'm -- I understand what you say about that, Mr. Jasarevic.
17 And I think there's a document that the Prosecutor either has or -- or I
18 think is intending to tender, a report of the inspection team dated the
19 20th of September. I'm not -- I don't have it to hand now. Do you recall
20 ever seeing a report from the inspection team dated the 20th of September?
21 A. No, I didn't have that document in my hand, but it's possible
22 that this could also be included in the comment that I provided a little
23 bit earlier on this matter.
24 Q. Yes, I understand that. Very well.
25 Returning to the first point, then. I notice that you've tasked
1 Vahid with getting the security service of the 1st Corps to interview
2 Pezo. Now, there's two matters I want to ask you about from that. First
3 of all, it wasn't the function of you or your staff at the higher level
4 that you operated to be going and taking statements from individual
5 people; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And so what -- what we see here is an appropriate delegation of
8 authority -- sorry, I withdraw that. An appropriate delegation of a
9 function that should really be performed at the corps level, bearing in
10 mind that the 2nd Independent Battalion from which Samir Pezo or to which
11 Samir Pezo belonged -- I'm sorry to say that question got so long I've
12 just completely lost control of it. So let me put it again.
13 What you were doing there was getting the 1st Corps to look after
14 the statement-taking in relation to Pezo; is that correct?
15 A. From this aim of mine, you can conclude without doubt that we,
16 the administration, were giving this task to the 1st Corps, but we did not
17 insist on the security service of the 1st Corps to take this statement
18 personally. This is a battalion that was directly linked to the 1st
19 Corps. So in that sense, it had the status of a brigade at that level.
20 But the security service of the 1st Corps could regulate that through the
21 security officers of that battalion, because that battalion had its own
22 security officer. So it was up to them to make sure that this statement
23 was taken.
24 Q. To your knowledge, was the SVB representative from the 2nd
25 Independent Battalion in fact Samir Pezo himself?
1 A. Did I understand you properly? Are you asking me whether Pezo
2 was from the 2nd Battalion?
3 Q. Well, I'm asking a bit more than that. I'm asking whether it's
4 within your knowledge whether Samir Pezo was from the 2nd Independent
5 Battalion and whether also Samir Pezo was the SVB chief within that
6 independent battalion.
7 A. Samir Pezo was from the 2nd Battalion, definitely, and he was an
8 officer with Mr. Adnan Solakovic. I knew their security officer. His
9 nickname was Pike. But I cannot remember the first and last name of that
10 person at the moment. He was lower-ranking, and I didn't meet those
11 people very often. I know that he was an experienced lawyer, and I think
12 that his specialty actually was that he was an attorney --
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. -- as far as I can remember.
15 Q. If I mention the name to you of Jasmin Panjeta, does that assist?
16 A. It could be him.
17 Q. Very well. Now, I'm sorry, because previous to you answering
18 those questions, I -- I interrupted you and you were explaining something
19 about some of the difficulties that you can detect that Namik Dzankovic
20 was -- was encountering in -- in his investigation, which are revealed in
21 that statement.
22 Could I just ask: Did you have something you wanted to add to
23 that, or had you completed that part of the answer?
24 A. Could I look at that second passage of the text again? Yes,
25 that's the one.
1 I was just talking about what we were dealing with right now,
2 about Samir Pezo. There's another detail here which is important and
3 which appears in practically all of the reports from down there, including
4 the one from Dzankovic, and that is to locate the unit that carried out
5 the crime. This is one of the valuable details that can be seen in
6 these -- in this document. It's been underlined. I've said already
7 several times that this was Celo's assault detachment, so this is this
8 other part that I wanted to emphasise.
9 Q. Yes. Okay. Thank you for that.
10 Would you also look at the final paragraph, please, of this
12 A. You mean the inquest and all of the work that relates to the
13 exhumation, or before that? I mean before -- I apologise. I mean before
14 that. I mean the sentence before that, the one which says: "It is
15 impossible to get statements from perpetrators or identify them because
16 they returned to Sarajevo immediately after the operation at Vrdi."
17 A. I understand. Your Honours, I would like to point to something
18 here, which I am actually thinking of constantly and I think that in my
19 testimony I emphasised that before. In my assessment, the crucial factor
20 here is time, time as space, because this remark is such as it is and it
21 is obviously clear. We're talking about the 29th of September, meaning at
22 least 20 days after the crime was committed. And unfortunately that's
23 exactly as it is stated here, that identification of the perpetrators of
24 this act is impossible. And you could see that before that there was a
25 combat operation that was carried out in the hills and so on, which again
1 coincides with this wish to -- not to stop the combat activities,
2 implying -- and where it was implied that the conduct of an inquiry would
3 stop the combat activities, this is the other detail that probably made
4 Mr. Delalic condition the whole thing, and this is one detail. I am
5 noting it and I am emphasising it and I believe that it is important.
6 Q. Are you aware of any occasion when the pre-criminal phase of a
7 murder investigation has been carried out in the middle of a combat
8 operation? Has that ever occurred, in your experience?
9 A. Luckily we've never encountered such a situation, such an obvious
10 situation as that. But a little earlier I wanted to emphasise that I am
11 sure we are all aware what an on-site investigation means, or a crime
12 scene examination, and that is when we all have the elements that are
13 necessary to conduct a proper investigation.
14 Q. Now, my final question about this document relates to the very
15 final sentence in it, and that's the sentence concerning exhumation and
16 on-site investigation. You see there -- Mr. Dzankovic appears to
17 say: "It has been agreed that the on-site investigation will be carried
18 out by the crime service of the MUP and the Jablanica military police in
19 cooperation with other professionals." Now, he refers to an agreement
20 which has obviously already been made, and what I want to ask you is: Do
21 you know about that? And if you do know about it, what are the details of
22 that agreement to which he refers?
23 A. Your Honours, you can see from this that Mr. Dzankovic writing
24 such reports uses terms and notes things which actually deviate from the
25 proper terms and are not quite clear. In this passage, he knows that --
1 he notes good things. It's good that this action will be carried out, the
2 exhumation, and that this will be carried out by the expert services.
3 However, I -- or to me, as a soldier, the term "agreed" is not adequate.
4 Probably it reflected the true situation. But I would prefer for him to
5 have used a term such as "it has been ordered," "regulated," so that then
6 we could see who this was done, who was the one who reached this
7 agreement. It's okay, what it says "the crimes department and military
8 police units in cooperation with other experts," meaning maybe the medical
9 staff or something. So I -- it seems to me as if something is being
10 assumed or concluded here that is not actually contained here.
11 In any case, this action, such as -- as an action is okay here,
12 and as far as -- and it's good he reported on it -- and as far as I know,
13 I think this exhumation was carried out.
14 Q. That was going to be my next question. Do you know who by and
16 A. This was too long ago for me to remember when and by whom, but
17 done professionally and within a reasonable amount of time. This is
18 something that I do remember.
19 Q. And bearing in mind the -- the issues of memory there, can you
20 recall whether any such information was available once -- to investigators
21 once the operation of Trebevic commenced on the 26th of October, or can
22 you not recall that at this length of time?
23 A. I request not remember that, especially because Trebevic was
24 carried out in a methodology involving teams which each had their own
25 tasks and then several institutions were used there. At least four or
1 five institutions took part in the implementation of that operation, so
2 that -- albeit that this could be an important fact, I really couldn't
3 remember any -- any particulars well enough to be able to comment on them.
4 Q. Yes. And just in conclusion about that. The -- the phrase used
5 by Dzankovic there is "it has been agreed that the on-site investigation
6 and exhumation work will be carried out by the crime service of the MUP."
7 And I just want to ask you about the on-site investigation part of that
8 component. I should ask you, first of all: Was it necessary that you be
9 briefed about that on-site investigation that's referred to there? And
10 secondly, if -- if you were briefed about it, what can you tell us about
11 it, if anything?
12 A. It wasn't important or necessary to brief me on this question for
13 several reasons, because I was physically absent and I was at such a level
14 that objectively in practice I would not give such briefings. Other than
15 the things that preceded this document, the directive that was sent on the
16 21st where de facto this document ensued as a reaction, as a response to
17 that security service administration document which was sent to Dzankovic
18 on the 21st.
19 Q. Yes. And bearing in mind what you said about the -- that it
20 would be desirable that Dzankovic record some sort of order being issued,
21 in terms of the agreement mentioned there, is it possible to say by
22 looking at that last sentence there whether the MUP was -- well, perhaps I
23 withdraw that. Who was coordinating the work between the MUP and the SVB?
24 Is it possible to determine, in other words, who was controlling that
25 aspect of the investigation?
1 A. Well, I cannot really locate that now. At that level, somebody
2 should have coordinated it, but it would have been the most usual thing
3 for the command of the operation to coordinate that.
4 Q. All right. In short, is it fair to summarise Dzankovic's efforts
5 in this way: He appears to have acted with goodwill but lacking certain
6 expertise? Is that a fair comment from a professional assessment level?
7 A. I think absolutely that Dzankovic wanted to do whatever he could
8 do at the time, without even thinking whether he was competent formally
9 with regard to his position on the ground.
10 Q. Yes. Thank you.
11 MR. MORRISSEY: I offer that document for tender.
12 Q. I now have to move to some other documents that are a little more
13 remote but are still documents that perhaps may say something about how
14 the investigation unfolded. And this is all in the time before Trebevic
15 began on the 26th of October. As I've indicated, I'm into the last part
16 of the cross-examination now, so I just have to ask you about those, a
17 couple of very old documents from a time before that, and then I've
19 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness please now be shown a
20 document -- this is 65 ter number D488.
21 Sorry. Just excuse me one moment, Your Honours.
22 [Defence counsel confer]
23 MR. MORRISSEY: This is another document which will have to be
24 dealt with in paper form. Your Honours, we have copies for everyone.
25 Q. Now, this, like many other documents, is one you may or may not
1 have seen in recent times. Would you mind just having a look at that
2 document and note the dates of it and note who it's from and then indicate
3 whether you understand that you received that document.
4 Whilst looking at it, could I indicate that although I made my
5 qualification about documents being a little more remote, I -- I jumped
6 the gun there really by one document. This one seems to be directly in
7 the line of -- of documents that we have been looking at.
8 But you look through it and then tell us what you recall about
10 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry, Your Honours. I neglected to indicate
11 this would be MFI236.
12 A. Your Honours, I have never seen this document before. I cannot
13 claim that it was never seen before one of my colleagues in the
14 administration, because I can see here that it was addressed to the
15 security sector. This was not its name. It was the Department of the
16 Military Security Services of the 6th Corps. This is crossed by hand and
17 then replaced by "the 6th Corps for the attention of Jusuf Jasarevic" -
18 that was me - "And then chief Nermin Eminovic." I don't remember ever
19 having seen this document before, and I have to remind you that every time
20 I received a document I would put in my own handwriting instructions to my
21 subordinates as to what they were supposed to do with regard to this
23 Q. Yes. I understand that. And it may be -- well, it certainly
24 will be the case that we shall ask questions to Chief Nermin Eminovic
25 about this document. But just -- could you indicate using your
1 professional experience and knowledge whether or not this document arrived
2 at your Sarajevo headquarters, and if so, at what time did it arrive --
3 well, sorry, on what date did it arrive there.
