1 Thursday, 24 February 2000

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.36 a.m.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.

7 Case number IT-95-14/2-T. The Prosecutor versus Dario

8 Kordic and Mario Cerkez.

9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kovacic.

10 MR. KOVACIC: Good morning. Thank you, sir.

11 WITNESS: JON ELFORD [Resumed]

12 Cross-examined by Mr. Kovacic:

13 Q. [In English] Good morning, Mr. Elford.

14 A. Good morning.

15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Elford, in your

16 testimony, and even before that, in documents that you

17 used, that is, documents of the BritBat and other

18 UNPROFOR units, ECMM documents and others, the terms

19 "Vitez pocket," "the Lasva Valley," "the area of

20 Vitez" are very frequent terms, and you used these

21 terms in your testimony.

22 Could you please tell us, what does this term

23 cover, what area?

24 A. Sorry. I couldn't hear the translation, so

25 I'm looking at the transcript.

1 JUDGE MAY: The witness should have the

2 translation.

3 THE WITNESS: I can hear the translation now,

4 Your Honour.

5 MR. KOVACIC: Should I repeat the question?

6 A. I think when you're talking about the Vitez

7 pocket, the Lasva Valley, and the area of Vitez, the

8 Vitez pocket was the area that was shown on the map,

9 the area controlled by the HVO, whereas the Lasva

10 Valley is more of a geographical term for the area.

11 And I think sometimes when the term "the area of Vitez"

12 is used, it's more the area around the town of Vitez.

13 Q. [Interpretation] In other words, that is not

14 a particularly precise time. When you say "Vitez," we

15 don't know whether you're referring to the town of

16 Vitez or the territory of the municipality of Vitez, do

17 we?

18 A. I think the term "area of Vitez" is more the

19 area of the town, but it also can be sometimes used for

20 areas within the municipality.

21 Q. Thank you very much. My final question about

22 this is D52/2 has been introduced already, and this

23 exhibit refers to the boundaries of the Vitez

24 municipality, as a witness described them. You did see

25 that exhibit, didn't you?

1 A. Yes, I've seen the boundaries of the

2 municipality.

3 Q. Could we then see on the ELMO the map with

4 the Vitez pocket, and on which we see the boundaries of

5 the municipality?

6 MR. KOVACIC: And I will ask the witness to

7 assist the usher with the map.

8 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Elford, the boundaries,

9 as you see them on this map, were they then copied to

10 one of the overlays which you showed us the day before

11 yesterday?

12 A. The overlays do not show the boundaries of

13 the municipality, because a front line was shown on

14 that one and which did not exactly match up with the

15 municipality boundaries.

16 Q. Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes here,

17 but that is my fault.

18 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic,

19 what do you recall municipal boundaries? What do you

20 mean by this? We are getting "frontiers" in the French

21 translation. Do you mean administrative boundaries of

22 the Vitez municipality, is that it?

23 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your

24 Honour, administrative boundaries of the municipality.

25 As they were under the then regulations, these

1 subdivisions were all clearly delineated.

2 Q. Witness, perhaps this is my fault, perhaps I

3 was not precise enough. Municipal boundaries, these

4 lines that we see here in D52, you identified -- of

5 course, you cannot know the details -- but in rough

6 terms, those would be the boundaries of the

7 municipality of Vitez? I've already shown you this map

8 before. Now, are those the boundaries that you also

9 copied to one of your overlays here?

10 A. The boundaries of the municipality are not

11 shown on the overlays. They only show the division of

12 the front line between the HVO and the ABiH, which is

13 different from the municipality boundary.

14 Q. Very well. Thank you.

15 When looking at the Vitez Brigade documents,

16 and you did say so the day before yesterday, we agree,

17 I suppose, that the area of responsibility of the Vitez

18 Brigade, in 1993, underwent certain changes. But I

19 believe that you will also agree with me that it was

20 always within the boundaries, within the municipal

21 boundaries of Vitez; can we agree on that?

22 A. The actual boundaries shown on the map, on

23 the overlays, do appear within the municipal boundaries

24 of the Vitez pocket, but that's not to say that members

25 of the brigade did not operate outside of the

1 municipality area.

2 Q. Mr. Elford, could you please give me one

3 example -- looking at this map, could you give us any

4 source which could tell us that the Vitez Brigade was

5 beyond this boundary?

6 A. I haven't used these sources in the -- shown

7 on the maps here. It's something that in previous

8 documents I've seen, Viteska members being wounded or

9 killed in the Busovaca area. But that information

10 wasn't -- doesn't need to be shown on the map showing

11 the area of responsibility of the brigade.

12 Q. Have you ever seen a document showing that

13 the Vitez Brigade, on the basis of any orders, as a

14 unit, as a whole, or any of its companies, had ever

15 been sent to the front outside the municipal

16 boundaries, except the front at Vares?

17 A. When you state for this -- I haven't seen

18 orders that refer to areas outside the municipality

19 boundaries, or outside of the Vitez area.

20 Q. Have you ever seen an order bearing on the

21 departure and deployment of units outside Vitez, on the

22 front line facing the VRS, that is, the Serbs, the JNA?

23 A. No. When compiling these maps, I didn't see

24 orders -- I'm not sure what time period you're talking

25 about, but not when I was compiling the front line in

1 the Vitez area.

2 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Excuse me,

3 Mr. Kovacic. The witness tells us that there were

4 members of the Vitez Brigade who were deployed and

5 killed in the area of Busovaca. That is what he said

6 in answer to one of your previous questions. I should

7 like to ask the witness on what is the statement

8 based?

9 A. It's not evidence -- documents I've used for

10 this report, but I believe I've seen other documents

11 within the OTP.

12 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. I suppose that what you are talking about is

14 a part of a different testimony and that it was an

15 individual or individuals but not a unit. Is that

16 correct?

17 A. Yeah, I think it would refer to an

18 individual.

19 Q. So we can agree that the unit, any one unit

20 of the Vitez Brigade, that there is no document that it

21 operated outside the municipality, outside the Vitez

22 municipal territory, except on the front line with the

23 Serbs, but not one of them operated ever beyond those

24 boundaries. We do agree on that, don't we?

25 A. I can't say I've seen documents referring to

1 the orders to move outside of the area for the unit as

2 a whole.

3 Q. Thank you. Tell me, please, do you know when

4 the Vitez Brigade was formed? When you went through

5 the documents, did you come across that information?

6 A. I've seen information on the formation of the

7 brigade, but it hasn't been included in this report.

8 But the documents seem related to March of 1993.

9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher

10 please now distribute this batch of documents?

11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, if you're going to

12 ask questions about the Vitez Brigade, I think I'm

13 right in saying that the Prosecution are going to call

14 a witness dealing specifically with the membership of

15 that brigade. Is that right?

16 MR. NICE: The next witness.

17 JUDGE MAY: The next witness is going to deal

18 with the membership of the brigade. Now, it may be

19 you're moving on to something else.

20 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, I surely will not

21 go in the persons -- I will strictly stick to the

22 matter of disposition and borders; no names, no

23 individuals, exactly for the reasons just stated.

24 I have prepared a couple -- 12 or 13

25 documents which might be used during the testimony, so

1 just in order to save some time, I'm distributing that

2 in advance.

3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Elford, will you please

4 have a look at the first document?

5 Could the document be placed on the ELMO for

6 the interpreters, please?

7 Do you agree that one can conclude that Mario

8 Cerkez was given the order by his superior, Tihomir

9 Blaskic, and that he was appointed the commander of the

10 Vitez Brigade?

11 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. This witness has

12 come here to produce maps about the front line, and

13 you, Mr. Kovacic, are asking him questions about

14 appointments and that sort of thing. Now, this doesn't

15 arise from his evidence. You can ask questions about

16 the maps, there is another witness to whom you can ask

17 questions, or indeed the most sensible thing might be

18 to produce this evidence in your own case, if you want

19 to produce evidence as to appointments and that sort of

20 thing.

21 This witness really only dealt with matters

22 of the map and force strengths. You can ask about the

23 force strengths, the figures which he gave, or about

24 the maps. But as far as these questions are concerned,

25 in my view, they are not relevant to his evidence.

1 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, I entirely agree

2 with what you said, but it was not my intention here to

3 go on the person. It is the date when the brigade is

4 established. The witness was talking about it and

5 mentioned it in the report, that the brigade was

6 established in March. I think having in mind that we

7 have -- a conflict started in the middle of April, it

8 is not irrelevant whether the brigade was established

9 on the 1st March or 24th March. So it's not the person

10 here, it's just the day of establishment.

11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, can you assist with

12 this? I mean can the next witness deal with this

13 rather than this witness?

14 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] The next

15 witness will only be speaking about soldiers about whom

16 we managed to obtain information and who seemed to have

17 belonged to the brigade, and we do not intend to ask

18 the next witness to tell us about the history of the

19 brigade.

20 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

21 Mr. Elford, to what extent can you help as to

22 the history of the brigade?

23 A. I've come across information relating to the

24 formation in the brigade in the preparation of the

25 maps, but the maps are the main area of study for --

1 JUDGE MAY: Yes. This is not the witness to

2 ask about the formation of the brigade. You can ask

3 him about the maps, you can ask him about the figures

4 which he gave for the numbers. That's what he gave

5 evidence about and what he has made a study of. But

6 beyond that, you must find another witness, or indeed

7 you can call your own evidence, which is by far the

8 most appropriate way to deal with these things.

9 MR. KOVACIC: Of course, I certainly will,

10 Your Honour. But remind me just to state that the

11 witness said the day before yesterday in his testimony

12 that the brigade was founded in March. I'm just now

13 trying to establish when in March; nothing else.

14 JUDGE MAY: Can you help, Mr. Elford, as to

15 when in March the brigade was founded?

16 A. I've seen this document before, and perhaps

17 the date is consistent. I just know it was in March

18 '93.

19 JUDGE MAY: Yes. That's as far as the

20 witness can take it. Now let's move on.

21 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you. I will kindly ask

22 the registrar to give us a number for this document.

23 THE REGISTRAR: The number will be D56/2.

24 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. When you went through these documents or as

1 you went through these documents, did you find any

2 information about the Vitez Brigade, that is, about its

3 having some barracks, some bases of its own?

4 A. Information relating to the areas where

5 headquarters of the sub-units of the brigade were

6 based, but not information relating to actual barracks,

7 as such.

8 Q. Did you come across any information to tell

9 you that the brigade used a motel in Kruscica to train

10 its forces for the front with the Serbs?

11 A. No, not in preparation of the maps.

12 Q. When addressing the Vitez Brigade, you said

13 that according to some of the sources that you used,

14 and I believe you mentioned McLeod's testimony, that

15 when the conflict broke out, the Vitez Brigade numbered

16 about 300 men and that it could be reinforced very

17 rapidly through further call-ups. Could you give us

18 some more accurate estimates as to the number of men,

19 as to its strength in a week, in a month, in a year,

20 how quickly? What does that mean, at least roughly?

21 A. I said it is difficult to give a figure for

22 any one period of time because the brigade started with

23 these active elements and the planning was therefore

24 mobilization, and the mobilization would have started

25 sometime in the April period. So we can look at

1 figures that we have for the April period and then for

2 the subsequent periods to show how the mobilization

3 would have carried on, which if I was given some

4 figures for the April period and then also figures for

5 August and later on in '93.

6 Q. Could you please look at the next document in

7 the batch that I gave you? That is a document of the

8 Defence Department, and this is a report on the

9 mobilization. So the war has broken out, and the

10 Defence office is beginning to mobilize. This is the

11 document of the 29^th of April, and I should like to

12 draw your attention to paragraph 3 of the document, the

13 first page, which in fact recapitulates, and that is

14 the last paragraph at the bottom of the page in the

15 English version, which seems to suggest that between

16 the 15th of April and the 28th of April, that is, until

17 the day when this report was signed, all told, about

18 500, that is, 498 military conscripts had been

19 mobilized and that they had been included in units and

20 so forth. So this document is referring to the

21 mobilization; is that right?

22 A. The first mobilization for that period, yes.

23 I'm not sure what information it gives about -- if

24 there was any mobilization before that period.

25 Q. True, one of them is basically such. Could

1 you tell us something about the mobilization procedure

2 because you were militarily trained and I believe you

3 could also glean that from the documents?

4 JUDGE MAY: No. Let's move on to something

5 else about which he did give evidence.

6 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Sir, you cannot be more precise about the

8 term that you used, that it could mobilize very

9 quickly, that is, within a day, a week, or a month, or

10 something like that. We agreed about that, didn't we?

11 A. Not the time period, but I have documents in

12 the binder which show there was a plan for mobilization

13 to be made, and that's the way the brigade planned to

14 operate.

15 Q. True. Thank you.

16 Could we have the number for this document of

17 the Defence Department of the 29^th of April?

18 THE REGISTRAR: D57/2.

19 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. I believe you just mentioned and you also

21 spoke about that in your testimony, Blaskic's document,

22 the assessment of the situation. I believe it was

23 Z4321. That is the next document in that batch.

24 I should like to draw your attention once

25 again to the page with an overview of the artillery.

1 When we look at that overview, that is, the six items,

2 can we then agree that the mortars were deployed in

3 brigades? Page 24.

4 A. The mortars in the brigades referring to the

5 MB-120s? MBH-2?

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. And there is also MB-120s and MBH-2s in the

8 mixed artillery division.

9 Q. Yes. Everything that is MB, because in our

10 language, "MB" means mortar, and we understand that

11 indication of mortars. So mortars are in the brigades,

12 aren't they? And the brigades also have some other

13 light artillery pieces.

14 Then under item 6, we have a unit called

15 "Mixed Artillery Division." That is page 24.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And that unit has all the heavy artillery,

18 doesn't it?

19 A. Yes. It was a brigade group of the

20 artilleries that had some heavier pieces.

21 Q. No, I don't think we are being precise

22 enough. Item 6, the title is "Mixed Artillery

23 Division." That is not a brigade. This is a document

24 of the Operative Zone, and the commander describes the

25 situation in the brigades; that is, items 1 to 5, and

1 then 6, the mixed artillery unit. Can we agree on

2 that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. What is your assessment as to the time when

5 this document was composed?

6 A. Looking from the fax in the document, we're

7 assessing for a period at least after August 1993, and

8 probably later in the year, perhaps October of 1993.

9 In the first paragraph, it mentions the 6^th Corps of

10 the ABiH, which we know was formed in August of 1993,

11 and uses the terminology "ZP" on the top for "military

12 district," which we've seen from other documents, and

13 was from about October of 1993.

14 Q. The fact remains that this document does not

15 have a number, date, or signature; is that correct?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. Therefore, we cannot be 100 percent sure

18 whether this is an official document or maybe if it was

19 only a draft document of Mr. Blaskic. The informative

20 value of this document is somewhat disputable. We

21 cannot be 100 percent sure of it. Is that correct?

22 A. It still provides material that can be used

23 and correlated with other sources.

24 Q. Yes. I agree with that.

25 Looking at the same page, page 24, after an

1 overview of artillery -- in the English text, it's on

2 page 25, second paragraph on the page, at the end --

3 the document states that the basic problem of the

4 artillery is the very low reserve of artillery and the

5 impossibility of replenishment. Can we agree with this

6 statement?

7 A. Yes. It refers to low reserves of ammunition

8 and impossibility of replenishing them.

9 Q. The document does have a number. It has been

10 tendered into evidence; it is 432.1.

11 Amongst other units deployed in the area of

12 Vitez, on the basis of available information, you also

13 mentioned the Vitezovi unit. You said that the unit

14 was relatively weak, and bearing that in mind, the unit

15 was not so important, according to your opinion.

16 However, a little further down, you do mention that the

17 unit was very well-organised, that it was very

18 well-motivated and trained.

19 Did you ever have an opportunity, through the

20 documents and materials that you read, to see that that

21 unit was active in the area, for example, of Kolonija,

22 Rijeka, Kratine, Dubravica, Sumarija, including a

23 centre for detention in some parts of the area of

24 Vitez, that is, on the front line of Vitez itself; in

25 Donja Veceriska, in the SPS factory, the explosives

1 factory, that the unit throughout -- one police unit

2 from its premises in 1992, and that it had some

3 conflicts with the Territorial Defence of the BH army.

4 Have you seen this type of information? Did

5 you notice that this unit was mentioned on a couple of

6 occasions in the documents that you analyzed?

7 A. If I go back to the start of the question,

8 you mentioned that I thought the unit was relatively

9 weak. I think I was just referring to the fact that

10 it's numerically small in size, rather than -- I think

11 it's wrong to describe it as a weak unit, to start

12 with, because we know it was a special forces unit. So

13 we're not expecting it to be a large unit, but we're

14 expecting it to perhaps have a higher morale, better

15 training and perhaps even better equipped than the

16 other units.

17 As for the areas you mentioned, they weren't

18 included in the front-line maps themselves, but I have

19 seen documents describing the areas of activity of the

20 Vitezovi, and it's from documents like that where we

21 gathered the information on the size of them as well.

22 Q. You're a professional soldier, you're a

23 military expert. You mentioned certain elements, such

24 as level of organisation, training. These elements

25 significantly affect the strength of a certain unit; is

1 that correct?

2 A. Those are the factors that we take into

3 account when assessing the effectiveness of a unit,

4 yes.

