1 Tuesday, 27 November 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone. Before we resume to hear
6 the evidence of Trifunovic, there are a couple of matters to deal with on
7 the part of the Chamber.
8 First, the Chamber will issue an oral ruling on whether time
9 limits should be imposed on the Prosecution's cross-examination of
10 witnesses called by the accused.
11 The Chamber recalls that on the 12th of November, 2012, following
12 a lengthy cross-examination by the Prosecution, the accused's legal
13 advisor asked the Chamber to consider imposing limits on the time spent
14 by the Prosecution on its cross-examination. On the
15 14th of November, 2012, having heard 21 Defence witnesses, the Chamber
16 invited the Prosecution to make oral submissions in relation to the time
17 it spent on cross-examination. In doing so, the Chamber noted that
18 overall, the Prosecution used significantly more time than the accused on
19 examination-in-chief and re-examination combined and that for the
20 majority of witnesses called by the accused, the evidence presented
21 pursuant to Rule 92 ter was extremely limited, consisting of short
22 statements, very few associated exhibits, if any, and a limited number of
23 issues discussed. On the 15th of November, 2012, the Prosecution
24 responded in short that it has demonstrated commendable efficiency in
25 that, number one, there is not necessarily a link between the length of a
1 statement or the number of associated exhibits sought for admission under
2 Rule 92 ter and the length of cross-examination; number two, it has
3 drastically reduced its already "relatively modest time estimates" and
4 has ended up spending much less time than anticipated; and, number 3, it
5 has used the same percentage as that used by the accused on
6 cross-examination during the Prosecution's case while the accused is
7 using practically no time when tendering evidence under Rule 92 ter.
8 The Chamber notes that the accused did not wish to respond to the
9 Prosecution's submission.
10 The Chamber first wishes to recall that during the Prosecution's
11 case, it started imposing systematic time limits on the accused's
12 cross-examinations from the 11th prosecution witness onwards. The
13 Chamber has now heard 24 Defence witnesses and considers it has
14 sufficient information on the basis of which to consider whether the
15 imposition of time limits is warranted.
16 Turning now to the Prosecution's argument. First, the Chamber
17 does not accept that there's no link between the volume of Rule 92 ter
18 evidence sought for admission and the necessary length of
19 cross-examination, nor is the Chamber satisfied that the Prosecution has
20 demonstrated efficiency in conducting cross-examination by maintaining
21 the same ratio as that used by the accused during the Prosecution's case.
22 On the contrary, there should be a correlation between the amount of
23 evidence sought for admission and the amount of time necessary to rebut
24 it. The Rule 92 ter packages for the first ten witnesses called by the
25 Prosecution contained between two and eight days of testimony in addition
1 to a substantial amount of time used for live examination and a large
2 number of proposed associated exhibits. In comparison, as stated
3 earlier, for the overwhelming majority of witnesses called by the accused
4 thus far, the Rule 92 ter packages have been very limited. The
5 Prosecution argues that when the statement is limited or when few or no
6 associated exhibits are sought for admission, it is for the Prosecution
7 to reconstruct the background during cross-examination. The Chamber does
8 not consider that this is the function of cross-examination. The Chamber
9 simply cannot comprehend why it would take more time to rebut information
10 which is not sought for admission than to rebut vast volumes of evidence.
11 The Prosecution's point that cross-examination is shorter when more
12 evidence is tendered in examination-in-chief does not hold.
13 On repeated occasions since the start of the Defence case, the
14 Chamber has warned the Prosecution on cross-examination that it should
15 move on to the next question and has also questioned the necessity of
16 some of the questions asked. I would refer here as non-exhaustive
17 examples to transcript pages 28694 and 28970 from the date of
18 17th of October, to 29159 of 22nd October, and 29255 of 23rd of October.
19 In relation to the Prosecution's argument that it has drastically
20 reduced its already "relatively modest time estimates" and has ended up
21 spending much less time than anticipated, the Chamber considers that the
22 time estimates have been far from modest and disagrees with the argument
23 that they show that the Prosecution has been extremely efficient in
24 conducting its cross-examination.
25 Thus on the basis of all the reasons that I have referred to
1 earlier, the Chamber considers that the time has come to impose limits on
2 the Prosecution's time for cross-examination. As it did with the
3 accused, the Chamber will endeavour to inform the Prosecution of the time
4 it has for cross-examination sufficiently in advance of the witness
5 appearing before the Tribunal. The Chamber will consider the scope of
6 anticipated testimony, type of witness, quantity and type of written
7 evidence proffered for the witness, if any, number of associated exhibits
8 tenders, if any, the Prosecution's requested time for cross-examination,
9 and to a lesser extent the accused's estimate of time for
10 examination-in-chief. Furthermore, as it did with the accused, the
11 Chamber is amenable to giving additional time upon showing of good cause.
12 In order to assist the Chamber in its assessment of time required for
13 cross-examination, the Chamber would once again remind the accused of the
14 necessity to provide accurate and timely Rule 92 ter notifications, in
15 particular when it comes to associated exhibits sought for admission.
16 That being said, for the sake of notice, the Chamber will not
17 impose any limits for the next witness after Miladin Trifunovic, namely
18 Velimir Dunjic. For the remaining witnesses for the week, the Chamber
19 hereby informs the Prosecution that it will have one and a half hours for
20 Mile Sladoje, one hour for Zoran Kovacevic, and one hour for KW318 --
22 In light of the pending motions for exclusion, or partial
23 exclusion, of evidence of witnesses Angelina Pikulic, Branislav Dukic,
24 and Radojka Pandurevic, the Chamber is not yet in a position to determine
25 time limits for cross-examination. It will inform the parties in due
2 Next, the Chamber refers to the accused's motion to admit
3 evidence of Milorad Krnojelac pursuant to Rule 92 quater, filed on the
4 15th of October, 2012, and the Prosecution's response to that motion
5 filed on the 29th of October, 2012.
6 After having reviewed the motion, response, and related
7 materials, the Chamber would like to ask for some clarification from the
8 accused about a couple of issues which arise from this motion.
9 Mr. Robinson, the Chamber understand that Mr. Krnojelac was on
10 the original Rule 65 ter witness list which was filed on the
11 27th of August, 2012, and was listed as witness number 262 to testify
12 pursuant to Rule 92 ter. Following the Chamber's instruction that the
13 accused considered the relevance and potential repetitiveness of some of
14 the 579 witnesses listed on this initial witness list, the Defence filed
15 the supplemental submission pursuant to Rule 65 ter and a revised list of
16 witnesses on the 11th of September, 2012. The accused specifically
17 represented that he had "taken on board the Trial Chamber's comments as
18 to the relevance and repetitiveness of some potential witnesses" and that
19 he had dropped ten witnesses from his 65 ter list. As per footnote 3 of
20 the September notification, one of the only ten witnesses dropped on the
21 purported grounds of relevance and repetitiveness was witness number 262,
22 which was Mr. Krnojelac.
23 In light of these observations, so, Mr. Robinson, can you confirm
24 that Mr. Krnojelac was originally dropped from the accused's 65 ter
25 witness list on the grounds of relevance and repetitiveness, and then
1 when the Defence was informed that he had passed away, it proceeded to
2 file a motion for the admission of his 595-page transcript of testimony
3 in the Krnojelac case itself. So the Chamber would like you to also
4 clarify when exactly you learned of Mr. Krnojelac's death.
5 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. We learned of his death in
6 between the filing of the first and second Rule 65 ter submissions, and
7 we took him off the list once we learned of his death. We probably
8 should have made it more clear that he was being dropped for a different
9 reason than the others, but we lumped them all together. And after we
10 learned that he had died, we just took steps to take him off the witness
11 list and began to review his testimony to see -- in his own trial to see
12 whether a 92 ter quater motion should be filed and then when -- after we
13 had done that, we filed that motion. So he was not dropped for reasons
14 of relevance or repetitiveness. And I apologise that we didn't make that
15 clear in the submission.
16 JUDGE KWON: On a different perspective, could you tell us why
17 there is a good cause for the Chamber to grant leave for Mr. Krnojelac to
18 be added back to the 65 ter list given the chronology of the filings that
19 I referred to.
20 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. I don't believe that a
21 Rule 92 quater witness necessarily should be on the witness --
22 Rule 65 ter list, and you'll see that none of our Rule 92 quater
23 witnesses are on that list, and we had filed all of our motions before
24 the witness list was filed and it didn't include those witnesses. So I
25 believe we do need good cause to show why we didn't file that motion by
1 the 27th of August when the Rule 92 quater motions were due, and the good
2 cause that we are asking you to consider is the fact that we didn't
3 realise that Mr. Krnojelac had died. That's why we put him on the
4 witness list as a live witness on the 27th of August when we -- someone
5 called it to our attention when they saw him on the witness list. We
6 checked it out and found out that in fact he had died, so we believe that
7 constitutes good cause for allowing us to have a variance from the
8 dead-line for Rule 92 quater witnesses.
9 JUDGE KWON: Off the top of my head and speaking for myself, I
10 have difficulty following your submission that for the Rule 92 quater
11 witnesses they shouldn't -- it is not necessary for them to be included
12 in 65 ter list. Do you have any basis for that?
13 MR. ROBINSON: Well, the Rule 65 ter list, as far as we
14 understood it, was for witnesses whose evidence would be offered
15 subsequent to the 27th of August, and so as a result, we only included
16 all of those who we actually anticipated from the time forward would be
17 witnesses. We didn't -- as you see, we didn't include any of our
18 Rule 92 quater witnesses for whom motions had already been filed. So in
19 other words, we basically believed it was redundant to put witnesses on a
20 witness list for whom motions had already been filed for admission and
21 who were deceased and therefore wouldn't be appearing before the Chamber.
22 If that's -- there may -- I don't know if there's jurisprudence on this
23 issue as to whether 92 quater witnesses have to be on the Rule 65 ter
24 list, but I could research that if you'd like, but that's the basis upon
25 which we proceeded.
1 JUDGE KWON: Do you have any observation, Mr. Tieger, on the
2 issue of this Rule 92 quater motion? Yes, Mr. Tieger.
3 MR. TIEGER: Not based particularly on the jurisprudence,
4 Mr. President, just based on what I've just heard in court, but two
5 things occur to me.
6 Number one, even assuming for the sake of argument the rationale
7 presented by Mr. Robinson with respect to the earlier witnesses for whom
8 motions were simultaneously pending, many if not all of which ultimately
9 denied, I don't see how that would apply to the Krnojelac situation.
10 That's two different circumstances.
11 And number two, I wish I could say I was surprised by the
12 assertion that it was only after Mr. Krnojelac died that the Defence
13 decided to review his statement, but I'm not. That is a matter that I
14 will allude to further at some point during the course of the day and in
15 connection with some other information I have to bring to the Court, but
16 I think that also tends to undercut the strength of the Defence's
17 position on this matter, their own assertion that it was not until such
18 time as they learned of the witness's death that they felt it would be
19 useful to know what it was he might have to say.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. If we read Rule 65 ter,
21 subparagraph (G)(i)(e) which says:
22 "An indication of whether the witness will testify in person or
23 pursuant to Rule 92 bis or Rule 92 quater by way of written statement or
24 use of a transcript of testimony from other proceedings before the
1 I think it's clear. Well, I'll leave it at that, and unless
2 there's other matters to deal with, we'll bring in the witness.
3 Yes, Mr. Tieger.
4 MR. TIEGER: Mr. President, I'll have a matter that I think takes
5 more time than we should use at the moment. I'll raise it perhaps at the
6 beginning of the next session, but I did want to inquire before we begin
7 in light of the Court's earlier comments concerning the issue regarding
8 interview of Defence witnesses by the Prosecution, that those -- the
9 Court considered that to be a bit of a storm in a teacup, I wondered
10 whether the Chamber wanted us to address the accused's recent motion for
11 clarification orally so we can move quickly on this matter one way or
12 another. We can do it written -- in a written manner if the Court
13 prefers or I can respond now. But that was my only inquiry. Or I could
14 respond later in the day if the Court prefers.
15 JUDGE KWON: Actually, I just saw the filing and I didn't read
16 it. I'll consult my colleagues.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Tieger. Please proceed.
19 MR. TIEGER: Very quickly, Mr. President. I think in light of
20 the arguments that were made previously, the motions and the decision
21 that this is really a motion for reconsideration cloaked as a motion for
23 First of all, the accused is now asking for something that he
24 specifically asked for previously. Indeed, that was alluded to in
25 paragraph 7 of the Court's decision, and the Court did not grant it,
2 Secondly, the accused's motion -- or his efforts in this regard
3 thus far have been based on a kind of alleged need for parity. The
4 Prosecution did not seek in the previous -- when the situation was
5 reversed did not insist on, ask for, or allude to the need for the
6 Defence to do anything other than let us know. In fact, I don't even
7 know that we specified that because that was based on the jurisprudence.
8 We just asked when the Defence wanted to contact witnesses for whom they
9 had contact details already that they identify themselves clearly so that
10 the witness would know who was talking to them.
11 Third, the Court's decision is clearly grounded in two basic
12 principles. Number one, there's no property in a witness; and number
13 two, it's a matter of professional courtesy to let the other party know
14 that you intend to speak to the witnesses. That's exactly what we did.
15 If the Defence wishes on that basis, then, to take steps to contact their
16 witnesses either first or afterwards, they're free to do so, but we've
17 complied with the order. The order is clear, and it's -- it's rounded on
18 the principles that I just identified and no further steps need be taken.
19 And finally, I should note that the Defence alludes in a couple
20 of places in their motion to the alarm that witnesses might feel. Let me
21 say quickly two things about that.
22 Number one, it seems to be a highly speculative and fanciful
23 argument, but number two, to the extent that the Defence is indeed
24 concerned about alarming witnesses, it seems to be because there are many
25 witnesses who have never been contacted by the Defence in the first place
1 to know that they are witnesses, and I -- and the Defence actually sent
2 us a letter asking us to provide them with the contact details of the
3 witnesses we intended to contact, which certainly indicated to us they
4 had never been in contact with those people and didn't have their contact
5 details and their concern about raising any alarm with witnesses is based
6 on the fact that that would be the first time apparently that these
7 witnesses knew they were to testify in this case. That's a problem
8 created by the Defence entirely. It shouldn't change the basis for the
9 Court's order, and we think there's -- as I say, this is -- there's no
10 need for clarification, and to the extent the motion is instead a motion
11 for reconsideration in another guise we ask that it be denied.
12 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson, do you like to add anything to this?
13 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President, very briefly. After your
14 order, the Prosecution sent us a letter indicating they wanted to
15 interview 210 witnesses for whom they had contact details and 309
16 witnesses for whom they didn't, for whom the Victims and Witnesses Unit
17 would need to make the contact and for whom we would have to provide
18 contact details for them. So virtually our entire witness list was
19 returned to us by the Prosecution as indicating these are the people they
20 would like to interview. Subsequently, the Prosecution advised the
21 victim witness section it wasn't necessary to contact the 309 witnesses
22 that they would be conducting the great majority of the interviews here
23 in The Hague and that they could be contacted prior to their coming to
24 The Hague or when they arrive in The Hague to make those arrangements.
25 But for the 210 witnesses that they have contact details for, now they
1 don't want to specify to us which ones they actually plan on
2 interviewing. So we have to contact all of those witnesses pursuant to
3 the order, or we would like to contact all of those witnesses, and we
4 don't think that that's really a wise use of our resources, and also it
5 would -- because it can cause concern among people who don't need to
6 otherwise be concerned because the Prosecution will probably interview a
7 very small percentage of those witnesses. So we're spinning a lot of
8 wheels and causing a lot of concern and angst that don't need to be done.