4 A. Your Honours, this is another indicator showing that if it had
5 arrived at the staff, it would have borne the stamp indicating the date of
6 receipt. Somebody would have received it. It was a common practice. As
7 things stand now, I can't tell you any more specific and claim with any
8 more certainty that it did arrive or that it didn't arrive.
9 Q. Yes. Very well. I just want to ask you a couple of questions
10 about information known to you. Can you confirm whether or not from your
11 own knowledge that information concerning a Croatian soldier, Slavko
12 Mendes, was communicated through organs of the 6th Corps to -- to your
13 office and, in particular, that information concerning how Slavko Mendes
14 actually came to be killed was communicated to your office?
15 And I understand that you say that -- you -- you've indicated
16 that you didn't receive this particular document or you can't recall doing
17 so. But leave that aside. Do you recall that actual information about
18 Slavko Mendes reaching your level or reaching you, in fact?
19 A. Your Honours, I don't remember that.
20 Q. Okay. Do you recall whether or not it was indicated to you that
21 by way of explanation for what happened in Uzdol, that there had been
22 fierce fighting in the village and that civilians had actually
23 participated in that fighting?
24 A. I had this information from -- special information that I signed,
25 and that was drafted by our Department for Analysis based on documents
1 that they had received. I'm familiar with that. I signed the document,
2 and before that I had familiarised myself with the contents of that
4 Q. And just following from that, is that one of the documents that
5 you looked at yesterday or is it another document that we haven't produced
6 in this court that you're now referring to?
7 A. This document we saw yesterday, and we looked at it last -- its
8 last paragraph --
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. -- and commented upon it.
11 Q. Okay. I understand that document.
12 MR. MORRISSEY: I offer this document for tender. I offer that
13 document for tender, noting, however, that the witness has not identified
14 it himself, so if a different argument needs to be advanced about why it's
15 appropriate we'll do that at a later stage. Thank you.
16 Q. Now, another short document which is somewhat remote from these
17 matters but has a potential relevance anyway.
18 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness please be shown now -- this is
19 ERN number D480, and it's -- sorry, pardon me. That's -- its 65 ter
20 number was D480(a), and its ERN number is DD00.2203, and it will be
22 Q. Whilst this is just being brought up, I'll indicate to you what's
23 coming. It's a document that appears to be an instruction or order by you
24 concerning the Pazaric incident which you gave evidence about some time
25 ago now. Do you have that document in front of you?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, is that document what it appears to be; namely, a task
3 assigned by you to the chief of the 1st Corps military security service to
4 collect evidentiary material and initiate criminal proceedings against the
5 perpetrators of that particular offence?
6 A. Yes. Yes, this is my document. I signed it.
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. And yes, this is okay.
9 Q. And the chief of the military security service, is that a man
10 called Sacir Arnautovic?
11 A. Yes. I looked at the date. That's why I halted for a bit.
12 Q. Yes, I understand.
13 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you. Well, I offer that for tender as
15 JUDGE LIU: What's the MFI number?
16 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, it's MFI237.
17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
18 MR. MORRISSEY: Now, the next document to which I'd like to
19 direct your attention is now a late -- no, sorry, this is a document --
20 it's an SDT -- it's an SDB document from the MUP, but I just want you to
21 comment, if you can comment, on a couple of aspects of it.
22 Could the witness please be shown ERN number D170 -- sorry, 65
23 ter number D170. The ERN number is DD00.0782, and it's to be MFI238.
24 Q. Now, this document is not being put to you as being your
25 document. It's signed by a different person altogether. But I wanted to
1 ask you first of all: Did that document come -- come into the possession
2 of your organisation as part of the operative information -- the flow of
3 operative information which you discussed earlier on?
4 A. Can I please look at the beginning of this document?
5 This is my handwriting. I am issuing a task to Goran. This is
6 Goran Radovic, a lawyer at the administration. And another task to the
7 service for analysis. Again, this is my handwriting but there are no --
8 my initials. My initials are missing after these remarks.
9 Looking at the date, it is obvious that I had this document in my
10 hands, especially in view of the handwritten part of the document.
11 Q. Okay. And does it appear -- now, could you just explain to the
12 Court who Jozo Jozic was or is -- sorry, what his role was at that time,
13 and which it was he came from, whether he's from the civilian side or from
14 the military side.
15 A. Jozo Jozic was the chief of the State Security of Bosnia and
16 Herzegovina in the Ministry of the Interior. The MUP was divided into
17 public and state security, and the MUP police was under the public
18 security; whereas, the SDB was the more specific or special part that
19 dealt with intelligence and counter-intelligence. And the head of that
20 part, of that institution, was Mr. Jozo Jozic.
21 Q. And at that time, was his supervising minister, the Minister of
22 the Interior, Bakir Alispahic?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Now, the questions here really concern -- are really about
25 the concerns expressed in this document as relevant to you. Does it --
1 is -- perhaps I'll put the question another way. Is the information
2 contained in that document consistent with the information you had
3 received from Dzankovic and Eminovic and consistent with the impression
4 you had formed generally speaking about the difficulties of investigating
5 this matter at Grabovica?
6 A. It reflects only one part of the problems that we had received
7 information about from Dzankovic and Salihamidzic and partly from
8 Eminovic. It gives two or three more important things that in principle
10 Q. Yes. Could I ask you --
11 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I offer that document, Your Honours.
12 Q. Could I just ask you: In that seven weeks between the committing
13 of the killings at Grabovica and the commencement of Trebevic -- Operation
14 Trebevic on the 26th of October, did you ever hear that members of the 2nd
15 Independent Battalion were prepared to talk or were prepared to make
16 statements or assist the investigation in any way?
17 A. I apologise. I don't understand. You're referring to the 6th
18 Battalion, but I believe that you mean the 6th Corps.
19 Q. I think we got -- all of us got confused at that point. I was
20 referring to the 2nd Independent Battalion, a unit contained within the
21 1st Corps but a unit which had been on the battlefield in Herzegovina and
22 elements of which had been present in Grabovica when the killings took
23 place. And my question really is this: Bearing in mind what your role
24 was and the fact that you were somewhat removed from the immediate
25 investigation, nevertheless do you recall hearing whether or not the 2nd
1 Independent Battalion or any members of it were prepared to talk, were
2 prepared to help, were prepared to make statements?
3 A. Your Honours, I can't remember this. However, in my answer, I
4 rely on the suggestion that I regularly received to get -- to inform the
5 chief of security of the 1st Corps, who was superior to the security
6 service of this battalion. And in practical matters, this should have
7 been their task.
8 The second thing on which I base my answer is the instruction
9 that we have just seen in which Pezo Samir is highlighted as having been
10 given a very concrete task or instruction.
11 Q. This may not be in your knowledge, but if it is, I'll ask you to
12 tell us: Did the investigators get a statement from Samir Pezo before
13 Trebevic commenced on the 26th of October? In other words, did they
14 succeed in getting a statement from him?
15 A. I can't remember this.
16 Q. Very well.
17 [Defence counsel confer]
18 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jasarevic.
20 Now I move to three documents that may or may not have come to
21 your attention in their entirety. And I just want to show them to you one
22 after another here.
23 MR. MORRISSEY: First of all, a document with ERN number
24 DD00.0425, and that will become MFI239.
25 I think, Your Honours, can I indicate by my count now there are
1 six documents to go.
2 Q. Does that document appear?
3 Now, would you just have a look at that document. It may be the
4 case that this document was seen by you and it may be the case that it
5 wasn't, but I'd just like you to inspect it and to see -- and comment.
6 And just so that you understand what the questions are about, I'm going to
7 show you this document, which is a document said to be signed by Alija
8 Izetbegovic, and then there are two following documents that appear to be
9 under the signature - if you agree they are, of course - of Rasim Delic,
10 and they are effectively correspondence about the matters arising from
11 inquiries by Mr. Tadeus Mazovjecki at that time. Now, my first question
12 about this D106 document is: Have you ever seen this document yourself?
13 A. No.
14 Q. My second question is: Did you become aware at any time whether
15 or not -- at around this date, at around the 17th of October, did you
16 become aware as to whether or not the president himself was seeking
17 clarification of certain matters at the behest of Mr. Tadeus Mazovjecki,
18 who was the UN special reporter for human rights in the territory of
19 former Yugoslavia. In other words, did you become aware, whether you saw
20 the letter or not, that the president was making these inquiries in order
21 to be able to speak to Mr. Mazovjecki about these matters??
22 A. I don't remember.
23 Q. Okay. In general terms, do you recall whether or not there was
24 an issue of an inquiry being made by the UN special rapporteur at that
25 time? Do you recall that as an issue arising at some stage in late
1 October of 1993?
2 A. I don't remember.
3 Q. Very well.
4 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I offer that document. And I note also
5 that there will be an argument focussed on a basis that's not the usual
6 one in relation to this, because he's quite clearly given a -- he's
7 given -- the witness has given a clear answer about it. But the matters
8 may arise in another way, and so I'm going to persist with offering them
9 and I'll put an argument in support of it later. Very well.
10 Now, the next document is a related document which may meet the
11 same fate, but we'll see. It's 65 ter number D107, ERN number DD00. --
12 Sorry, I take away that dot, DD000431, and it will be MFI240.
13 Q. The document that's about to be shown to you appears to be
14 signed -- or has a signature on it saying "Rasim Delic." It's dated the
15 17th of October, and it's directed to the -- to the 6th Corps command. It
16 doesn't have a name, but it's directed to the 6th Corps command. And
17 although it doesn't contain any explicit reference or any reference that I
18 can see to your organisation, I just want to ask you whether or not this
19 document did pass -- did go through your hands at the time.
20 A. Your Honours, again, judging by the customary markings on the
21 document, I don't remember ever having held this document in my hands.
22 However, looking at the contents of the document, the title, and the
23 addressee, in a certain way I can establish a link. I don't claim that.
24 However, I can establish a link the way we insisted on certain documents
25 yesterday which from the military security administration were sent to the
1 military security of the 6th Corps asking them to send this information
2 that they had about the incident in the Prozor sector. It is possible
3 that there is a link between that problem and those requests. However, I
4 am absolutely certain that I did not have this document in my hands,
5 because I know exactly how I would have reacted had it been in my hands.
6 Q. Yes, I understand that. Very well.
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I offer that document on the same unusual
8 basis, and I make it clear that that document, and the one to follow, are
9 all in exactly the same boat, assuming that the witness gives the same
10 answer with this one.
11 Finally could the witness please be shown 65 ter number D108.
12 This is DD000433, and it will be MFI241.
13 Q. Now, with respect to this document, the subject matter again is,
14 quite frankly, remote, but it may be related to the other documents and
15 that's why I ask you the question: Have you ever seen this document
17 A. Judging by the first part of the page, I believe that I didn't,
18 but I'd like to see the complete document, please.