5 Q. You also spoke about various reasons for --

6 that is, various elements, thanks to which the

7 HVO managed to prevail in the pocket. You mentioned at

8 one point that the HVO was capable of surviving in that

9 area. This can be seen from certain UNPROFOR elements

10 belonging to the British Battalion. Probably thanks to

11 the fact that they had a lot of supplies. However, you

12 also mentioned that the HVO was able to get supplies.

13 This is somehow contradictory to me.

14 Do you know how long the axis -- the supply

15 routes were usable in the area of the Vitez pocket? Do

16 you have any information as to that?

17 A. We're talking about a fairly large time

18 period, which explains why the difference in the

19 ability to supply. In the binder, the PWO reports

20 refer to the severing of the admitted HVO supply route

21 in approximately July 1993. It was just up until that

22 time, there was an over-land supply route into the

23 Vitez pocket. And then subsequent reports then talk

24 about the aerial resupply, or the helicopter resupply.

25 Q. Over-land supply route, perhaps we can use

1 the document Z1140, paragraph 2. Do you have that

2 document in front of you?.

3 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

4 Mr. President, excuse me. There is a slight problem

5 with the interpretation. Here we are talking about a

6 report about war prisoners. However, the witness is

7 speaking about a report coming from the Prince of Wales

8 own Regiment, because in French, we are talking about

9 this particular document, and not the document

10 referring to the war prisoners.

11 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation].

12 Q. I wanted you to have a look at the document

13 Z1140. I'm interested in paragraph 2, the last

14 sentence of paragraph 2. According to this document --

15 JUDGE MAY: Has the witness got the

16 document?

17 MR. KOVACIC: This is in the binder that we

18 just gave on the beginning?

19 A. Would it be possible for you to tell me the

20 footnote for the one because --

21 JUDGE MAY: Did you give the witness the

22 documents we have?

23 MR. KOVACIC: Yes. Everybody got it.

24 THE WITNESS: Yes.

25 MR. KOVACIC:

1 Q. So item 2, last sentence in that item. It is

2 Z1140, I think.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. [Interpretation] It's a milinfosum, dated 6^th

5 of July 1993. The last sentence states as follows:

6 "The last supply route passing via Sebesic was cut off

7 by the BH army in the night of the 2^nd of July, 1993."

8 Could you please be so kind and show us

9 Sebesic on the map.

10 A. ... covered on this map because it's the area

11 to the south of Vitez between the Route Diamond and

12 Fojnica.

13 Q. [In English] It might be too far to the

14 south. Anyway, that's a point from the south; correct?

15 A. That's correct. It's to the south of Vitez.

16 Q. [Interpretation] So that was the last supply

17 route which the HVO could use in the pocket; is that

18 correct?

19 A. Last over-land supply route, yes.

20 Q. Thank you. The document has already been

21 marked Z1140, but I do not know whether it has been

22 admitted or not. So I would tender it into evidence.

23 JUDGE MAY: Admit it, please.

24 THE REGISTRAR: D58/2.

25 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Let me move on to another subject. You spoke

2 at some length about the ratio of forces in the area

3 between the BH army and the HVO throughout the year of

4 1993. Is it correct that we are only speaking about

5 the year of 1993? Can we agree on that? We have

6 limited ourselves to the year of 1993.

7 A. Considering the actual figures that were used

8 yesterday, they were from 1993.

9 Q. Witness, you said that the BH army was

10 present at the moment the April conflict broke out,

11 that it was still present at the front lines against

12 the Serbs, and that that was the reason why the ratio

13 of forces between the HVO and the BH army was no longer

14 so clearly, so plainly in favour of the BH army,

15 because part of its forces had to go to the front lines

16 with Serbs.

17 Could you present us with any source

18 indicating the exact number of troops that were

19 deployed from the BH army to the front lines against

20 Serbs? For example, in the area of Novi Travnik, the

21 area to the north-west of Vitez.

22 A. I haven't compiled figures for the actual

23 numbers. I just looked at reports showing which

24 elements of which units were deployed along the front

25 line and some of the actions which they took part in

1 and areas they reconquered.

2 Q. So as to the exact figure concerning the

3 troops of the BH army, you cannot tell us exactly how

4 many of its troops were deployed at the front line. We

5 do not have any reliable information about that. Is

6 that correct?

7 A. Well, the study hasn't shown the exact

8 numbers. There is, in the BritBat reports, they do

9 give information on units that they saw at various

10 points, but no, I haven't carried out a further study

11 on that.

12 Q. You indicated that the information you

13 compiled was compiled on the basis of certain documents

14 concerning the presence of the HVO on the front line

15 against the VRS, until June 1993, but you don't have

16 any exact figures for that either. Is that correct?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. While describing this map, with the

19 deployment of forces in the area of the Lasva River

20 Valley, did you, while examining these documents, did

21 you obtain any picture, did you form any idea as to who

22 actually started the conflict in April 1993?

23 A. That wasn't the area of my study, no.

24 JUDGE MAY: No, that's one of the issues we

25 are going to have to determine.

1 Now, Mr. Kovacic, I must insist that you

2 restrict your cross-examination to the matters that the

3 witness dealt with in evidence. It's not a license for

4 a roaming cross-examination across the whole case. I'm

5 looking at some of the documents which apparently you

6 want to put to the witness, and I doubt very much

7 whether they are admissible as far as he's concerned.

8 MR. KOVACIC: I appreciate that, Your Honour,

9 really, but I'm just following -- I'm quitting on that

10 issue, of course, but I'm just following the line of

11 the Prosecution.

12 We raised the issue yesterday before the

13 testimony, whether we will talk about force ratio,

14 because inevitably we are then entering other areas, or

15 we should talk only about fronts. That is a relatively

16 grey area, how far we may or may not, but I --

17 JUDGE MAY: You can cross-examine the witness

18 about what he said about the force ratio. You can

19 question him about his knowledge, but there's little

20 point putting to him documents which he has not seen

21 and may know nothing about. In due course, you can

22 comment on his evidence, of course, as you wish, but

23 there's little point going through with him things

24 which he knows nothing about.

25 MR. KOVACIC: Certainly, Your Honour, I will

1 not.

2 May I then just ask the witness to look at

3 the document, the next one on my pile, which is marked

4 in the Blaskic case with D194.

5 My question is the following: Have you seen

6 this document, as part of your study?

7 A. Yeah, I believe I've seen this document and

8 several other ABiH combat orders.

9 Q. That document clearly deals with the ratio of

10 forces in some of its parts. That's why it would be

11 interesting for you. Can we agree on that?

12 A. Yeah.

13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I would tender

14 this document into evidence, but I have to draw your

15 attention to a very serious mistake in translation.

16 In items 3 and 4 on page 1 of the English

17 text, a previous order of the 3^rd Corps is mentioned.

18 The number of the order is there, and it was issued on

19 the 4^th of April. Another prior order was also

20 referred to in the previous paragraph. However, in the

21 Croatian text, one can see that the orders in question

22 are the orders of the 16^th of April in item 3 and the

23 order of the 15^th of April in item 4. This is a

24 significant mistake, and I would kindly ask the

25 Prosecution to request a correction of the translation,

1 because we will be using this document later on in the

2 case, and I would kindly ask the document to be marked

3 as an exhibit.

4 JUDGE MAY: Let us deal with that matter,

5 first of all. You see the document and the point

6 that's made. Do you accept that it says "16" in

7 paragraph 3 in the original?

8 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Your

9 Honour, the document mentioned by Mr. Kovacic is indeed

10 a document that can be found in the binder presented by

11 a witness, and the document is marked Z674 and it's a

12 document mentioned in the footnote number 6. I think

13 that Mr. Kovacic has a slightly different version. It

14 is the same order which was issued by Mr. Suad

15 Hasanovic on the 16th of April, but this document is

16 also in our binder.

17 JUDGE MAY: Yes, but the question is, is the

18 point that he makes about the correction a right one or

19 not? Mr. Kovacic says in paragraph 3 the order date is

20 dated the 16th, and if one looks at the original, that

21 appears to be right. But if you don't accept it, we'll

22 have to have the matter examined.

23 MR. NICE: As far as I can see in our own

24 version, the translation actually says the 16th, so I

25 think under that document rather than the other

1 version, I think the proper --

2 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] The

3 original has the same date, the 16th.

4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I have a

5 document here. In item 3 of the original, the date is

6 the 16th, and in item 4 --

7 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, it's not your fault,

8 it is the fault of the amount of documentation that we

9 have in this case.

10 Now, it appears that there are two different

11 translations. We're not going to waste any time about

12 it now. We need to straighten this out.

13 MR. NICE: Your Honour, the document

14 Mr. Kovacic has produced is a Defence exhibit from

15 another case. I don't know who did the translation.

16 The document that we've produced in our bundle has an

17 official translation from the Translation Department of

18 this Tribunal, and as far as I can see, both dates are

19 properly recorded as the 16th of April, and it would

20 probably be safer to proceed on the basis of our

21 document and not bother with producing this one.

22 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, while we're dealing

23 with the documents, we received today an objection on

24 behalf of Dario Kordic to what are described as the

25 exhibits appended to the report. Now, I had not

1 understood that this witness was producing documents.

2 I thought he was merely referring to them for the

3 purposes of his report.

4 MR. NICE: Well, they would be

5 comprehensively produced for reference by the witness.

6 That was our understanding, and we understood that any

7 objections -- class objections made yesterday were

8 rejected by the Chamber in ruling the evidence to be

9 generally -- not yesterday, the day before -- in ruling

10 the evidence to be generally admissible.

11 We have only had this itemized objection this

12 morning, and we haven't had a chance to review it, but

13 it seems to me that the probabilities are that most of

14 the objections are of no substance, in the sense that

15 they don't meet the permissive decision of the Chamber

16 two days ago to allow this evidence in notwithstanding

17 the objection --

18 JUDGE MAY: No, it was the report -- it was

19 the witness's evidence that we allowed, not all these

20 exhibits. This is a totally different matter. There

21 was no mention made of introducing an entire bundle of

22 exhibits. And some of the objections are of substance,

23 because if right, they say that some of the documents

24 are inadmissible under the Tulica ruling.

25 What I had, and I speak entirely for myself,

1 what I had in mind was to admit the witness's evidence

2 about the maps and the troop strengths and not to

3 exclude it, because it was said some of the evidence to

4 which -- some of the material to which he had referred

5 was ruled inadmissible. I did not have in mind ruling

6 that all the material to which he referred then became

7 admissible. Indeed, it isn't. So there is a totally

8 different issue, as far as admissibility is concerned.

9 MR. NICE: That may have to be resolved

10 later. In any event, we'll have to spend some time

11 looking at the document. In any event, the witness is

12 able to give the evidence that he is giving.

13 JUDGE MAY: Yes, he's able to give the

14 evidence and he's able to say where he got the matter

15 from, but it doesn't mean to say that that makes the

16 evidence -- the material admissible.

17 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice, I

18 fully agree with what has just been said. We have

19 admitted this witness whom you called, your office, on

20 the basis of the fact that he was going to provide some

21 information concerning maps because he studied them.

22 But it has never been a question -- I mean he can rely

23 on any information he has, but we never thought that he

24 would be producing a number of exhibits that would be

25 tendered into evidence, and this is not how I

1 understood the whole thing.

2 MR. NICE: Well, typically I think experts,

3 when they rely on material, will append the material

4 upon which they rely.

5 JUDGE BENNOUNA: It's not an expert.

6 JUDGE MAY: Well, even so.

7 MR. NICE: If he's not an expert, he's a

8 witness collating material, and typically he will

9 produce and append that material.

10 JUDGE MAY: Yes, and that's what I thought he

11 was doing, and I thought out of courtesy we were

12 provided with a copy of the documents to which he was

13 referring so that, if necessary, we could refer to it

14 during cross-examination.

15 MR. NICE: Yes.

16 JUDGE MAY: There was no question of

17 admitting those exhibits.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: But, Mr. Nice, you will be

19 seeking to have these documents admitted --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm asking you whether you

22 will be seeking to rely on these documents.

23 MR. NICE: Probably, yes, and probably in

24 relation to all or nearly all.

25 You may, I think, remember that I said right

1 at the beginning, when I gave a general introduction to

2 this witness, that there was a range of material

3 that -- I may have used the words "he was going to

4 produce," because that was my understanding, in general

5 terms, and I said, "subject to one possible exception

6 or qualification." And I think I had one particular

7 qualification in mind relating to the ruling recently

8 given by the Chamber about Blaskic's trial testimony,

9 to which the witness has referred, as well as to the

10 documents to be produced, and I think that was the only

11 exception I had in mind. But we then didn't explore

12 the matter further. But, yes, in principle, we would

13 want the material available.

14 Material is let in by this Chamber,

15 understandably on a very -- I was going to say

16 "generous basis", but generous basis, documents are

17 let in without their being item-by-item challenged as

18 to whether the witness is really being able to say

19 anything about it and so on. The material then is

20 available perhaps for later comment or for later use

21 with other witnesses, and I have to say that my

22 understanding was that this material would go in on the

23 same basis.

24 JUDGE MAY: Clearly, looking at the carefully

25 drafted Defence document, much of it can go in, it

1 appears, without objection. But there are matters

2 where there are substantial objections; for instance,

3 no English translation, a document missing, or, indeed,

4 bits from Blaskic or from this trial itself.

5 The sensible course, if I may say, is for the

6 Prosecution to review the Defence objections and then,

7 at some stage, to apply for admission of such documents

8 as they want. It can be dealt as a separate issue,

9 rather than detaining the witness while we go through

10 it all.

11 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] If I may

12 add to clarify something, the Defence today produced

13 some of the documents which come from this binder and

14 tendered them as Defence documents. Don't you find

15 it paradoxical, slightly?

16 JUDGE MAY: It doesn't matter whether I find

17 it paradoxical. The fact is that they are entitled to

18 cross-examine on documents, and, of course, that makes

19 them exhibits.

20 As for the other exhibits, the sensible

21 course is for the Prosecution and Defence to agree on

22 what can go in without objection, and then if there is

23 anything left over, we will rule on it. Yes.

24 And as for the document that we were

25 discussing here, we'll make sure that we have a proper

1 translation of it, if there's one which is mistaken.

2 Perhaps, Mr. Kovacic, you would look into this and make

3 sure we get the right one. Yes.

4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] May I merely

5 remind Your Honours that in the version of the

6 translation which is in the binder, it is correct, that

7 translation is correct. But I rely on my own

8 documents. I do not think I'm bound to show documents

9 that I have been given. I have my database, my

10 sources, and this is the best document that I could

11 find. But I found a mistake in it, and yet this

12 document was received from the Prosecutor's office.

13 True, not in this case.

14 But since we are talking about documents, I

15 assume the documents Z432.1 and Z1140 of the BritBat

16 have not been tendered, and I should like to tender

17 them now and ask for numbers, because we touched upon

18 both of them and the witness confirmed that he had seen

19 them both.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Number Z1140 has already been

21 given a number, D58/2. Document 432.1 will be D59/2.

22 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you. [Interpretation] Let

23 us then move on to the last subject, that is, of my

24 concern.

25 Q. You analysed Blaskic's orders, that is, the

1 orders of the commander of the Operative Zone, which

2 also covered the unit of my client. You explained the

3 orders of the 17th of April, '93. You told us the

4 conflict in the Vitez area or the Vitez pocket broke

5 out on the 16th of April, '93. Do we agree on that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Now, if we do agree on that, then I should

8 like to ask you to look at the next order in this batch

9 of documents. But, true, it is marked D269 and has a

10 number in a circle, "145", handwritten. Yes, this

11 document. I took this document from the Blaskic case,

12 and this is the order of the 16th of April, 1993, at

13 1.30 in the morning, so that was the night between the

14 15th and the 16th. It is addressed to the commander of

15 the Vitez Brigade, Mr. Cerkez, and the unit called

16 Tvrtko, which you mentioned.

17 Have you seen this document before, or while

18 you made the analysis, did you see it then?

19 A. I've seen this document, yes.

20 Q. Could you show us on the map then, where was

21 the Vitez Brigade to be deployed, pursuant to that

22 order? Where was it, on the 16th of April, at sometime

23 on that particular day; that is, after 1.30, when it

24 was issued that order?

25 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Elford, before you answer

1 that, have you made a close study of where the Vitez

2 Brigade was, and I mean a close study of where the

3 Vitez Brigade was at various times on the 16th of

4 April, or is your evidence limited to an overall study

5 of the force ratio?

6 A. The evidence is limited to the overall study

7 because I couldn't -- the question was where was the

8 Vitez Brigade deployed, but this is talking about

9 elements of the brigade. So I can say where elements

10 were, but not where the whole brigade was at the time.

11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, I have made the

12 point before, and I make it again, this is not the

13 appropriate witness to deal with details about that

14 day, or about these orders from Colonel Blaskic.

15 Merely because the witness has seen them does not mean

16 that he can assist the Trial Chamber in answering

17 questions which are of crucial importance; namely,

18 where precisely the brigade was at a certain time. The

19 only people who can realistically deal with that are

20 the people who were there. And merely looking at these

21 orders is not going to assist us.