9 We propose and we think that what the Court had in mind was a
10 more targeted approach, that if the Prosecution generally intends and
11 wants to interview a particular witness let us know. We'll immediately
12 contact the witness and that will be the end of it, and they can go ahead
13 and make contact with the witness directly. This way, everybody's
14 working on things that actually have to be -- are productive instead of
15 spinning wheels that don't need to be spun, and that's our point, and
16 that was the point of our request for clarification, because your order
17 indicates that if the Prosecution wishes to contact a Defence witness,
18 then this procedure should be put in place where we're given the
19 opportunity to contact them first. So we're asking you to clarify the
20 meaning of wishes. Is the wish some abstract desire that some day maybe
21 under some circumstances they might possibly decide they want to talk to
22 the witness or is it something that's more focused that they actually do
23 have a firm intention of wanting to speak to that witness, and that's the
24 issue before you. Thank you.
25 JUDGE KWON: You referred to a concern on the part of the
1 witness. What kind of concern would there be if the Prosecution wishes
2 to interview the witness himself or herself?
3 MR. ROBINSON: I would imagine the fact that many of our
4 witnesses particularly in the municipalities portion of the case were
5 themselves either suspects when interviewed by the Prosecution the first
6 time or are concerned about possibly being prosecuted in the state court
7 in Bosnia as a result of their usually -- role on the Crisis Staff in
8 that municipality.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
10 MR. TIEGER: I don't want to protract this argument to any great
11 degree, Mr. President, but I need to indicate that this is, in our
12 submission, a complete deflection by the Defence. Mr. Robinson is aware
13 that we wish to interview those witnesses, and the reason we wish to
14 interview them is because in large measure we haven't been provided with
15 any meaningful information about them. So another matter I wish to raise
16 today but not at this moment, because of the time that's passed. In
17 other words, it's the Defence that created this situation in the first
18 place by not complying with Rule 65 ter (G), not providing the
19 information we needed. They're very much aware of fact that that
20 underlies in large measure the need to talk to all these people. It
21 certainly could be the case that if we ever received proper information
22 and the information to which we're entitled under the Rules that some of
23 these witnesses might not need to be interviewed. That's number one.
24 Secondly, with regard to wheel spinning, again that's a matter
25 that's been created by the Defence. Had they met with these witnesses in
1 advance, it would certainly have been appropriate to tell those people,
2 You may be contacted by the Prosecution, certainly up to you one way or
3 another whether you wish to talk to them, we leave that matter to you,
4 et cetera, et cetera, as is commonly done. Nor would they have any need
5 to turn to the Prosecution for the contact details of people they listed
6 on their witness list without providing any information whatsoever, any
7 meaningful information whatsoever about what those people would testify
9 And second if there's any wheel spinning that's entirely up to
10 the Defence. If they wish to contact those witnesses they can, pretty
11 much in short order if -- to simply advise somebody that they may or may
12 not be contacted by the Prosecution. To that extent this is a storm in a
13 teacup. The -- back to the Chamber's original decision it dealt with
14 that. It considered the accused's earlier request to have this kind of
15 power over when the Prosecution would speak to people and which people
16 they'd speak to based on what action the Defence might take and the Court
17 rejected that very clearly.
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. The Chamber will consider the matter and
19 issue a ruling in due course.
20 Yes, Mr. Robinson.
21 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. I just want to put on the
22 record that Witness KW492 will not be called. He was scheduled to be
23 called this month but after learning of the Trial Chamber's decision
24 concerning his protective measures, he has refused to testify in the
25 case. Thank you.
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
3 MR. TIEGER: I continue to ponder why Mr. Robinson feels it
4 necessary to put these -- this matter on the record. There are a million
5 reasons why witnesses don't want to testify. We raised that matter the
6 first time that Mr. Robinson attempted to do this and identify some of
7 the factors that we considered led to the witness's decision not to
8 testify. I think this is a transparent attempt to suggest a necessary
9 link between the trial's decision and put pressure on the Trial Chamber
10 with regard to its decisions regarding protective measures and I consider
11 it to be inappropriate and I'm going to ask that it cease.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE KWON: Speaking for myself, Mr. Robinson, I tend to agree
14 with Mr. Tieger's observation, but -- and further, I don't think it's an
15 appropriate way of using court time. So in the future, if necessary in
16 your opinion, would you put that in writing.
17 Well, let's bring in Mr. Trifunovic. Shall we move into closed
19 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
20 JUDGE KWON: I think going into closed session may -- yes. We
21 need to draw the blinds. Yes, let's do that.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 WITNESS: MILADIN TRIFUNOVIC [Resumed]
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, Mr. Trifunovic. I apologise again for
1 your inconvenience.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning. Good morning.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland, please continue.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Cross-examination by Ms. Sutherland: [Continued]
6 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, during the past 11 days since you left the
7 courtroom, have you spoken to anyone about what you had testified about?
8 A. No.
9 Q. And have you spoken to anyone about the evidence that you may be
10 about to give?
11 A. Well, no one except my family. My family knew that I was
13 Q. But you didn't discuss any -- any detail in relation to any
14 evidence you may give?
15 A. No.
16 Q. I want to ask you a couple of questions about the function of the
17 commander of the Vogosca Brigade. Your statement doesn't actually say
18 when you became the commander. When was that?
19 A. Officially the 20th of September, 2002, by the corps.
20 Q. That was when you were -- you received formal written notice, but
21 it's right, isn't it, that you been performing this function as the
22 commander of the Vogosca Brigade for some time prior to that?
23 A. I was the commander of the Blagoje [as interpreted] Battalion
24 because it was the strongest battalion, and there were no active-duty
25 officers, and my role was to unify these battalions until someone came
1 there, one of the professional soldiers.
2 Q. When -- when did you become commander -- I'm sorry, just for one
3 moment. In your answer, you said officially the 20th of September, 2002,
4 or that's at least how it's in the record. Did you mean 1992?
5 A. Yes, 1992. I believe that's the date. Perhaps I may be off by a
6 couple of days, but I believe it's in September.
7 Q. So when did you become commander of the Blagovac Battalion?
8 A. Even before the war in peacetime in the former Yugoslavia I was a
9 TO commander of a unit in Blagovac which was charged with defending
10 Pretis. That unit was deployed in Blagovac, and its sole role was in the
11 event that it was necessary and that the factory which was nearby was
12 under threat, the role was to defend that factory, Pretis, and since
13 that's how it was, then I just remained as part of that battalion.
14 Q. Who appointed you to the function of commander of the
15 Vogosca Brigade?
16 A. Well, I was appointed through -- when an official document was
17 issued, and I was appointed by the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps command.
18 Q. Informally, who appointed you to be the commander of the
19 Vogosca Brigade?
20 A. Well, I can't recall every detail, it was a long time ago, but I
21 believe it was the Vogosca municipality, the Serbian municipality of
22 Vogosca. There were two municipalities that were established then, one
23 was Serb and the other Muslim, and I was appointed the commander of
24 Vogosca Brigade by that side. That was my task. I was entrusted with
25 this task until Colonel Vukota arrived who then established the
1 Tactical Group.
2 Q. Colonel Vukota you're referring to as -- do you mean
3 Colonel Vukovic?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. When did he arrive?
6 A. I think sometime in May.
7 Q. So getting back to your appointment by the Serbian municipality
8 of Vogosca, who actually are we talking about? Can you name the people
9 that appointed you informally to the position?
10 A. Well, Rajko Koprivica was the president of the
11 Executive Committee and there was also Svetozar Stanic, who was president
12 of the Assembly, the Municipal Assembly.
13 Q. And Jovan Tintor?
14 A. Well, I really don't know what Jovan Tintor's role was. He was a
15 member of some fora [as interpreted]. I don't know what exactly he did.
16 He was involved in political life, but he was not in the municipal -- in
17 any of the municipal bodies at that time. I know that he was later
18 appointed, but what he was doing at that time exactly, I don't know.
19 Q. And did he have any involvement in the TO?
20 A. Well, at first I don't remember what that was called. A
21 Crisis Staff, a Municipal Staff, something like that. Well, anyhow, he
22 was top political leader. What he did exactly, I don't know. I don't
23 know what his role was.
24 Q. You mentioned a moment ago Colonel Vukota Vukovic appearing on
25 the scene in around May, and you stated in paragraph 7 of your statement
1 that this Tactical Group was formed from the Vogosca, Ilijas, and
2 Rajlovac Brigades and that he was the commander.
3 A. No, no, no. He was the commander of the Tactical Group that
4 included the Vogosca, the Kosevo, and the Rajlovac Brigades.
5 Q. Are you also aware that in September General Galic issued a
6 formal appointment forming an Operational Group from the units of Ilidza,
7 Ilijas, Igman, Rajlovac, and Vogosca Brigades and that Vukovic was its
9 A. I am not aware of that really. This is the first time that I
10 hear it.
11 Q. But as commander of the Vogosca Brigade, you reported daily and
12 sometimes more to the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps command from May through
13 December, did you not?
14 A. Well, as needed we reported. When the Tactical Group was
15 established, then most of that went through the Tactical Group, because
16 the immediate -- my immediate superior unit was the Tactical Group.
17 Q. But you were sending your daily combat reports to the command
18 copying the Operative Group; isn't that right?
19 A. Well, we sent daily reports for the most part to the
20 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps because that was the system in place. They were
21 in the field, so they didn't have any equipment or means to receive them.
22 So that's how it was.
23 Q. I want to talk with you now about your arrest in December 1992.
24 I want to clarify a couple of matters. You were asked about your arrest
25 and detention at transcript pages 30372 and 30375. What was the date you
1 were arrested?
2 A. Well, it was the 14th or the 15th of December, if I'm not
3 mistaken. I believe it was the 15th of December, 1992.
4 Q. Who arrested you?
5 A. Well, a group of officers arrived, and there were also some
6 political figures with them at the time, the mayor -- I may be mistaken
7 because I don't know all the names and functions of the people, but the
8 mayor, Trifko Radic; Ratko Adzic, who was the president of the
9 municipality; and the then president of the municipality,
10 Rajko Koprivica; the military police, the corps military police, they
11 came and arrested me.
12 Q. So Koprivica was from the Vogosca municipality. Trifko Radic and
13 Ratko Adzic, can you just tell the Chamber which municipalities they were
15 A. Trifko Radic was from -- or Ratko Radic from the Ilijas
16 municipality, and Trifko Radic was the mayor of all the municipalities in
17 the area of the Serbian Sarajevo as it was called then.
18 Q. Now, you said the corps -- SRK corps military police arrested
19 you. Can you just very briefly tell us the circumstances? Where were
20 you when you were arrested?
21 A. At the time when they arrived, and I believe it was around
22 midnight, I was at the command headquarters at the brigade command, my
23 brigade, and I had just gone to sleep, and I thought that they had come
24 to discuss the situation which was very alarming, especially in Zuc
25 because there had been intense fighting. The Muslim forces were trying
1 to get through to Vogosca. So they pushed us back all the way back to
2 Gola Brdo and 850 elevation, and we stopped there in order to fortify our
3 positions because there was no place else where we could go. All the
4 fighters who were on that front line were fighters fighting outside their
5 own homes and some 150 metres or so, 30 to 150 metres behind them were
6 their families. So they came to my command then, and they said that I
7 was guilty of losing this elevation or trig point 850 because we had lost
8 some 100 metres, we as a brigade.
9 Q. You said that -- this is at transcript page 30372, that you were
10 detained with four of your assistants and all the leadership members of
11 the Rajlovac Brigade. The four assistants that you're referring to, do
12 you mean Kenic, who was the deputy of the brigade and your
13 Chief of Staff, Momcilo Kenic? Was he arrested with you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And Milan Terzic, Captain Milan Terzic?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And Major Sretko Skipina?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Who else from the Vogosca Brigade was arrested?
20 A. No one else.
21 Q. And so who were the leadership members of the Rajlovac Brigade
22 who were arrested?
23 A. Of the Rajlovac Brigade there was the president of the
24 municipality. Bozic was his last name, but I can't recall his first
25 name. And the entire command of the Rajlovac Brigade, Simatovic -- I
1 can't recall all the names, but I believe there were 17 of them or so.
2 Q. Who replaced you as the commander of the Vogosca Brigade?
3 A. I don't know on whose orders, but I believe that some people from
4 the Ilijas Brigade were appointed such as Bosnjak, warrant officer
5 Bosnjak, and this was on a temporary basis.
6 Q. And then who took over after him?
7 A. After him? Well, I don't know if I'm going to guess the order
8 right, but I believe he was followed by Major Robert Jovanoski, an
9 active-duty officer, but he didn't stay there long. Then Major Antic
10 came, but he didn't stay long either, and then Lieutenant-Colonel --
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter could not catch the name.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] until the brigade was formed
13 including these three brigades, the Ilijas, so the Rajlovac --
14 MS. SUTHERLAND:
15 Q. Who was the last person you mentioned? Lieutenant-colonel who?
16 A. Lieutenant-Colonel Milos Delic, I believe.
17 Q. After your few days of detention, you then took up duties as
18 commander of the Blagovac Battalion, did you not?
19 A. Well, that didn't happen soon. I was on leave for the situation
20 to settle down, and then I took over the role of the Blagovac Battalion
21 commander. I can't recall the date, but it was in 1993, I believe.
22 Q. And you stayed in that post up until the end of 1993, early 1994,
23 when you became the transport manager at Pretis?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. And as commander of the Blagojevic -- Blagovac Battalion, you
1 reported to the commander of the Vogosca Brigade, yes?
2 A. Probably. That's how it was supposed to be.
3 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, I want to deal briefly with the matter we
4 would -- we left off at last Thursday. We looked at orders which were
5 issued by you for the detainees to be used in the field and at Zuc. You
6 saw that the War Commission, Vogosca War Commission, was copied on some
7 of the orders. It was your habit to keep the Vogosca War Commission
8 informed of your orders and requests such as these for prisoners to be
9 taken for work, wasn't it?
10 A. Could you please show it to me. I don't know what we are exactly
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we could have Exhibit P05999.
13 Q. This was -- this was one of the orders that I showed you last
14 Thursday, and we see here that it's an order to take prisoners for work
15 at Zuc, and we can see that the War Commission's copied; is that right?
16 A. I don't see it here in my language.
17 Q. I'm sorry.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we can scroll the page up, the B/C/S page.
19 Q. Do you see it there? If I can show you another document. Do you
20 see that there, Mr. Trifunovic, where it says copying the prison
21 administration and the War Commission and then a copy for the files? Do
22 you see that on that document in front of you?
23 A. Yes. Yes, I can see it.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: And can we also have Exhibit P06000, please.
25 Q. And if we can see down the bottom again. This is an order for
1 you for prisoners for work at Zuc, and we see it's sent to the prison
2 administration and the War Commission in the file. So my question -- but
3 I asked you before we looked at these exhibits if it was your habit to
4 keep the War Commission informed of your orders and requests such as
5 these, wasn't it?