19 This document as such was never in my hands. Under, too, you can
20 see -- firstly at the bottom, it was customary to put who the document is
21 referred to or who it is sent to. Since there is no such indicator, there
22 is no written reaction to the document on my behalf, so I can conclude
23 that this document was never in my hands.
24 Q. Very well.
25 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I offer that for tender in the same way and
1 on the same basis as the other two to which the same arguments would
3 Q. Very well. I'm sorry. Now, I just have, I think, three or four
4 more to go, just depending on your answer to the next one, really. I would
5 like now, please, to show you one -- two documents from older history,
6 back earlier in 1993. These relate to -- one relates to the individual
7 known as Celo, Ramiz Delalic; the other two are Caco, Musan Topalovic.
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness please be shown -- it's Defence
9 ERN -- sorry, Defence 65 ter number D509. It is DD002386, and it will be
10 ERN number 242 -- MFI number 242, I'm sorry.
11 Q. I'll explain while that's being brought up what you're about to
12 be shown. This is a transcript -- it's said to be a transcript of a
13 telephone conversation. The Defence is not warranting that it's genuine,
14 bona fide, or legally obtained, but the document may have passed across
15 your desk, and so I'd ask you to look firstly to see whether you ever
16 received any such thing, and it passed across your desk. And then if --
17 depending on your answer to that, we'll ask some further questions about
19 As you read it, could I just explain something about it and what
20 I particularly want you to look at -- or well, first of all, could I ask
21 you the formal question and we'll get into the contents of it in a minute.
22 This seems to be addressed to personally, Mr. Jusuf Jasarevic, and it's
23 dated the 12th of February, 1993. So it's quite early in 1993. And it's
24 a -- it purports to be, anyway, a transcript of a telephone conversation
25 which contains operative information which may or may not have a word of
1 truth in it but nevertheless is operative information.
2 Can I ask you whether you did in fact receive that document and
3 whether it passed over your desk or through your department.
4 A. I don't recall that. I'm speaking about that suggestion of mine
5 again which I gave. This is the 12th of February, 1993. I was not the
6 number-one man at that time. And you can absolutely see that this was
7 addressed to me, but I don't recall having this document in my hands. I
8 cannot see who it's from. I don't know at the end -- it has some sort of
9 code, "0028." I cannot really identify by that who it was who sent the
10 document. I can't really give you any further information about this
12 Q. Okay. Well, I'll see if you can -- I'm just going to read a
13 passage to you, and you tell me if this assists your memory or not as to
14 whether this passed across your desk.
15 It seems to be a discussion between an individual -- or one
16 individual and another person called Juka. And in that discussion --
17 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, in the English translation, it's on
18 page 2, about 12 or 13 lines from the -- from the bottom of the page.
19 One second, sorry.
20 We're just going to locate it in the Bosnian version, Mr.
21 Jasarevic, if you'd just bear with me for one second.
22 Q. Okay. It's about seven lines from the bottom, maybe eight lines
23 or so from the bottom, is the passage that I'm going to take you to -- 11
24 lines from the bottom, I'm told.
25 Okay. There's a passage that says: "Bozo tells Juka about some
1 apparatuses in the cellar and Sefica [phoen] listens to it and says that
2 six new cafes are going to be opened, to which Juka replies, "And so they
3 should be." I'm sorry, I'm reading from an earlier passage there. I'll
4 move on from that.
5 Juka asks, "Did you take that thing from Nago," that's interposed
6 Dr. Nago, the logistics person. The answer is, "Yes, he is doing
7 something for you and he is God," says Sefica. Celo said, "I swear upon
8 my child I will kill him." Sefer: "Even if the whole town police is
9 guarding him, Juka said he should do it before it's too late and I will
10 get him sooner or later." And then it goes on to talk about Coca-Cola.
11 Was it within your knowledge at that time in February of 1993
12 that there was a tape-recording or at least a transcript of a telephone
13 conversation where the possibility of Celo killing Sefer was mentioned?
14 A. No. This is a very serious thing, and this is something that
15 definitely would warrant a response. This name "Juka," this document
16 actually refers to Jusuf Prazina, called Juka. This document, I've seen
17 this now, this text, indicating this about Mr. Sefer, probably meaning
18 Mr. Sefer Halilovic, who at the time was the number-one man in the army.
19 Of course, this would warrant a response. I doubt that I ever had such a
20 document in my hand.
21 Q. Yes. I understand.
22 A. Excuse me. Excuse me. And also, you can see at the beginning of
23 the document that the receiving stamp is not from the administration.
24 This is not an administration stamp. It's very characteristic and it
25 appeared on several documents of ours.
1 Q. What -- what does the stamp at the top indicate as to where this
2 document was received? In other words, who got it?
3 A. It says "Supreme Command Staff." I don't know whether that's the
4 cabinet of the commander or the Chief of the Main Staff at the time. I
5 don't know if that's their stamp or the stamp of some other organ in the
6 general affairs office and so on. I really cannot specify or say anything
7 about it.
8 Q. All right. Well, bearing that in mind, I'll limit my questions
9 to one final question. Does this appear to be, without saying whether
10 it's true, false, or -- or any other status, does this just appear to be
11 operative information that's flowed through the system or a system of
12 intelligence-gathering at some point?
13 A. Your Honours, from my first or earlier response, you can
14 understand this response also: Operative information probably came to
15 where it was supposed to come, and this information was so serious that it
16 warranted a serious response.
17 Q. Yes. Very well. Thank you.
18 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness now be shown -- sorry, I offer
19 that document for tender.
20 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, I would object to this particular
21 document at this stage because the Prosecution hasn't had an opportunity
22 to give detailed consideration and neither have we been told where is it
23 from. Just looking at it now, Your Honour, there seems to be a lot more
24 in this document, and we would like an opportunity to give a detailed
25 consideration, as I said earlier. And then in the event -- perhaps in my
1 re-examination bring it up and see whether we actually object to it or
2 not. But at this stage I certainly will be objecting to it.
3 And, Your Honour, this is indicative of the -- the problem that
4 we do not have these documents in advance.
5 Your Honour, I've invited Your Honours to revisit this particular
6 issue, and this is exactly the kind of thing we are trying to forestall.
7 But these things are bounced upon us. It is a telephone transcript.
8 And --
9 JUDGE LIU: You don't -- you don't have all the documents with
10 the witness's name at your hands, I suppose?
11 MS. CHANA: No, Your Honour.
12 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I need to respond to that.
13 This document has an ERN number on it of 01861864. My learned
14 friend I'd have no objection to her seeking whatever time she needs to
15 respond, as she always has.
16 Your Honours, I'm cross-examining now, and I don't want to
17 interrupt that by responding, but you're seeing a tactic here which is
18 quite clear, and in my submission there's a clear ruling in place.
19 There's a proper way for my learned friend to deal with the ruling that
20 Your Honours have made. My friend is now -- has now on repeated occasions
21 sought to disturb that ruling every time she makes an objection. And
22 frankly, there will be a proper time to do that. I don't seek to say that
23 she's got a good argument, a bad argument, or no argument. It's not the
24 appropriate time to do this. Could we deal with it at another time,
25 Your Honour.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Let's finish your cross-examination.
2 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes.
3 JUDGE LIU: First.
4 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Okay. Well, I simply offer that document for tender. And in the
6 future it's -- that question will be determined. Thank you.
7 Now, could the witness please be shown 65 ter number D521(a). It
8 is DD002425, and it will be MFI243.
9 Q. The document that you're now to be shown is an order signed by
10 Sefer Halilovic, and it's one which you -- I'll ask you to look at and --
11 and consider when it comes up.
12 THE REGISTRAR: There seems to be a problem. I cannot locate the
14 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I -- there's another document I can
15 turn to, but I really have got just two documents to go and then I'm going
16 to finish, Your Honour, so I haven't got anything to pad out the -- the
17 moments with, frankly.
18 Q. Just take the opportunity to have a look at that document.
19 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, can I indicate the English version
20 is two pages and the -- the final marking of Sefer Halilovic is on the
21 second of the pages. The substance of the order is on the first and the
22 Halilovic name is on the second.
23 Q. Okay. What does that appear to be, Mr. Jasarevic?
24 A. This is the application of combined methods from the domain of
25 the security service, from item 5 of the security service rules, where the
1 immediate superior in the army -- to him the implementation of that method
2 is suggested or proposed to him, because that are activities which exceed
3 the bounds of certain regulations about the inviolability of privacy and
4 so on. You can also see the explanation for the proposal, then the
5 proposal itself, and the document ends by suggesting who would actually
6 implement these measures.
7 This is sa period when -- this is a period when I was not at the
8 head of the administration, and I'm not sure whether this was implemented
9 or not. I can see in the last part Mr. Sefer Halilovic in his capacity as
10 Chief of the Main Staff or the number-one man in the army approved the
11 application of this method and said that the security service of the 1st
12 Corps should implement it. This is something that I'm not familiar with
13 and this document is not something that I am knowledgeable about.
14 It's my opinion, but I cannot be certain, that these activities
15 in the technical sense are something that the 1st Corps security service
16 could not have carried out by itself without close cooperation with the
17 State Security Service. But since this is not my document, I cannot
18 really be competent to discuss it.
19 Q. No, I -- I understand what you say, and I'm going to limit my
20 questions to a couple of matters. Fikret Muslimovic was your predecessor
21 at the -- as head of the SVB; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. This order is regular in form in that although Muslimovic was
24 capable of proposing such measures, they had to be signed off on by a
25 commander, and at that time the commander of the army was Sefer Halilovic;
1 is that correct?
2 A. Yes, that was not the name of the post but he was the man, number
3 one. He was the Chief of the Main Staff.
4 Q. And just finally, in terms of that document: What do the stamps
5 tell you about -- what -- are there any markings on that document that
6 indicate whether that document was present in the -- in the SVB offices,
7 or was received there or originated there?
8 A. Your Honours, in the top left-hand corner, you can see the words
9 "security administration," and then you have the number "03/" and the rest
10 is empty. That is actually the ID number where -- or the number of the
11 record where this document was recorded. I don't see any other markings.
12 I don't see any stamps, only the signatures.
13 Q. So does it -- does that number there indicate that the document
14 was received and filed but you can't say any more about it than that, or
15 have I got that wrong?
16 A. It has some omissions. There is no record number, and there are
17 no stamps over any of the signatures; namely, the signature of Mr. Fikret
18 Muslimovic and Mr. Sefer Halilovic.
19 Q. There is a handwritten number "369" there. Are you able to
20 indicate whether that appears to be a later addition or whether it's a --
21 an addition made by somebody filing a document? Do you see the
22 document -- the number "369" right in the middle at the top?
23 MR. MORRISSEY: And I can indicate to the Court that the words
24 "Dok. Br. 521-A" are Defence -- Halilovic Defence notations made at a much
25 later time.
1 Q. That 369 I just want to ask whether that means anything to you,
2 Mr. Muslimovic -- sorry, Mr. Jasarevic. My apologies.
3 A. It doesn't really mean anything to me. It doesn't really ring
4 any bells.