22 So unless you've got any further

23 cross-examination, we'll move on. And I mean by that,

24 cross-examination on a different topic.

25 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, with all due

1 respect, we have been given by this witness the maps,

2 many maps, and, for example, just one, and I'm basing

3 it on this one, which clearly shows the development of

4 the 17th, with the positions of the units in which --

5 JUDGE MAY: Which map are you referring to?

6 MR. KOVACIC: What I don't know is whether

7 the Prosecution will, at the end of the day, say, "This

8 is the evidence."

9 JUDGE MAY: No. Which map are you referring

10 to?

11 MR. KOVACIC: I am referring to one of the

12 maps we have received from the Prosecution. It is

13 entitled "HVO Intended Front Lines in Vitez," and then

14 it has the three positions on that day. The first one

15 is by Blaskic's order, 4.00 in the morning of the 17th;

16 the next one, 1815; the next one, 2210 hours.

17 JUDGE MAY: Right. You can ask about that.

18 You can ask the witness how he got that information,

19 where he got the information from, and on what it is

20 based.

21 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, there is no

22 dispute on that. Those orders are here.

23 JUDGE MAY: Do stop arguing, Mr. Kovacic.

24 You can put to the witness where he got the information

25 from.

1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. You heard the question. Could you tell us on

3 the basis of which information did you then plot the

4 deployment of forces, as you did on this map?

5 A. Yes. The three documents that were shown on

6 the map were exhibits in the Blaskic trial. They don't

7 actually show the deployment or say which elements of

8 the Viteska Brigade were deployed in these places, they

9 show the intended defence lines, and that's what the

10 order gave. I'm not clear what elements of the Viteska

11 Brigade were actually sent to those positions.

12 Q. In an analysis of this nature, on the basis

13 of individual documents, wasn't it important for you

14 where a particular unit was the day before or the day

15 after. Is that correct?

16 A. In this area, I was shown the front lines

17 that developed, I wasn't able or wasn't trying to show

18 which elements of the brigade were at a set place at a

19 set time. It's when you move on to the July map that

20 it shows an overall area of responsibility for

21 battalions, but that's the limit of it. It was really

22 showing how the front line developed.

23 Q. But did you say "battalions," or was that a

24 mistake in translation? Did you say "battalions,"

25 plural?

1 A. When we're looking at the last map, it's

2 showing the areas of responsibility of battalions --

3 Q. [In English] Excuse me, sir. You were just

4 talking about the 17th, and you mentioned battalions.

5 That was my point.

6 A. No. I said on the July map, on the 17th, I'm

7 just showing intended lines of defence. It doesn't

8 show which units were to be deployed there, or what

9 size of units.

10 Q. [Interpretation] That was later, yes, true.

11 But do you know where the elements of all the Vitez

12 Brigade were on the 16th of April, again, as intended

13 -- according to the order? Which was its area of

14 responsibility on that particular day?

15 A. I haven't made a study of where the elements

16 were on the 16th.

17 Q. So you did not analyze Blaskic's order of the

18 16th of April, that is, the one issued at half past

19 one; you did not consider that, did you?

20 A. It was an order to the commander of the HVO

21 Brigade Vitez to deploy forces, but it doesn't say

22 which forces to deploy. And it also is covered again

23 by the orders of the 17th, which refer to the area of

24 Kruscica, Vranjska, and Donja Veceriska, and that those

25 orders are included on that first map to show the

1 development of the front lines. You can see that the

2 lines shown in those orders match up to the lines shown

3 on the final map.

4 Q. Could you then show us, please, on this map,

5 on this overlay, how did that particular line which you

6 just mentioned develop? Where did it start, during the

7 first three days of the conflict, and where did it

8 end?

9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher

10 please help the witness with the overlays.

11 Q. So when the conflict broke out on the 16th of

12 April, you show here how the forces were deployed,

13 according to Blaskic's orders, which you mentioned, the

14 three orders of the 17th. But you are not taking into

15 consideration the order of the 16th, which would yet be

16 closer to the beginning of the story. Where then,

17 according to you, were the various elements of the

18 Vitez Brigade?

19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Elford, let's make sure that

20 I understand the question.

21 You have given evidence, according to this

22 map, based on Blaskic's orders of the 17th; is that

23 right?

24 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE MAY: You are now being asked about the

1 16th. Can you assist us about the 16th or not?

2 THE WITNESS: The question was about the

3 units deployed at the time, and I don't have

4 information on that. The information shown is the

5 general intention, the general area to be covered by

6 the front line, the defence lines, not the actual

7 deployment of units there.

8 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, it appears this

9 witness cannot help beyond the evidence that he's given

10 about the 17th and the intended orders, or the intended

11 dispositions, and it must be doubtful whether there's

12 any point going on, trying to get evidence out of him.

13 As I have said more than once, you can call

14 your own evidence, you can produce these documents in

15 your own case, but there's little point arguing with a

16 witness who can't assist on these particular matters.

17 MR. KOVACIC: Just one question, Your

18 Honour.

19 Q. [Interpretation] All the orders that you had

20 at your disposal show only the intended deployment.

21 Not only those of the 16th, but also of the 17th. You

22 do not really know who was where, you only know what

23 was the intention of the commander when he issued the

24 orders, which were the areas he wanted to get hold of.

25 But otherwise, you don't have any other information.

1 Do we agree on that?

2 A. That's correct. It shows the intention, and

3 that then shows how the front line subsequently

4 developed.

5 Q. So in that sense, there is no difference

6 between the order of the 16th or the 17th. Both of

7 them -- or, rather, all four of them are only about

8 intention; is that true?

9 A. Intended in the sense that the order was

10 made. It is an order. It's not an -- it is an order

11 to them, but implies an intention to it. It's given as

12 an order.

13 Q. Yes, I agree.

14 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours,

15 may I say one thing. If I may, I should like to remind

16 you that at the time we received this material, we made

17 a very serious effort to avoid precisely what we're

18 talking about now. We're quite ready to reach an

19 understanding about individual lines. Now, one cannot

20 only conclude what was the intention emanating from

21 these orders. We simply wanted to confirm where the

22 units were, and, much to our regret, we have not

23 managed to do that.

24 I, nevertheless, think, in view of the

25 documents we received, and the situation as presented

1 by the witness, I think it is simply not realistic to

2 speak about the 17th, which is the second day of the

3 conflict, rather than the 16th, that is, the first

4 order that was issued. But, as you said, there are, of

5 course, other ways and other means of achieving that.

6 But this is not a fair picture because it begins in the

7 middle of the story, rather than at the beginning of

8 it, and it is for that reason why I think that this

9 testimony is worthless.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Those are matters which you

11 can make submissions on at the appropriate time.

12 MR. KOVACIC: Yes, sir. Certainly.

13 [Interpretation] Right. Then I do not wish to waste

14 any more of your time.

15 Q. Very briefly, going through the orders, those

16 other orders of the 17th that you specifically

17 mentioned, the one of 4.00, is to the units of the

18 Frankopan Zrinjski Brigade and the Vitez Brigade; is

19 that so?

20 A. If I can just refer to the actual order. The

21 0400 order --

22 Q. [In English] The 0400 order is addressed to

23 Zrinjski and Viteska; right?

24 A. That's correct, to the command.

25 Q. The next one, 1815, is addressed to Viteska,

1 to the forward battalion of the military police, and to

2 Zrinski; correct?

3 A. That's correct. It then goes on to say "The

4 commanders of the above-mentioned units are responsible

5 to me for its execution." Yes.

6 Q. [Interpretation] You are referring to item

7 3. So there is no subordination. All three

8 commanders, whose units are mentioned here and then

9 sent to individual areas, are responsible to the

10 commander of the Operative Zone, that is, Blaskic. Is

11 that correct?

12 A. That's correct, because they are taking up

13 positions along the same line, and the subordination is

14 to the commander of the Operative Zone.

15 Q. There is no subordination, there is no

16 relation of subordination among the three of them, are

17 there?

18 A. It talks about coordination between them.

19 Q. Yes, that is so. Thank you.

20 The last one of the 17th or 4th [sic], it is

21 being issued only to the Vitez Brigade, the 2210.

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. Did you also look at other orders issued to

24 other units in other defence sectors during that night?

25 A. No. I just took these ones for showing the

1 areas around Vitez for the Viteska Brigade. That's the

2 information to show the intention in this area.

3 Q. I'm not quite sure I understand you. So your

4 purpose was to show us only the positions of the Vitez

5 Brigade or the HVO in the Lasva pocket on that

6 particular critical day. Earlier, it seemed that you

7 were to show all the HVO units, all the HVO forces, in

8 the Vitez pocket, not only the Vitez municipality.

9 Could you please explain that to me?

10 A. Yes. The final map here shown shows the

11 final front lines for the whole of the Vitez pocket.

12 The preceding ones show some of the build-up of it from

13 the information we had. So there was not information

14 that I've seen for other areas of the pocket. The

15 final map, to get the information for the whole pocket,

16 we had to also use information from BritBat and from

17 other sources of maps.

18 Q. But there is no doubt then in the

19 municipality of Vitez itself. There were different HVO

20 units; is that correct?

21 A. Yes. There were units other than the Viteska

22 Brigade.

23 Q. And we have just seen it from these orders,

24 haven't we, if we didn't glean it from some other

25 documents.

1 A. The orders referring to, say, the Zrinski

2 Brigade?

3 Q. Quite. There is the forward battalion of the

4 police, Tvrtko is mentioned too. So quite a number of

5 units.

6 A. Yes. The last thing you mentioned, yes, that

7 they're shown in areas within Vitez.

8 Q. These orders we've just been through, they

9 are establishing the areas of responsibility of

10 individual units at different periods of time; is that

11 correct?

12 A. I don't think they refer to the actual area

13 of responsibility. These are specific orders on a

14 specific day. I don't think it says that, for example,

15 the Tvrtko Brigade was to always operate in that area.

16 Q. Could you then clarify this for me, please,

17 Mr. Elford. If a commander decides that a particular

18 unit is to be deployed in a particular area, in an X or

19 Y village, and regardless of whether it's two hours,

20 six hours, 16 days, the commander is thereby

21 determining that unit's operational zone and the area

22 of responsibility.

23 I may be a layman, but that is how I

24 understand how the army functions. Does not such an

25 order define, by definition, also the area of

1 responsibility?

2 A. The area of responsibility is the actual

3 operational area. If it's sent to another area, that

4 would be another area within the area of responsibility

5 of another unit.

6 Q. And when we are dealing with a number of

7 units in one and the same area?

8 A. If you're asking me for the hierarchy of

9 units in the area, I'm not sure.

10 JUDGE MAY: If you don't understand the

11 question, Mr. Elford, just say so.

12 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I don't feel

13 this is an area that I've studied for this

14 presentation.

15 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Very well. When you showed us the front

17 lines on the maps, conditionally speaking --

18 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic,

19 you told us on Tuesday that you would not take more

20 than one hour for your cross-examination. You've been

21 at it for one hour and a half. You have to finish

22 before the break, because we have other business. So

23 it will be really very sensible if you finished before

24 the break, particularly since we're dealing with the

25 maps.

1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I hope I will

2 not need more than 10 or 15 minutes. Yes, we did,

3 indeed, dwell on these maps because the witness was

4 saying some new things. All right.

5 Q. So as for the front lines, you do not really

6 think they're front lines, these are the areas which

7 should be controlled by units; that is, some units

8 should hold individual points and individual roads.

9 That is, I believe, how you explained it to us.

10 Individual routes. That is, I believe, how I

11 understood your testimony.

12 A. Areas held by units, the front line would

13 change depending on where defensive positions were for

14 both sides, and where attacks were made.

15 Q. Did you come across any information that the

16 HVO positions had been prepared in advance? I mean,

17 had any engineering works been done, fortifications,

18 trenches, or anything? But there is no such

19 information, is there?

20 A. For the preparation of this report, I'm not

21 sure what engineering works were carried out for this

22 specific time period. I know that there were also

23 conflicts in the area in early 1993, January of 1993,

24 which would have involved preparation of defence

25 works.

1 Q. Mr. Elford, my question was quite clear.

2 Have you seen any information that the HVO had

3 engineering positions ready, that is, trenches,

4 cross-trenches, some fortifications, for this conflict

5 in the Vitez pocket, for the conflict between the HVO

6 and the army of BiH? Have you ever laid your eyes on a

7 document that would tell us anything about that?

8 A. The information I referred to on

9 fortifications refers to fortifications that developed

10 at a later period.

11 Q. That is, after the beginning of the conflict,

12 not before the conflict broke out.

13 A. Yes, because I was reporting on the front

14 lines that developed.

15 Q. Mr. Elford, according to military doctrine,

16 is there some theory about the force ratio between the

17 offensive and the defensive forces? According to

18 military doctrine, how much stronger need the attacker

19 be than the defense forces, two-fold, three-fold,

20 four-fold, or how much stronger does he need to be? If

21 you were in the ABiH, how many men would you need to

22 overcome the HVO in the pocket? What do the doctrines

23 tell us about that?

24 JUDGE MAY: There are a number of questions.

25 Is there a doctrine at all that you know of?

1 THE WITNESS: The concept of force ratio

2 relies on many variables, and I don't think you can

3 just talk about the numbers involved. There is

4 evidence where small forces have defeated large

5 forces. The numbers vary, and you have to take into

6 account all the other factors.

7 JUDGE MAY: When one thinks about it, it's a

8 matter of common sense. I don't think we're going to

9 get much further on that.

10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Very well. But

11 we were told that the witness is an analyst. If he is

12 an analyst, then he should know such things.

13 JUDGE MAY: Let's move on.

14 MR. KOVACIC: Yes. I'm going to move on.

15 Q. [Interpretation] There are two places along

16 the main thoroughfare through the Vitez pocket, in the

17 area of the Vitez municipality. Both are strategically

18 important. Would you agree that this is below Sivrino

19 Selo, on the road, and at Grbavica, alongside the

20 BritBat? You know what I'm talking about.

21 Do you think these are important ABiH

22 positions which it held there over the main road? Can

23 we agree on that?

24 A. Yes. I've shown the positions. I haven't

25 tried to make any value judgement on the importance of

1 them.

2 Q. Very well. One of your conclusions about

3 sectors was based on a document that you used, and that

4 was the document of the Defence Office. Did you see

5 that the language used, the terminology, that is, there

6 are no elevation points, there is no military idiom

7 there, and that it is, therefore, a different document

8 linguistically speaking than military documents issued,

9 for instance, by Blaskic in that same area?

10 Because it was on the basis of that document

11 that you defined, outlined, some sectors in the Vitez

12 valley, or rather in the municipality of Vitez.

13 A. Yeah. The report is written by the Defence

14 office and explains the organisation of the brigade.

15 Q. You've read a number of documents, documents

16 issued by military commanders, military units. Judging

17 from the form of the document, do you think this is a

18 document that was written by a military person?

19 Let me simplify and question and let us not

20 waste more time than necessary.

21 This document speaks about sectors, that is,

22 mobilization sectors, the sectors where the

23 mobilization was supposed to be carried out. It is not

24 a document about actual deployment. Could you agree on

25 that?

1 A. Yeah, this document written by the Defence

2 office relating to sectors that were established, which

3 would be in accordance with the demand for the command

4 of the Vitez Brigade, and the sectors they've used in

5 this match up, then, with some of the sectors that are

6 given in subsequent orders to sector commanders by the

7 brigade commander.

8 Q. Only in certain parts. They do not agree

9 completely; is that correct?

10 A. It's more that we only have orders for

11 certain parts.

12 Q. That's correct, yes, thank you.

13 During your analysis, did you use evidence

14 from the Blaskic case? You did say so for certain

15 documents, but did you also use photographs of certain

16 positions, positions that were shown or indicated by

17 witnesses on a model which was used in the Blaskic

18 case?

19 A. I've seen some of the testimony relating to

20 the model and some of the pictures, which are not

21 particularly good.

22 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, have you got many

23 more minutes?

24 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, I think I'm -- I'm

25 just checking whether I omitted -- I mean I did omit a

1 lot of things, but whether there's anything of crucial

2 value.

3 Your Honour, excuse me. I'm not sure whether

4 you ruled or not, but I would like to enter this

5 document from 16.

6 JUDGE MAY: No, no.

7 MR. KOVACIC: Okay.

8 JUDGE MAY: It's nothing to do with the

9 witness. You'll have to call him properly.

10 MR. KOVACIC: And then if I may, just one

11 minor thing.

12 We had been given, the day before yesterday,

13 after this witness concluded testimony, an additional

14 paper also coming from the office of Defence, and I

15 will not ask about documents. Probably that will be

16 addressed on redirect. If it will be, I don't know.

17 But there is again an error in translation. So if that

18 document will be mentioned, then I will react on --

19 JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you would like to speak

20 to Mr. Lopez-Terres about it during the adjournment.

21 MR. KOVACIC: Yes, I would, certainly. Thank

22 you, sir.

23 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll adjourn for

24 half an hour.

25 --- Recess taken at 11.08 a.m.

1 --- On resuming at 11.44 a.m.

2 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kovacic.