6 A. It wasn't standard practice. I don't know why they were copied
7 here. I no longer remember. In any case, the War Commission did exist
8 under the heading of Nikola Poplasen, at least for a while, so perhaps
9 this was during that time.
10 Q. You said in paragraph 18 that each soldier and officer in your
11 unit was informed on several occasions of the orders issued in relation
12 to the prohibition of opening fire on civilians and civilian facilities.
13 How did you inform your subordinates of this?
14 A. Oftentimes we had briefings, perhaps daily or every couple of
15 days depending on the situation and the ability to attend. During the
16 briefings all problems were discussed, individual units and their issues,
17 et cetera. We tried to come up with solutions for those problems in the
18 best possible way so as to avoid any repetition of such problems.
19 Q. And you --
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Apologies. There is an important
21 element that is missing. He said if there were cases such as that.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND:
23 Q. Do you confirm saying that, Mr. Trifunovic?
24 A. Well, I believe I said that there were briefings, perhaps daily
25 which depended on the situation, and every unit or unit commands
1 discussed their problems in the field. We tried to come up with
2 solutions to those problems and to issue tasks accordingly to tackle them
3 in the best possible way if there were such cases with undesirable
4 effects. That's how it was.
5 Q. And you said also in that paragraph that opening fire on
6 civilians and civilian facilities was only allowed if the unit's security
7 was seriously compromised. What do you mean only if the unit's security
8 was seriously compromised?
9 A. Is it in the statement I drafted or somewhere else?
10 Q. Yes. That's P02444, if my memory serves me correctly.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the witness be provided with
12 a hard copy.
13 JUDGE KWON: It's coming on the e-court. Can you take a look.
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: Paragraph -- no, no. No. D, sorry, D.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Which paragraph?
16 MS. SUTHERLAND:
17 Q. Paragraph 18. So what did you mean by only if the unit's
18 security was seriously compromised?
19 A. Could you please allow me to finish with my reading and then I
20 can respond.
21 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President. May we go into private
22 session for one moment.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
24 [Private session]
9 [Open session]
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland, please continue.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND:
12 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, have you read that paragraph 18?
13 A. I have read it.
14 Q. What did you mean by only if the unit's security was seriously
15 compromised that you could open fire on civilians and civilian
17 A. Frequently the Muslim forces made use of civilian facilities as
18 their strongholds in order to deploy mortars and store artillery pieces
19 which they used against us. It often happened in the area of Menjak.
20 They used the houses there as strongholds to engage in sniping or
21 artillery attacks in order to target the gate of the Pretis factory while
22 the workers disembarked from the buses, and we had many wounded and
23 killed workers. In such cases, we tried to eliminate such sniping or
24 mortar positions by neutralising them in order to prevent any further
25 fire. We believed that fire was coming from civilian houses. We didn't
1 know whether there were civilians there or not, but we could clearly see
2 that we were engaged from such locations.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me add something. The witness
4 said that there were many killed workers and many wounded workers.
5 Line 15.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND:
7 Q. Is that correct, Mr. Trifunovic?
8 A. That is correct. Civilians, workers, and anyone who passed by.
9 That was the main route. In order to avoid such incidents and in order
10 to avoid engaging such positions, we placed metal containers so as to
11 block the view from their machine-gun nests so that they wouldn't be able
12 to see people coming on the buses, and we tried to preserve the lives of
13 workers and passengers in that way.
14 JUDGE KWON: The -- it was reflected that witness said that we
15 had many wounded and killed workers. I think it was already reflected.
16 Let us continue.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND:
18 Q. And not knowing whether there was civilians in those buildings or
19 not, you engaged in those -- firing on those locations.
20 A. They were not locations but individual houses with fortified
21 cellars from which we were being attacked, having many wounded and killed
23 Q. I want to move on to another topic, and that is you said that you
24 knew that there were aerial bombs and that they appeared in the second
25 half of the war, and that's in paragraph 19 of your statement. And you
1 said that you were told of the G14 incident which relates to a modified
2 air-bomb being allegedly fired from Pretis towards Dositejeva Street in
3 Sarajevo on the 16th of June, 1995. Who told you about the G14 incident?
4 A. We heard it on the news, on the Muslim TV and radio that a shell
5 had been fired, or whatever they called it, from the location of Pretis.
6 They called it a modified projectile. As far as I recall, I have never
7 seen such a bomb, an air-bomb, and I don't know what it looks like. I
8 also don't remember any firing from that location. Having in mind the
9 size of that bomb, we should have been able to hear the detonation,
10 whereas I did not, I have not. That was sometime during the war, and
11 people were saying that there were such things, but I've never seen it.
12 Q. You weren't in the brigade at that time in June 1995, were you?
13 A. I was not in the brigade, but I was in the factory within the
14 perimeter of the Pretis factory.
15 Q. Are you aware that in June 1995, specifically on the
16 15th of June, 1995, that the Vogosca Brigade had a launcher for an aerial
18 A. In 1995, there was no Vogosca Brigade. There was only the
19 3rd Sarajevo Brigade. Now, whether as part of the 3rd Sarajevo Brigade
20 there were such bombs or launchers as some call them, that's something I
21 don't know. I've never seen them.
22 Q. Yes, I agree. The Vogosca Brigade did -- was renamed into the
23 3rd Sarajevo Infantry Brigade at some point.
24 I want to deal now with the last topic, and I have a number of
25 documents that I wish to show you, and if we can move through this as
1 briefly as we can because we have some limited time.
2 You said in your statement that:
3 "There were several paramilitary units in Vogosca municipality,
4 and the civilian authorities, with our help and support, kept taking
5 steps to get rid of these paramilitaries because no unit wanted to
6 include them in their ranks."
7 And you said that in paragraph 21 of your statement. Which
8 paramilitaries are you referring to?
9 A. That -- that's how things were at the beginning of the war.
10 There were many paramilitary units. There were self-proclaimed
11 commanders until things fell together. There were units and volunteers
12 who came from elsewhere who refused to be placed under the command of the
13 VRS. And if -- in case they refused to, we strove to get them out of our
14 area, to have them eliminated from the area because they were causing
15 more harm than good.
16 Q. First of all, which paramilitary units were these? What are the
17 names of the paramilitary units?
18 A. I don't know what their names were. There were volunteers,
19 paramilitary units with all sorts of nicknames. I can't remember them.
20 Q. I'll give you a few names. What about Boro Radic's group?
21 A. Boro Radic did have a unit of his. He refused to be placed under
22 military command, and then he was issued some separate task perhaps by
23 the Tactical Group or someone else, but I think he acted independently
24 most of the time.
25 Q. When Radic's group first came -- first of all, what was the group
1 made up of? Where did this group come from?
2 A. Boro Radic, if I recall him well, hailed from Vogosca. He was
3 married to a Muslim lady. Initially in 1992 he was a member of the
4 Patriotic League. He created some kind of joint Patriotic League but
5 then there was a rift --
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. -- following which he brought some unfamiliar people from
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can we have Exhibit 2366, please.
10 Q. This is a list dated the 25th of May, 1992 - that's
11 Exhibit P02366 - and it's a list of names 22 men in the special
12 detachment, and the first one on the list is Boro Radic. Who did these
13 men report to in -- in May 1992: Jovan Tintor, the Crisis Staff, you?
14 A. They never reported to me. I had no co-operation with them
15 whatsoever, and we were not in contact, at least not in any positive
16 meaningful way.
17 Q. What crimes did Boro Radic's group commit in the Vogosca
19 A. I was neither a security officer nor a MUP officer who would be
20 tasked with gathering such information. I really don't know.
21 Q. Did you hear about any of the crimes he was -- his men were -- he
22 and his men were committing?
23 A. Whatever I heard and whatever I did not see is something that I'm
24 not competent to discuss. I don't know. I wasn't in any of the crime
25 scenes following the crimes that were committed, if there were crimes.
1 Q. You said that you and the civilian authorities were trying to get
2 Boro -- were trying to get these paramilitary groups out.
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we could have 65 ter 24172, please.
4 Q. This is dated the 27th of June. It's a request for the issuing
5 of a vehicle to a member of Radic's special unit. And this is the
6 War Commission who is giving this person a Golf. Is this the same local
7 authorities that you were talking about who were trying to get rid of
8 Radic's group?
9 A. Probably. There were no others. Second of all, there was no
10 War Presidency, and anyone could put anything in writing. I don't know.
11 This was not sent to us. I don't know who it was sent to, and I have no
12 idea if it was approved.
13 Q. Were the men from Boro Radic's special group incorporated into
14 units within the Vogosca Brigade in September 1992?
15 A. I don't know. When Boro Radic was killed, I don't know what
16 month that was, perhaps in August. In any case, the group, the unit,
17 fell apart. Some returned to their home units -- or, rather, to the
18 units where they were supposed to belong, whereas others left. I don't
19 know anything else. I don't have that information.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can we have 65 ter 01631, please.
21 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, this is a document from the VRS Vogosca Brigade
22 command dated the 30th of September, 1992, and it's an order. If we can
23 go to page 2 and page 3 in the B/C/S.
24 This was an order which was signed, I think, by your deputy, the
25 Chief of Staff, Kenic, disbanding Radic's group. It's signed on your
1 behalf as commander of the Vogosca Brigade, and it puts the units within
2 the Vogosca Brigade.
3 A. What is the date?
4 Q. The 30th of September, 1992. And if you compare this document
5 with Exhibit P02366, if you compare the names in both of those documents,
6 you can see that there are a number of names that are the same. For
7 example, if we can go back to page 1 of this document, this document on
8 the screen --
9 JUDGE KWON: Let us show him the two documents.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can we put up P02366 on one -- on the right-hand
11 side --
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: -- and in the B/C/S, and the B/C/S remains of
14 65 ter number 01631 on the left.
15 Q. We can see in the 1st Company four names: Branislav Josipovic,
16 Ljubomir Tosovic, Zivorad Markovic, and Nebojsa Trifunovic. And those
17 four names appear in the exhibit on the right-hand side which is P2366,
18 do they not? If we go to the 2nd company, you'll find item --
19 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Let's hear from the witness. The
20 B/C/S translation takes time.
21 Yes, Mr. Trifunovic.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already answered. While
23 Boro Radic was alive, who had been known to the criminal investigation
24 police, he gathered that group and refused to be placed under the command
25 of any unit. As soon as he was out of the picture, these people asked to
1 be joined with any of the units in the brigade area. They asked to be
2 placed under military command. Some of the personnel from his unit left
3 the territory of Vogosca since they did not want to be placed under
4 military command. That's it.
5 MS. SUTHERLAND:
6 Q. If we go to the 2nd Company, you'll find item number 4.
7 Boro Jovicic also appears on the other list as well. And if we go to the
8 last list of names in the English version, which is the brigade's
9 Reconnaissance Platoon -- or in fact in the B/C/S version, you'll find
10 numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 also appear on the list. If we can go to the last
12 JUDGE KWON: You don't need the Exhibit P2366 any more?
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: No. Oh, well, yes, if he wants to compare the
14 names or, in fact, their --
15 JUDGE KWON: It's very difficult if you refer to English page
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry. I said B/C/S, Your Honour. I
18 corrected myself. If we can go to the -- yes, there.
19 Q. You can see that numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 also appear on the
20 right-hand side of the screen. So you agree that this group of Radic's
21 special detachment soldiers have been incorporated into the
22 Vogosca Brigade by your order of the 30th of September, 1992?
23 A. I disagree.
24 Q. Well, you weren't trying to get rid of them, were you, if you
25 were incorporating them into your brigade?
1 A. Yes, that's right, but they had been established as some sort of
2 unit. Now, whether they were within the Tactical Group or something, I
3 don't know. I don't know. As soon as Boro Radic was no longer there, we
4 made an effort to have all people return to units that wished to be
5 placed under the command, because we did not have enough manpower, enough
6 resources, nothing. Every soldier who was willing to place himself under
7 the command was welcome.
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I have one -- two other areas that
9 will take me about seven minutes. I would think seven to ten minutes,
10 but I note the time.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll -- we'll have a break for half an hour,
12 and resume at 3 past 11.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may I tender the last two
17 documents, 65 ter number 24172 and 65 ter number 01631, please.
18 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, we don't have any objection to
19 01631, but as far as 24172 is concerned, the witness didn't confirm
20 anything about that document and it doesn't directly impeach or
21 contradict his evidence.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland, I tend to agree with
23 Mr. Robinson's observation, but if you would like to respond with respect
24 to 24172 I will hear from you.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I think it go to the general
1 impeachment of this witness in relation to him saying that it was him and
2 the civilian authorities who were wanting to get these people out of the
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE KWON: I think, yes, the Chamber agrees with that. On that
6 basis, we'll admit that, both of the documents.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 24172 will be P6001 and
8 65 ter number 01631 will be Exhibit P6002.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND:
10 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, another paramilitary group which was in the
11 Vogosca municipality was the Sosa Detachment, wasn't it?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. This is a detachment which was -- which was under Jovo Ostojic's
14 command, was it not?
15 A. If I remember correctly, once this detachment came into Vogosca
16 for a few days, they did not want to place themselves under the command,
17 and they sort of got lost. I mean, if I understand correctly who this is
18 about, we tried to eliminate them from the area, and then they left and
19 where they went I really have no idea, but they didn't stay there for a
20 long time. I think they are some sort of paramilitary unit, I don't
21 know, but they did not stay long.
22 Q. And where did this paramilitary come from? They came from
23 Serbia, didn't they?
24 A. I think they were some kind of volunteers. Now, where they came
25 from, I don't know.
1 Q. This detachment was paid by the Bosnian Serb authorities, wasn't
3 A. I don't know on which basis they came and whether someone paid
4 them or did not pay them, whether anybody paid them. I don't know. I
5 just know that this group came. That was probably their name. They
6 didn't want to place themselves under the command. They didn't want to
7 hold the defence lines. They were not interested in that, and we saw
8 them off, let them be of.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can I have Exhibit P05418, please.
10 Q. This is a document dated the 28th of July from Koprivica, who was
11 president of the Executive Board of the Serb municipality of Vogosca,
12 sent to the War Commission, and it's giving approval for the -- stating,
13 sorry, that approval had been given in principle by representatives of
14 the Vogosca municipality to remunerate volunteers engaged under the
15 command of the Jovo Ostojic. Now, you said that this group just came on
16 one occasion and then they disappeared. Does this document refresh your
17 memory as to whether they were engaged in the Vogosca municipality?
18 A. They were in our area for a few days. I've already said that.
19 And then when they got this area of responsibility to hold the line at
20 Zuc, they didn't want to do that. And then I disassociated myself from
21 them. Now, where they went after that and what they did afterwards, I
22 really don't know.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can we have Exhibit P02377, please.
24 Q. This is a document dated the 30th of July, 1992. It's a war
25 commission conclusion about paying the Sosa Detachment under
1 Major Jovo Stojic's command saying they were indispensable for the
2 successful defence for the municipality of Serbian municipality of
3 Vogosca. Are you sure you don't recall these -- this detachment being in
4 Vogosca for more than a few days?
5 A. I claim with full responsibility that we, since there were far
6 less of us on our side than there were soldiers on the other side, each
7 and every soldier was welcome as far as we were concerned. Whoever came
8 and placed himself under the command of the Army of Republika Srpska was
9 welcome. These people were there for a few days and left. Now, where
10 they were put up, I don't know. If I can remember this properly, they
11 were there for a few days, and then after that they went to some other
12 area, I guess. I really don't know.