5 Q. Is it consistent with being a filing number, or are you unable to
6 comment on that?
7 A. I really don't know. I cannot comment on that.
8 Q. Very well.
9 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I offer that document for tender as well.
10 The final document I wish to show is a -- a transcript which you
11 may or may not have seen but on which you may nevertheless be able to
13 This is 65 ter number D400. It is DD001744, and it will be
15 [Defence counsel confer]
16 MR. MORRISSEY:
17 Q. Now, what you have in front of you here is a transcript.
18 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, this -- sorry, this is -- sorry,
19 this is a document that was provided to the Defence pursuant to Rule 68
20 disclosure materials by the Prosecutor, and it bears an ERN number on it,
22 Q. What you have is a transcript. Feel free to -- to look at the --
23 JUDGE LIU: Could we have the English version.
24 MR. MORRISSEY: You should have, Your Honour. It's ...
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, thank you.
1 MR. MORRISSEY:
2 Q. The second -- the part that I'm most interested in is on the
3 second page of this document, both in English and in B/C/S, Your Honours.
4 And here President Izetbegovic says, "You know we have made one
5 more move." The President Tudjman says, "What kind of move?" Izetbegovic
6 says, "You know, the changes we made." And the President, "I don't know,
7 I came back from a trip today and I don't know while I was away."
8 Alija Izetbegovic says, "So you -- this has to remain between us,
9 of course. It needn't by like that now. We moved Halilovic, you know.
10 There were complaints that he might not want peace with the Croats, that
11 he was not implementing the agreements, that he was maybe even obstructing
13 The president asks, "Moved where?"
14 And Alija Izetbegovic observes, "Moved. He's not a commander any
16 And the president says, "So what is he?"
17 And Alija Izetbegovic says, "formally he's the Chief of Staff,
18 but I think, it seems to me, you know -- you know, he isn't. He can
19 retain some professional duties, but he will not conduct talks. He will
20 not command units. He will not issue orders. He cannot issue an order to
21 go into action anywhere. He cannot do anything. Perhaps we cannot remove
22 a man who did fight after all. We do not have reliable facts."
23 Now, there's more after that which may be of relevance, and if
24 you feel the need to read it, feel -- please -- please do so. But that's
25 the part I wish to comment on.
1 MR. MORRISSEY: This is a document, Your Honours, dated the 11th
2 of June, 1993.
3 Q. Now, my first question to you is: As a matter of form, have you
4 ever seen this specific document before?
5 A. Absolutely not.
6 Q. Secondly, again, a question of form: Were you aware that the
7 Presidency -- that tape recordings were kept - I'm not suggesting kept by
8 you - that tape recordings were routinely made of presidential meetings of
9 this nature?
10 Perhaps I should withdraw that question now. Something has just
11 been drawn to my attention there. The question should be rephrased: Were
12 you aware that the -- the meetings of the Croatian Presidency were
13 routinely taped?
14 A. No, I didn't know that.
15 Q. Very well. Were you broad -- well, were you aware that President
16 Izetbegovic communicated in this way to President Tudjman on the 11th of
17 June, 1993?
18 A. No. No.
19 Q. And what date did you come -- was it the 17th of July that you
20 came to occupy the position of leadership of the SVB?
21 A. I think so.
22 Q. Very well. In the position that you occupied before that time,
23 did you have occasion to learn of the contents of these discussions
24 between the president of Bosnia and the president of Croatia in the term
25 which is have been provided by the Prosecution to the Defence in this
2 A. Are you thinking of these talks between the presidents of Croatia
3 and Bosnia and Herzegovina? I'm sorry, I don't know if I understood the
4 question properly.
5 Q. Yes. That is what I was asking you, whether you were aware of
6 the contents of the discussions between those precise individuals.
7 A. No.
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Nevertheless, Your Honour, I still offer that
9 matter for tender, argument to be put about it in due course.
10 Mr. Jasarevic, thank you for your patience. Those are my
12 JUDGE LIU: Well, it's high time for a break, and we will have 30
13 minutes' break. We'll resume at quarter past 4.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 3.44 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 4.23 p.m.
16 JUDGE LIU: I'm sorry for the delay.
17 Ms. Chana, your redirect examination, please.
18 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honours.
19 Re-examined by Ms. Chana:
20 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Jasarevic. I will now ask you a few
21 questions as a matter of clarification from issues which -- which arose as
22 a result of the Defence's cross-examination.
23 I'd appreciate it, Mr. Jasarevic, if you would sort of keep your
24 answers belief because this is basically clarifications, and they're
25 not -- not in any particular order. I've just followed the order that the
1 questions were asked during cross-examination.
2 Now, one of the first questions you were asked was in respect of
3 the Trebevic operation, and you were asked whether Defence counsel could
4 characterise it as a goal. Now, would you clarify that for us,
5 Mr. Jasarevic. Was it an operation, a military operation, or were these
6 just shared goals?
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, that wasn't the question at all, and
8 it's -- it's putting the matter misleadingly, in my submission, to do it
9 that way.
10 As I recall the situation, what the witness said was that --
11 there was a meeting of a -- of a Council for the Protection of the
12 Constitutional Order. At that meeting, a number of persons formed an
13 agreement. I termed -- characterised it as goals. Later on the term
14 "Trebevic" came to be used. If there's something arising out of that, I
15 have no objection. But that was the way I put the question, as I recall
17 JUDGE LIU: I think there's no problem with Ms. Chana's question.
18 MS. CHANA: Thank you.
19 JUDGE LIU: You may proceed.
20 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Q. So would you call that a shared goal or would you call that a
22 military operation?
23 A. Your Honours, this is not a military operation in terms of it
24 being a combat operation.
25 Q. We appreciate it wasn't a combat operation, but what kind of an
1 operation would this be? First of all, would it be a goal or would it be
2 an operation? And then we can go into the kind of operation.
3 MS. CHANA: He hasn't answered the question, Your Honour, as
4 to --
5 MR. MORRISSEY: No, I know, Your Honours. But look, this has got
6 to proceed seriously at the start. Now, that's a leading question. If
7 you look at the last part of it -- would it -- first of all, would it be a
8 goal or would it be an operation? And then my friend says, "And then we
9 can go on to see what kind of operation." It's just the leadingest of
10 leading questions, so --
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, let's use the word "operation" first.
12 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes.
13 JUDGE LIU: Then we'll come to the goal.
14 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. The question -- the initial question was the -- the operation.
16 Was it -- you've just said it was not a military operation but it was
17 nevertheless an operation; is that correct?
18 A. Yes. When I -- but when I said that this was not a military
19 operation, I was thinking in combat terms, that this was not a military
20 operation. The goal of that operation was to deal with the illegal
21 behaviour and action of the units of the 1st Corps that we mentioned.
22 This was the essence. This was the main objective.
23 Q. And was this operation conceived before the murders in Grabovica
24 and Uzdol or after?
25 A. There was a prior idea to deal with the problem of the lack of
1 discipline. This was all accelerated by the crimes in Grabovica, and this
2 then spread on to the Operation Neretva 93.
3 Q. So the -- the indiscipline of the troops was the reason why this
4 operation was launched, which was prior to the Grabovica murders and Uzdol
5 murders? You'd confirm that?
6 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, look, the topic is relevant, but
7 there has to be no leading. Can I indicate I'm going to continue to
8 object to leading questions. This topic is relevant. My friend can ask
9 about it. But there just can't be any leading questions. The witness has
10 to be given the chance to answer as he sees fit. It's an important --
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
12 MR. MORRISSEY: -- Principle.
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, you may ask what is the reason for that
15 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, I was just summing up what the witness
16 had said basically, so ...
17 Q. In -- when my learned friend questioned you on this aspect, he
18 put it to you that Trebevic was to investigate the crimes in Grabovica.
19 Was that the purpose of Operation Trebevic?
20 A. This was one of the tasks. Actually, the main tasks -- the main
21 task, which determined the speed and the form of that operation. If there
22 hadn't been these crimes, maybe it would not have been called what it was
23 called, and it is dubious whether it would have contained all the elements
24 of implementation that it had.
25 Q. What if there had been no crimes committed? Would it have still
2 A. I can only assume that it would continue, but I don't know
3 whether the intensity of it would have been the same, whether it would
4 have taken place at that particular moment and whether it would have been
5 implemented in the way it was.
6 Q. Yes. Now, getting away from this for a moment. You said in line
7 31:16, and I'm quoting, that "MUP security managed to compile more
8 valuable and greater amounts of such information." Now, this was in
9 relation to -- to information-gathering generally and the operative
10 information that you've been talking about. Do you remember that,
11 Mr. Jasarevic?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. Now, obviously you've been shown a lot of documents and there's
14 been a lot of operational information in these documents.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did you have any reason to believe that a lot of this information
17 was accurate or inaccurate?
18 MR. MORRISSEY: I object to that question. Not only did it not
19 require clarification, because the witness made his position quite clear
20 about what operative information was, but in cross-examination I didn't
21 seek to disturb that, and I didn't seek to get from him that any of it was
22 true or wasn't true, since it was clear what his answer was. To represent
23 that as a matter of clarification, in my submission, is not correct and
24 it's not a question that arises from cross-examination; therefore, I
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, my problem is that this question is too
2 general, you know. It's kind of a generalisation, you know, for all the
3 information contained in those documents.
4 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, it's just that the witness was asked
5 this very question in -- in these -- in these sort of general terms, and
6 it's the general reply that the witness gave, and I'm quoting - it's at
7 line 31:16, page 31, and 16:14:58. I'm not sure whether we need to go
8 back to the transcript, but I will perhaps ask it in another way, Your
9 Honour, if that's acceptable to the Court.
10 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think you just quoted that "The MUP security
11 managed to compile a more valuable and greater amount of such
13 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour. And I'm just asking about this
14 information, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
16 MS. CHANA: Yes.
17 Q. When you said that the MUP and state security managed to compile
18 more valuable and greater amounts of such information, can you please tell
19 the Court what you were talking about.
20 A. Your Honours, this was indicia, and this information was
21 indicative in terms of what it contained. In the security administration,
22 we found it important who the information came from, and it came from --
23 from the state security, which was a very competent institution, and there
24 was also similar information that came with less detail from the corps,
25 from the 1st Corps and from the 4th Corps, if I can remember well.
1 Q. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Jasarevic.
2 Now, you were asked whether you could have foreseen the killings
3 at Grabovica by the learned Defence counsel, and you replied, "I was
4 shocked about the crimes committed in Grabovica." Do you remember that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Were you shocked about the crimes and also about the units or one
7 or the other? Committed them. Sorry.
8 A. Primarily the crimes.
9 Q. Were you shocked about the units which committed those crimes?
10 A. I wouldn't be able -- be able to say that I was shocked,
11 Your Honours. This is a too-strong word for me.
12 Q. So what would you use? What word would you use?
13 A. I would say that one could expect from these units to behave in a
14 way which goes beyond the terms of military discipline; however, it was
15 hard to assume that it might even commit crimes.