3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if

4 I may, just one proposal or suggestion.

5 In the meantime, we checked the transcript

6 from the direct examination yesterday, and on the page

7 14779, in line 21, the witness said the following:

8 [In English] [Previous translation continues]

9 "... by one of the 16 of April, which was a more

10 limited focus, just focusing on the blockade at

11 Kruscica and Vranjska."

12 [Interpretation] In light of that, I would

13 kindly ask you to allow me one more question for this

14 witness, because this is exactly what this order refers

15 to, the order that I wanted to show to the witness.

16 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your

18 Honour.

19 Q. Mr. Elford, the day before yesterday you

20 mentioned, during your direct examination, that before

21 the order of the 17th of April at 4.00, an order had

22 been issued, the order of the 16th of April, which

23 focused on the possibility of the attack from Kruscica

24 and Vranjska. You have that order in your binder. Is

25 this the order that I showed you, and were you

1 referring to that order? I mean the order of the 16th

2 of April issued at half past one.

3 A. In the binder, if it's an order of 16th of

4 April, half past one, yes.

5 Q. Half past one in the morning?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. And you do have that order in your binder;

8 right?

9 A. Yeah, the order referred to in the notes,

10 yes.

11 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Well, we still

12 do not know whether the binder will be admitted into

13 evidence or not. But in any case, I tender this order

14 for now as my exhibit, and I would like it to be marked

15 as an exhibit if the binder is not being marked as

16 yet.

17 JUDGE MAY: Where is the order, please,

18 Mr. Kovacic?

19 MR. KOVACIC: It was distributed earlier this

20 morning, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE MAY: Can somebody assist as to which

22 one it is?

23 MR. KOVACIC: I can give you mine, Your

24 Honour.

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes, let's have that one.

1 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

2 Mr. President, in the binder this order was linked to

3 the note on page 75, and it was marked as Z672.

4 THE REGISTRAR: The number for this exhibit

5 is D60/2.

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel,

8 please.

9 MR. KOVACIC: I'm sorry. I hope that there

10 is no sense in wasting your time and asking the witness

11 to show us that location on the map. Both are visible

12 on the map, that is, south of the main route just a

13 little bit north from Kruscica.

14 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

15 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you.

16 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Lopez-Terres.

17 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] I have a

18 few questions for the witness, in view of the questions

19 posed to him by Mr. Sayers first and then by

20 Mr. Kovacic.

21 Re-examined by Mr. Lopez-Terres:

22 Q. First of all, as regards the front line where

23 troops were deployed against the army of the Republika

24 Srpska, Mr. Elford, in view of the documents that you

25 have examined and analysed, do you have the impression

1 that as of January 1993, the HVO forces progressively

2 withdrew from the front line against Serbs so as to

3 leave that front line only to the troops of the BH

4 army? I'm referring to the area of Central Bosnia, of

5 course.

6 A. I believe there is a progressive reduction

7 and a complete withdrawal which I mentioned yesterday.

8 Q. In your binder, you referred to two orders in

9 particular; one emanating from General Blaskic, the

10 other from General Petkovic, from January 1993. By

11 these orders, two rotations were being requested and

12 then a diminishment of troops deployed on the line

13 against the Serbs; is that correct? I think the first

14 order is dated 16th of January, and the second one,

15 21st of January.

16 A. I've seen it. I'm not sure where the exact

17 place is in the binder for them.

18 Q. The two orders in question, do they remind

19 you of anything as regards instructions given by HVO in

20 January 1993?

21 A. Yes, they do.

22 Q. As regards the troops present in the area,

23 Mr. Sayers asked you two days ago if, during the

24 analysis that you undertook, you were able to establish

25 that there had been Croatian army units, and I'm

1 referring to the units of the army of the Republic of

2 Croatia, in the area of Busovaca, Kiseljak, Vares and

3 Zepce.

4 In response to that question, you said that

5 in the course of your work, you were not able to find

6 any information which would suggest that there were

7 units with the same strength of a brigade in the said

8 area, or a battalion. This can be found on page 14840

9 of the 22nd of February. Is that what you said, that

10 there were no brigades and no battalions in the area?

11 A. In the areas referred to, I think my evidence

12 of units of that size. Reportings of larger-size units

13 were perhaps in the Gornji Vakuf and Prozor area.

14 Q. You have anticipated the question I was going

15 to ask you. In the list mentioned by Mr. Sayers, the

16 municipalities of Gornji Vakuf, Prozor and Bugojno were

17 not mentioned?

18 A. Yeah, that's correct, yes.

19 Q. On the basis of several milinfosum reports,

20 and you have seen quite a few of them for the purposes

21 of your study, you were able to establish that in those

22 three areas, presence or movement of troops of the army

23 of the Republic of Croatia was mentioned on several

24 instances; is that correct?

25 A. Yes, several instances of troop movements

1 being seen in those areas.

2 Q. I would like to show you, in connection with

3 that, two milinfosum reports. The first one is dated

4 28th of May, 1993, and it is marked as Z2423.2, and

5 another one dated 18th of June --

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Sayers.

7 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] -- which

8 was marked as Z2427.1.

9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, there is an objection. Just

10 wait. Don't hand it to the witness, please,

11 Mr. Usher.

12 MR. SAYERS: I don't mean to interrupt. If

13 these milinfosums are included, obviously, within the

14 materials that Mr. Elford relied upon, then there is no

15 objection. But if these are new milinfosums about

16 which no questions have been asked on

17 cross-examination, then there is an objection.

18 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Lopez-Terres, can you help

19 us? Where do these come from?

20 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] These two

21 documents are not in the binder. We have prepared a

22 binder, but the Defence has certain objections as to

23 the admission of these documents. But it's getting

24 increasingly more difficult for us to present certain

25 evidence which can be commented upon by this witness.

1 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation]

2 Mr. Lopez-Terres, this witness is getting out of the

3 framework of his evidence. This witness is a member of

4 your office, and he has come to expose certain

5 conclusions about maps. He is not an expert, he is not

6 an expert witness. He's not testifying to any specific

7 area as an expert. We are basing ourselves on a

8 certain number of maps, and we should restrict

9 ourselves to that particular area, because we cannot

10 pass and review all of the relevant elements through

11 this witness.

12 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Your

13 Honour, the other day the Defence wanted to limit the

14 area of testimony of Mr. Elford, and the Chamber

15 decided at that time that it needed certain information

16 as regards deployment of troops in the relevant area.

17 This decision was taken two days ago, but contrary to

18 what we have in the report, a question was asked

19 regarding the number of troops of the Croatian army in

20 the area, and this was not the subject of the report of

21 Mr. Elford. And because that question was asked, a

22 question concerning the presence of the soldiers of the

23 Republic of Croatia -- and this issue is very important

24 for the purposes of evaluation of reports on the

25 ground -- it is very important for us to be able to ask

1 questions to that witness.

2 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Yes, but we

3 do not have any additional documents. We have had

4 enough documents. He has to base himself on the

5 existing documents, the documents that we already

6 have. Please ask your question, Mr. Lopez-Terres.

7 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Yes, but

8 the analysis is based on a certain number of documents,

9 and later on the Defence may have objections as to the

10 justification for his arguments.

11 JUDGE MAY: That was a ruling,

12 Mr. Lopez-Terres, not an invitation to argument. Now,

13 would you move on, please.

14 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Yes, Your

15 Honour.

16 Q. Mr. Elford, in the course of your work for

17 the Office of the Prosecutor, were you able to find --

18 familiarise yourself with certain documents from the

19 HVO to the effect that certain orders were given to

20 Croatian army units to get rid of the military insignia

21 of the Croatian army and to put only the HVO insignia?

22 A. Yes, I've seen documents related to the

23 removal of HV insignia for HVO and to put on --

24 regarding removal of those and wearing of HVO

25 insignia.

1 Q. The need to remove the HV insignia, of

2 course, had to do with the interest of being identified

3 as HVO units?

4 A. Yes, I think to avoid being identified as HV

5 units, yes.

6 Q. In your capacity as an analyst who has worked

7 on material concerning the HVO and the Croatian army,

8 have you also seen documents, some of them signed by

9 Colonel Blaskic in April of 1993, whereby units were

10 required to compose lists of members of the Croatian

11 army who were at the same time members of these other

12 units?

13 A. Yes, I have seen units like that -- orders

14 like that which have been produced, yes.

15 Q. And then you concluded there were, indeed, HV

16 soldiers and different units deployed in Central Bosnia

17 and in the area of Vitez, didn't you?

18 A. Yes. The order implies that there were,

19 perhaps, people there. To be honest, it's asking for

20 numbers.

21 Q. Thank you. I have no more questions

22 regarding that subject, that is, the army of the

23 Republic of Croatia.

24 In your report, you also referred to a

25 document of the 7th of May, 1993, a document issued by

1 Colonel Blaskic, and that is an assessment of the

2 situation. That document was annex number 3, attached

3 to your report, and it is has the exhibit number Z891.

4 A. I have the document.

5 Q. Have you found that document?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Would you please look at page 3, where you

8 have the description of the enemy.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Now, as regards the Muslim forces, could you

11 read out the paragraph where we have the description of

12 the Muslim forces, or, rather, the paragraph which

13 refers to the structure of these forces and the

14 materiel they have.

15 A. [As read] "The structure: Mainly infantry

16 units, poorly equipped. Most without military

17 uniforms, in civilian clothes, with only battalion

18 commanders having complete uniforms, which demonstrates

19 that civilians are being killed. Mountain formations

20 have a large amount of snipers in their ranks with

21 automatic weapons and are very eager to attack the

22 Croats."

23 Q. And you can deduce from that that in May

24 1993, Blaskic himself described the Muslim army as an

25 army very poorly armed, very poorly equipped.

1 A. Yes, that is correct, because it's a report

2 on the Central Bosnia Operative Zone, the area.

3 Q. I'm moving on to a different subject.

4 You wrote a document, Z505, which concerns

5 the active part of the Vitez Brigade, which had some

6 300 men.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Can one then conclude, after analysing this

9 document, that the document concerning the mobilization

10 that Mr. Kovacic spoke about some time ago, that there

11 was a permanent standing part of the Vitez Brigade, and

12 that that was long before the conflict broke out in

13 April 1993, that there was a certain standing force in

14 the Vitez Brigade?

15 A. There's an active element, and it included

16 orders showing deployments of those before the 16th of

17 April.

18 Q. In one of the documents, and that is a report

19 concerning the mobilization, the document issued at the

20 end of April 1993, it mentions the mobilization of 498

21 persons attached to the -- and that these were the

22 regulars of the Vitez Brigade. They constituted the

23 active and standing part that you are referring to. Is

24 that so?

25 A. Sorry. I referred to the active part of the

1 300, yes.

2 Q. Quite. Yes. I'm asking if in the report --

3 in this report, in addition to the mobilized ones, it

4 said 498 soldiers were mobilized in addition to the

5 regular troops of the Vitez Brigade, whether these

6 regular troops would be those 300 men who were the

7 active part of the brigade that you referred to. That

8 is how you understand this.

9 A. ... the regular part -- the active part, and

10 then anyone else who had been mobilized before that

11 period.

12 Q. You were asked about the boundaries of the

13 Vitez municipality. I should like to go through some

14 names with you, and you will tell us whether these

15 localities fell within the area of responsibility of

16 the accused Cerkez and --

17 JUDGE MAY: We must have some regard to the

18 clock. It must be possible to agree what was part of

19 the boundary and what wasn't. This witness isn't a

20 local expert, he's merely a -- not merely. He is the

21 drawer of the map. So can we move on, please.

22 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

23 Q. The order of the 16th of April, issued at

24 half past one by Colonel Blaskic, and which was then

25 followed by three other orders on the 17th of April,

1 which were all mentioned, this order of the 16th of

2 April, issued at half past one, was an order issued to

3 Mr. Mario Cerkez and the unit Tvrtko II. We can agree

4 on that.

5 A. That's correct, yes.

6 Q. Could you tell us, or perhaps read to us

7 paragraph 4 of that order?

8 A. Yes. Paragraph 4 reads: "Personally

9 responsible to me for the execution of the given

10 assignments is the commander --"

11 THE INTERPRETER: Could you slow down,

12 because the interpreters don't have it. Could you

13 please slow down.

14 A. Yes. "Personally responsible to me for the

15 execution of the given assignments is the commander of

16 the HVO Brigade Vitez, Mr. M. Cerkez."

17 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Could you also tell us what was the objective

19 of that order? Particularly, if you look at the upper

20 left part of that order, you will find that.

21 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE MAY: There's an administrative

24 matter. Apparently there's a power failure in the

25 building, and we were being asked to adjourn, but, in

1 fact, we're going to go on until 1.00.

2 But, Mr. Lopez-Terres, it would be helpful if

3 we could finish this witness, please, quickly.

4 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Exactly,

5 Mr. President.

6 Q. Mr. Elford, this order, could you please read

7 out who it was addressed to. You have it up there, in

8 the upper left corner, above the hour 1.30 in the

9 morning.

10 A. The actual addressee is to the commander of

11 the HVO Brigade. The top left corner is referring to

12 the address of the originator. But the addressee is to

13 the commander of the HVO Brigade Vitez, Mr. Mario

14 Cerkez, and to the special forces unit, Tvrtko. In the

15 top left-hand corner is the forward command post Vitez,

16 command headquarters, Central Bosnia Operative Zone.

17 Q. What I'm asking -- I'm asking what is that

18 below that?

19 A. Sorry. Where it reads "combat commands"?

20 Q. That is it. Yes, that's it.

21 A. It reads: "Combat commands in order to

22 prevent attack activity by the enemy (extreme Muslim

23 forces) and blockade the border territory of Kruscica,

24 Vranjska, and Donja Veceriska."

25 Q. In paragraph 2, it is said that the forces

1 need to take the defence area indicated, to block the

2 village, and in case of a Muslim attack, to offset it,

3 to neutralise it, and to prevent all movement.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Donja Veceriska, as it transpires from this

6 order, was within the area of responsibility of the

7 Vitez Brigade, wasn't it?

8 A. That is correct, yes.

9 Q. In this order, Mr. Cerkez is named as

10 responsible for that operation, even though this order

11 does not concern only his brigade but also the special

12 unit Tvrtko. Should one, therefore, deduce from that

13 that the brigade commander, Mario Cerkez, became also

14 responsible for the special purpose unit which operated

15 in his area of responsibility?

16 A. Yes. He's been given responsibility for the

17 actions of the Tvrtko special forces unit.

18 Q. That is, this order gave him authority over

19 that special forces unit, didn't it?

20 A. That is correct. A responsibility over

21 them.

22 Q. In the binder, you produced a document which

23 is a fragment from the diary of the commander of the

24 brigade; as such, it was developed in July 1994 by the

25 JNA. It is in the first part, the first piece, the

1 first item in your binder.

2 A. Yes, I have that.

3 Q. Could you read out paragraph 115 of that

4 manual.

5 JUDGE MAY: There is no need to read things

6 out. Now, can we conclude now, please,

7 Mr. Lopez-Terres.

8 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

9 Mr. President, the Defence asked the witness a moment

10 ago some information about the subordination, and

11 Mr. Sayers did the same thing.

12 JUDGE MAY: Cross-examination and

13 re-examination must be conducted with some regard to

14 timing. Now, you've been re-examining,

15 Mr. Lopez-Terres, for half an hour and more, and that,

16 in our judgement, is enough. We can read the documents

17 in due course and you can comment on them.

18 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

19 Mr. President, I am reassured as you have just said that

20 you will read the documents in due course. I have no

21 further questions to ask to the witness.

22 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

23 Mr. Elford, thank you for coming to give your

24 evidence. You are free to go.

25 [The witness withdrew]

1 MR. NICE: Indeed, then, we will respond to

2 the suggestion that the production of supporting

3 material be discussed and returned to later in due

4 course. In fact, Mr. Lopez-Terres is going to call the

5 next witness as well, a general area of his particular

6 interest.

7 Just to set out a time scale of what remains

8 for this week, because I don't know how long this

9 power-cut is going to affect us, if at all.

10 There's this witness. I've had no request to

11 call the investigator who took the statement of the

12 deceased witness, the witness I said I was going to

13 tender, and she's available today. But absent any

14 request to call her then, I take it, there's no

15 challenge to the integrity of the taking of the

16 statement.

17 There's the language assistant, who can deal

18 with the audiotape, and he's available today or

19 tomorrow. I don't think he'll be very long.

20 There are a few remaining binders to be

21 considered, and there will be discussion then, I think,

22 about exhibits and videos, and I have no doubt that

23 that material can last us until lunchtime tomorrow, one

24 way or another.

25 But if Mr. Lopez-Terres can take the next

1 witness, that's Carry Spork, we will use the time until

2 the possible power-cut to the maximum.

3 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour.

4 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kovacic.

5 MR. KOVACIC: If I may make just a small

6 suggestion. Since we may be entering the same problems

7 of the documents with the next witness, probably it

8 would be, for practical reasons, better to discuss the

9 raised issue on how we will classify them, what status

10 the documents will have, before we continue.

11 [The witness entered court]

12 JUDGE MAY: Well, let's call the witness and

13 begin his evidence, and then we can deal with that.

14 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

15 Mr. President, may I say something before the witness

16 takes the declaration? The translation into English of

17 what I just said is not correct. It seems to have

18 shortened -- to have cut down what I said.

19 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness take the

20 declaration and have a seat.

21 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

22 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

23 truth.