13 Q. A few days when? In -- in what month?
14 A. Well, probably in this period. I mean, I don't know. I cannot
15 remember each and every date. I mean, this was 20 years ago. Probably
16 in this period that is mentioned.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we can have Exhibit P02373.
18 Q. We see this is dated the 15th of July, 1992. It's from Stanisic,
19 who you mentioned earlier in your testimony today as president of the
20 Serb municipality of Vogosca, writing to the Ministry of Finance of the
21 Serb Republic of BiH requesting to be reimbursed of cash funds for monies
22 paid out from the 1st of April, 1992, to the 14th of July, 1992, to
23 brigades and also 500.000 dinars for Serb volunteers. Do you see that?
24 A. I do see that, but I didn't know about any of this. I mean,
25 which way they were paid or whether they were paid. I mean, I just know
1 they didn't stay for long.
2 Q. Okay. So I think you said they came for a couple of days. They
3 didn't take a line, and then they left. Boro Radic's group and
4 Jovo Ostojic's group, Serb volunteer group, fought with your troops, did
5 they not?
6 A. Well, in which area? They did not fight side by side with us. I
7 accept that the only ones who fought were those who received assignments
8 from their superiors and carried these assignments out successfully,
9 defended the front line, stayed at the line, and so on.
10 Q. Your troops took the Hrasnic elevation at -- trig elevation
11 861 [sic], didn't they?
12 A. No.
13 Q. This was around the 9th of August, 1992?
14 A. Hresa? Hresa is not even within the tactical group or was not at
15 that point in time. This was at the entrance towards
16 Paliv [as interpreted].
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Hrasnic. If we can have number 65 ter 24080.
18 Q. This is an article from the "Nas Glas" which is a newspaper in
19 Vogosca municipality, is it not?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. It's dated the 11th and 12th of August, 1992, and the article is
22 entitled: Elevation 681 has fallen. I'm sorry I said earlier 861. I
23 meant 681. And in this newspaper article, Boro Radic talks about being
24 in a fierce action with the Vogosca Brigade and the Serbian volunteers
25 and that the elevation 681's finally fallen the day before yesterday and
1 then you're also quoted in this article:
2 "'We pushed them towards Barica and Kobilja Glava and they have
3 no chance of ever coming back here,' says Miladin Trifunovic, the
4 commander of the Vogosca Brigade, saying that 'the Serbian troops will go
5 even further.'"
6 And then down the bottom of the article it's a quote by
7 Jovo Ostojic, the commander of the volunteer group:
8 "'They offered resistance but they stood no chance. By capturing
9 this elevation the day when the idea of the liberation of the Serbian
10 people and the Serbian countries in this area will get realised is
11 getting even closer. We are sending a message out to those Alija's
12 wretched minions that they had better surrender because shall get them
13 and punish them sooner or later,' says Jovo Ostojic commander the
14 volunteer group."
15 And then you're quoted again:
16 "And another thing, the Serbian volunteers will not leave this
17 territory until the Serbian people here have won their final victory. We
18 are here to help but Vogosca can also be proud of their heros and
19 yesterday those were Miladin, Minja, and Dragan."
20 Sorry that wasn't a quote by you, that was a quote in the
21 article. So does this refresh your memory as to whether you fought with
22 Boro Radic's group and Jovo Ostojic's group?
23 A. Let me just take a look at the date. August, isn't it? One time
24 the Muslim forces took this feature from us, and then they were down
25 there and --
1 Q. The question was does this refresh your memory as to you fighting
2 with Jovo Ostojic's Serb volunteers and Boro Radic's group? And that
3 these --
4 A. Yes. I'm trying to explain what things were like to you.
5 Q. I think it requires a yes or a no answer --
6 A. I'm not saying that --
7 Q. -- you either recall it or you don't.
8 A. I recall it, but you won't let me explain how long they were
9 there. I said in the beginning that they were there for a few days, two
10 or three days in Vogosca, and as soon as they had one or two wounded, I
11 can't remember exactly, they left the line and went away from there.
12 They didn't want to stay on.
13 Q. Another Serb paramilitary group, the Aco legion. Do you recall
14 those -- that group of soldiers under the command of Aco coming to
16 A. Masses of groups came and passed by. Some stayed on for a few
17 days and left, others left immediately. How can I know? It was the
18 beginning of the war. I cannot remember this one -- what's he called,
20 Q. Well, didn't you say in your statement that you gave -- in
21 December 1992 that a group of 70 soldiers came from Vogosca and in fact
22 that they were engaged by Mirko Krajisnik - that's Momcilo Krajisnik's
23 brother - and that the day after they were also engaged in Vogosca by
24 Rajko Koprivica? Do you recall saying that in your statement?
25 A. I remember saying that in my statement, and I said that these
1 groups probably came as instructed by Rajko Koprivica and Mirko Krajisnik
2 and their task was to be placed under the command of the Vogosca Brigade.
3 They were there for a few days, they did not want to carry out the tasks
4 that were given to them by the Vogosca Brigade, and then they were seen
5 off. Where they went off to afterwards I don't know.
6 Q. What about Seseljevci, paramilitary group called Vaski?
7 A. What's the name.
8 Q. Vaso Vidovic's group. He was also known as Vaski. Do you know
9 who I'm talking about?
10 A. Vaske. That group did not operate in the area of Vogosca and was
11 not in Vogosca. They were in the area of Ilijas. Vaske's group did not
12 operate in the area of Vogosca. They operated in the area of Ilijas. In
13 exceptional situations they came to the area of Zuc. Once they came to
14 Zuc under the command of major -- major - what is his name? -- the then
15 brigade commander anyway to help us save the situation so that the
16 Muslims could not get through. As far as I know, Vaske's units was
17 there. I mean, I'm speaking on my own behalf. It was under the command
18 of the Ilijas Brigade. It was within the command of the Ilijas Brigade.
19 Q. You actually -- they actually fought alongside of you or your --
20 your troops at Gola Brdo which you also mentioned this morning. And you
21 said, did you not, in a statement that you gave in December 1992 that
22 Gola Brdo was claimed several times and so the Ilijas platoon with Vlaske
23 and part of the Ilijas Brigade came to Gola Brdo. And you said that your
24 men and I, meaning yourself, relieved the platoon led by Vlaske. Do you
25 remember saying that?
1 A. I remember that that's what we said and that's the way it was.
2 Our people were exhausted from the 8th of December all the way up until
3 the end. There was fighting all the time. Now, was it the 8th or the
4 5th of December, whatever, I really cannot say, but throughout December
5 there was this fierce fighting in Gola Brdo and we lost lots of our men.
6 They were exhausted and we asked the Ilijas Brigade for help and then
7 this unit of Vaske's came from the Ilijas Brigade and they helped us keep
8 Gola Brdo and we got a bit of a rest. We consolidated our ranks and we
9 took the front line again.
10 Q. Yeah. So you agree that you were fighting with them.
11 A. With Vaske's unit, yes.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: I have no further questions. And may I tender
13 the document that's on the screen, Your Honour.
14 MR. ROBINSON: No objection.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6003, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE KWON: Did we hear the witness's comment to answer
18 regarding the citation from him on this newspaper "Nas Glas"? Do you
19 confirm having said that, Mr. Trifunovic, to "Nas Glas"?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not quite follow the entire
21 text, so let us see what was said.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: [Microphone not activated]
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I quoted two parts, and then as I
1 was reading the second quote, I -- I said that I had made a mistake and
2 the second part wasn't a quote from the witness, it was only the first
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes. The second paragraph refers to you,
5 Mr. Trifunovic.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes. The paragraph that starts: "Most
7 importantly, the victory was one with no losses," that paragraph.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The comment was probably correct.
9 At the time in this area, we had a very bad position up until this day,
10 and then we made an effort to improve our positions, and then we managed
11 to get out of these small elevations from where visibility was better,
12 and we thought that we were safer up there at those features.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
14 Mr. Karadzic, do you have any re-examination?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, your Excellency. Good morning
16 to all. After such an exhaustive cross-examination, there are certain
17 topics that require re-examination.
18 Could we please have 1D6600. Can we please have that in e-court.
19 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Trifunovic, you were asked quite a bit about
21 your targets of fire, how far away Sarajevo was, so now I'd like to ask
22 you to take a look at this. Could you please tell us whether you can
23 recognise what this is in this satellite image, and can you tell us what
24 is what here? Kosevo, the Bare cemetery, et cetera.
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the usher please help
2 Mr. Trifunovic now so that he could mark certain locations in this
3 photograph. Thank you.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Would you please circle Pretis, the factory Pretis.
6 A. This is the stadium; right?
7 Q. Can we see in this image Blagovac, the Pretis factory, the blue
8 roofs? Can you see Vogosca in this image?
9 A. Well, my glasses are very bad, and I really cannot -- I can't
10 quite find the road leading from the stadium towards this area.
11 Q. All right. Let's make it easier. Can you see the hills? You
12 see the Bare cemetery, and these hills here. Could you tell us what
13 hills these are?
14 A. This is the Hum hill.
15 Q. Would you please circle the Hum top, the top of the Hum hill.
16 A. Well, it's an elevation here, up here somewhere.
17 Q. Very well. Could you please mark Zuc and Orlic.
18 A. Well, Zuc and Orlic is the plateau to the left. Actually, to the
19 right here from Hum running all the way along this ridge towards Vogosca.
20 Q. Thank you. Would you please mark Hum with 1 and then 2 and 3 for
21 the road or the line that is an indication for Orlic and Zuc.
22 A. [Marks]
23 Q. Thank you. Now, can you orientate yourself now? Could you
24 please see where Ugorsko is, Barica? Would you be able to market
25 separation line? In other words, how far did their area stretch and
1 where the Serbs were?
2 A. Well, there are no elevations. All this area from Hum towards
3 Zuc and Orlic, and this is between trig points 850 and trig point 830,
4 that's a hill, a slope, doing down towards Vogosca. That's where we
6 Q. Thank you.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now, could the Court Usher please
8 assist and help the witness and activate the blue line.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Could you please slow us the lines where you were and who held
11 the dominant positions.
12 A. Well, we were at trig point 830.
13 Q. Oh, okay. Very well. Now, could you please mark the separation
14 line on the side facing Vogosca.
15 A. Well, approximately like this. There were no trig points here.
16 I can only orientate myself based on the terrain. I believe this is how
17 it went, and here at the bottom I believe this was where Pretis was. So
18 we were along this slope towards Pretis, Hotonj, and then towards
19 Poljine, all the way here.
20 Q. Can you see Kobilja Glava and the Bare cemetery? Can you now
21 find your bearings? I believe this is the new settlement there near
22 Bare. Could you please extend this line all the way to the Kosevo
23 stadium or, rather, above the Kosevo stadium. In other words, what was
24 the area that your brigade held?
25 A. Well, here it -- our brigade held the territory from Pretis and
1 then it separated the upper and lower parts of Hotonj and stretched all
2 the way here to the border with Poljine.
3 Q. Thank you. Now, would you please put an M on one side of the
4 line and then an S on the other side of the line. S for Serbs and M for
6 A. I see.
7 Q. And also the zones. In other words, all this area left of the
8 line, all that was under the control of the Muslims?
9 A. Well, yes. This area towards the cemetery, the Kosevo stadium,
10 and so on.
11 Q. Thank you. Does that also relate to the tops of the hills?
12 A. Well, yes. All these elevations, the highest elevation between
13 Vogosca and Sarajevo is the Hum hill, and then the Zuc Hill, 877 trig
14 point, and then we have trig point 850, and then down to trig point 830,
15 which is almost in the urban area of Vogosca. This is where we stopped,
16 at trig point 830, and then we went down this slope towards Vogosca and
17 cut the communication between Sarajevo towards -- and Kobilja Glava. We
18 went through the Pretis area and separated this part into the left and
19 right areas. This area was under the Muslim command, and here we managed
20 to link up with the units at Kobilja Glava or thereabouts.
21 Q. When Ms. Sutherland asked you about where you opened fire and
22 what artillery you used, could you tell us what targets the artillery
24 A. Most frequently the fire was open at Hum hill. In other words,
25 trig point 877 and 830. As we lost one trig point after another, they
1 would pull up their weapons and open fire from there and we had to return
2 the fire.
3 Q. Thank you. Could you see Sarajevo, the centre of town, and did
4 you open fire on Sarajevo centre? Did you engage Sarajevo at all?
5 A. Well, we couldn't see any part of Sarajevo, not from where our
6 positions were. So there was no need for us to engage targets we
7 couldn't see, but we couldn't also reach those targets, the targets that
8 would be in the centre or thereabouts.
9 Q. Thank you. Would you please sign and date this document.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And I would like to tender it. My
11 apology to the interpreters.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can you tell me, please, what the
13 date is today? The 27th; right?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D2447, Your Honours.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I would now request
19 65 ter 24175, please, on the screens.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Please take a look at this document. I asked for this document
22 because it involves your human resources, both volunteers and -- now,
23 would you take a look at this, please.
24 A. Well, I've been reading it. Please bear with me. I've read it.
25 Q. Thank you. Now, you're addressing Mladic directly. In other
1 words, you were all the way pushed to the wall.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Is it true that your men were exhausted, that they were bringing
4 in fresh forces? And here it says, "We have a lot of wounded and killed.
5 Help before it is too late." Is that how it was?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you. Now, how did these fighters get killed or wounded?
8 A. Well, I believe I mentioned a few moments ago that in December,
9 from early December, perhaps even late November, enemy forces, in other
10 words Muslim forces, attacked persistently this part, the general plateau
11 of Zuc, and they pushed us all the way back to elevation or
12 trig point 830, even beyond, and these positions were very unfavourable
13 for us. Throughout the month, in other words, we were under attack the
14 whole month, and we had many casualties, many people were killed, many
15 wounded. We were -- we had a shortage of resources, of medical supplies
16 and other supplies, so we asked for assistance from General Mladic and
17 the Main Staff, and we said we needed help that night or it would be too
18 late the next day.
19 Q. Well, what did that mean, that it would be too late the following
21 A. Well, I can't even imagine what disaster this would have spelled
22 had the Muslim forces pushed through and entered the Vogosca area. In my
23 view, it would have led to chaos, and the line where we stopped was some
24 50 to 100 to 150 metres. Each one of these fighters had their homes in
25 the back, in the rear, and we could not allow them to pass through
1 because had they done that, there would be chaos.
2 Q. Thank you. Now, did you have before you any such incidents where
3 Muslim forces would have entered Serb settlements and chaos would follow?
4 I don't mean Vogosca, but did you know about any other incidents in
5 Cemin [phoen] or Pofalici, around Sarajevo?
6 A. Well, we did hear about Cemin and Pofalici. There was a small
7 Serb village. They entered this small village. There were no soldiers
8 there. There were just older men, women, and children. They were in a
9 forest totally cut off from the surrounding world. They entered this
10 village, and they killed everyone they found there. In other words,
11 there was a general slaughter, catastrophe. So this was what we had
12 before our eyes, and since Vogosca had many more people the chaos would
13 have been far greater, many more casualties.
14 Q. Thank you. I would like to tender this document.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll admit it.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D2448, Your Honours.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we now have
18 1D40000, 1D40000. Unfortunately, we don't have a translation for this.