16 Q. Did you have information about these particular units having
17 committed crimes in the past from your operative information work?
18 MR. MORRISSEY: I'll object to that. This is an attempt to
19 recommence evidence in chief. Of course he had such information. He's
20 given long evidence about it, in my submission.
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes. And we also see some documents about --
22 MS. CHANA: Yes.
23 JUDGE LIU: -- you know, those incidents.
24 MS. CHANA: That's right. I was merely confirming that from the
25 witness, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, there's nothing to confirm about if the witness
2 has already answered that question.
3 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honours. I will move right along then.
4 Q. Now, the other question counsel for the Defence asked you was
5 that persuasion was the chief way of dealing with matters. He was talking
6 about how you were persuading certain brigade commanders and -- because
7 you did not have the authority to issue orders. And you said -- you had
8 agreed with the Defence counsel that persuasion was one of the techniques
9 that you yourself used. Is that correct?
10 A. I wouldn't say that this is absolutely correct; however, I did
11 confirm that did use that technique, and I even gave you some examples.
12 The circumstances called for flexibility in order to achieve the effects
13 and the goals that you wanted to achieve under the circumstances, in the
14 state of war, and all that the war entailed.
15 On the other hand, one had to bear in mind the level of education
16 of some of the officers in order to understand that this was a necessity.
17 Q. Yes. But did persuasion replace orders?
18 A. No. No. I was not authorised to issue orders. I was not an
19 order-issuing person.
20 Q. But those who were order-issuing persons, would they use
21 persuasion or would they use orders?
22 A. The commanders were those who issued orders. They did not use
23 persuasion. I used this word conditionally to explain the kind of
24 practice that was in place as an exception and that explained the way we
25 lived. In those conditions, we did what we could under the circumstances,
1 so to speak.
2 Q. Yes, thank you for that.
3 The other issue that learned counsel asked you about was whether
4 all the other units, other than the 9th and 10th, were also in some way
5 involved in criminal actions or lack of discipline. And -- but the
6 question in respect of -- my question in respect of that would be: Did
7 you get as many reports about other units as you did about the 9th and
8 10th Brigade?
9 A. No. No.
10 Q. Did you have to have a similar operation like -- that you did
11 Trebevic in respect of the 9th and the 10th for any other units in the BiH
13 A. No, I -- no. If this had been necessary, I'm sure that it would
14 have been done.
15 Q. Did you find that to be quite unusual, that you have to have an
16 operation against the BiH, its own troops?
17 A. Absolutely. It was a necessary evil. It was an extremely huge
18 problem for us. Well, this was just like opening of the third front.
19 Actually, it could have been that if it hadn't ended the way it did.
20 Q. Now, I want to talk about digging trenches. And you answered to
21 a question put by learned counsel that, "Digging trenches was not a
22 crime." Do you remember that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, would it be a crime to forcibly take civilians to dig
1 A. In the conditions that we had in place -- when you say "crime," I
2 mean murders and forceful taking people away does contain a certain
3 element of illegal action, but not crime per se, if my interpretation is
5 Q. You said you -- "When you say 'crime', I mean murders." There
6 are other crimes other than murders, to your knowledge, are there?
7 A. [No audible response]
8 Q. And what would forcible taking of civilians? What kind of crimes
9 would you envisage those might be?
10 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, the current state of affairs is that
11 he didn't concede that it was a crime at all. Again, it's just an example
12 of -- well, sorry, no speeches. I object because it misrepresents what is
13 the witness himself said.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes. The witness said that taking people away does
15 contain a certain element of illegal action but not a crime per se.
16 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour. But if I look at the transcript,
17 he says, "When you say crime, I mean murders."
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
19 MS. CHANA: And I was trying to clarify that there's other --
20 other criminal activity other than murders that --
21 JUDGE LIU: There's no problem. There's no problem.
22 MS. CHANA: And I was asking him if he -- what kind of
23 criminality would he envisage when you forcibly take civilians to dig
24 trenches. To his --
25 JUDGE LIU: And he has answered that question. He said that
1 there's an element of illegal acts, you know, in these kind of actions.
2 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honours.
3 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, work platoons were also discussed during your --
4 during your cross-examination, and you said yes, that work platoons were
5 something that were used to dig trenches as it was very important to dig
6 trenches in Sarajevo, which is understandable because of the siege.
7 Now, is there -- was there a difference between forcibly taking
8 people to dig trenches and these work platoons?
9 A. Yes. Yes.
10 Q. And what is this difference, sir?
11 A. When platoons were established, this was done in an organised,
12 legal way, and forcibly taking people to do that contains elements of
13 force and -- and hence the difference, a huge difference.
14 Q. Thank you. Now I'll come to another area which you were
15 questioned on, and that is security assessment of an area where an
16 operation is to be conducted, a military operation. What is the role of a
17 commander of an operation in security assessment?
18 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I object to that. The witness
19 wasn't -- wasn't examined in chief about this topic, and he wasn't
20 cross-examined about what the role of the commander was in respect to a
21 military operation, as I recall it.
22 There were certainly questions about -- there were questions
23 of -- about the role of a commander in particular circumstances. I
24 concede that. But this -- what I'm objecting to here is the term of "the
25 military operation," about which the witness himself gave some clear
1 answers as to his knowledge and he was clear about it. So I may not
2 object to a similar type of question, but I'm concerned about the issue of
3 operation, because frankly I'd submit that both the answer is clear and,
4 further, I didn't ask those questions about the -- the commander of a --
5 of a operation.
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Can you rephrase your question.
7 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour. This would be at page 68 of the
8 transcript, Your Honour, where the security assessment ...
9 Q. Who is primarily responsible for doing a security assessment in
10 an area where a military operation is to be conducted?
11 A. The security organ of the command that conducted the combat
13 Q. Upon whose orders?
14 A. It is the commander who runs the entire process, and the command
15 is a joint body consisting of several people, several joint organs. The
16 security organ consisted of at least two or three people. They were
17 qualified to carry out the security assessment and to do everything else
18 that is required by the assessment of the situation to prepare the combat,
19 to issue his decision. And this is all very clear and all the officers
20 are aware of all this. They're familiar with the procedure.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jasarevic.
22 Now, the next point that you were questioned on was this report,
23 the Dzankovic report, which was MFI221. That was shown to you. And you
24 replied somewhere there, you said, "Maybe pursuant to Mr. Halilovic's
25 instructions these proposals were made by Dzankovic. Do you remember
1 that? Or do you -- any time, Mr. Jasarevic, you want to see a particular
2 document, please be free to ask, and I will show it to you. But if you
3 remember, you may answer.
4 A. Yes, it was probably said in that sense, and I'll try and answer
5 your question. Mr. Dzankovic was subordinate to Mr. Halilovic as a member
6 of the inspection team. In that sense, the -- it was the authority and
7 the right of Mr. Halilovic to decide which tasks he would give to the
8 members of the inspection team in keeping with his authorities, as
9 stipulated in the order that determined the tasks of the inspection team.
10 And nobody else could influence that, when we're talking about issuing
11 orders to Dzankovic.
12 Q. Yes. Now, the other -- the other -- your other evidence is that
13 these were unrealistic proposals which had been put forward by Dzankovic;
14 is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you said there you see no realistic possibility for Dzankovic
17 to do anything without clear orders from a position of authority. That
18 was one of the -- one of the utterances you made, is that -- do you
19 remember that?
20 A. Yes, I remember the context. In my view, from the aspect of my
21 professional mandate, Dzankovic was not the person who could carry out
22 such complex tasks in such a complex situation without having resources at
23 his disposal. When I say "resources," I mean officers of the military
24 security such as were available to aid either a brigade or a corps.
25 Further on, he should have had police officers, strong forces
1 that were necessary in order to carry out an investigation and collection
2 of relevant information that would enable for the proceedings to go on.
3 That's one element.
4 The second element is Dzankovic's mandate as a member of the
5 inspection team. If I understand the principles of inspection well and
6 the principles of an inspection team as such, I would say that this is a
7 body of control. Dzankovic, as a member of the inspection team, could to
8 a certain extent oversee the work of a certain service, of certain units,
9 and so on and so forth, which would have been involved in such an
11 Q. You said he did not have the resources -- without resources. But
12 who could have ordered these resources? Was there anyone who could have
13 actually ordered these resources?
14 A. In a formal sense, I don't recognise such persons. I have spoken
15 at great length about that. I was not on the ground. I was not familiar
16 with the important elements that came into play in that operation such as
17 the organisational order that should have preceded such an operation, the
18 decision of the commander or order, which depended on the level of the --
19 the operation, any annexes to such an order that might have been drafted.
20 For example, plans, proposals, tasks to subordinate units. And this is
21 all what I refer to as a very thick file. And if one looked at such a
22 file, one would be very clear on what the tasks were if anything
23 unforeseen had happened, such as was the crime that had happened.
24 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, I'm not asking you for a name of a person. All
25 I'm saying is in military doctrinal terms who could have ordered
1 resources? Dzankovic couldn't. Who could have? Dzankovic being replaced
2 by military security officer?
3 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour.
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
5 MR. MORRISSEY: I think there's a confusion here between the
6 concrete case and the theory. My friend is telling the witness that she
7 wants a theoretical answer but she keeps relating it back to
8 Mr. Dzankovic. Now, if it's a concrete-case answer that she wants, then
9 she's got it. But -- and if it's a theoretical-case answer that she
10 wants, then that should be made clear because the two can't be mixed in
11 one answer, in my submission.
12 JUDGE LIU: And in the answer of this witness, the witness said,
13 "When I say'resources,' I mean officers of the military security such as
14 were available to aid either a brigade or a corps." Do you mean the
15 resources like this?
16 MS. CHANA: Any -- let's clarify from the witness. Resources and
17 who -- he said he did not have the resources, who could have ordered these
18 resources, whatever they may be, Your Honour.
19 And I did -- and I did correct it by saying "replace
20 Mr. Dzankovic with a military security officer." So it's a -- it's not --
21 may I ask...?
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
23 MS. CHANA:
24 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, I'm just asking you in military doctrinal terms,
25 if a military officer in the same situation as Dzankovic, who would have
1 been in a position to order these resources for this?
2 A. Your Honours, I was very clear, perhaps a little too detailed in
3 the explanation of this question. If we have a command and a commander,
4 then there is no dilemma there. Those persons would order the commander
5 or the command organs then would implement it. The whole time I don't see
6 the command. I don't know who the commander is. And I cannot give you a
7 quality answer to that question.
8 Q. Now, I want to take you to another topic, and this is a document
9 which you were shown, MFI222, which is the report of Salihamidzic. Sorry,
10 I'm sure I'm pronouncing that horribly.
11 This is in respect of the Karic words. And you said -- and you
12 were asked about that at some length. And I think you said that Karic was
13 a person of good moral character and you cannot assume that he would say
14 such a thing. Do you remember that, Mr. Jasarevic?