24 WITNESS: CARRY SPORK

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Lopez-Terres.

1 Examined by Mr. Lopez-Terres:

2 Q. Are you Carry Spork, 42 years old?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And you work as an investigator at the Office

5 of the Prosecutor?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. You are Dutch by nationality?

8 A. [No audible response]

9 Q. You joined the Dutch police force in '79, and

10 you became an investigator in 1981. And since March

11 '96, you have been working with the Office of the

12 Prosecutor first as an investigator seconded by the

13 Dutch government to the Tribunal, and then, as of July

14 '98, you have been working here within the Office of

15 the Prosecutor?

16 A. That's correct, sir.

17 Q. And you were promoted in '98 and had become

18 the first investigator?

19 A. That's correct, sir.

20 Q. Mr. Spork, as an investigator at the

21 Prosecutor's office and the team that you worked with,

22 you conducted an investigation, and the objective of

23 this investigation was to identify HVO soldiers who

24 operated in the area of Vitez and who could have

25 committed some criminal offences, these soldiers having

1 belonged to the brigade commanded by Mario Cerkez?

2 A. That's correct, sir.

3 Q. And you organised an investigation. Could

4 you please tell us something about the methodology that

5 you used to conduct that investigation?

6 A. First of all, we gathered 98 statements given

7 by witnesses in relation to the happenings in the Lasva

8 Valley. These statements were analysed by the team,

9 and the results of that analysis were handed over to

10 me. After we did the analyses, we formulated some kind

11 of a --

12 JUDGE BENNOUNA: Wait a second, please.

13 JUDGE MAY: Apparently the power cut is

14 starting in five minutes. We'll adjourn now until

15 2.00.

16 Just one point, Mr. Lopez-Terres. I mean is

17 this going to be another report, as it were? We

18 haven't got a summary for this witness. We've got

19 various documents, but if it's merely another report by

20 an investigator, then I think you ought perhaps to look

21 at the Tulica decision. But it may be that I've got it

22 wrong.

23 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

24 Mr. President, it was prepared for the Chamber, and it

25 was handed over to the Defence.

1 JUDGE MAY: We'll look at that, and we better

2 leave it at that for the power cut. We'll adjourn now

3 until 2.00.

4 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.25 p.m.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 --- On resuming at 2.10 p.m.

2 MR. MIKULICIC: If Your Honour please.

3 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Mikulicic.

4 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours,

5 will you please allow me to express the position of

6 Mr. Cerkez' Defence regarding the actual situation, and

7 I'll try to be as brief as possible.

8 As you yourself have said, the Defence has

9 not received the resume of the testimony of Mr. Spork.

10 We have received two binders with a certain number of

11 documents. However, we have not received any summary

12 of his statement. So we didn't know until today what

13 kind of approach is going to be adopted and what

14 exactly is it that Mr. Spork will be saying.

15 This morning Mr. Spork, on page 69, line 14,

16 stated that he would testify using a certain

17 methodology which consists in the following:

18 Investigators of the OTP have analysed 98 statements of

19 witnesses, they have made an analysis, and that

20 analysis has been submitted to date to Mr. Spork, and

21 he is going to testify on the basis of that document.

22 So we are here dealing with materials that

23 have not been admitted into evidence and the documents

24 which represent multiple hearsay, double-hearsay

25 evidence. So we think that the testimony of

1 Mr. Spork -- we thought that it was going to be another

2 report.

3 I would like to remind this Honourable

4 Chamber of the Tulica decision of the 29th of July,

5 '99. In paragraph 20 on page 8, the Chamber stated

6 that that type of evidence would be of very little if

7 no value at all, probative value at all.

8 So bearing in mind this ruling, the Tulica

9 decision, we believe that the Prosecution is trying,

10 through this witness, to circumvent the decision of the

11 Trial Chamber that I've just quoted, so we strongly

12 object to the testimony of Mr. Spork and we move that

13 it be excluded from the evidence in this case.

14 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

15 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, we join in the

16 objection, in principle.

17 As a matter of particular detail, I don't

18 believe this witness gives evidence that is of concern

19 to our client. But in principle, it appears that, as

20 Mr. Mikulicic said, this witness is not reporting as a

21 contemporary witness. He's collated statements and

22 other materials for purposes of his opinions.

23 And as Mr. Mikulicic said, on page 8,

24 paragraph 20 of the Tulica decision, the Court said

25 that the report therefore is of little or no probative

1 value and will not be admitted into evidence, and it

2 seems, as my colleague said, that that's precisely what

3 the Prosecution seems to be wanting to do in this

4 case. We join, in principle, with the objection.

5 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

6 Mr. President, when we provide a report, the Defence is

7 objecting. When we're not supplying a document because

8 there is no document and we are inviting a witness to

9 testify before the Chamber in a direct manner about the

10 nature of available information and when we call

11 witnesses to expose results of such an analysis,

12 Defence is again objecting.

13 Mr. Spork is an investigator at the Office of

14 the Prosecutor of this Tribunal. Mr. Carry Spork has

15 conducted an inquiry, and on the basis of that inquiry,

16 he has made certain conclusions permitting him to

17 identify a number of soldiers who may have been

18 perpetrators of war crimes and who were members of the

19 brigade of Mr. Cerkez. It is not very difficult to

20 understand.

21 Mr. Spork started explaining why he was

22 tasked with that matter, together with other members of

23 the office, and he was going to explain about the

24 nature of documents on the basis of which he was

25 working. And he was going to do that in an oral manner

1 in order to facilitate the understanding of Your

2 Honours and in order to obtain for all of us all

3 necessary elements, all necessary information as to the

4 documents that have been used.

5 And as to the source of these documents, we

6 have prepared this table which has been provided to you

7 and on the basis of which Mr. Spork wanted to explain

8 to you what the significance of the information is.

9 The table, it is true, it does not speak for itself,

10 but Mr. Spork is here to provide additional

11 information.

12 Here we have a document -- we have an office

13 here, office of the --

14 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation]

15 Mr. Lopez-Terres, you're telling us that this is the

16 person who was in charge of this analysis, who has

17 analysed the situation concerning the Vitez Brigade,

18 including certain allegations of criminal behaviour.

19 Are you telling us that -- and you have told us that

20 you have given us this table. Is this table made on

21 the basis of statements which are quoted on the right

22 side of the table, so on the basis of statements that

23 are at the disposal of your office, or is this an

24 inquiry that was conducted on site? These are the

25 crucial questions that the Defence is actually asking,

1 because if this is done through statements, if they are

2 going to speak about statements, we are within the

3 framework of the Tulica decision, as it has been stated

4 by the Defence. If we are dealing with certain other

5 means of investigation, you have to tell us what

6 exactly it is.

7 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] These are

8 statements, yes, and these statements represent a basis

9 for all the work of our investigators. They are

10 working on the basis of such statements in order to

11 conduct their investigation.

12 In order to identify certain individuals, if

13 we are not able to take, for example, fingerprints, or

14 work on-site, it is evident, it is clear, that the only

15 elements that can be used by investigators are the

16 elements, the information, that has been provided by

17 witnesses and victims. They provide statements to

18 investigators, and this is their main task. They are

19 charged with interviewing witnesses and victims, and on

20 the basis of such statements, they can reach certain

21 conclusions about possible perpetrators of war crimes,

22 including all identifying information, such as father's

23 name, date and place of birth, and so on.

24 So it is true that this type of information

25 has been collected on the basis of statements given to

1 investigators.

2 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Is it true

3 that you were not able to call these witnesses in

4 question to testify before the Chamber?

5 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Mr. Spork

6 will be able to tell you more about that. All these

7 witnesses have been selected on the basis of lists that

8 were provided to you at the beginning of the trial. We

9 are not talking about exterior witnesses. All these

10 statements were given, disclosed, to the Defence at the

11 same time as the list was provided to the Defence. So

12 this is beyond dispute.

13 As regards specific witnesses, there are

14 about 50 of them who are able to provide us with some

15 identifying information about perpetrators.

16 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Yes, but I'm

17 wondering, is it true that you were not able to call

18 them?

19 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] We could

20 have called them to testify before the Chamber, at

21 least part of them, but in that case, we would have 40

22 additional witnesses, and the only purpose of those

23 witnesses would be to tell us the names of presumed

24 perpetrators of war crimes.

25 Amongst victims and witnesses, we have

1 identified certain individuals who can provide better

2 quality testimony. They have been selected by our

3 office and they have testified before the Chamber, a

4 dozen of them, and to the extent it was possible, they

5 have confirmed the names of those presumed

6 perpetrators.

7 On the right side of the column, you have the

8 actual references of the transcript, because these

9 witnesses testified before the Chamber in this case.

10 We have recently, on the basis of discussions

11 that we had last year, we have compiled pages from the

12 Blaskic transcript -- there are not that many of them,

13 maybe two -- and that also appears on the right-hand

14 side of the table, together with the name of the

15 witnesses who testified either in the Kordic case or in

16 the Blaskic case.

17 There are other witnesses as well who are

18 still waiting to be called. There are two witnesses

19 among those that have been selected that we intend to

20 call. They're living in the United States at the time,

21 and we hope that they will be able to come. But there

22 are certain technical difficulties, such as visas and

23 passports, and we are not as yet sure whether we will

24 be able to bring them here.

25 Sorry.

1 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Lopez-Terres, let me

2 interrupt you. What, in principle, is the difference

3 between this witness's evidence and the evidence of the

4 investigator in the Tulica dossier matter?

5 Both, as far as I can see, are investigators

6 who've examined material and, as a result, have drawn

7 up a report; one about events in a village, the other

8 about the brigade, the membership of the brigade, and

9 what the brigade did.

10 Now, just as a matter of principle, is there

11 any distinction between the two?

12 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] There is a

13 distinction in the sense that the investigator

14 testifies about his investigation and his methods, and

15 he is analysing certain material, but not in the manner

16 as was stated in the Tulica decision. I think that

17 this witness can add some personal value in connection

18 with that type of evidence, and there will be certain

19 exhibits that we would like to have admitted into

20 evidence. They're concerning individual soldiers who

21 were members of the said unit. These documents come

22 from the HVO itself, and these documents can be

23 identified here as relevant documents.

24 Only investigators are in a position to

25 identify those documents as such. They are the only

1 ones who can tell us more about the HVO documents, on

2 the basis of which we can conclude something about

3 certain individuals.

4 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] You have

5 just told us -- well, we have an investigator here who

6 is going to analyse certain witness statements. I do

7 not know whether we are now within the framework of the

8 Tulica decision or if we have another situation; that

9 is, an investigator from your office who is going to

10 analyse a certain number of documents. I forgot the

11 name of the preceding witness. He spoke about certain

12 maps and other documents, and he has told us about his

13 analysis of such material.

14 These witnesses are basing themselves on the

15 documents that are available to your office. We cannot

16 introduce, in a direct manner, these type of

17 statements, because this is what you're asking. We

18 cannot do that if we are not dealing with affidavits,

19 but this is a different problem, a different area,

20 concerning authenticity of documents, and so on. You

21 cannot introduce witness statements through an

22 investigator, we have already stated that clearly.

23 So you can ask your witness to provide us

24 with his analysis of documents, documents that have

25 been obtained by your office, that could be maybe

1 admitted by the Chamber or introduced by the Defence.

2 It's up to you.

3 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Your

4 Honours, Mr. President, we have certain documents that

5 have been seized, emanating from the HVO. After

6 several verifications, we believe that these documents

7 concern soldiers of the Vitez Brigade who were

8 implicated in the relevant events. If we present you

9 with these documents without explaining to you how it

10 was that we were able to identify the names of these

11 individuals, it will be very difficult for the Chamber

12 to understand the type of work of the Tribunal.

13 The investigators have to base themselves on

14 certain information, and, as I told you, these

15 witnesses have provided names of presumed

16 perpetrators.

17 Our objective is not to ask you to admit, in

18 this way, statements which we know are not going to be

19 admitted in that way. This is only in order to explain

20 our approach, methodological approach, to this

21 problem.

22 We now have, for example, 38 individuals that

23 we believe were members of the Vitez Brigade, and we

24 are now going to tell you, through this witness, how we

25 were able to identify those soldiers.

1 In view of the very high number of witnesses

2 that have already testified before the Chamber, we

3 thought that this might be a better way to proceed than

4 to call witnesses just to tell us who was the

5 individual who arrested him, and so on. We have, of

6 course, honoured the adversarial nature of the system.

7 All the statements have been disclosed to the Defence.

8 What we are doing now is just to explain our

9 methodology and tell you how these documents were

10 obtained and what value can be attached to them.

11 JUDGE MAY: Well, I'm afraid as far as that

12 is concerned, I can see no distinction between what you

13 want this witness to do and what you asked witnesses to

14 do in the Tulica case. It was precisely the same

15 thing, which was to look at witness statements and make

16 a report upon them.

17 Now, that is one thing to which the Defence

18 object, and I must say, speaking for myself, I think

19 there is force in that.

20 On the other hand, if you want the witness to

21 produce documents which your office has seized, that's

22 a different matter, and he may very well be able to do

23 that. That's a more straightforward matter, rather

24 than the purely hearsay matter of reporting what

25 somebody else has said. Now, that's our view.

1 Now, if you want the witness to produce the

2 documents, that again is a different matter. It may

3 well be that you're entitled to do that.

4 I see you've got one document which I've seen

5 before, which is a list of members, for instance, of

6 the 92nd Home Guard Brigade. If you want to produce

7 that, then it seems to me you're probably entitled to

8 do that.

9 MR. NICE: Can I just contribute four very

10 short points, listening to the discussion and debate.

11 There are distinctions between this and the

12 Tulica decision, because Tulica was dealing with

13 describing a general, on-the-ground narrative, which

14 was important to establish and which the Chamber

15 effectively judged could be dealt with by a limited

16 number of witnesses and not by calling the totality.

17 In this case, as Mr. Lopez-Terres has explained, it

18 would simply be impossible to call -- indeed we

19 wouldn't be allowed to call by the Chamber all the

20 witnesses simply to produce the names of perpetrators.

21 The history of these proceedings is that

22 where victims and witnesses have been called and have

23 simply identified, by name, a perpetrator, someone

24 involved, rarely, if ever, has the name itself been

25 challenged. So to that extent it's different. We

1 can't deal with it, we wouldn't be allowed to deal with

2 it comprehensively, and all the indication is that

3 there would be little, if any, challenge to the names

4 once produced.

5 I think it's also the case -- it may also be

6 the case that many of the entries that Mr. Lopez-Terres

7 would rely on relate to material that has been

8 supported by evidence in this Chamber.

9 Finally, without the help of this schedule in

10 its complete form, making all due allowances for what

11 is and what is not produced in one way or another, the

12 Chamber will be subject to generalities about

13 involvement of this brigade without being able to

14 quantify, save by the most -- well, it won't be able to

15 quantify figures of people who have been named as being

16 involved.

17 So bearing in mind that in your decision in

18 Tulica you did not exclude altogether and for all

19 purposes hearsay statements, indeed you specifically

20 acknowledged the potential for hearsay statements to

21 qualify as evidence in this Chamber, and given that

22 they are only really being relied on here for picking

23 up names which we simply wouldn't be allowed to prove

24 by calling 60 or however many more witnesses, there are

25 distinctions, and it's our respectful submission that

1 this method, which I think probably parallels one of

2 the methods known in America under the federal rules

3 and indeed, I thought, to some degree reflected by one

4 of the witnesses in one of the other cases in this

5 Chamber where a summarising witness has been produced,

6 we would urge you to say that there is a difference and

7 that you should look at the whole of the schedule.

8 Those are the only things I wish to add.

9 JUDGE MAY: Do we need, in any event, this

10 sort of detail? Do we need to know what soldiers did

11 what in order to determine this case? Again, I wonder

12 about the wood and the trees.

13 MR. NICE: I quite understand that, if I can

14 just speak to that point. I quite understand that

15 point in general, but we don't know the nature of the

16 Defence case, and indeed we won't know it until it's

17 called.

18 It may be going to be urged that to no extent

19 and on no occasions were members of this brigade ever

20 involved, and therefore -- and then it may be allowed,

21 well, maybe one or two were involved but they would

22 only be involved when they were engaged in a frolic of

23 their own. And to that it would be important to know

24 that there is evidence and material to show that

25 there's a very large number of them named as

1 perpetrators. Then it does become important.

2 Now, of course, there is only a limited

3 degree to which it's justified to forecast the Defence

4 case, and we've been listening carefully to the

5 cross-examination, but I don't think at the moment

6 there's any reason to discount the possibility that it

7 will be urged that this brigade was effectively

8 blameless.

9 [Trial Chamber deliberates]

10 JUDGE MAY: We have, first of all as a matter

11 of principle, as I've said, ruled in general on this

12 sort of evidence in our Tulica decision, and we don't

13 accept that, in principle, something different is being

14 done here. We shall accordingly rule out at this stage

15 any evidence which is based on witness statements and

16 the like.