19 I didn't even realise we would need it, but we have requested the
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Please tell the Trial Chamber who issued this document and when.
23 Or, rather, where this document were received -- was received, and if we
24 look at the top, we can see where it was sent from.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honours, with no English translation, the
2 Prosecution's a bit blind-sided as to whether they can raise an objection
3 as to whether this is something that comes out of cross-examination or
5 JUDGE KWON: Shall we wait a bit more to hear the question.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can see this was issued
7 by the Federal Secretariat for National Defence, the General Staff of the
8 armed forces of the SFRY, the 3rd administration.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us the date?
11 A. The 24th of August, 1991. I'm not sure, but I believe that's
13 Q. Thank you. And it is addressed to the military command in
14 Hadzici; correct?
15 A. Yes, that's correct. To the command of the VGU Hadzici.
16 Q. To this -- personally to this Muslim -- could you read that
17 portion out. Who was it sent to?
18 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: What's Mr. Karadzic's question about this
20 document? He needs to put a question before he just gets the witness to
21 read chunks of the document out. I need to know what the question is to
22 determine whether it's an objectionable question.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
24 Mr. Karadzic.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Well, Mr. Trifunovic, you were asked about the pay that the
2 volunteers received. Could you tell us what this document provides for
3 in terms of the status of the volunteers, bearing in mind that it is from
4 the ministry of defence of Yugoslavia, that this document was issued
5 about a year -- or, rather, half a year before the war began? Could you
6 tell us what you find in the first, second, and third paragraphs?
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I'm sorry, but the witness can
9 answer any question put by Mr. Karadzic without -- what Mr. Karadzic is
10 asking him to do is basically read out the first three paragraphs of this
11 document and give his answer in relation to the question that's put.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll try this way:
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, did you know how the status of volunteers was
15 regulated in the defence of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
16 A. Each volunteer who joins the former Yugoslavia was on a list. He
17 was registered and listed and was paid out according to the laws that
18 were still in force in the former Yugoslavia.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could this document be admitted
21 with a MFI indication --
22 JUDGE KWON: You didn't put a question --
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- pending a translation?
24 JUDGE KWON: I don't think you put any questions with respect to
25 this document, but I don't see any problem putting this document to the
1 witness. What is your question about this document?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I wanted Mr. Trifunovic to
3 take a look at the document and then to put a question to him.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, this document from 1991, does it specify the
6 regulation -- the regulating of the rights and responsibilities of
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you. Now, was this still in the former Yugoslavia, and was
10 it also applied in our parts?
11 A. Yes.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I believe this is
13 sufficient now.
14 JUDGE KWON: What's the passage relevant to the payment of the
15 volunteers? Could you ask the witness to read out that passage.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Would you please read item 2.
18 A. "During military service, volunteers mentioned in item 1 of these
19 rules are to be paid in accordance with instructions on the manner of
20 payment of conscript who were drafted in order to serve their military
21 service in the Yugoslav People's Army, the official military gazette
22 number 20/86, 24/89, and 16/91."
23 Q. Thank you. Could you now read paragraph 1, please.
24 A. "Pursuant to the provisions of Article 119 of the Law on
25 All People's Defence, Official Gazette of the SFRY number 21/82 and
1 35/91, volunteers who are drafted in the JNA have the same rights and
2 responsibilities as conscripts."
3 Q. Thank you. Does this mean that as early as 1982, this issue of
4 volunteers was actually regulated and that it was just renewed in 1992 --
5 THE INTERPRETER: 1991, interpreter's correction.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe so, because I, for
7 instance, have a brother who was drafted by the JNA in 1991, and he
8 enjoyed all the rights that all the other active-duty personnel enjoyed.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Thank you. Now, did they -- does this mean that they were
11 duty-bound to pay salaries to these volunteers who went to fight?
12 A. Well, I believe so, because this law was still in force.
13 Q. Thank you. Were you familiar of a crime committed by Ostojic,
14 Vaske or Aco, aka Legija, and their units? I know they were not under
15 military command but did they commit any crimes in that status?
16 A. I'm not familiar of such crimes. As for Ostojic's detachment or
17 whatever it was called, I wanted to see them out of my area of
18 responsibility, because he did not wish to man the front lines or be
19 placed under military command. He wanted no other officer in his area
20 save for himself.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted now?
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll mark it for identification, but I note
24 the date of this document seems to be 24th of November, not August. In
25 light of the bottom part of the document. Yes. Shall we give the
2 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. MFI D2449.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It may have been filed in October,
4 but --
5 JUDGE KWON: No. I said 24th of September. If I said November,
6 it was misspoke. 24th of September, yes.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we have 1D298.
8 And we have a translation in P1134. It's the same document, but the
9 original in the Serbian language can be more easily read in 1D298. Thank
10 you. As for the English version could we have P1134.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. You were asked about how the prisoners why used. Is there a
13 difference in our language between a prisoner and a prisoner of war, and
14 what do these categories mean?
15 A. A prisoner is someone who was captured at the lines. As for -- a
16 prisoner of war was captured at the lines, whereas a detainee or a
17 prisoner is someone who broke the law.
18 Q. Thank you. You said you understood this instruction from the
19 minister, which is P6000. Perhaps we can see it on the next page. In
20 any case, the way you interpreted it was that when you asked for the
21 prisoners to perform work was not in contravention of the instructions;
23 A. Yes.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have a look at P2338.
25 2338 P, Prosecution exhibit.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. How often were cease-fires agreed on, and do you know whether the
3 prisoners performed the work required during times of truce or cease-fire
4 or not?
5 A. We tried in any case to fortify our lines following a retreat by
6 Muslims. As soon as there was a lull or a cease-fire, we tried to dig in
7 and fortify. We were aware throughout the war that we were not able to
8 return our lost lines because of the shortage of personnel. This is what
9 we tried to do with as little effort as possible.
10 Q. When it says here to assist us in the digging of trenches, does
11 it mean that you were digging alongside the prisoners?
12 A. Everyone dug together so that it would be done as quickly and as
13 well as possible.
14 Q. Thank you. Can we look at 1D226979. It has to do with the way
15 the authorities treated paramilitary groups, first and foremost
16 Mr. Radic. First of all, as you mentioned on day one, that Boro Radic
17 was well known since before the war.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. How did people know him?
20 A. Well, I don't want to tell lies, but he was known as a person who
21 engaged in certain actions such as crime, theft, et cetera. I don't
22 know. In any case, the police were aware of him.
23 Q. First of all, you said he was in the Patriotic League. Who did
24 that organisation belong to? Whose formation was it?
25 A. The Patriotic League was a Muslim force which was set up under
1 their law. They started taking part in the war as of 30th of April,
2 1991, a full year before we started participating in the war.
3 Q. We do not have this translation either, but could we please zoom
4 it in. I'll read it out:
5 "The Kajic family, Mato (the father) and Zeljko (the son)" --
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can Mr. Karadzic put a question before he brings
8 a document up on to the screen. What's the -- what's the question for
9 the witness?
10 JUDGE KWON: It's related to -- it seems to be related
11 Boro Radic. Can you not wait till we hear his question? In order to put
12 the question, I think he needs to read out the portion. I see a problem
13 of presenting a document not interpreted, but I think we can fairly wait
14 to his -- to hear his question.
15 Yes, please proceed, Mr. Karadzic.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Could you please read out the three lines out loud.
18 A. "The Kajic family, Mato (the father), as well as Zeljko (the son)
19 are to protect them."
20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpret's note: It is not clear whether they
21 need to be protect or they're supposed to provide protection.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "They are threatened by Boro Radic
23 (have a talk with him. The main man knows why. ) Convey to the main man
24 immediately." Signed Zora.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. What does this tell to you?
2 A. Well, Boro Radic was the kind of person who took no one into
3 account. He only did what he liked. And for some reasons of his, he
4 threatened these people, although I don't know why.
5 JUDGE KWON: Let's stop here. Do you object to this line of
6 questioning, Ms. Sutherland?
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE KWON: Your microphone, Ms. Sutherland. Did you say no?
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Sorry. I said no, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Please continue.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. We have a part missing. What does it say following Kajic? They
13 need to protect it. Is that what it says?
14 A. Yes. "They need to be protected. They are being threatened by
15 Boro Radic. Have a talk with him. The main man knows why. Convey this
16 to the main man immediately. Zora."
17 Q. Thank you. What does this document tell you? First of all, this
18 Kajic family, what was their ethnicity?
19 A. If I go by their first and last names, I'd say they were Croats.
20 Q. So what does this tell you about the civilian authorities sending
21 this telegram vis-a-vis their protection from Boro Radic?
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, there's no evidence on the record
24 that this was sent by the civilian authorities.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes. It was leading. Could you formulate your
1 question again.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Did you know that the authorities were in touch by way of coded
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you know who was Zora 112 and who would be the main man?
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. Does this tally with how you saw the authorities as to their
10 protection they provided to members of other ethnicities?
11 A. You can probably see that throughout my testimony. We've tried
12 throughout, including my military command and the civilian authorities,
13 to provide as much protection as possible to any person and family
14 irrespective of their religious or ethnic affiliation, especially those
15 who had no rifles and who did nothing wrong. We had people who caused
16 trouble for us, too, and we simply wanted them out, to have as few of
17 them as possible.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: [Microphone not activated]
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
21 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat with your microphone.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry, Your Honour. This is a matter that
23 could have been dealt with in examination-in-chief if Mr. Karadzic wanted
24 to bring this out. It's not something I think that stems from
25 cross-examination, the protection of other ethnic groups.
1 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Was it not related to the issue
2 regarding Boro Radic? Let's continue here. Let's continue.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I relied on this
4 document because there was an implication that the civilian authorities
5 were not honest in their attempts to prosecute people who broke the law.
6 JUDGE KWON: No submission at the time. Let's continue.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you,
8 Mr. Trifunovic, for your effort and for coming here twice. Thank you for
9 your testimony, and this concludes my questions.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you as well.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course I'd like to tender this
13 JUDGE KWON: We'll mark this telegram for identification.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As MFI D2450, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE KWON: Very well. That concludes your testimony,
16 Mr. Trifunovic. Mr. Karadzic told you that we thank you for coming to
17 The Hague twice to give it. Now you are free to go. Have a safe journey
18 back home.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you.
20 [The witness withdrew]
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, Ms. West will be leading the next
23 witness, so we'll need one minute to swap places.
24 JUDGE KWON: Shall we rise for five minutes in order to prepare
25 for the next witness? Five minutes.
1 --- Break taken at 12.07 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 12.12 p.m.
3 [The witness entered court]
4 MS. WEST: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
5 Your Honours. Mr. President, may I request a 90(E) warning, please.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Could the witness take the solemn
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
9 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 WITNESS: VELIMIR DUNJIC
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please be seated and make yourself
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Dunjic, before you start giving evidence, I
16 would like to draw your attention to a particular rule here at the
17 Tribunal. Under this Rule, Rule 90(E), you may object to answering a
18 question from the Prosecution, the accused, or from the Judges if you
19 believe that your answer will incriminate you. When I said
20 "incriminate," I mean that something you say may amount to an admission
21 of your guilt for a criminal offence or could provide evidence that you
22 have committed an offence. However, even if you think your answer will
23 incriminate you and you do not wish to answer the question, the Tribunal
24 has the discretion to oblige you to answer the question, but in such a
25 case the Tribunal will make sure that your testimony compelled in such a
1 way shall not be used in evidence in other case against you for any
2 offence other than false testimony.
3 Do you understand that, sir?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Mr. Karadzic.
6 Examination by Mr. Karadzic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Dunjic.
8 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Karadzic.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have 1D6252 in
10 e-court. There's an English translation as well.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Dunjic, did you give a statement to my Defence team, and do
13 you see that statement before you on the screen?
14 A. I did give a statement, and I see it on the screen.
15 Q. I have to ask you something, and I have to remind myself of the
16 fact that we need to pause between question and answer in order not to
17 exhaust the interpreters and also in order not to omit something
18 important. So please bear that in mind. Thank you.
19 Now, does this statement reflect everything that you could have
20 said to the Defence team?
21 A. Well, this statement that I gave does reflect everything I could
22 have said to the Defence team, bearing in mind the circumstances
23 involved, namely that 20 years had elapsed, but basically this is it.
24 Q. Thank you. Have you read it, and did you sign this statement?
25 A. Yes. I read it, and I signed it in my own hand.
1 Q. Thank you. If I were to put the same questions to you today in
2 court as they had been put to you, would your answers be the same as
3 those provided in this statement?
4 A. In essence, they would be the same like in this statement.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, may I please
7 tender this statement in accordance with Rule 92 ter.
8 MR. ROBINSON: I think Mr. Karadzic also said "and the
9 documents," which is my queue to rise and ask for permission to add the
10 associated exhibits to the Rule 65 ter lists. These documents hadn't
11 been identified by our investigator when they took the original
12 statement, but upon coming to The Hague and being proofed by
13 Dr. Karadzic, we realised that they were necessary to the statement and
14 that's why they weren't on the 65 ter list.
15 JUDGE KWON: Ms. West, do you have any objections?
16 MS. WEST: I do not.
17 JUDGE KWON: While the Prosecution does not raise this issue, I
18 have to ask Mr. Karadzic or Mr. Robinson about the relevance of these
19 documents, i.e., 27 documents. How are they relevant to your case?
20 MR. ROBINSON: Well, Mr. President, I think if you look, for
21 example, in the paragraphs -- for each paragraph, for example,
22 paragraph 16 talking about the first document, it says that it shows that
23 large amounts of ammunition and weaponry were transported to Igman and
24 Sarajevo, which is also relevant to why artillery was being directed at
25 those areas.
1 Then paragraph 17 shows that Muslim forces -- and it refers now
2 here to the next ten documents, and it says they show that Muslim forces
3 continually fired on the centre of Hadzici, and there were no military
4 targets in Hadzici.
5 JUDGE KWON: So pausing there, how is it relevant?
6 MR. ROBINSON: It's relevant for different reasons depending on
7 the document, but as -- if you look through paragraph 16 through --
8 through 25 or 26, it shows the various reasons why they're relevant, to
9 show the activity of the other side so that the shelling by the Serbs is
10 not on -- directed at civilian objects but are directed at military
11 targets such as paragraph 21. So it's our position that this -- should
12 these documents show why --
13 JUDGE KWON: No. Take a look at paragraph 21 by way of example.
14 This document shows that once again the target of the attacks was
15 hospital in Blazuj. I drafted and signed this document. How is this
17 MR. ROBINSON: It's relevant to show the nature of the attacks
18 that were being directed against his brigade.
19 JUDGE KWON: If it is not a tu quoque defence, how is it -- I
20 can't -- I find it difficult to follow the logic.
21 MR. ROBINSON: Well, it's not a tu quoque defence. Just because
22 the Muslims were attacking civilian objects doesn't give the Serbs the
23 right to attack civilian objects. We're not claiming it for that reason.
24 We're claiming it to show what the conditions were under which this war
25 was being conducted and how basically the position that his brigade found
1 themselves in in having to respond to the kind of attacks that were being
2 launched against the area of their responsibility.
3 JUDGE KWON: Once it was raised, can I hear from you Ms. West on
4 this issue?