15 A. [No interpretation]
16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not understand the
18 MS. CHANA:
19 Q. Can you please repeat your answer, Mr. Jasarevic. The
20 interpreter did not get your answer.
21 A. Yes, I remember that answer.
22 Q. Now, this -- these words, they were reflected in that particular
23 report, were they not? You saw them?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. Is there any reason for you to assume that he did not -- that he
1 in fact -- can you rule out the possibility that he said these things,
2 these words, about throwing the Croatian civilians into the Neretva River?
3 A. Your Honours, I think that I expressed my opinion clearly on this
4 matter, and I'm stating it now. Only in a situation that was not
5 normal -- or only if Mr. Karic was not in his usual state of mind could I
6 expect such a statement from Mr. Karic. But if he was in his usual,
7 normal state of mind, I don't think that he would be capable of saying
8 anything like that. But then, as I say, I didn't see it, I didn't hear
9 it, I don't know.
10 Q. Now, going back to Dzankovic again. You were shown Article 40 of
11 the rules, and it came in the context of that. And you said
12 that "Dzankovic had no competence, no authority, no power. He never
13 received an order from a commander. He could see these -- to see these
14 things through." Do you remember that, saying that yesterday?
15 A. In that sense, yes. But I was supposed to receive the order, as
16 the person in charge of the administration, so that I could give my
17 subordinates their tasks. That was one option.
18 The other option was for the superiors of certain organs of the
19 command to receive certain orders. And there is a definite procedure on
20 how this is done. In this case, I didn't see anything like that and I
21 don't know whether Dzankovic did or did not, but I don't think that he
23 Q. Who was -- remind us, Mr. Jasarevic. Who was Dzankovic's
24 superior? Who was he subordinated to?
25 A. In the inspection team you mean?
1 Q. Yes. Who was he subordinated to? Was he anywhere else other
2 than the inspection team at that time?
3 A. His superior --
4 MR. MORRISSEY: [Previous translation continues] ... that -- that
5 last question reflects, in my respectful submission -- I withdraw the
7 JUDGE LIU: Well, witness, you may answer that question. You may
9 MS. CHANA:
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. In accordance with the order of the commander on the
12 establishment and composition of the inspection team, the superior of
13 Mr. Dzankovic was Mr. Sefer Halilovic.
14 Q. Now, this is in respect of MFI233 that you were shown, and this
15 was your own report, dated 21st September, which was a response to
16 Dzankovic's report. And you said that you gave him some realistic jobs to
17 do. Do you remember that, Mr. Jasarevic?
18 A. Yes. Yes. I remember.
19 Q. Now, in response to these realistic jobs that you gave him,
20 were -- do you know whether any investigations or any arrests or any
21 convictions occurred in respect of these matters?
22 A. You mean in the field during the Neretva 93 operation?
23 Q. Yes. I mean, did anything happen, to your knowledge? You can
24 talk about the field. You can -- you can talk about afterwards.
25 A. [No audible response]
1 Q. I don't think the interpreter got your answer. Would you please
2 repeat it, sir.
3 A. I just wanted a clarification of whether you were thinking of the
4 duration of the Neretva 93 operation or the location where the operation
5 was carried out. So I received the answer yes, and I will give you my
6 reply now.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. And you can see it from Dzankovic's report on the 10th of October
9 to me that there were no arrests or any investigations or anything like
11 Q. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Jasarevic.
12 I would like to take you to this document that you were shown.
13 And this is MFI235.
14 MS. CHANA: I'd appreciate it if you did bring that up on the
15 screen, court orderly.
16 Q. Now, this is the document you were shown by learned Defence
17 counsel, and it has the names of 30 people who had been massacred in
19 A. Excuse me, not who were massacred but those who lived in
20 Grabovica before the operation.
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. Before the number "30", you can see that the word there
23 is "zivelo," lived.
24 Q. Yes. Thank you very much for that, Mr. Jasarevic. I stand
25 completely correct. Because the following document says: "The following
1 30 persons lived in the Grabovica area when the massacre of Croatian
2 civilians took place." Would that be accurate?
3 A. [No audible response]
4 Q. Now, when you were shown the last paragraph of that particular
5 document - and you may look at it again - you said that 20 days -- this
6 was after 20 days after the crime had been committed and it was impossible
7 not to stop the combat activity.
8 [Prosecution counsel confer]
9 MS. CHANA:
10 Q. Yes, Mr. Jasarevic. I'm sorry if -- you did say that it was 20
11 days afterwards and it was impossible not to stop the combat activity.
12 Now, which particular combat activity are we talking about? Can
13 you please clarify that first.
14 A. Your Honours, I understand from the report that there are combat
15 activities. Practically in every report the main focus is that question.
16 You cannot do such-and-such a thing concerning actual elements of the
17 inquiry because that would bring into question the planned combat
18 activities. This is what I meant. I wasn't in the field in order to be
19 able to determine the places, the time, and the forces which continued
20 with the combat operations.
21 Q. Now, when you said "20 days -- this was 20 days after," is there
22 anything -- why -- why did you mention that it was 20 days after? And the
23 sentence is "it is impossible to get statements from perpetrators or
24 identify them because they returned to Sarajevo immediately after the
25 operation at Vrdi and are no longer in these areas." Did you -- do you
1 mean it was too late after 20 days?
2 A. When I'm -- what I'm thinking of are the eyewitnesses who had
3 left that area. Especially of interest were the civilians, those who --
4 well, different terms were used here, who were brought out, evacuated,
5 escorted, accommodated to -- at some premises in Jablanica and so on and
6 so forth. I'm thinking of the citizens, the civilians of the village of
7 Grabovica, other eyewitnesses, other possible eyewitnesses are the units
8 which were located there, and I'm thinking of the unit of the 2nd
9 Independent Battalion, sections of that unit, and units or sections of the
10 9th Motorised Brigade from Sarajevo. Because in this period when
11 Dzankovic sent this report to me, he notes it well that there are no such
12 eyewitnesses out in the field and that it was impossible to work with
13 them, to take statements, make arrests, and so on, what needed to be done
14 in the terms of the police work, when we're talking about an investigation
15 of a crime like this.
16 Q. What about the perpetrators, Mr. Jasarevic?
17 A. I don't know where they are at that time. I don't know if
18 they're still in combat, if they're in Sarajevo, because this is already a
19 20-day period. And he says here that they returned. But we received the
20 document on the 10th of October. It was written on the 29th of September
21 though. So a lot of time has passed by in order to be able to locate any
22 particular moment specifically.
23 Q. Could this then have been done earlier, in your view?
24 MR. MORRISSEY: I object to that. Your Honours, this is now an
25 attempt to lead evidence in chief on matters that if the Prosecutor wanted
1 to do it should have led it in chief and exposed the situation for me to
2 then cross-examine about, if needs be. But the witness -- the Prosecution
3 now, having seen what's unfolded, is attempting to commence again. I'd
4 submit this is clearly evidence-in-chief material. This question
5 shouldn't be permitted.
6 JUDGE LIU: Well, but I believe that this is a follow-up question
7 with a question in the cross-examination. So we'll allow it, this
8 question to go on.
9 MS. CHANA:
10 Q. Mr. Jasarevic, could this then have been done earlier, in your
12 A. I consider this to be a crucial question. And in my profound
13 conviction, this should have been done absolutely, immediately, because we
14 know what time means in investigations, in circumstances such as these.
15 We have a situation which could then provide faithful elements, which
16 could then be later used in a criminal proceeding.
17 MS. CHANA: There is one last question on this document.
18 Q. Would you look at the front -- the first page of this document,
19 Mr. Jasarevic. Is it on the screen?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, can you -- can you read for me, please, when it
22 says "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina." What does it say under that?
23 A. "IKM," which is an abbreviation for a forward command post, "For
24 the Supreme Command Staff, SVK, Jablanica, on the 29th of September,
25 1993." This is if you're thinking of the upper left-hand corner --
1 Q. That's right.
2 A. -- of the document.
3 Q. So this is the IKM in Jablanica; is that correct?
4 A. That's what it states here.
5 Q. And you have seen this document before. I believe you said that
6 you had.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So what was this IKM post in Jablanica, Mr. Jasarevic?
9 A. Excuse me, but the question is not clear enough to me. Are you
10 asking me what that means, "forward command post, IKM," or what kind of a
11 forward command post there was in Jablanica? The question is not clear,
12 so if you can please clarify it for me.
13 Q. The latter, Mr. Jasarevic. What kind of a forward command post
14 was there in Jablanica?
15 A. I don't know that. I placed in question the existence at all of
16 that command, of that organ, based on information which I received later.
17 I didn't see any documents that would indicate that there really was a
18 forward command post. I'm thinking of a document bearing the authority of
19 the commander and so on. Except for the reports which arrived from the
20 ground, which came to my hands, all of them bore this heading "Forward
21 command post." I wanted to be as fair as possible or precise as possible.
22 And this can be also termed in jargon. Wherever there was a group of
23 superior officers conducting a series of activities with elements of
24 command, control, of some military activities or control, then this would
25 somehow be termed as a forward command post. However, if you look at the
1 rules, a forward command post is something completely different; it's a
2 more powerful organ with the elements of command. And for a short period
3 of time it's relocated, transferred to some other location for practical
4 reasons. I tried to clarify this in terms of this.
5 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Jasarevic. Now, that is all I have from
6 you other than to thank you very much for your patience?
7 MS. CHANA: Your Honours, that will be my re-examination.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
9 Judge El Mahdi.
10 Questioned by the Court:
11 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Mr. Witness, I will be very brief and I would seek some
13 clarification concerning two or three matters. First of all, if I
14 understood you well, in answer to a question put to you, you said- I'm
15 quoting you- "I don't see that Mr. Sefer Halilovic is the commander of the
16 operation." And you were commenting the order of August 1993
17 establishing, as you know, the inspection team.
18 I want you, please, if you can, to be more explicit in explaining
19 how and why did you come to this conclusion, the conclusion being that
20 Mr. Halilovic is not in your opinion the commander of the operation.
21 A. Your Honours, in order to allocate a superior officer as
22 commander of an operation, there should be a clear order in that sense.
23 This order should set out a number of details amongst which also the
24 commander. The order that I gave my comments on is absolutely clear that
25 it is inaugurating an inspection team. All the superior officers and all
1 of those who are dealing with military organisation are quite clear on
3 JUDGE EL MAHDI: So you came to the conclusion on the face of the
4 language of the order of -- of August 1993, if I understand you.
5 A. Yes, for the second part of my answer, that it's the inspection
7 JUDGE EL MAHDI: So my second question will be: If an operation
8 is underway supposedly under the command of the Chief of Staff, would it
9 be necessary to give you information in view of your position about the
10 operation and, if any, a post of commander of the -- the conduct of the
11 operation known as the IKM? Would it be necessary militarily speaking
12 that you be informed about an operation under the command of the Chief of
14 A. Your Honour, the sixth element of combat readiness is security
15 and self-protection, implying the function of securing combat security as
16 an element of combat readiness. In the evaluation of a situation during
17 preparation of combat activities or the operation, in this case, the
18 military security service must participate so that it can carry out this
19 task, the one that is termed "the element of combat readiness." So in
20 that function, it would be essential for them to be acquainted about this.