17 If it becomes a live issue as to what

18 particular members of the brigade did, and if it is at

19 any time suggested that the brigade was, as Mr. Kordic

20 put it -- as Mr. Nice put it, blameless, then, of

21 course, it may be a matter which will have to be

22 considered in rebuttal. But at this stage, we

23 certainly regard this evidence as falling within the

24 Tulica decision.

25 But we, on the other hand, will admit the

1 evidence, insofar as it can be given, of the various

2 exhibits which the witness produces, and so he can

3 produce his exhibits. We'll hear any argument about

4 that, but at the moment we would be minded to admit

5 that and any relevant questions that you may have in

6 relation to the exhibits, the documents.

7 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Before I

8 give the floor to the witness, Mr. President, I should

9 like to add something to what Mr. Nice said.

10 The position of Mr. Cerkez' Defence we know

11 says their brief in April about the things which

12 happened in the area of responsibility of the Vitez

13 Brigade were not committed by members of the Vitez

14 Brigade, and ever since the accused, the brigade

15 commander, did not know either his men, but we believed

16 it was up to us to prove the participation of the

17 members of his brigade and his men in these acts, and

18 that was with only this objective in mind that we

19 proceeded along those lines.

20 One saw the witnesses, and reference to them

21 can be found here in this table which was submitted to

22 you, that every time where we wanted to produce this,

23 then the Defence attempted to destabilise the witness,

24 requesting a precision about the identity of soldiers

25 and so on and so forth, or to prove that somebody was

1 not a member of the Vitez Brigade but a member of some

2 other brigade, or that somebody was a member of the

3 military police but never mentioning that military

4 police were also part of the Vitez Brigade. And they

5 did it with all of the witnesses from Vitez who were in

6 a position to give some names and who had come here.

7 We compiled some documents which concerned

8 several soldiers whose names were given to the

9 Prosecution by the witnesses who had come here to

10 testify, and the names were also given by some other

11 witnesses who perhaps will come to testify here -- we

12 hope so -- but have not done so because simply their

13 number was very large.

14 So this document was compiled, and it is the

15 subject of two binders, and Mr. Carry Spork perhaps

16 will be able to explain and clarify them to you, if you

17 allow him to do so, Mr. President.

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, deal with those

19 exhibits which you want the witness to produce.

20 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Mr. Carry Spork, having identified the names

22 of perpetrators of some crimes who could have been

23 members of the Vitez Brigade, you also investigated if

24 there were any documents which would concern those same

25 witnesses; is that so?

1 A. That is correct, sir.

2 Q. Could you explain, in some detail, what kind

3 of documents are you talking about and how did you

4 verify this in order to ascertain that in these

5 documents where, indeed, the -- indeed figured the

6 names of people about whom you had information?

7 A. Most of these documents are available in our

8 database systems. Once we had eliminated the names of

9 people that might not be members of the Viteska Brigade

10 because they were only mentioned once or twice or we

11 didn't have enough particulars of them, we started

12 screening our databases by checking the names in the

13 database.

14 Most of the documents we found were documents

15 that were seized during the 1998 -- September 1998

16 search in the Vitez and Novi Travnik and Mostar area,

17 and once we found these documents, we started to

18 check -- or at least I started to check each single

19 document and compare them with the list of names we

20 had. As soon as we would find a document, we would try

21 to eliminate all possibilities that the name that was

22 mentioned was not the same one as the one that was in

23 the document. This could be done, for instance, by

24 checking the date of birth, because of some of the

25 people we had the date of birth, fathers' names, places

1 where they were born and places where they were living

2 at that time.

3 If you would look at the documents, some of

4 the documents contain significant information on that,

5 especially the date of birth, because each single

6 soldier which was a member of the 92nd Home Guard

7 Regiment had a specific ID number based on his date of

8 birth plus a personal ID number, and the first --

9 excuse me.

10 JUDGE MAY: This is the list, is it, of the

11 Home Guard, Mr. Spork? I'm looking now at the document

12 with "353" on the first front page, "353" at the top.

13 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] That is

14 it.

15 JUDGE MAY: With our Exhibit number Z2332.1.

16 Is that it?

17 A. Yes, it is.

18 JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you could tell us what it

19 is first.

20 A. This is the listing with all the members of

21 the 92nd Home Guard Regiment, Vitez, from the period

22 from the 8th of April 1992 until the 24th of April,

23 1996.

24 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

25 Q. This document lists several thousand names

1 for the period between the 8th of April, '92, until the

2 22nd of April, '96?

3 A. That's correct, sir.

4 Q. In general terms, this document, which is the

5 document in the first binder which you put together,

6 there are, in point of fact, 15 documents, which are

7 all of the documents based on the lists of names; is

8 that so?

9 A. That is correct, sir.

10 Q. So the list that we have just spoken about,

11 the second document, is a list of people who died, that

12 is, 23 who died, 63 who were wounded, in 1993, and

13 these were by the assistant commander of the brigade,

14 whose name was Zvonko Cilic.

15 A. That's correct, sir.

16 Q. Then comes a list containing some 30 -- or,

17 rather, 35 members of a unit which was called the Alfa

18 Force.

19 A. That is correct, sir.

20 Q. Then you have another list which lists the

21 661 wounded of the Vitez Brigade, according to the

22 status as at the 12th of November, 1993.

23 A. That's correct, sir.

24 Q. The sixth document is a list of 75 members of

25 the Vitez Brigade, and some civilians, who were killed

1 on the 24th of May, 1993.

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. Then you have a list of members of the 3rd

4 and 4th Battalion of the Vitez Brigade who were killed

5 in 1993.

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. You also have another list of members of the

8 Vitez Brigade who were killed or reported missing on

9 the 20th of December, 1993.

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. Then document number 9, which is again a list

12 of killed, wounded, and missing members, between the

13 4th of April and the 20th of May, 1993, which was again

14 signed by the same officer, that is, the assistant

15 commander responsible for propaganda, Zvonimir Cilic.

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. The tenth document is a list of soldiers of

18 the Vitez Brigade who were killed in the area of

19 responsibility of the 5th Battalion, and the date of

20 the document is the 12th of February, 1994.

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. The eleventh document is, once again, a list

23 of those members of the military police of the Vitez

24 Brigade who were to receive some financial

25 compensation, and that again is a document dated the

1 3rd of December, 1993.

2 A. Right.

3 Q. The twelfth document is a list of soldiers of

4 the 2nd Battalion of the Novi Travnik HVO Brigade, it

5 was called the Novi Travnik Brigade at the time, and it

6 is dated the 27th of February, 1993.

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. The three ultimate documents are reports

9 compiled by the investigation services of Bosnia, and

10 they mention the names of quite a number of people they

11 suspect of having committed crimes in the area of Vitez

12 in June 1993, and also for the acts committed in

13 Ahmici.

14 A. Correct.

15 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] I'd like

16 to draw the Chamber's attention to the fact that

17 documents number 13 and 14 have already been admitted

18 by your Chamber.

19 Q. The documents that we are talking about are

20 all lists of individuals. Have you found on these

21 lists certain persons -- persons who are listed here as

22 killed, wounded, or missing as people who were

23 indicated by witnesses as having operated in the area

24 of Vitez?

25 A. Yes, sir.

1 MR. KOVACIC: Objection.

2 JUDGE MAY: The witness can give the

3 evidence. What weight we give to it is entirely for us

4 to say.

5 MR. KOVACIC: I thought on another element

6 that -- I was thinking about what you said at the

7 beginning, that this witness would not tell us what the

8 witnesses told him.

9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, that's right.

10 MR. KOVACIC: But only the documents.

11 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

12 Is that the first volume?

13 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] That is

14 the first volume, Mr. President.

15 Q. Mr. Spork, the second volume, which covers

16 documents 16 to 53, contains some names from the list

17 which we have just mentioned, or not. On the other

18 hand, it also contains specific documents which concern

19 individuals indicated and identified.

20 A. Yes, sir.

21 Q. Could you briefly tell us, what is the nature

22 of the documents, of the specific documents, those

23 which concern identified individuals?

24 We spoke about lists in the first binder.

25 Could you now, once again, briefly tell us about the

1 documents which are compiled in the second binder.

2 A. The documents that were compiled in the

3 second binder mainly mention names of specific

4 identified HVO soldiers that, according to these

5 documents, were members of the Viteska Brigade.

6 For instance, we have certificates of

7 wounding and membership, we have certificates of death

8 and membership, and we have certain certificates which

9 show that the person was promoted to a higher rank, due

10 to the conflict; also identifying him as being a member

11 of the Viteska Brigade.

12 These documents, most of the time, contain

13 also the personal ID number of the specific person. So

14 after comparing that with the first big list of the

15 92nd Home Guard Regiment, plus the other lists of

16 documents that we spoke about before, as soon as they

17 would have the same ID number, we could reasonably --

18 without reasonable doubt believe that it was about the

19 same person.

20 All the ones that we were not sure of, we

21 eliminated right away, which means that if you find a

22 document stating the certificate of wounding without

23 saying what kind of person it actually was, or it has

24 not been confirmed by a witness who also stated that

25 this person was wounded, we would eliminate that name

1 from the list of names of alleged Viteska Brigade

2 members.

3 If we would go into the folder, the first

4 one, number 16, the file about Damjan Baskarad, will

5 show us that he was first listed as a member of the 2nd

6 Battalion, 3rd Company, which is one of the big lists.

7 The second one is that he is listed as a member of the

8 92nd Home Guard Regiment, which is the list I spoke

9 about, Your Honours, before.

10 It continues with all the other identified

11 HVO soldiers. Unfortunately, it is very hard to talk

12 about this without being able to tell you how we

13 exactly found these names, so how we started picking

14 out these names to compare them with the documents,

15 because they are all in relation to the witness

16 statements. This makes it very difficult to explain

17 how the procedure was to identify this specific person

18 as being the one who was a member of the Viteska

19 Brigade.

20 Q. A clarification regarding the information

21 which can be found in the table, which was submitted by

22 the Defence and the Chamber. The figures which are in

23 brackets, after it says "member of the 2nd Battalion,

24 3rd Company," could you please explain what that means?

25 A. The figure in the two brackets means that

1 this person is listed on the original list of the 92nd

2 Home Guard Regiment under that number. It's in

3 chronological order, the original document, which means

4 that if you would go to number 673 on the 92nd Home

5 Guard Regiment list, you would find the name of

6 Mr. Baskarad, Dragan.

7 Q. For practical reasons, we do not have to

8 focus on only the first -- we can focus only on the

9 first page. Mr. Spork will use the list of the

10 regiment, the first page of the regiment.

11 A. Excuse me, sir. Which?

12 Q. The first page of the list of the 82nd

13 Regiment. Only the first name which appears here under

14 number 1, that is, the accused Mario Cerkez --

15 A. That is correct. According to the date

16 referred to, it should be Mr. Mario Cerkez.

17 Q. And it's so that he joined the ranks of the

18 HVO on the 8th of April, 1992.

19 A. That is correct. And he stayed within that

20 area until the 26th of June -- sorry, the 6th of June,

21 1994, because on the 6th of June, 1994, it was renamed

22 to the 92nd Home Guard Regiment. And so from that day

23 on, he was a member of the 92nd Home Guard Regiment, I

24 assume.

25 Q. Number 4, do you find again that name amongst

1 the documents on the basis of which you could

2 individualise him, that is, the name of Karlo

3 Grabovac.

4 A. That's correct, sir.

5 Q. The same goes for number 7, Ivica Drmic.

6 A. That's correct, sir.

7 Q. Once again, and I will finish shortly, all

8 the numbers that appear under the title "Members of the

9 92nd Home Guard Brigade" are numbers who can be found

10 on the longer list consisting of several thousand

11 names, and where we can find the name of the soldier

12 concerned.

13 A. Correct, sir.

14 Q. You were able to find -- to identify

15 documents concerning 38 soldiers exactly; is that

16 correct?

17 A. That's correct, sir.

18 Q. If I understand correctly what you say, you

19 also dispose of a much larger number of documents, and

20 you are sure that these documents -- these documents

21 here concern the 38 soldiers in question.

22 A. Correct, sir.

23 Q. If there was any doubt as to the identity or

24 the link between the document and the identity, you did

25 not take that into account; is that right?

1 A. No, sir. We eliminated that document right

2 away.

3 Q. Amongst the soldiers that you have

4 identified, and you have quoted names of several

5 soldiers, for example, having the same name Baskarad,

6 you were also able to find an individual by the name of

7 Krunoslav Bonic amongst these individuals.

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. The name of this soldier can be found on the

10 Vitez Brigade list, and this soldier was listed as

11 missing in that particular document; is that correct?

12 A. That is correct, sir.

13 Q. The same goes for the individual by the name

14 of Miroslav Bobas.

15 A. Correct, sir.

16 Q. As regard the individual named Miroslav

17 Bralo, you have also found documents testifying to the

18 fact that he was a member of the Vitez Brigade; is that

19 correct?

20 A. Correct, sir.

21 Q. Zvonimir Cilic, we have already mentioned

22 him, because he was the one who compiled the first

23 list, he too was a member of the Vitez Brigade; is that

24 correct?

25 A. Correct, sir.

1 Q. Borislav Jozic was also a member of the Vitez

2 Brigade.

3 A. Correct, sir.

4 Q. And he died during the conflict.

5 A. According to the documents we have, yes,

6 sir.

7 Q. You were also able to find information and

8 documents on the basis of which you were able to

9 conclude that Anto Kovac was a member of the police

10 unit of the Vitez Brigade; is that correct?

11 A. That is correct, sir. We found documents

12 which listed him as a wounded member of the Vitez

13 Brigade military police.

14 Q. The same goes for Nevenko or Nevenko Kovac;

15 is that correct?

16 A. Yes, sir. He was listed as being killed in

17 the zone of responsibility of the 5th Battalion, and we

18 found another document which confirmed that he had been

19 killed.

20 Q. Zlatko Nakic was also a member of the

21 military police of the said brigade?

22 A. Yes, sir. He's listed in the document as a

23 killed member of the brigade military police.

24 Q. Nenad Santic, you have several documents

25 about him, permitting you to conclude that he too was a

1 member of the Vitez Brigade?

2 A. That's right.

3 Q. And the same goes for all other soldiers

4 whose names appear on this list?

5 A. Indeed, sir.

6 Q. There is something particular as regards an

7 individual named Perica Vukadinovic. Could you please

8 tell us, in a few words, to what facts the individual

9 by the name of Vukadinovic can be associated?

10 A. Sorry, I don't understand the question, sir.

11 Q. To what specific events that took place in

12 Vitez can the name of Perica Vukadinovic be linked? I

13 have in mind the events that took place in May 1992,

14 the murder of Semir Trako.

15 JUDGE MAY: We've heard evidence about this

16 from some other witnesses, that this individual was

17 suspected of that offence, so there's no need to go

18 over it again.

19 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Very

20 well.

21 JUDGE MAY: But perhaps we could deal with

22 one, since we are dealing with that one. The last

23 named soldier is called Kriss Wilson?

24 A. That's correct, sir.

25 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] The file

1 concerning this individual was the last file that was

2 compiled.

3 Q. Mr. Spork, what can you tell us about this

4 particular file, file number 53 of the binder?

5 A. [Previous translation continues] ... a

6 British mercenary named Kriss Wilson who joined the HVO

7 as a mercenary. He has never been identified by any of

8 the witnesses. But while we did the search, we found

9 documents indicating that he was the commander of the

10 so-called Alfa Force, and because of that we also found

11 that he was on the list of salaries of the Vitez Alfa

12 Force sabotage group for the month -- on the month of

13 June 1992, which indicates that he must have been a

14 member before that. Otherwise, he couldn't have been

15 on the salary list.

16 Then we have a certificate of wounding, which

17 is specifically naming this person, and it says that he

18 was wounded on the 14th of October, 1992, in Novi

19 Travnik.

20 JUDGE MAY: Yes, I think we had some evidence

21 of that. I seem to remember that evidence.

22 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Mr. Kriss Wilson was wounded on the 14th of

24 October, 1992, in combat in Novi Travnik, as you have

25 just said. He was examined by doctors, and a report

1 was compiled thereof. This report can be found in the

2 file under Z2663.2. Do you have this report in front

3 of you?

4 A. Yes, sir, but it's Z2663.3 is the English

5 translation, and it's number --

6 Q. Yes, you're right. As far as this English

7 translation is concerned, could you show me, on the

8 translation, the column which speaks about his

9 immediate superior? What is the name that appears in

10 that part of the report?

11 A. It says that his direct superior was

12 Mr. Mario Cerkez.

13 Q. This took place during a conflict with the BH

14 army. This individual was wounded during that conflict

15 on the 14th of October, 1992, in Novi Travnik,

16 according to the medical report that we have. Is that

17 correct?

18 A. That's correct. The certificate also says:

19 "During combat and immediate preparations for combat,

20 the above-named was wounded by fragmentation ammunition

21 fired by an enemy sniper."

22 Q. There is something special about Zoran Sero,

23 and this is the last name I will be referring to. His

24 file is listed under number 48 in the binder. Excuse

25 me, I misspoke. Forty-seven.

1 A. According to the information we have, he was

2 listed as a member of the Alfa Force and also listed as

3 being killed. The evidence, number Z1372.1 says that

4 Zoran Nikica Sero, born in 1962, was killed on the 18th

5 of June, 1993, in Stari Vitez, and --

6 Q. You have a document here, a military identity

7 card that is reproduced here as Exhibit Z142, dated

8 26th of June, 1992; is that correct?