5 MS. WEST: Mr. President, I don't disagree with you, and I came
6 to the same conclusion in reading it. However -- and if you look at the
7 rest of this statement, you'll find that paragraph 6, 7, 9, 11 also fall
8 into this same type of category. For this witness -- made the decision
9 not to file any formal motion in -- regarding these particular
10 paragraphs, although I think you will understand the Prosecution's
11 position on these paragraphs when you hear the cross-examination which
12 would be the most part not to address them at all. I again don't
13 disagree with your comments, but I did acknowledge in going through this
14 that the defendant authenticated each and every one of these documents.
15 They were drafted by the witness himself, and he made some comment as
16 to -- regarding why they in his position -- in his -- from his
17 perspective they were important to his case. We don't agree with that,
18 but in regards to your guidelines as to whether they're inseparable and
19 dispensable, I think they do reach that.
20 JUDGE KWON: In the course of giving testimony, I think the
21 witness can touch upon these issues, but my question was whether we need
22 to admit all of these voluminous documents.
23 MR. ROBINSON: Well, Mr. President, I think that they -- given
24 that they corroborate the testimony of the witness and they're documents
25 that he authored, they're not tangential documents. So I think that they
1 should all be admitted. Also, Mr. President, this is -- the context of
2 the war has been the basis for admitting many, many exhibits by the
3 Prosecution and hearing a lot of evidence, including things that took
4 place even before the war, so I don't think that it's necessary to
5 exclude documents that were authored by this witness that are
6 incorporated into a statement.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE KWON: Given the circumstances, we'll receive the -- all
9 the documents, but in the future, the Chamber will keep a closer look
10 into the relevance and necessity of the documents. So I would expect the
11 Defence to exercise the same caution in tendering documents, in
12 particular in the way -- by way of revising the statement.
13 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic. We'll give the number. And
14 what's the number for the statement itself?
15 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D2451, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE KWON: And for the remaining associated exhibits, the
17 numbers will be given in due course by the Registrar.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, your Excellencies. Now
19 I would like to read out the summary of Mr. Dunjic's statement in the
20 English language.
21 [In English] Velimir Dunjic graduated from the military academy
22 in 1975. He discharged the following duties: Platoon commander, company
23 commander, battalion commander, and brigade commander. In the VRS he was
24 brigade commander. He worked in the JNA and the VRS between 1990 and
25 April 1992, when the war broke out.
1 In 1991, he had intelligence about the preparations of the
2 Green Berets at Mount Igman and about the meetings of the
3 Patriotic League in Sokolovic Kolonija. During this time he also
4 obtained information about the preparations to liquidate him by members
5 of the SDA, a taxi driver and a driver from the city transport company
6 Gras. The State Security Service removed his son from Sarajevo because
7 of fear the SDA might kidnap him to blackmail him. When the SDA issued
8 instructions to Muslims not to do their compulsory military service in
9 the units of the JNA, he received the approval from the corps commander
10 General Djurdjevac to mobilise volunteers who wanted to receive training
11 and be in the reserve, and he hand-picked and personally trained the
12 future members of the reserve crews.
13 Velimir Dunjic was in the VRS from August or September 1992 to
14 January 1993 as commander of the Igman Brigade. There were no incidents
15 with the Croats, but there were daily armed provocations and attacks from
16 the Muslim forces. The task of the Muslim Special Police Units and
17 Juka Prazina's paramilitary units was to cut off his units' defence in
18 Sarajevo which would, in turn, cause the fall of the whole area which was
19 inhabited by tens of thousands of Serbs living on their hearths.
20 The zone of the brigade did not change significantly other than
21 the liberation of Doglodi and Azici after repelling the attacks of Muslim
22 paramilitary and police units and the liberation of Otis later on. The
23 Muslim attack on Doglodi left six civilian casualties.
24 The deployment of the units of the brigade under his command did
25 not allow for the possibility of sniper fire. He received information
1 about numerous Serbian civilians and soldiers killed by Muslim snipers in
2 the areas of Nedzarici, Rajlovac, Vogosca and along the road linking the
3 area to Pale.
4 In January 1993, three Serbian soldiers were killed when the
5 positions of the Rajlovac Battalion were attacked from the Breza-Rakovica
6 axis. The attack was stopped, thus thwarting the Muslim operation.
7 After that and the incident with General Galic, he acted in accordance
8 with the written orders of the Supreme Command on his dismissal and left
9 the VRS with which he had no more contact whatsoever. In 1994, he left
10 the VJ, Army of Yugoslavia, also.
11 UN members and various humanitarian convoys passed through his
12 unit's zone of responsibility and UN aircrafts flew over it, bringing
13 humanitarian aid to Sarajevo. It was a well-known fact that Muslim units
14 would launch attack two or three days after an aircraft carrying
15 humanitarian aid landed or following the passage of humanitarian convoys,
16 which allowed them to infer that those were being used to bring
17 ammunition and weapons to the Muslim units. This was further established
18 when ammunition was found in the false bottom of the truck on two
19 occasions at check-points controlled by Serbian forces, and gunpowder was
20 found in medical oxygen tanks.
21 His unit did not commit any crime in contradiction to the
22 provisions of the Geneva Conventions while he was in command. Measures
23 taken by him against members of his unit involved criminal reports
24 against soldiers for desertion and for selling infantry ammunition
25 through Kiseljak.
1 In 1992, UN Polish forces were escorting over 100 men of
2 Afro-Asian origin, all of whom were weight-lifting champions and agreed
3 between -- aged between 20 and 30 who were leaving Sarajevo in the
4 direction of Tarcin. The explanation they gave was that the men were
5 students who came to Sarajevo to study. Supreme Command gave orders to
6 allow them to leave in spite of the fact that it was clear that they were
7 well-prepared and trained soldiers.
8 [Interpretation] For the time being, I won't have any questions
9 for Mr. Dunjic.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Have I missed something, Mr. Dunjic?
12 A. Maybe there's something in the translation. First of all, as far
13 as the attack is concerned, this is Christmas 1993. It wasn't the
14 Rajlovac Battalion that was attacked, it was the Rakovac Battalion that
15 was attacked. That's one thing. Perhaps it's a misinterpretation.
16 And secondly, it's not that these Afro-Asians were prize
17 weight-lifters. It was this Polish person who led them. He was a world
18 champion in that field. I think I said that accurately.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps this is just a mistake in
20 the summary, but in the statement that is clearly stated. I can now let
21 Ms. West deal with the witness.
22 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Dunjic, do you understand English?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
24 JUDGE KWON: Could you put down your headphone for the moment.
25 Mr. Karadzic, I have difficulty understanding the first two
1 sentences in para 8, which says:
2 "I didn't have snipers in my brigade. The deployment of units of
3 the brigade under my command did not allow for the possibility of sniper
4 fire from the positions of the warring sides."
5 I don't know what it means. Could you put that to the witness,
6 live if necessary, and then we'll have a break.
7 Could the usher kindly ask the witness to wear the -- yes. He
8 understood my body language already.
9 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Dunjic, in relation to snipers in your brigade, you speak
12 about that in paragraph 8. How come it was not possible to use them
13 because of the positions? Can you explain that a bit?
14 A. I can. I mentioned in my statement that both warring sides, that
15 is to say our side and the Muslim side, the positions did not make it
16 possible for snipers to operate. The positions were below Igman toward
17 Ormanj, towards Velezenik Kokorska [phoen]. So these were not urban
18 areas. Those were the positions that I held, and I think I state this
19 correctly in my statement. The Muslims did not open sniper fire at my
20 soldiers in my area of responsibility either.
21 Q. Thank you. You can show this to us on the map, can you not?
22 JUDGE KWON: Now I think I can understand the -- the sentence.
23 Are you happy with these explanations, Ms. West? Can we go along
24 with it?
25 MS. WEST: Yes.
1 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We will have a break now for half an
2 hour and resume at five past 1.00 -- or I'm sorry, 45 minutes. So we'll
3 resume at 20 past 1.00.
4 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.37 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 1.23 p.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Dunjic. As you have noted, your evidence
7 in chief was admitted in writing in lieu of your oral testimony, and now
8 you'll be cross-examined by the Prosecution.
9 Yes, Ms. West, please continue.
10 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Cross-examination by Ms. West:
12 Q. Good afternoon, sir. In your statement, at paragraph 1 you
13 indicate that you were the commander of the Igman Brigade from
14 August 1992 to January 1993. Can you tell us exactly what date in August
15 you became the commander, please?
16 A. As I stated, in August or September, as far as I could recall,
17 that's when I was appointed, but the exact date was the
18 4th of September, 1992, when I was appointed to the post of commander of
19 the Igman Brigade. I took the liberty of bringing with me an excerpt
20 from records of the VRS, which is also stamped, where -- and certified
21 where what I've just said can be verified.
22 Q. I'll take your word for it. That was the 4th of September, 1992.
23 I also understand from the first paragraph that you were dismissed in
24 1993, in January of 1993, and you went to -- went and joined the VJ. As
25 regards your dismissal in January of 1993 from the SRK, that was
1 involuntary; correct?
2 A. You're correct.
3 Q. Tell us the circumstances of your dismissal.
4 A. Well, there was a systemic disagreement between me and the corps
5 commander, and also there were some differences between us, which is why
6 I received an order whereby I was dismissed from the post of
7 brigade commander. I would like to add that on two occasions I sent some
8 communications to the Main Staff, and I even requested one time to be
9 relieved of duty. This was sometime in November or December 1992.
10 Q. You were requested to be relieved of duty. That's not in your
11 statement, is it?
12 A. No, it's not in my statement. I recalled it later, later on, but
13 you can check this information because it had been sent to the
14 Main Staff.
15 Q. Okay. And you just described the circumstances of your dismissal
16 as differences that you had between yourself and the SRK corps command.
17 Tell us what those differences were.
18 A. Well, these were systemic differences. There were differences in
19 the approach to the organisation of the army and the fighting itself, but
20 there was also a personal rift between me and General Galic, and that was
21 actually the final straw. Now, because of my respect or dignity to
22 preserve the dignity of General Galic's -- perhaps we could move to
23 closed or private session so that I can elaborate.
24 Q. We don't need to do that now. If we do, we'll do that later, but
25 let's just move on. Was the nature of your dismissal in January known to
1 the VJ when you joined them in 1993?
2 A. Well, it probably was, because I remained in the Army of -- in
3 the Army of Yugoslavia up until June 1994 sometime when at my request I
4 left the JNA. So I wasn't dismissed. I left it on my own.
5 Q. Was there any delay in the process of you joining the VJ because
6 of the unfavourable nature of your dismissal from the SRK?
7 A. No. No.
8 Q. And did you require any references in order to be accepted by the
10 A. Well, there probably were references, but I really wouldn't know
11 because the principle of the reappointments where there would also be an
12 assessment, a job performance evaluation, that would not have gone
13 through me. It would have been sent through other channels.
14 Q. Now, from September of 1992 through January of 1993, during your
15 reign, there was activity, military activity, at Zuc; correct?
16 A. Yes, that's correct. There was fighting on Zuc. However, Zuc
17 was outside of the area of responsibility of my brigade.
18 Q. Okay. And specifically in December of 1992, the ABiH was able to
19 regain control of Zuc; is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you went to that area of conflict in December of 1992 even
22 though it was outside your area of responsibility, did you not?
23 A. That's correct. However, I failed to mention in my statement
24 that -- and my apologies if I am wrong about the exact dates, but
25 sometime in November, in late November, the corps command, after the
1 death of Mr. Zoran Borovina, who was the commander of the Ilidza Brigade
2 and my deputy, and after certain unfavourable circumstances in Rajlovac,
3 I was appointed to be the commander over these three brigades, the
4 Rajlovac, the Igman, and the Ilidza Brigades. And I apologise once again
5 for having omitted this detail, because as I looked at these documents
6 that actually jogged my memory.
7 Q. Okay. And that's a pretty big detail, you would agree; correct?
8 A. Well, you will understand that over 20 years have passed since I
9 left that area and that as of 1994, I was not involved in any of this any
10 more. I was not in the military any more. I started a completely new
11 chapter, as it were, and I wanted also to put this behind me.
12 Q. Okay. So the Trial Chamber has heard evidence even today
13 regarding the events at Zuc. Can you tell us who was it that ordered you
14 to go to Zuc? And now I'm talking about December of 1992.
15 A. Well, I wasn't at Zuc itself. I was in the foothills of Zuc, in
16 the general direction of Rajlovac. So there was the Rajlovac Brigade
17 there deployed, and then there was the Vogosca Brigade. They linked up
18 at Mijatovica Kosa, a slope to the north of Sokolje, and I had a problem
19 there because the lines had collapsed as far as the Rajlovac Brigade was
20 concerned. I managed to recapture those lines once and then the second
21 time. So that's where I was actually active, not on Zuc itself, because
22 that was held by the Vogosca Brigade.
23 Q. Okay. So let's focus again on my question and it was who ordered
24 you to be, and you say, at the foothills of Zuc. Can you give me the
25 name of a person?
1 A. I received a written order from the Chief of Staff of the corps,
2 Colonel Dragan Marcetic, to the effect that I was the co-ordinator over
3 these three brigades.
4 Q. What was your task in December of 1992?
5 A. The task in December 1992 was to prevent the fall of Rajlovac.
6 If Rajlovac fell, all six north-western municipalities where the
7 Army of Republika Srpska was deployed, and there were tens of thousands
8 of civilians, would have fallen.
9 Q. Now, in paragraph 13 of your statement, you indicated that
10 Brne Gavrilovic's unit was in your zone. Is that --
11 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Dunjic, do you have your written statement with
12 you? No?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
15 Yes, please continue, Ms. West.
16 MS. WEST:
17 Q. I'm directing your attention to paragraph 13 of your statement.
18 That's the part where you spoke about Brne Gavrilovic's unit, and that's
19 where you said:
20 [As read] "Among the units which were in the zone when I came was
21 also the unit of Branislav Gavrilovic. After a while, it was also -- it
22 also put itself under the brigade command and did not commit any crimes
23 in contradiction to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions while I was
24 in command."
25 Notwithstanding what you have in there, were you aware of his
1 unit's reputation, his unit's nefarious reputation?
2 A. Well, first of all, the units and the situation within the units
3 as they were, I found them as they were. Now, I don't know whether
4 you're aware, but pursuant to a decision of the Supreme Court of
5 Republika Srpska, in the second half of 1992 the status of volunteers and
6 units within the VRS was assessed, and it was concluded that volunteers
7 did not have the attribute or the status of paramilitaries, but, rather,
8 that they were members of the VRS, legal and legitimate; the only
9 difference being in the way they joined. Now, their tasks and
10 responsibilities were the same as those of all the other members of the
11 VRS. So that was the first decision taken by the Supreme Court of the --
12 of Republika Srpska.
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Dunjic, and we're going to spend a bit of time
14 speaking about the paramilitaries. But my question for you, and please
15 listen to my question and try to be responsive if you can, is when you
16 came in in September of 1992, were you aware of Brne Gavrilovic's
17 reputation, the reputation of his unit?
18 A. I was not aware of their reputation. However, we are now
19 actually moving to the area of ideological differences.
20 Q. No, we're not. Thank you, Mr. Dunjic. No, we're not.
21 A. [In English] Okay. Okay. Okay.
22 Q. So my next question for you, Mr. Dunjic, regards that specific
23 reputation. If we could have D01080, please, and this is a MUP report in
24 June of 1992. If we can have page 3 of the English and page 3 of the
1 This is June 1992. So this is in the period of time just before
2 you came in. And on page 3 there's a paragraph, and I want to share some
3 of the information in here with you. On page 3 of the Cyrillic, it's the
4 second full paragraph.