21 I'm thinking about the military security organ. Which organ this would be
22 would be something that would be regulated by the order, in the
23 organisational sense.
24 JUDGE EL MAHDI: But normally, in normal, I would say,
25 circumstances, do you suggest that you should be informed to secure
2 A. Of course. I myself or somebody from the security service who is
3 competent to carry out such a task.
4 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Yes. And you don't know if ever Mr. Halilovic
5 asked that security be provided for the operation.
6 A. I don't know.
7 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you.
8 My second question, please, is about the behaviour of the 9th and
9 the 10th Brigades. If I understand you well, this was the subject of a
10 meeting of the committee to the protection of the constitution. And you
11 were present at this meeting.
12 A. Yes.
13 JUDGE EL MAHDI: At the same meeting, Mr. Delic explained that he
14 tried to bring the 10th Brigade to discipline but his efforts were not
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Did he suggest any matter concerning this
19 A. Your Honour, I cannot remember specifically these measures, but I
20 know that it was requested that a position be taken at the highest level
21 on the resolution of that question in view of the issue of the defence of
22 the city.
23 JUDGE EL MAHDI: So what do you mean by "the highest authority,"
24 or "the highest level," since Mr. Delic was present?
25 A. First of all, I'm thinking of -- of the position of the
1 Presidency as the Supreme Command.
2 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Okay. So this leads me to the other question:
3 You said that generally speaking these two brigades were populated by good
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE EL MAHDI: So if I understand you well, this is the reason
7 why they were entrusted to the defence of the town, and it's common
8 knowledge the importance of the town as a symbol to the -- to the
10 A. Yes.
11 JUDGE EL MAHDI: So in case that a similar operation of a similar
12 importance is to be conducted, as a military man do you see any
13 inconvenience to seek the efforts of well-trained, as you put it, "good
14 soldiers" to accomplish the other operation? And I have in mind the
15 operation to secure road and to regain the city of Mostar. For you -- as
16 I understand, you were one of the inner circle of the -- at the top level
17 of the military, and for sure you have an idea about the importance of the
18 city of Mostar. So in case of a decision that this city be liberated, as
19 a military man aware of all the circumstances and the events that -- that
20 were occurring by or inside these two brigades, would you consider a
21 decision to seek help of these two brigades, a sound military decision?
22 A. Your Honours, if anyone were to ask me for my opinion, I would
23 not propose the use of those brigades for that task.
24 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Can you give a short explanation, please.
25 A. The explanation is as follows: We already had information that
1 there were individuals in those brigades whose conduct was undisciplined
2 and that this lack of discipline was quite pronounced, and that is the
3 main reason. Of course, I would not be able to foresee anything that
4 happened with this, but it would be sufficient for me not to propose and
5 not to take upon such a risk --
6 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Nevertheless --
7 A. -- for myself.
8 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Previous translation continues] ... with the
9 most important operation, I mean, the defence of the city of Sarajevo.
10 And you said yourself that they -- in general they were good soldiers. I
11 mean -- my question was: If you need some good soldiers, can you go and
12 fetch them from these two brigades; yes or no?
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you.
15 And my last question is about the recruitment of the personnel to
16 the army. You explained that at the very beginning there was no army and
17 that the establishment of the army took place during the -- the conflict
18 itself. So on what basis the recruitment was founded? I mean if a call
19 to every and all able men or able persons to join the army? Was this the
21 A. Certain regulations were issued on the state of war being
22 proclaimed and on mobilisation, so it was regulated.
23 JUDGE EL MAHDI: No. To be more clear, I'm -- I was -- I had in
24 mind the able men or able persons that some of -- members of the two -- or
25 I think mainly the 10th Brigade, that they forced them to dig trenches,
1 saying that they are cellar dwellers, as you put it, I think. So I mean,
2 if these -- or whether these persons, you know, in the streets not joining
3 the army, are they obedient to orders or can you come to a conclusion that
4 they were exempted from the military service, for example, or that
5 somebody for some reason did not join the -- the army because it was --
6 it was a popular army, if I understand, in the very beginning.
7 A. Your Honour, absolutely
8 JUDGE EL MAHDI: And everybody -- if I may say, everybody in the
9 city, in -- in the circumstances of the case, was supposed to participate,
10 whether in the civil activity or in the military activity. The city was
11 under siege; yes, I think. For -- for more than -- it's common knowledge,
12 for at least some two years. So in your opinion, these persons not
13 joining the army, staying in the city, not contributing to the military
14 activities or the military effort or to the -- to the war effort, how do
15 you judge them? What's your opinion about them?
16 A. The city of Sarajevo was under siege for three and a half years.
17 These individuals who fell under the category, as you explained, this
18 cannot be considered as characteristic. I probably used the term
19 conditionally. When I call them "cellar mice" or "cellar dwellers," among
20 them there were those individuals who had professional obligations and who
21 had other tasks to perform. In order for the life to function in the
22 city, there had to be all sorts of people of all sorts of walks of life
23 and who did those jobs. Some people were also on leave, and at that time
24 they wore civilian clothes. Again, I'm going to use the
25 term "conditionally." Those who gathered these people and who took them
1 to the lines to dig trenches, they did not check why those people were not
2 on the lines already. I do not exclude the possibility that some pulled
3 some strings and resorted to -- to some dishonest methods to avoid being
4 sent to the lines, but their numbers were negligible.
5 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Witness.
6 Thank you, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
8 Any questions out of judge's question?
9 I see -- yes.
10 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, I would just clarify one very small
11 matter coming out of Judge El Mahdi's questions, and that is in respect of
12 the defence of Sarajevo. I just -- from what I read in the transcript, it
13 appeared to me that the 9th or the 10th were the only troops participating
14 in the defence of Sarajevo. I just -- I just thought that it should be
15 clarified whether it was, you know, them holding a part of the line or
16 other troops. I don't know whether Judge El Mahdi would like that to be
18 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Yes. Yes, you can do it.
19 MS. CHANA: Thank you.
20 Further examination by Ms. Chana:
21 Q. Now, Mr. Jasarevic, just one small clarification coming from the
22 Honourable Judge El Mahdi's question. How many troops were surrounding
23 Sarajevo? How many troops for the whole portion of the city? And what
24 portion was the 9th and 10th holding?
25 A. Sarajevo you meant, I suppose. Question? Yes? I apologise.
1 Q. Yes, Sarajevo.
2 A. That's the way I understood your question.
3 Your Honours, there were over ten brigades at times that defended
4 Sarajevo. There were some smaller unit, detachments. The line of defence
5 around Sarajevo was rather long, and it engaged quite a number of units.
6 However, these two brigades occupied a very prominent position in the
7 defence of Sarajevo because those were very strong units and they were
8 positioned one across each other. The 10th, for example, defended the
9 southern part of the city, and it was engaged in combat almost every day.
10 The 9th was engaged in the northern part of the defence line, and it was
11 also engaged in very intense fighting against the enemy.
12 When their mission was jeopardised, and if it had been
13 jeopardised, this would have meant a disaster for the city of Sarajevo.
14 Q. Thank you very much.
15 MS. CHANA: Thank you, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, at this stage, are there any documents to
19 Ms. Chana.
20 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honours, we have put in a list this morning
21 with all the documents that I used during the testimony of Mr. Jasarevic.
22 And we have sent them to you, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
24 MS. CHANA: Like you ordered yesterday.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
1 Any objections?
2 MR. MORRISSEY: [Microphone not activated]
3 JUDGE LIU: Your microphone, please.
4 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, there are some objections. I
5 raised the possibility yesterday and -- of dealing with this by motion,
6 but I can indicate that my objections to the Prosecution documents can be
7 dealt with now orally, if you would like me to. Is --
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, just point out which documents that you have
10 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Could I indicate there's two levels of
11 objection. And if I do it in a general level, that will save me doing
12 document by document, which is going to take a long time.
13 I have an objection generally on the grounds of remoteness to the
14 operative-information documents, because we say that the evidence as it
15 currently stands goes no further than saying that Mr. Jasarevic himself,
16 as -- and we haven't challenged him in any way on this, so we receive that
17 he received operative information and so on. But Mr. Jasarevic isn't on
18 trial; Mr. Halilovic is. And the Prosecution didn't seek to show or
19 didn't try to show how this material was -- came to the attention of -- of
20 Halilovic. Not only did the evidence not come out, but there really
21 wasn't an effort made to get it. So for that reason, I'd submit it's all
22 just not sufficiently connected to the case to be admitted into evidence
23 at all. It's effectively irrelevant.
24 That's a general objection that applies to all of the
25 operative-information documents.
1 A more specific objection arises with respect to the MUP
2 documents, and I can -- I'll enumerate those briefly. MFI204, 205, 210,--
3 I might just list these for the transcript. The same basic argument
4 applies to all of these. 212, but I want to make the point that 212 is
5 slightly different for a reason I'll come to in a moment. And 218 as
7 Other documents, whilst we have objections to them, as arising
8 from the MUP, were operative information that passed through this
9 witness's hands, and so if you're against me on my first objection, the
10 general one, then those -- then those documents would then be admitted
11 into evidence.
12 These ones are a bit different because these are ones that the
13 witness himself said he never did see. And there needs to be some sense
14 of predictabilty about when documents like that will be admit, which
15 applies both to the Defence and to the Prosecutor, the Defence having put
16 forward some documents as well which need to be analysed in somewhat the
17 same way, although the standard is different when you're cross-examining,
18 as Your Honour knows. Nevertheless, it still remains that the Defence
19 must abide by the Rules, as the Prosecutor must.
20 And what I'd submit is an appropriate way to deal with these
21 documents in this way is this: Firstly, everything I say is within the
22 context of the clear -- of the guidelines that Your Honours gave at the
23 start of the case, which are an order of the Court, I don't seek to
24 transverse those.
25 Secondly, where a document has passed through the witness's hands
1 and he's looked at it, then that is a powerful matter in favour of
2 admitting the document. And that's the case whether or not the
3 information in the document is true, reliable, or otherwise.
4 Secondly, it may be possible to admit a document even if the
5 witness hasn't seen it because he's professionally able to comment upon
6 it. An example of that would be a report going through the SVB line, this
7 military security line, which this witness may or may not have seen but
8 can comment that it arrived in the system in a particular way, and so on.
9 And I acknowledge that that would be a reason to admit it. And then the
10 question of its weight arises at a later time, of course.
11 I do make this point as well: That where a document has
12 absolutely unmeasurable weight - in other words, when it can't be
13 determined whether it's got weight or not - that is a question of weight
14 but it's also a question of admissibility, because if a document is
15 incapable of being assessed for weight, then it's a waste of the Court's
16 time and it really does apply to the question of its admissibility as well
17 as your assessment of it later. There's a practical reason for that. It
18 clutters the court record, frankly. But -- you know, there's a
19 theoretical reason behind it too. It can't help, so it shouldn't be
20 admitted. It's incapable of helping, so it can't be admitted.