9 A. That's correct, sir.

10 Q. This document indicates, on the back page,

11 under the name of Zoran Sero, the 1st Vitez Brigade.

12 We have a signature here that appears at the bottom of

13 the document. Do you recognise this signature?

14 A. It's the signature of, as far as I'm aware,

15 of Mr. Mario Cerkez.

16 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

17 Mr. President, we have now reviewed several of the

18 files that appear in the second binder, the lists that

19 appear in the first binder. I can speak about every

20 single soldier in the same manner, but that would take

21 us too long, and I don't think it will be useful and

22 necessary. But I hope that you have understood the

23 approach and methodology that was used in this analysis

24 by the Office of the Prosecutor and its investigators.

25 Of course, I tender this into evidence, that

1 is, the documents contained in the two binders.

2 JUDGE MAY: The second binder, according to

3 mine, is numbered Exhibit 2813.2. Is that right? I

4 have it on the back of the binder. I don't know who

5 put it on. It may have been the legal officer.

6 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] This

7 document -- oh, yes. It's the reference of the table

8 that has been given to you. The binder itself has not

9 been marked, and it contains separate exhibits. The

10 only reference that we have is here, but each exhibit

11 has its own mark, its own number.

12 JUDGE MAY: It may be sensible too, for

13 future reference, to have the binder, as a whole,

14 marked, and since we are not going to admit the

15 schedule, perhaps it could have the same number. It

16 would save me having to change this.

17 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Of

18 course.

19 JUDGE MAY: 2813.2 can be the binder. Yes,

20 thank you.

21 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Yes, of

22 course, Mr. President.

23 JUDGE MAY: Now --

24 MR. NICE: Sorry. Before cross-examination,

25 I don't know if you've been told, for purposes of

1 timetabling, if possible, I would be grateful for a

2 short hearing at the end of the afternoon.

3 JUDGE MAY: We have been told. We will take

4 a break at about half past three, continue for a period

5 afterwards, depending on how we get on, and then, of

6 course, at the end or after the break, we will have

7 your hearing.

8 MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kovacic.

10 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I

11 just suggest, since you raised a number issue, we are

12 indeed having two binders.

13 JUDGE MAY: Yes. The first binder contains

14 exhibits all of which have got numbers. It's the

15 second one which contains additional material, as I

16 understand it.

17 MR. KOVACIC: Okay. I just ask in order to

18 make not too many words when putting the questions.

19 Cross-examined by Mr. Kovacic:

20 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Spork. I have certain

21 documents here, and I would like to ask you some

22 questions. I think it's virtually impossible to

23 discuss every single document, and by using our right

24 to cross-examine witnesses, I will restrict myself to

25 certain -- to a limited number of issues. And in our

1 case, we will be addressing each issue separately.

2 As regards the first binder containing

3 general documents, we have a document that was issued

4 by the command of the Vitez Brigade on the 24th of

5 April, 1993. The number is the number of the brigade,

6 and we have another number here which is your number,

7 Z808. The document is a typed one. It was signed by

8 Mr. Zvonimir Cilic, and we agreed with what you said

9 about Mr. Zvonimir Cilic, and we agree with what is

10 written here, a member of the command of the Vitez

11 Brigade in charge of information. Could you please

12 tell me if you have ever seen the original of this

13 document bearing the signature of Mr. Cilic?

14 A. I have not, sir.

15 Q. Could you tell us anything about the origin

16 of this document and how it ended up with the Office of

17 the Prosecutor?

18 A. As far as I'm aware of, sir, this document

19 was seized during the search in Vitez in September

20 1998.

21 Q. Are you not aware of the fact that the

22 Defence tendered this document in the Blaskic case?

23 A. Yes, sir. I'm sorry for that, sorry for

24 that.

25 Q. [In English] It's okay, it's okay. It's too

1 many documents, I agree.

2 [Interpretation] At the beginning of your

3 testimony, you mentioned a search that you carried out

4 while you were explaining to us your methods, and you

5 mentioned names that did not appear anywhere else. So

6 the number of names decreased as you progressed through

7 your investigation, because you could link certain

8 names with specific events and facts, but there were

9 also names which could not be linked to any specific

10 events. Am I correct in understanding your method?

11 A. If I may say so, the names that were

12 mentioned by the different witnesses were not giving --

13 or the statements were not giving that many

14 particulars, so we were not able to follow up on that

15 name, because as we are all aware of in Bosnia, many

16 people have the same surname and first name and

17 occasionally also father's name, which made it very

18 difficult to be sure that the name mentioned by the

19 witness was the same one as mentioned on the listing.

20 So we needed more particulars on the alleged member to

21 be sure that we were -- that the witness was talking

22 about the same person that was mentioned in one of the

23 documents.

24 Q. In the course of your work -- or let me

25 rephrase it.

1 Do you have any previous knowledge about

2 Bosnia, about their customs, names, religion, and so on

3 and so forth? I mean before you started working here.

4 A. Yes, sir, I do. Actually, I was involved in

5 several investigations with the Dutch police force

6 involved -- where former inhabitants of the former

7 Yugoslavia were involved.

8 Q. Excellent. So the territory was not

9 completely new to you, you had some previous

10 knowledge. Thanks to that knowledge and thanks to the

11 results of investigations, you will agree with me that

12 we can conclude that very often we have the same names

13 appearing on the same area. I'm referring now to

14 surnames.

15 A. Correct, sir.

16 Q. Did you also -- were you able to establish

17 that certain names of villages or towns were the same

18 as the surname of the family who lived there?

19 A. Yes, sir.

20 Q. Let me give you an example. Haskici, were

21 you able to conclude anything as to the origin of that

22 name?

23 A. Not of that name, sir. But, for instance, I

24 could give you an example like Santici and Santic, it's

25 similar.

1 Q. Yes. So we can agree on that. Sometimes the

2 name of the village is linked to the family name, but

3 sometimes it is not, or maybe it can only be a part of

4 the village that is linked with a certain family name.

5 However, we have very often predominant family names in

6 a certain area. Let us take the example of the Haskic

7 family. Could you, perhaps, link that to Donja

8 Veceriska?

9 A. No, sir.

10 Q. I think that you personally -- or maybe your

11 colleagues did interviews with at least 10 or 12 people

12 by the family name of Haskic, and they were all from

13 Donja Veceriska. Were you not able to establish that?

14 A. As I explained this morning, sir, the

15 statements, as they were, were of 98 different

16 witnesses. Some of these witnesses gave two or three

17 statements which were reviewed by the team, because it

18 is impossible to do it all yourself. At least I can

19 tell for myself, I've never interviewed somebody from

20 Donja Veceriska with the name of Haskic.

21 Q. Very well. Thank you.

22 Having mentioned Donja Veceriska, let us take

23 the family name of Drmic, it's a Croatian family name.

24 Were you able to observe that there were several people

25 by the family name of Drmic and that they were all, or

1 almost all of them, from Donja Veceriska?

2 A. The name of Drmic was identified in the

3 witness statements. If they were all from the village

4 of Donja Veceriska, I don't dare to say no. I should

5 have to consult the documents in relation to each of

6 these individual persons.

7 Q. Several people by the surname of Drmic were

8 identified, if you remember.

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. Let me sum up this subject. I think it is

11 indisputable that from the village of Ahmici, at least

12 two-thirds of the witnesses who testified here were

13 people by the name of Ahmic; is that correct?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Therefore, we can conclude that the family

16 name itself is sometimes not enough in order to

17 identify certain villages.

18 Now, let us talk about the Christian names.

19 In Croatian, we have names such as Ante, Dragan, and so

20 on, and such Christian names are very common in that

21 area. There is a limited number of preferred names in

22 a certain area. Is that correct?

23 A. Correct, sir.

24 Q. Therefore, in order for us to be able to

25 identify a certain person, we have to have other

1 identifying information as well. We have to know the

2 place of residence, preferably the name of the father.

3 That doesn't mean a lot, because, again, it can be the

4 same as some other name. Would you agree with me on

5 that?

6 A. I would agree when we say that in the area we

7 are talking about now, more than one person could have

8 the same first name, surname, and father's name. Yes,

9 I would.

10 Q. Thank you. Therefore, so as to be absolutely

11 sure in terms of identification of a certain

12 individual, we have to go further on and have the place

13 and date of birth.

14 You also mentioned a citizen's number when

15 speaking about individual people. When you did so, I

16 had the impression that you were referring to the

17 military identification number. This is the number

18 that we can see, for example, on the list of the Novi

19 Travnik Battalion. I don't remember the number. I

20 believe it was Z505, in section 12 of the general

21 documents binder.

22 A. Correct, sir.

23 Q. What does this number mean to you? How do

24 you interpret it?

25 A. The first two figures are the date of birth;

1 the second --

2 Q. I apologise. Actually, it is not necessary

3 to know the exact interpretation. But just tell me

4 whether this was a military identification number or a

5 number given to every civilian in the territory of

6 Bosnia and Herzegovina.

7 A. I can't tell you that, sir. The only thing I

8 know is that many people who were soldiers in, let's

9 say, the HVO had a military identification number,

10 which consisted of date and year of birth, plus a

11 specific number in relation to this person, and that,

12 in total, made it the military identification number,

13 as they were mentioned in the big 92nd Home Guard

14 Regiment list. Because on that list, we also found

15 many people without a military identification number,

16 which means that -- I assume, and that's an

17 assumption -- if everybody would have a specific number

18 in the former Yugoslavia, it should have been mentioned

19 on this list, or it would have been mentioned on this

20 list.

21 Q. These are two speculate issues. Let us try

22 to distinguish between them.

23 So you don't know that every citizen in the

24 territory of the former Yugoslavia, including Bosnia

25 and Herzegovina at the time, every citizen had this

1 so-called -- if I'm not mistaken, it used to be called

2 the citizen's personal number. Later on, the term

3 changed somewhat. So you didn't know that. You didn't

4 know that every citizen of the former Yugoslavia had to

5 have a number like that.

6 A. I'm aware of the fact that every citizen in

7 the former Yugoslavia had a number, because I know that

8 in a previous investigation, when we investigated the

9 casualties of Ahmici, when we tried to obtain the death

10 certificates, we went first to the birth certificate,

11 which gives a number and a date of birth, which would

12 then be passed on to when the involved person was

13 married, so the marriage certificate, and eventually

14 when that person would pass away, that number would

15 proceed to the death -- I can't recollect the exact

16 name of it, but there was some kind of a document which

17 was made in each municipality showing that on such and

18 such date, a person with this and this identification

19 number had died or was killed.

20 Q. Yes, that is correct. So I believe we can

21 agree that since every soldier, who was at the same

22 time a citizen, had to have that number.

23 A. Yes, but I'm not sure if the number would

24 have to be the same.

25 Q. So you think that there are military numbers,

1 military identification numbers as well, and that, for

2 example, Goran Babic, the first name that appears on

3 the list, that the number indicated next to his name

4 was his military identification number, but that he

5 also had a citizen's personal number. Or does it mean

6 that if Goran Babic died, if I look him up under the

7 military identification number, I will not be able to

8 find him; however, if the number is the so-called

9 citizen's personal number, then I will be able to find

10 him.

11 A. Which document are you referring to, sir?

12 Q. It was just an example. I took it from

13 section number 12. It's from the Novi Travnik HVO. It

14 was on the first page of the document, the name under

15 number 1, Goran Babic, or Babic, Franjo Goran. But you

16 can take any name like that; the situation is always

17 the same.

18 A. It could be that in the situation of the

19 former Yugoslavia, that this personal identification

20 number which was given to a person as soon as he was

21 born, that that same number would be used as his

22 military identification number.

23 Nevertheless, it still shows the date and

24 year of birth, plus a specific number in relation --

25 because the total, the date and year of birth, plus the

1 specific number, identifies the person as being that

2 specific person.

3 Q. Yes, that's correct. That is the structure

4 of the number. The number contains the date of

5 birth -- day, month, year -- which is followed by the

6 code for relevant register; we also have a figure for

7 the sex and the relevant municipality. So this is all

8 for the purposes of local administration, and we can

9 agree on that.

10 Mr. Spork, you said that you spent a number

11 of years working for the Dutch police and that you also

12 had some relevant experience concerning the former

13 Yugoslavia. In the late '70s, early '80s, there were

14 quite a few illegal Gypsies from the former Yugoslavia

15 in the Netherlands which were deported back to the

16 former Yugoslavia because their status here was

17 illegal. However, the problem of identification --

18 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, I'm going to stop

19 you. The question is two paragraphs long already.

20 Could you shorten the questions? But, in fact, we're

21 going to adjourn now for a quarter of an hour. Can you

22 finish this witness conveniently this afternoon?

23 MR. KOVACIC: I'm sure. Your Honour, I

24 really don't have the intention of going document by

25 document. I will only open issues which obviously

1 should be discussed later.

2 JUDGE MAY: Very well.

3 We will adjourn now for a quarter of an

4 hour.

5 --- Recess taken at 3.32 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 3.55 p.m.

7 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kovacic.

8 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you, sir.

9 Q. [Interpretation] Let us then finish with this

10 subject.

11 Perhaps just for the sake of illustration, as

12 a member of the Royal Dutch Police, were you ever

13 involved in any matters dealing with the deportation of

14 former Yugoslav citizens, I mean the Romany, in

15 particular, back to Yugoslavia sometime in the early

16 '80s, perhaps, and late '70s? It was quite a problem

17 in the Netherlands.

18 A. No, sir, I haven't.

19 Q. Thank you, thank you. So let us then go back

20 and round off the first subject.

21 So this long list, 353, that we spoke about,

22 V.P. 1779, that is what it says, and if we turn a

23 couple of pages just at random, we see that for quite a

24 number of persons, the number of the military booklet

25 is missing. Would you agree with that?

1 A. That's correct, sir.

2 Q. It is practically a rule that a soldier has a

3 document of one kind or another, and we saw it already,

4 because that is one of the identification documents,

5 documents by which military can be identified. We

6 agree about that?

7 A. In general, yes.

8 Q. Also, quite a number of people, perhaps a

9 little less than in the former case but quite a number

10 of persons, some 15 or maybe even 20 percent of

11 persons on the list, also do not have the personal

12 number of the citizens, and we mentioned that was also

13 another important identification element; is that true?

14 A. As I said before, sir, I'm not sure if it is

15 a citizen number or military identification number.

16 The only thing I'm aware of, I think it's not 15 or 20

17 percent, it's less, because as far as I remember, most

18 of the names contain at least the date, month, and year

19 of birth, but they don't include the last six numbers.

20 But that isn't 15 to 20 percent. I would say much

21 less.

22 Q. Very well. Less, but some are missing. I

23 can really do the calculations sometime tomorrow. But

24 some of them do not have here -- some of those who are

25 listed here do not have their personal numbers in this

1 list?

2 A. Some of them do.

3 Q. Quite. Incidentally, I did not see the

4 translation of this document, but I should like to warn

5 you, as regards this number in the first column after

6 the name, it says here "JMBG", and that was the former

7 acronym for that personal number that this talks

8 about. But since we all have this list before us, let

9 us look at it, the first page.

10 During the examination-in-chief, my client,

11 Mario Cerkez, was mentioned, and he appears on page 1

12 of this list, and then it would be twice, and there is

13 a signature then, and all the other individuals also

14 have their signatures affixed here. So I conclude it's

15 true, I do have an advantage over you because I know

16 how this list was compounded, but evidently each one of

17 these witnesses had to put his signature on this list.

18 In other words, the list was compounded on the basis of

19 somebody's report, presumably the person himself or

20 somebody else, and a signature was a confirmation that

21 this information is true. That is, every person listed

22 here confirms, with his signature, that the information

23 here is authentic.

24 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, I mentioned before,

25 just before the adjournment, you're not giving

1 evidence. Can you kindly confine yourself to asking

2 simple questions rather than --

3 MR. KOVACIC: Very well, sir. I was trying

4 to shorten the thing.

5 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

6 MR. KOVACIC: Okay.

7 Q. [Interpretation] Right. So we are agreed that

8 there is a signature accompanying every name?

9 A. We are, sir.

10 Q. And let us still look at Mario Cerkez here.

11 Are you claiming that this is his signature?

12 A. According to the list, it should be, but I'm

13 not qualified to say if it is his signature because I

14 wasn't present when the signature was written down.

15 Q. [In English] Very correct. Thank you,

16 sir. [Interpretation] Let us take one example more.

17 On the page with ordinal numbers beginning

18 1227, it's halfway through and is somewhere midway

19 through the list, so in the middle of the page -- have

20 you managed to find it? And then it goes on, that is,

21 the names then go down to number 1237, so ten persons.

22 The first two are Dragan Bobas and Ljuban Bobas,

23 and the last one is -- I think it says Marina Bobas,

24 and perhaps one after her, Grebenar -- yes, Marina

25 Bobas, Marina Bobas is the last one, yes.

1 And now look at this column on the right

2 where the signatures are. One does not need an expert

3 in graphology to see that they had all been signed the

4 same way, that is, initials in the same hand and in the

5 same way, and it is quite legible, I should say, that

6 it was signed by a person called N. Bobas?