5 And the paragraph beginning with "In addition":
6 "... the citizens complained to the Serbian public security
7 station Ilidza reporting thefts and forceful expelling of Muslim citizens
8 from Ilidza committed by Seselj's men."
9 Now, were you aware that Gavrilovic had been appointed by Seselj?
10 A. [Interpretation] Well, first of all I was not aware of that, and
11 secondly, we are talking about June. But you agreed with me that I was
12 appointed as brigade commander on the 4th of September, which is a few
13 months later.
14 Q. Exactly. And what I'd like to know is when it appears that in
15 the summer before you came on that citizens in Ilidza were complaining
16 about Seselj's men, did these complaints ever reach your ears when you
17 got there in September?
18 A. No.
19 Q. How many people were in his unit when you took -- when you came
20 in September?
21 A. Well, you will understand that I don't know the exact number of
22 men, but I believe it was around 80 or so.
23 Q. And the next sentence is:
24 [As read] "However, when the Serbian public security station
25 Ilidza decided that in such cases interventions were necessary, the
1 president of Crisis Staff of Ilidza, Nedeljko Prstojevic and his deputy
2 opposed this decision stressing that with Seselj's men there should be no
3 messing around."
4 In other words, they were doing it on their behalf, since
5 Prstojevic and his deputy tasked them with it.
6 Mr. Dunjic, did you know Nedeljko Prstojevic?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I please just have something
8 clarified? Do these Seselj's men, is that a reference to Brne because it
9 doesn't say so here.
10 JUDGE KWON: That's the subject -- yes. Let us clarify that with
11 the witness first.
12 MS. WEST: Okay.
13 JUDGE KWON: If the witness is able to answer the question.
14 MS. WEST:
15 Q. Mr. Dunjic did you hear that question? Do you know if -- as
16 regards Seselj's men, if that refers to Brne Gavrilovic and his men?
17 A. Well, let me say this: I knew Mr. Brnovic [as interpreted] when
18 I arrived there, when I was appointed commander of the brigade because he
19 was president of the municipality in Ilidza. And at that time I wasn't
20 really interested in the ideological differences, whether someone was a
21 member of the Radical Party or of the Communist Party of Republika Srpska
22 or the SDS. I didn't care about that. What I wanted -- all I was
23 concerned with was my fighters who were to obey my orders.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may just help here. I believe
25 that the witness said that he did not know that Brne was appointed by
2 Q. Let me just make a clarification. At line 13, you said: Let me
3 just say that I knew this person when I arrived there when I was
4 appointed commander of the brigade.
5 Did you say Mr. Prstojevic you knew when you arrived there or
6 Mr. Gavrilovic?
7 A. Well, you were asking about Prstojevic and I told you that I knew
9 Q. So you knew him before you arrived in September?
10 A. I did know Prstojevic. I had known him while I was -- well, I
11 knew him from when I was the battalion commander in Lukavica in 1991.
12 That's when we met.
13 Q. Okay. And during the winter -- excuse me, the fall and winter of
14 1992-1993, did you speak to Mr. Prstojevic?
15 A. Almost every day.
16 Q. Okay. When was the last time you spoke to him?
17 A. Well, I believe just before I left, because he offered that they
18 organise a send-off party for me.
19 Q. So this would be 1993.
20 A. Yes, in January 1993.
21 Q. And that's last time you've ever had a conversation with him?
22 A. Well, it is possible that we talked again, maybe some 15, 16, or
23 17 years later. It is possible that we met.
24 Q. What was the relationship between Mr. Prstojevic and Seselj's men
25 in Ilidza?
1 A. Well, again you're asking about things that happened before I was
2 there and things that were outside of the area of responsibility of my
4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Dunjic, do you have your statement, para 13 in
5 front of you? It reads like this:
6 "Among the units which were in the zone when I came was also the
7 unit of Branislav Gavrilovic. After a while it also put itself under the
8 brigade command and it did not commit any crimes ..."
9 To me it sounds as if they had committed crime before they put
10 themselves under your command. Is it true?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't know, but I stated in my
12 statement that they did not commit any crimes while I was the brigade
14 JUDGE KWON: Very well. I'll leave it to you, Ms. West. Please
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could Ms. West speak into
17 the microphone that is in front of her, please. Thank you.
18 MS. WEST:
19 Q. Thank you. And we were just talking about the relationship
20 between Mr. Prstojevic and Seselj's men in Ilidza, and you said that you
21 didn't know about that because it was things that happened before you
22 were there.
23 May we have P2302. Let me now ask you about the relationship
24 between Mr. Prstojevic and Branislav Gavrilovic, the gentleman who was in
25 your unit. And you're going to see a document in front of you and it's
1 dated a few months before you get there. I'll tell you it's dated in
2 July. However, it has to do with the housing of Gavrilovic and his unit,
3 and it's a signed document from Mr. Prstojevic, and he says:
4 [As read] "It is hereby approved to use the motel facility in
5 Gladno Polje and the deserted summer houses in the vicinity for the needs
6 of the Serbian volunteer units from the lines of the Serbian municipality
7 of Ilidza MUP.
8 "The commander of all Serbian Autonomous District Romanija
9 volunteer units, Branislav Gavrilovic, will be conducting admission and
10 training of Serbian volunteers arriving to this area."
11 So, sir, my question for you is when you came in September 1992
12 and Gavrilovic and his unit were under your command, were they still
13 being housed through the offer of Mr. Prstojevic?
14 A. Well, from the document that you've shown me, my only conclusion
15 would be that Mr. Prstojevic and Mr. Gavrilovic had a good relationship,
16 and my answer to your question would be, yes, they were still housed in
17 the same facilities as described in this document.
18 Q. In your role as commander of Gavrilovic and his men, you gave
19 them orders and they performed them; correct?
20 A. Within my brigade, I had between 2.500 and 3.000 men.
21 Gavrilovic's unit numbered 800. And I wasn't Gavrilovic's commander. I
22 was the brigade commander. His unit was part of the brigade. All of the
23 units carried out my orders.
24 Q. So I'll take that as a yes. And my next question is: If
25 Gavrilovic's unit performed some action during this period of time that
1 his unit was in your command, shall we assume that this action was the
2 result of a task ordered by you and your chain of command?
3 A. Either I'm not receiving appropriate interpretation, or I
4 misunderstand the question. They were not outside the chain of command.
5 It was a unit which carried out orders.
6 Q. Okay. I didn't say they were outside of the chain of command,
7 but I think I understand that it's your testimony that they were within
8 your brigade, and they took orders under your chain of command; is that
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. And if they were committing illegal acts, you would know that,
12 wouldn't you?
13 A. I repeat, I had 3.000 soldiers or between 2.500 and 3.000. If I
14 had known of such things, I would have treated it much the same way in
15 cases of soldiers when I submitted criminal reports and dozens. I would
16 go by the information received from the security organs and from the
17 members of that unit.
18 Q. Now, we have P02296, and we're going to go to paragraph 74. I
19 know you said earlier that you were unaware of Mr. Gavrilovic's
20 reputation and his unit's reputation, but you -- and you clarified that
21 you didn't know this coming in, but now I'd like to look at a period of
22 time in the fall of 1992 when you were the actual brigade commander. And
23 this is a statement from Tihomir Glavas, who was the chief of the Ilidza
24 SJB at the same time that you were there, and in paragraph 74 he speaks
25 about this particular group.
1 And at paragraph 74, he says:
2 [As read] "The local group of Seseljevci was led by Branislav
3 Gavrilovic, called Brne. I personally had problems with this group
4 because he was operating in Ilidza when I came. His headquarters was in
5 an orchard ... directives from military, political and police ministry
6 ordered that these paramilitary forces be subordinated to military
7 commands or be disbanded and even liquidated if they refused.
8 Gavrilovic's unit was involved in crimes on our territory, thefts,
9 looting. His unit never wanted to fight in the woods or front lines.
10 They just went to places to fight where they could steal and loot such as
11 Otes and Doglodi. They also fought at the airport settlement next to
13 Now this is during a period of time where this gentleman is there
14 at the same time that you're there. And could you tell us were you aware
15 of these types of allegations against Gavrilovic's unit, these criminal
17 A. I see this document for the first time. Perhaps I can clarify
18 something to you. As a professional soldier, I was aware of the
19 existence of certain soldiers who are trained and ready to find -- to
20 fight in an urban settlement, whereas there are others who were trained
21 to fight in the mountains. Many avoided fighting in urban areas, whereas
22 just as many avoided fighting in the mountains.
23 As for this document, I was not aware of it. To me, it says
25 Q. Sir, you didn't answer my question. Let's try this again. I'm
1 not asking whether you're aware of this document. I'm asking whether you
2 were aware of the criminal allegations at the time that you were there
3 that were being voiced regarding Gavrilovic's unit.
4 A. I was not aware.
5 Q. And the next paragraph, the beginning of 75:
6 "The reason they went into these areas was to steal from houses
7 and apartments in those areas."
8 Were you aware of those allegations?
9 A. No.
10 Q. We move to paragraph 77. You just mentioned that his unit was
11 under your -- under your command, and paragraph 77 this speaks to the
12 same subject. This witness had been shown a document, and he said that
13 this is -- in this document there was a mention of a person named Vaske,
14 another Chetnik duke in the area of Ilijas who was prone to co-operating
15 with the army. Therefore, he could be in conflict, "he" meaning
16 Mr. Vaske, with Gavrilovic's unit who were opposed to any co-operation
17 with the army. What I meant by Vaske's unit co-operating with the army,
18 I received instructions from the police leadership that Vaske's unit
19 accepted to be subordinated into military command and Gavrilovic refused.
20 Mr. Dunjic, is it your testimony here today that Gavrilovic was
21 under the military command in your brigade?
22 A. I have said so in the statement, and I stand by it. He was under
23 my command in my brigade while I was at the helm of the brigade.
24 Whatever happened before or later is something I cannot answer to.
25 Q. At this point I'm not asking you about what happened before or
1 later. I'm asking you about what happened while you were the commander
2 of the brigade in September of 1992 through January of 1993. During that
3 period of time, is it your testimony that he committed no crimes?
4 A. I was not aware of that.
5 Q. And is it your testimony also that you were not aware of his
6 reputation otherwise?
7 A. You see, I keep saying that I have -- had between 2.500 and 3.000
8 soldiers, and the group or detachment of 80 soldiers was not my primary
10 Q. It was the position of the SRK corps command, was it not, that
11 paramilitaries should either be under their command or they should have
12 to leave; is that right?
13 A. It is.
14 Q. And if you had had any paramilitaries within your zone but not
15 under your command, you had a duty to inform your superiors, did you not?
16 A. You mean the corps command?
17 Q. Your superiors, yes.
18 A. You keep imputing things. I've already mentioned what the first
19 decision of the Supreme Court of Republika Srpska was, and I abided by
20 it. In the area of responsibility of my brigade, I had no other unit
21 save for the detachment which I found there when I assumed my duties as
22 commander, brigade commander.
23 MS. WEST: May we have D01076.
24 Q. This is another MUP document, and this is coming closer to the
25 period of time when you started in September. And if we can have page 3
1 of the English at the bottom and page 2 of the B/C/S, at the bottom as
3 This is another document that speaks about Gavrilovic's unit.
4 And just to say again D01076. This may be my mistake.
5 Sir, before you came in, who was the brigade commander before
7 A. I think it was Kovacevic.
8 Q. Do you know why he left?
9 A. No.
10 MS. WEST: May we have 65 ter 24197, please.
11 Q. This is a document from August again, recognising this is right
12 before you came in. This is a document from Tomislav Sipcic, and in it
13 he's reporting on general -- the general situation within the command,
14 and under number 4, at the end, he says:
15 "Moreover, very little is being done to disarm paramilitary
16 formations. The local authorities are establishing and bringing in new
17 ones from the outside."
18 Now, when you came in September, did you understand this to
19 continue to be true? Did you understand it to be the case that the local
20 political leadership were responsible for bringing in paramilitaries in
21 your zone?
22 A. I am a soldier, a professional soldier. As regards many things,
23 I tried not to meddle with the work of the civilian authorities. You
24 keep going back to Mr. Sipcic's order. I was not there at the time. I
25 don't know.
1 Q. Okay. But you told us that you spoke to Mr. Prstojevic quite
2 often, and I understand in the fall and winter of 1992, you at least
3 worked with him for a period of time. In the course of that
4 relationship, did you understand that the local political leadership had
5 been responsible for bringing in paramilitaries and were bringing in
7 A. In the area of responsibility that I had there were no other
8 units except for the one I found there. I repeat, I did speak with
9 Mr. Prstojevic as I did with all other municipal representatives in that
10 part of Sarajevo, but it all had to do with providing security and
11 securing logistics for the army like food, boots, burials of soldiers and
12 civilians, and taking care of their families.
13 Q. But as I understand your testimony today, part of the army you
14 purport to be is Mr. Gavrilovic's unit, and so if Mr. Prstojevic then had
15 some connection with Gavrilovic's unit, which -- would you agree some
16 would have considered to be a paramilitary unit?
17 A. Now you're asking for my opinion. You have shown me a document
18 where Prstojevic on one hand secured accommodation for him, and on the
19 other he said that he had issues with Gavrilovic. I'm not familiar with
20 the nature of their relationship.
21 Q. Do you know if Prstojevic had any role in bringing Seselj's men
22 to the area?
23 A. In my area of responsibility, I don't know of such thing.
24 Q. Are you --
25 A. And he did not.
1 Q. So either you don't know of it or he did not. Please clarify
2 your answer.
3 A. As regards my area of responsibility while I commanded the
4 brigade, he did not.
5 Q. Okay. And as regards to that area of responsibility while you
6 commanded the brigade, are you aware of whether the republican level
7 political leadership had a role in bringing in paramilitaries?
8 A. As far as I know, they did not.
9 Q. And what about before you came? Are you aware of that leadership
10 bringing in paramilitaries before you came to that area?
11 A. I was at the other end of the theatre. I wasn't even in
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don't know.
13 MS. WEST: May we have P02228, please.
14 Q. This is an April 1992 conversation between Seselj and Gavrilovic.
15 We won't read the whole thing, but towards the bottom of the English
16 Gavrilovic says:
17 "Everything's fine."
18 And then Seselj says:
19 "Look, I've just called Pale. I can't find Radovan and nobody
20 can find him.
24 "But I left a message that if they didn't get our men out, we'll
25 withdraw all our men from the front lines and we'll never deploy them
2 Would you agree with me that at least from that very short part
3 that I read to you that Seselj is directing a complaint regarding his men
4 to Karadzic?
5 A. You're obviously trying to suggest an answer. I keep saying that
6 I was not in the area at all at the time of this intercept.
7 Q. So let's go to the time when you were there in September of 1992
8 and on. When you were in command of Brne and his men, what role did
9 Seselj take as to their deployment or task?
10 A. As far as I'm concerned, he had no role to play.
11 Q. By September of 1992 through the time that you left in January of
12 1993 or ordered to leave, Galic was the commander of the SRK; correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 MS. WEST: May we have P05060, please.