21 Now, with those general comments in mind, I and it that the
22 information that Mr. Jasarevic was shown that came from the MUP but he
23 didn't say had passed before him should clearly not be admitted.
24 Information that came through his own service, even if he didn't see it,
25 it would be appropriate to admit it in those circumstances.
1 This is, of course, subject to if I fail on my general
2 application, my first application. This is now dealing with specifics.
3 Therefore, documents -- sorry, 204, 205, 210, 212, and 218 ought to all
4 not be admitted for that reason.
5 Now, in respect of all of those except 212, the Prosecutor asked
6 the witness, and quite rightly, I indicate, whether or not he'd seen the
7 document. The proofing notes revealed the situation and we all knew what
8 the position was, and the Prosecutor nevertheless showed the document to
9 the witness.
10 212, I think in evidence -- I couldn't find the part in the
11 transcript, but I think, I have to concede, my recollection is that he did
12 say that he'd seen it or he might have seen it. I just can't recall, I'm
13 sorry to say. But I -- rather than hide behind ignorance as a weapon. I
14 think I'd better admit that that's the fact, that I think he said it. It
15 might well be that he saw it. So that's -- I'm being asked to slow down
16 and I'm grateful for that indication.
17 The other buns, I indicate that as a second line of defence with
18 respect to all of them, I'd submit that where he hasn't seen it or where
19 his service didn't receive it or have any reason to know about it, then
20 those documents shouldn't be admitted.
21 There are other situations in which documents can be admitted, of
22 course, outside of that, but I'm just dealing with the situation as to my
23 friend's documents.
24 Having said that, there's one ore matter to raise. Of course
25 there are some documents in there which are entirely uncontroversial. The
1 organigramme, which is 212, is not objected to, naturally. And there is
2 one other which -- I'm sorry, if Your Honour would just excuse me a
3 moment. I will attempt to indicate a cooperative attitude. Obviously
4 213, 214, and 215 are all not objected to on any ground on any basis and
5 can be admitted immediately.
6 Those are the submissions I have in relation to the residual
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, thank you very much.
9 I believe that taking into consideration of this late hour, I
10 believe that we could admit the documents 202, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211,
11 213, 214, 216, 217. And as for the other documents, we'll consider the
12 objections from the Defence and try to make it in a written form. If
13 during the meantime the parties would like to submit their reasons in
14 written form, that will be welcomed.
15 As for the document 215, I think the Defence also submitted a
16 document with another number, that is, 221. I believe that we have said
17 it very clear that if one document, we'd better have one number on it. So
18 I hope that after this sitting the parties will discuss this matter
19 together and try to come to a common kind of agreed translation or
20 document on this issue.
21 It is so decided.
22 Are there any documents on the Defence side that you would like
23 to tender at this stage?
24 [Defence counsel confer]
25 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, yes, there is a large number of
1 documents that the Defence wishes to tender. I believe that the -- before
2 court proceedings today, we gave a -- a lengthy list of documents that was
3 incomplete, pending what was to be advanced in cross-examination this
4 afternoon. And now we have the -- the document.
5 May I inquire of the Court and of the Prosecutors whether we have
6 all the same thing; namely, a -- a list of 29 potential documents to be
8 JUDGE LIU: No, I have 28.
9 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry, no, no, 28, Your Honour. I'm sorry.
10 There was a -- in reality, it's 27 because, as you'll see, the headings
11 section has got a number in our numbering system. So I apologise for
12 that. So it really is 27, and the last page seems to be an extra
13 document, but it's not. So 27 documents all together.
14 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
15 Are there any objections to those 27 documents?
16 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, in normal circumstance it is Prosecution
17 is guided by your rules on the admissibility of evidence, and in these --
18 those terms, of course there will be no objections. But I find it rather
19 curious that the Defence now seeks to admit into evidence documents by the
20 very same witness from these organisations but the witness said he hasn't
21 seen these this is document before. I think there should be one
22 consistent rule. That would be my point. And if the Defence exhibits are
23 admitted on those bases, I say that the Prosecution's should be. And I
24 think both parties should be -- should continue to be guided by the
25 practice directions that Your Honours --
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
2 MS. CHANA: -- were so kind to give --
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Of course. I'm asking you a specific question:
4 Which documents you agree and which you have objections on.
5 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, at the moment I have still not given
6 detailed consideration to this -- this list, because it just arrived
7 today. I've already indicated about that in the transcript. One has to
8 look at it a little more carefully. Would it be all right with
9 Your Honours if we were to indicate this in writing as to which ones we
10 object to and which ones we don't by Monday morning?
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, yes, of course. Of course. I'm just trying to
12 facilitate the procedures, you know. But if you are not ready for that, I
13 believe that you are allowed to submit in written form concerning all the
14 documents listed in this list. And we'll consider it together with the
15 left over documents in your list.
16 MS. CHANA: Thank you.
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, witness, thank you very much for coming to
18 The Hague to give your evidence. I'm sorry that we kept you in The Hague
19 so long. I believe that you miss your home.
20 So Madam Usher will show you out of the room during the break,
21 and it's high time for us to have a break, so we'll have 20 minutes' break
22 and we'll resume at 6.10.
23 --- Recess taken at 5.50 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 6.12 p.m.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Let's come to the next witness.
1 Yes, Mr. Weiner.
2 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour. We have a -- some motions first,
3 two motions.
4 Could we go into private session, please.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll go to the private session, please.
6 [Private session]
11 Pages 74-86 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, while that's being done, I wish to
21 raise another abundance of caution matter. I just didn't see on the
22 transcript. Was a pseudonym granted to this witness?
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, I believe so, the pseudonym and facial
25 Am I right?
1 MR. MORRISSEY: With an abundance of caution, I welcome any
2 warnings to me because I just had slip-ups on the last occasion and I -- I
3 take very seriously what was said.
4 JUDGE LIU: We are now in open session.
5 MR. WEINER: We plan on referring to this witness as "E," as
6 in "Edward."
7 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
8 [The witness entered court]
9 THE REGISTRAR: For clarification, it's pseudonym and facial
11 MR. WEINER: Yes.
12 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon, Witness.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good evening.
14 JUDGE LIU: Would you please made the solemn declaration in
15 accordance with the paper Madam Usher is showing to you.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
17 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. You may sit
19 down, please.
20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down, please.
21 WITNESS: WITNESS E
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
24 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, first may I explain to the witness what
25 we're going to be doing today, because I explained to him previously that
1 there were various options of giving testimony.
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, if you like.
3 Examined by Mr. Weiner:
4 Q. Witness E, I was just going to tell you that we had talked about
5 various options of giving your evidence. We're going to go through all
6 your evidence from start to finish orally. Do you understand? We're not
7 going to hand in your reports.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Now, in front of you is a sheet of paper. And could you
10 look at the first line in the middle. It's -- and is that your name?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The second line, is that your date of birth?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And finally, the third line, is that your place of birth?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Thank you very much.
17 MR. WEINER: Could that be shown to the Defence and then I'd like
18 to offer it and ask that it be sealed.
19 JUDGE LIU: Are you going to tender it into evidence?
20 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I guess there's no objections with this piece
22 of paper. So it's admitted into the evidence.
23 Madam Court Deputy will pronounce a number to this document.
24 THE REGISTRAR: This is marked as 245.
25 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
1 Now, could we go into some -- into private session to briefly go
2 through some background, please.
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we'll go to the private session, please.
4 [Private session]
11 Page 91 redacted. Private session.
16 [Open session]
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we are now in the open session.
18 MR. WEINER: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. In the fall of 1993, where was your unit located, Witness E?
20 A. Our base was on the Faculty of Dentistry.
21 Q. And did something happen at that time, during the fall, that
22 changed you being in Sarajevo?
23 A. We were sent into the field, to Grabovica.
24 Q. Now, prior to being sent to Grabovica, were you called to gather?
25 Were you given any instructions? Did anything happen?
1 A. The commander assembled us and told us that we were going into
2 the field.
3 Q. Did they tell you why you were going to Grabovica?
4 A. For -- in order to liberate Mostar.
5 Q. And did they tell you the name of this operation?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Did they tell you what would happen once you got to Grabovica?
8 A. No.
9 Q. How did you get there?
10 A. Through the tunnel and then by buses.
11 Q. And did you eventually arrive in Grabovica?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you know approximately the time of day?
14 A. At noon.
15 Q. Now, were there -- were there any people living in Grabovica when
16 you arrived? Were there any inhabitants?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Could you tell us about them.
19 A. When we arrived, there were the inhabitants there. They were a
20 little afraid because the soldiers had arrived, but this fear disappeared
21 quite quickly because we shared with them cigarettes, coffee, whatever we
23 Q. And of what ethnic group were the people who inhabited Grabovica?
24 A. Croats.
25 Q. And could you tell us about the age level of these inhabitants
1 that you saw.
2 A. In their -- they were in their 50s and 60s.
3 Q. Now, where did you stay when you got there?
4 A. We found accommodation in the houses.
5 Q. And did everyone in your unit stay in the same house?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Where did you stay and with whom?
8 A. With Igor Martinovic, Nijaz Kremo [phoen], Emir Kapo, Emir
9 Muslic, Zoran Kovacevic.
10 Q. Now, what did you do when you arrived?
11 A. What do you mean what did we do?
12 Q. Well, did you go right into battle? Did you do other things?
13 A. No. We rested.
14 Q. And did you partake of any other activities after resting?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What did you and the members of your unit do? Tell the Court.
17 A. We were sent to Medved.
18 Q. Well, the first few days before you were sent to Medved, let's
19 talk about -- in relation to the water, what, if anything, did you do?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What did you do in relation to the water or the river?
22 Well, let me ask it this way: Did anyone go swimming?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Any other water activities? Was there any fishing?
25 A. Yes, we did some fishing. Yes.
1 Q. Were you relaxed?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Are you familiar with two other brigades, Celo's and Caco's?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you ever see either of those units in Grabovica?
6 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I'd object to that.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
8 MR. MORRISSEY: It's the time-honoured problem of putting those
9 two together. My friend did, and I acknowledge, use the word "either of
10 those units." But an answer of yes -- a simple answer of yes might be
11 misleading to that one, so if it could be taken step by step, I'd be
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
14 MR. WEINER: I was planning to do that. That was the opening
15 question, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes. But -- well, I think it's almost time. Shall
17 we stop here?
18 MR. WEINER: Why don't we break here, Your Honour. That would be
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
21 Well, Witness, I understand that you have been here for a long
22 time, but we have to keep you here during the weekend. Now your status is
23 different as before because you are under the oath, so do not talk to
24 anybody and do not let anybody talk to you about your testimony. Do you
25 understand that?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes., I understand.
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, after the court adjourns, the usher will show
3 you out of the room. We wish you a happy weekend in The Hague.
4 The hearing for today is adjourned.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.58 p.m.,
7 to be reconvened on Monday, the 7th day of
8 March, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.