15 Q. Now, this is written on September 12th, so this is when you were
16 already in command, and it regards a meeting. And this is a Galic
17 document, and we're going to go to number 3 in both documents. And he's
18 talking about a meeting that he had with the SRK command, brigade
19 commanders, presidents of Municipal Assemblies, head of the military
20 departments and members of the General Staff. Now, he had this meeting
21 on September 6, and you came into brigade command, as I understand it,
22 September 4th. Do you remember attending a meeting a few days after you
24 A. I don't, but it is possible.
25 Q. Okay. And number 3 and speaking about this meeting, he says
1 that -- that they should secure absolute concordance and unity --
2 JUDGE KWON: Shall we find the part in the document.
3 MS. WEST: Pardon me. It's number 3. It's page 1. There we go.
4 It's towards the bottom of both.
5 Q. And it says:
6 "Secure absolute concordance and unity at all levels with
7 civilian authorities and MUP forces and eliminate any creation of
8 paramilitary and parapolitical and not allow any conflicts, because we
9 have a common goal."
10 So when you came in in September, you were well aware that it was
11 Galic's position that there should be no paramilitaries within the VRS,
12 were you not?
13 A. Yes.
14 MS. WEST: 65 ter 24198, please.
15 Q. We're going to skip ahead a few months to see whether this
16 position changed or remained the same. We'll now go to October 19th.
17 This is another Galic document, and we're looking under paragraph 4, and
18 it's the part that's underlined. It's under "Morale":
19 "There are again incidences of bringing in paramilitary groups
20 and units from the outside under the guise of volunteer units. Having
21 learned from previous experience, we believe that these groups will have
22 a very negative influence on the morale of the soldiers and the
24 Sir, what was the view at the time as to why the paramilitaries
25 were a negative influence?
1 A. I don't know what other people thought, but I had no paramilitary
2 units in my brigade. The only unit that I found there was quickly put
3 under my command. I wasn't interested in anything else.
4 Q. All right. But can you tell us in a general way because you are
5 there at the time, you're attending these meetings, you had to be aware
6 that there was a general notion that the paramilitaries had a negative
7 influence. Tell us what you understood the negative influence to be.
8 A. You didn't allow me to finish my answer when I mentioned the JNA.
9 Perhaps it would have been clearer. If you want a contextual explanation
10 regarding your question, I'd be happy to answer.
11 Q. Only if giving a contextual explanation will tell us what the
12 negative influence was. Can you do that? Go ahead.
13 A. You are suggesting an answer. I'm telling you that paramilitary
14 units, in the heads of many officers of the former JNA, were paramilitary
15 only because they were called Vucjak, wolves, and other names. By the
16 same analogy, the Deltas and the Seals are also paramilitary formations.
17 Those how those people reasoned, due to ideological differences, whereas
18 I was not interested in any ideological differences.
19 Q. Okay. So I've given you the opportunity to give us some context
20 here but we still haven't answered the question. Would you agree with me
21 that at the time other people thought the paramilitaries were a negative
22 influence but it appears that you did not?
23 A. No. No. I agree that that's what other people thought, but that
24 was for ideological reasons, in their minds, which were something I
25 couldn't comprehend.
1 MS. WEST: I'd like to tender this document, Your Honour.
2 MR. ROBINSON: No objection.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes. This will be admitted.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6004, Your Honours.
5 MS. WEST: May we have P0230, please.
6 Q. Now, this is a November 1992 document from Galic. It's a regular
7 combat report, November 18th. And under number 3 at the bottom of the
8 English and bottom of the B/C/S, it's written:
9 "The situation in the territory without significant changes.
10 However, a paramilitary formation consisting of about 25 men commanded by
11 Branislav Gavrilovic, aka Brne, is active in the Rakovica sector. This
12 is a group of criminals whose behaviour is damaging the reputation of the
13 Republika Srpska Army in the eyes of the population in this territory."
14 Now, this is already in November of 1992, and their reputation
15 continues on. Their nefarious reputation continues on. By November were
16 you aware of this?
17 A. Perhaps I can comment upon your ignorance. I mentioned before
18 that there were 80 of them, whereas here we have 25. There was an
19 obvious numerical difference save for some general remarks on the
20 negative influences which arose only due to ideological reasons. If you
21 showed me proof that this or that person from that -- this or that unit
22 did this or that, then I can comment, and if -- had there been such
23 cases, I would have reported them. I would have issued criminal reports.
24 Q. So as I understand it, it's your position that at the time you
25 weren't aware of this and you've repeated a few times that there were
1 only 80 men in his unit, yet there was 2.500 to 3.000 men in the entire
2 brigade, suggesting that there might be a reason why you would not have
3 known, but in this case the corps commander knows, somebody who is well
4 above you and who is looking after far more people. Why do you think he
5 knows about this reputation yet you didn't?
6 A. Well, you're asking me about someone's reputation. That's like
7 assessments of ice skating where you say artistic impression. Well,
8 there was nothing specific that anyone would have come up to me with so
9 that I could take certain measures.
10 Q. Was your support of Brne's unit also supported by the local
11 authorities? Specifically I'm speaking about Nedeljko Prstojevic.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I just intervene in the
13 transcript? Mr. Dunjic said, "I didn't see any evidence that an act, a
14 criminal act, had been committed." So that portion did not make it into
15 the transcript in his previous reply.
16 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
17 MS. WEST:
18 Q. Sir, my question was: Were you aware -- was Brne's unit also
19 supported by the local civilian authorities?
20 A. I don't know. I don't know, and I don't know how I could have
21 supported it, because it was part of my brigade. And I have made a
22 reference to the first decision taken by the Supreme Court of
23 Republika Srpska where the status of volunteers was clarified, and this
24 unit was a -- the commanders, the very commander's unit, and they were
25 from the same part from where the commander was, but they had ideological
1 differences with the others.
2 MS. WEST: May we have --
3 JUDGE KWON: Let me try this. Mr. Dunjic, do you agree this is a
4 report by General Galic?
5 Shall we show him the second page. Colonel Galic and back to
6 page 1.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not question it.
8 JUDGE KWON: In para 3 he refers to a certain group commanded by
9 Branislav Gavrilovic. Is he the same Gavrilovic you referred to in your
10 paragraph 13 who was allegedly under your command at the time?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is the same person.
12 JUDGE KWON: Then can you explain us how -- why you say that they
13 didn't commit any crimes, how come the commander of SRK is referring to
14 him as leader of a group of criminals?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know what the corps
16 commander meant by this, but as I've already said, I had no evidence, nor
17 did the corps commander provide in this report any evidence that any
18 crimes had been committed so that I could take action other than
19 generalised assessments.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. West, please continue.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one thing in the transcript.
22 It's not stated clearly in the transcript that the witness said that that
23 unit, starting with the commander all the way down to the plain soldiers,
24 they were the local population, but ideologically they were affiliated
25 with Seselj. They did not just come there. And that is not clearly
1 reflected in the transcript.
2 JUDGE KWON: Do you confirm having said that, Mr. Dunjic?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. West.
5 MS. WEST: Thank you. 65 ter 09365, please.
6 Q. And just to back up for a moment, you say that "they were" --
7 "they were the local population, but ideologically they were affiliated
8 with Seselj." This unit was affiliated with Seselj? Brne's unit?
9 A. You cannot say affiliated with Seselj. Ideologically they were
10 affiliated. It wasn't that it was Seselj's unit while I was commander.
11 Q. So we have a December 16th document from 1992, and this is during
12 the time where you had spoken earlier about being in the area of Zuc.
13 This is a report, a corps command report from Kosovac, and he speaks
14 about what happened at Zuc, and as we know from your testimony and a
15 previous witness, we understand in December that the ABiH took control of
16 Zuc. And at the third paragraph he speaks about it being basically a
17 mess. And then in the fourth paragraph he says:
18 "In the territory of municipalities, Hadzici, Ilidza, Rajlovac
19 and Vogosca, the main organiser of paramilitary formations is
20 Major Dunjic, commander of the Ilidza Brigade."
21 Now you're going to see this in B/C/S. And we've got the
22 English. Now, I can represent to the Court if you go to the B/C/S,
23 Dunjic is pronounced -- excuse me, spelled correctly. And also if you go
24 to the B/C/S, it says the commander of the Blazuski Brigade. So your
25 headquarters were located in Blazuj; right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So this Dunjic of whom they speak here, they're speaking about
3 you; correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And do you deny that you were the main organiser -- organisers of
6 the paramilitary units?
7 A. I absolute deny that. And could you please tell me who it was
8 that signed this document? Because you said that this is a report of the
9 corps commander.
10 Q. No, I'm sorry. If you heard that I misspoke. I said it was
11 Colonel Kosovac, who was assistant for commander moral affairs. But if
12 we continue on in this document I think you'll remember who Kosovac was.
13 It then goes on to say his position, meaning you, of the brigade
14 commander is a formality because he does not come to the brigade for
15 three days. He put under his command paramilitary formations and some
16 special units. He supplies them with the arms and munitions. He took
17 out complete fighting technique from repairs enterprise and has made it
18 available to those formations. It is clear now why he did expel the
19 management of enterprise. In that area there is a belief that those are
20 the only units capable to save the Serb people and Dunjic was declared to
21 be the best Serb officer.
22 Sir, at least from this paragraph would you agree that it sounds
23 like you are less of a brigade commander and more of an organiser of the
24 paramilitaries yourself? Do you agree?
25 A. No. No.
1 Q. All right. And if we continue on, the next paragraph talks about
2 the seriousness of the situation at Zuc in December, and as a result the
3 command sent Kosovac, who is the author of this, and
4 Lieutenant-Colonel Maljkovic to the area on the 8th to help in
5 overhauling the situation. I'm going to move to the next page in
7 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please provide a reference in
8 the original in B/C/S. Thank you.
9 MS. WEST: Yes. So we are on page 2 in both documents.
10 Q. And it says:
11 "Unsatisfied with a general situation and a danger for this part
12 of the front, some municipality leaders, with the alleged approval by the
13 Presidency, decided to arrest commands of Rajlovac and Vogosca Brigade,
14 and the executor was Major Dunjic together with his men. Besides command
15 of brigade, also Colonel Kosovac and Lieutenant-Colonel Maljkovic were
17 Now, sir, you don't deny in September 1992 you were in the Zuc
18 area and you made some arrests; correct?
19 A. Well, I denied that I was at Zuc. I mean, I was below Zuc. Let
20 us be precise. I was in Rajlovac. And it is correct that I arrested
21 Colonel Kosovac and Lieutenant-Colonel Maljkovic, and it is correct that
22 I arrested almost the entire municipality of Rajlovac. And I think that
23 that was a brilliant move in order to save tens of thousands of the Serb
25 Q. Let's speak specifically about who went along with you. This
1 talks about your men. Were these men from Brne's unit who were with you?
2 A. Part of them, yes.
3 Q. I also understand that there were political figures with you as
4 well, specifically Ratko Radic from the Ilijas municipality, and
5 Trifko Radic as well. Do you remember that?
6 A. Ratko Radic was president of the municipality of Hadzici, and he
7 was not with me. Trifko Radic was not with me.
8 Q. Who specifically gave the order for you to make these arrests?
9 A. I did.
10 Q. Was there anyone above you who gave the order?
11 A. No. No.
12 Q. So were the one who originated this idea and made a decision to
13 arrest other commanders of brigades?
14 A. Correct. I'm the one who made the decision and issued the order.
15 Q. It goes on to say:
16 [As read] "During the arrest, the most severe methods were
17 applied as it was about the most severe criminals. For arresting
18 complete commands of brigade there was no justification because the
19 arrested men were the persons who remained in the brigade until the last
20 day. Instead to arrest those who ran away, they arrested the persons who
21 remained. By this act their brigades remained without leaders in the
22 moments of strongest offensive by the enemy. And the following day also
23 the head of the corpus staff was exposed to mistreatment, Colonel
24 Marcetic. And during these actions there were robberies and thefts of
25 military property."
1 Sir, do you deny that during this entire event that crimes were
2 committed? Here robberies and thefts of military property.
3 A. It's not by accident that I asked you who it was that had signed
4 this document.
5 Q. Sir, you can just give me a simple answer. Were any crimes
6 committed? Were any thefts committed? Yes or no?
7 A. Thefts, no.
8 Q. Any other crimes? Looting?
9 A. I don't know because I was at the front line then. After these
10 arrests I had to get the lines back, so I wasn't present there. I'm
11 talking about the time after the arrest of these structures.
12 Q. The last paragraph, the last paragraph in the English:
13 "That the Main Staff together with the Presidency of the
14 Republika Srpska evaluates the situation, that the leadership states who
15 support and who is behind all of this and then, on the basis of the
16 political decision, start ... serious cleansing of para-authorities of
18 It appears here that they are labelling you as a paramilitary.
19 Do you disagree with that assessment?
20 A. Well, after all of this happened, a meeting was held in the
21 municipality of Rajlovac that was attended by Mr. Krajisnik,
22 Mrs. Plavsic, Mr. Mico Stanisic, Mr. Galic corps commander, and the
23 presidents of municipalities, these six municipalities in the north-west.
24 After my explanation with regard to the reasons for this arrest and
25 everything that was implied by that, namely that we should keep the
1 lines, I received the support of one and all then.
2 Your Honours, may I -- may I just explain something?
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please proceed.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was the only professional person
5 in the brigade and my logic was military logic, the logic of a soldier.
6 If I arrest those who outrank me, who had sent false reports to the
7 brigade command, I mean the -- the commander of the brigade and the
8 Chief of Staff of the brigade who had fled from that brigade, by
9 arresting them and by arresting part of the municipal leadership, this is
10 what the soldiers would think. They would start wondering what lay in
11 store for us, they would think if these people are being arrested, so
12 that's what I did.
13 MS. WEST:
14 Q. Mr. Dunjic, you just described this meeting and you indicated a
15 number of people there including Mr. Galic, and you noted that at the end
16 of the meeting you received the support of one and all of them. Are you
17 suggesting that as a result of this meeting Mr. Galic then gave you his
19 A. He didn't state his views, but the general conclusion of the
20 meeting was the one that I've already stated.
21 Q. Okay. So that conclusion excludes the opinion of Mr. Galic then;
23 A. Well, I don't know if that's correct. He didn't say anything.
24 He was not explicit. He didn't explicitly say anything against that at
25 that meeting. He didn't say anything explicitly against what I had done
1 after I explained what I had done.
2 Q. Okay. We will get to that. But if you could just look at the
3 B/C/S, please, and go to the very last paragraph, and I don't believe
4 that this is in English. Would you mind reading out that very last
5 paragraph in B/C/S, please.
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. Read it out loud. My apologies.
8 A. "Also we propose that Major Dunjic urgently be dismissed from his
9 duties, be arrested, and to have criminal proceedings instituted against
10 him because he overstepped his authority and because he disobeyed the
11 corps command."
12 This was signed by the man who I had arrested a day before that.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MS. WEST: Mr. President, I'm not sure in regard to the time. I
15 suspect I have at least another 15 minutes or so.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE KWON: I think it's time for adjournment for today.
18 Mr. Dunjic, we will adjourn for today and continue tomorrow
19 morning at 9.00. Here at the Tribunal, we have a rule that the witness
20 is not supposed to discuss with anybody else about his or her testimony.
21 Do you understand that?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that, and I understand.
23 JUDGE KWON: The hearing is adjourned.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.43 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 28th day
1 of November, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.