7 A. It looks like it, sir.

8 Q. [In English] It looks like it. So much about

9 this list. Of course, there are many other things, but

10 I will not raise them for the moment.

11 Let me ask you about a couple of documents

12 from the smaller binder where we have documents, not

13 the person files.

14 [Interpretation] Let us go back to the list

15 under 2, where we saw Cilic's signature, but typed, and

16 the list of killed Vitezovi, that is, members of that

17 Vitez unit. As a matter of fact, it was produced with

18 the last witness, with the previous witness.

19 The first part of this list refers to the

20 killed, and the names under 2, a person named Lovro

21 Kolak, and then 20, Zoran Ramljak, and 3, Ivo Zuljevic,

22 they also figure in the list of killed Vitezovi, that

23 is, members of the Vitezovi unit.

24 A. Are you referring to this list, sir? I mean,

25 the list we are looking at, Exhibit Z808, it says,

1 obviously, "List of Vitezovi Brigade soldiers killed in

2 the conflict." I'm not aware if they were also

3 mentioned on another list, if this list is not included

4 in this document.

5 Q. Right. Very well. I wanted to ask you if

6 you remember seeing the list of the killed members of

7 the Vitez Brigade -- no, excuse me -- list of killed

8 members of the Vitezovi unit, because we have not been

9 handed over that list.

10 A. Because I didn't review that list, sir,

11 because my single -- the single purpose of this

12 exercise was to identify members of the Viteska Brigade

13 and not members of the Vitezovi, which does not exclude

14 that it could be that members of the Vitezovi have also

15 been members of the Viteska Brigade, because they could

16 have been lent, one to the other.

17 But, as I said before, I was just

18 concentrating on names, dates of birth, and specific

19 items that could identify a member of the Viteska

20 Brigade, and this document which was tendered, as you

21 said before, gives us names of people that were also

22 mentioned on our list of identified members of the

23 Viteska Brigade.

24 Q. Since you mentioned this, just a short side

25 question. As you investigated those people on the

1 various lists, did you happen to notice that some

2 people spent some time in one unit and then moved on to

3 another unit?

4 A. Not via this investigation, sir, no.

5 Q. Very well.

6 Let us move on to the next document, that is,

7 the same binder, same binder, but the one under 3.

8 When one looks at it, one should say that this was from

9 a computer. These were lists which were done on a

10 computer, if one looks at the original, the Alfa Force,

11 the list of 35 names. It looks like a computer list.

12 Have you ever seen the original of this document, or do

13 you have it, perhaps, in your files?

14 A. No, I don't have it, sir. This is the

15 document I obtained via our database, which means that

16 it could be that the original is in the evidence

17 folder, but at least this is a copy of the document

18 that's in our possession.

19 Q. Do you perhaps know, how did this document

20 reach the Prosecutor's office? What is the source of

21 this document?

22 A. No, I don't, sir.

23 Q. The title says that it was issued by the

24 command OS -- we're not quite sure if we know what that

25 acronym means -- of Central Bosnia; is that correct?

1 That is what one reads at the top.

2 A. Yes. At the top, it says: "The Alfa Force

3 Reconnaissance Sabotage Group was formed on the 6th of

4 April, 1992, on an order of the Central Bosnia OS

5 Command."

6 Q. True. And then one of the members, and let's

7 move on to the next document, that is, the document

8 under 4, that these members received their salaries,

9 are paid. And then it says, "Central Bosnia, the

10 command of the Operative Zone," so you would know that

11 institution, and it is signed by the commander of the

12 Operative Zone. Is that correct?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. So this Alfa Force evidently has nothing to

15 do with the brigade. You know what was the Operative

16 Zone and the commander of the Operative Zone, that he

17 was a superior to the accused Mario Cerkez.

18 A. Generally, what the document says is that it

19 is signed by Colonel Tihomir Blaskic. I haven't found

20 anything that would assure me or my colleagues that

21 that also means that this Alfa Force has never been

22 under the command of Mr. Mario Cerkez. It just means

23 that as commander of the Operative Zone of Central

24 Bosnia, it is obvious that Mr. Blaskic -- Colonel

25 Blaskic, in this situation, signed for paying the

1 amount of money to these several unit members.

2 Q. I see. Very well. But tell me, please,

3 apart from those six names which are circled and you

4 believe that are in some other lists that you managed

5 to identify, that is, that they appear in some

6 documents which are associated with the Vitez Brigade,

7 but other persons here are also associated with the

8 Vitez Brigade, the rest of the 29 of them.

9 A. [Answer obscured by translation]

10 Q. On this list, six names are circled, and then

11 these persons appear in individual files. So when you

12 subtract them from 35, it's 29. You do not identify

13 those 29 as members of the brigade, at least we did not

14 find it. Is it that, in your opinion, they were not

15 that?

16 A. The people that are circled on this list are

17 the people of which we have personal files, and the

18 only thing this document says is that obviously he was

19 paid as a member of the Alfa Force Sabotage Group.

20 As I said before, according to our

21 investigation, this doesn't mean necessarily that --

22 being a member of a special unit, that doesn't mean

23 that this unit can't be under the control, or under the

24 direct supervision or command of Mr. Mario Cerkez.

25 Q. I see. So you are not identifying them by

1 people but by the structure, by the organisation.

2 Now, let me ask you, have you seen a

3 document -- do you think there is a document which

4 would show that Alfa Force would be a unit -- part of

5 the Vitez Brigade? Have you ever seen such a document?

6 A. No, I have not, sir. But, as I said before,

7 the reason for this identification of possible members

8 of the Viteska Brigade meant that when we went through

9 the databases, we brought in the names of the people

10 that were recognised and of which we could reasonably

11 think that they were members of the Viteska Brigade,

12 and once we did that, names came up and documents came

13 up, and one of these documents is this one.

14 So my assumption in this would then be that

15 if he was a member of the Viteska Brigade, and he was

16 also a member of the Alfa Force, that this unit was

17 under the command of the commander of the Viteska

18 Brigade.

19 Q. Thank you for repeating the explanation, but

20 will you please answer the question, and it is very

21 simple.

22 Have you ever seen in your work at the

23 Prosecutor's office, ever, a document, any kind of

24 document -- a military order or an organisational chart

25 or any document at all -- from which one could conclude

1 that a unit called Alfa Force was subordinated to the

2 Vitez Brigade, that is, that it was a component, an

3 element, of the Vitez Brigade? Yes or no, please.

4 We've already heard the explanation.

5 A. Not as far as I can recollect.

6 Q. Correct. Never.

7 This document does not have a signature or a

8 stamp; is that correct?

9 A. That's correct, sir.

10 Q. It doesn't have a date either.

11 A. The date says, "3rd of November, 1992."

12 Q. I'm sorry, but I cannot find it, I don't see

13 any date.

14 JUDGE MAY: Z265, under the tab number 4, has

15 the date the 3rd of November. But you're right, the

16 other one doesn't have a date. We can see that.

17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] It is Z67, that

18 one doesn't have a date.

19 Q. In respect to that, have you noticed from the

20 documents issued in Bosnia that we, unlike here in

21 Europe, attach a lot of importance to stamps. Every

22 document, every serious document must have a stamp.

23 Have you noticed that custom?

24 A. I have to admit that I've seen a lot of

25 documents with stamps, but I've also seen documents

1 without stamps.

2 Q. As an illustration, this long list has even

3 two stamps. Some people think that it might add to the

4 reliability of the document. However, the document

5 number 67 does not have a stamp. Z265, in section 4,

6 signed by Blaskic, also has a stamp.

7 Let us have a look at number 5. It is the

8 document Z1299.2, in section 5 of the binder. Have you

9 seen the original of this document?

10 A. No, sir.

11 Q. Would you agree with me that, again, we have

12 a computer printout?

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 Q. Can we also agree that it doesn't have a

15 signature or a stamp?

16 A. Yes, sir.

17 Q. The title of the document says it is a list

18 of the wounded members of the brigade. What does the

19 date on the left-hand side mean, that is, the 12th of

20 November, 1993?

21 A. I assume that this was the date that this

22 document was produced.

23 Q. Can you tell us anything about the source of

24 the document and how it reached the Office of the

25 Prosecutor?

1 A. I cannot because, as I said before, during

2 this search in September 1998, we seized an enormous

3 amount of documents, and these documents were put into

4 the database by this office. The purpose of this

5 investigation was not to authenticate the documents

6 that were in our possession but to find the names of

7 people that were mentioned by the witnesses.

8 So I cannot tell you exactly where this

9 document comes from, but according to my knowledge,

10 about 90 percent of the documents that have been put

11 into these binders, they were directly related to the

12 search of 1998. But, no, sir, I cannot specifically

13 say if this was one of these documents.

14 Q. Is it true that on that occasion -- I'm not

15 referring to every location, but only the two that are

16 of interest for us -- that they were seized at a

17 municipal building?

18 A. I can't tell you that because I was not

19 involved in these two locations. I was on the third

20 location.

21 Q. Since you don't know that, can you exclude

22 the possibility that that document was composed in the

23 Defence Office, that is, in the civilian section of the

24 municipal government?

25 A. No, I cannot.

1 Q. Is it true that it is a bit difficult to

2 speak about the value of names if we are not sure about

3 the authenticity of the document, in view of what you

4 have just said, that your objective was not to

5 ascertain the authenticity of the document but to link

6 the names with the names mentioned by witnesses?

7 A. I don't necessarily agree, because during a

8 criminal investigation, once one does a search, the

9 documents -- in this situation, the documents that you

10 obtain are supposed to be authentic; I mean, at least

11 they have been made in that office or at least they

12 were kept in that office, and should, as such, be a

13 document in relation to that organisation, or

14 whatever.

15 Q. At the location where you were, was the

16 computer's hard disk taken as well?

17 A. Yes, we did, sir.

18 Q. Is it possible that this document is actually

19 the printout from that hard disk? If you don't

20 remember that, it's not important.

21 I should take this opportunity -- I do not

22 have pages 14 and 15 that is completely legible. The

23 last page that is legible is page number 13. I want to

24 check whether you have pages 14 and 15, from numbers

25 651 to 661, and there's also something written on the

1 last page. But I just cannot read it.

2 Do you have the two pages in question?

3 The number of the last illegible page is

4 0080838. I don't know whether that document contains a

5 signature, or a stamp, or some other markings. Are

6 those two pages legible in your binder?

7 A. I have these two pages, and they are

8 illegible on my binder too.

9 Q. So the penultimate page contains the list

10 from 651 to 661, but there is a certain text on the

11 last page, and I would like to know whether that page,

12 the last one, contains any identifying information such

13 as signature or a stamp.

14 A. No, sir, because my page is the same as

15 yours.

16 Q. The next list is the list of the killed

17 members. I'm referring to section 6, document Z996.3.

18 Looking at the document, I think it's more or less the

19 same type of document. It says: "List of Killed

20 Members of the HVO and Civilians." Again, in the header

21 of the document, we see the Vitez Brigade. Do you

22 think it's logical for a brigade to have also lists of

23 killed civilians? Did you find any other document that

24 would explain such an unusual procedure?

25 A. I'm not sure what you want to --

1 JUDGE MAY: It's a comment, it's a comment.

2 Yes, let's move on.

3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. The source of this document is the same as

5 for previous documents; is that correct?

6 A. It should be.

7 Q. So we don't have to discuss the issue of

8 signature and stamp again.

9 Next is a document 750.1 in section 7 of the

10 binder. Is the source of that document the same again?

11 A. I assume so, sir.

12 Q. Let us have a look at the signature. There

13 is something added in handwriting at the end of the

14 document on the second page, some kind of note, and

15 then at the very end of the document we have "Commander

16 Mario Cerkez". This was probably prepared by an

17 official and the document had to be signed by someone.

18 In this case, it was signed -- it was supposed to be

19 signed by Mario Cerkez. Does your copy contain the

20 handwritten signature as well?

21 A. No, sir.

22 Q. As I can see under the name of Mario Cerkez,

23 there are three other places, three numbers. I don't

24 see any names on my copy.

25 A. Neither on mine, sir, and you have the same

1 copy as I do.

2 Q. Thank you. One last thing about this

3 document.

4 The handwritten part, there is a sentence

5 here in handwriting which precedes the name. [In

6 English] [Previous interpretation continues] ...

7 "soldiers were members of the Vitez Brigade who were

8 killed."

9 [Interpretation] This does not correspond to

10 the Croatian text, because the Croatian text contains

11 the word "casualties", which can include wounding and

12 killing. This is not specific enough, so I should ask

13 this translation to be corrected again. Some of them

14 may have actually survived, but some may have been

15 killed as well.

16 The next document is the document Z1337.1 in

17 section 8 of the binder, and I assume that it was

18 obtained in the same manner.

19 A. Umm-hmm.

20 Q. As regards this document, we have several

21 categories, several categories of persons which were

22 apparently killed. Apparently this is a list of killed

23 persons. The first names refer to the situation before

24 the 16th of April, 1993. Can we agree on that?

25 A. Yes, we can.

1 Q. However, the remaining information concerns

2 the relevant sector, obligatory work, member of the

3 brigade command, so these are different categories of

4 persons listed here?

5 A. When I look at this document, sir, I would

6 say that this document which was drafted, according to

7 the date, on the 20th of December, 1993, that the

8 people that were killed before the 16th of April, 1992,

9 were put together, and then it was specified after --

10 as of the 16th of April, 1993, where the specific

11 person belonged to or what part of the working area he

12 had.

13 Q. It's a logical conclusion, because we have

14 the category. It is stated here, and that was my line

15 of thinking as well. But except for the first ten

16 persons who refer to the situation before the 16th of

17 April, 1993, this is no longer the case. That's why I

18 stated the subheadings.

19 Let us take the next category, for example,

20 the brigade command. We have one person only, Borislav

21 Josic, and here the date is the date of the death of

22 the individual in question, the 31st of August, 1993.

23 So all of the remaining categories contain dates of

24 death, but those dates are the ones after the 16th of

25 April, 1993, or at least starting with that date.

1 JUDGE MAY: What is the question?

2 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Would you agree with me that the title or the

4 heading, as you explained it to us, that is, the

5 situation before the 16th of April, 1993, concerns only

6 the ten persons listed in the first section?

7 A. The way I read this document, sir, is that

8 this document gives an overview of men that were

9 killed, the first ten in relation to the period before

10 the 16th of April, and after -- the others, between the

11 16th of April and the 20th of December, 1993, when this

12 document was drafted.

13 Q. Very well. So only the first ten individuals

14 concern the situation before the 16th of April.

15 JUDGE MAY: We've been over this,

16 Mr. Kovacic. Please, let's go on. We can read it.

17 MR. KOVACIC: Yes, yes.

18 Q. [Interpretation] Let us not waste any more

19 time on that. Just confirm that the source of the

20 document is the same as for the previous three or four

21 documents.

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. Perhaps one additional question.

24 Have you ever seen, in your analysis, a

25 document enabling you to conclude that the members of

1 the detail units would be actually members of the Vitez

2 Brigade itself?

3 A. No, sir.

4 Q. Thank you. As regards the next document,

5 section 9, document Z957.1, I should just ask you to

6 comment on the note of page 5 of the Croatian

7 original. I believe that it should be page 6 of the

8 translation. Did you take this remark into account

9 when you followed further on the names that were

10 contained in the list?

11 A. Yes, I did.

12 Q. So you did take into account the contents of

13 this remark. The remark actually speaks about certain

14 oversights, as far as I can see. Would you agree with

15 that?

16 A. Not necessarily. The remark says that during

17 the course of the fighting, a lot of people who were

18 not members of the units before joined the fighting on

19 their side, so the list might not be complete.

20 Q. Very well. Again, this document was signed

21 by Mr. Cilic. This particular document contains the

22 signature itself?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. The document under number 10, Z1372.1, I'm

25 interested in the title of the document, which states

1 as follows: "List of Soldiers Killed in the Zone of

2 Responsibility of the 5th Battalion".

3 Looking at this list containing 16 persons,

4 can you conclude that all these persons were members of

5 this battalion, which was part of the Vitez Brigade?

6 Are you sure about that?

7 A. No, I cannot, because the document obviously

8 says, "Killed in the Zone of Responsibility," which

9 does not necessarily mean that they were members of

10 that battalion.

11 Q. Therefore, the names that have been

12 encircled, the five names that are dealt with later on,

13 could have been killed in the zone of responsibility of

14 the battalion and thereby enter the list of the wounded

15 or the killed, and on the basis of that, we conclude

16 that they were actually members of that unit; is that

17 correct?

18 A. No, that's not correct, sir, because the

19 people that were encircled are persons of whom we found

20 other documents in relation which would show that they

21 were members of the Vitez Brigade. That's why these

22 five were selected.

23 Q. Very well then. Did you ever -- sorry, let

24 me rephrase my question.

25 Section 11, document Z1324.1, the document

1 that was signed by a certain Mrs. Mira Vrebac, did you

2 manage to identify that person on the basis of some

3 other documents? Did you maybe see her name in any

4 other document?

5 A. You're talking about Mrs. Vrebac? No. But

6 as I said before, I was not looking for this name,

7 because this name was not mentioned by the witnesses.

8 Q. However, she is the author of the document,

9 but never mind.

10 Attached to this document are two empty

11 documents with an official heading. It seems that

12 someone had access to official documents of a certain

13 institution which were actually not used while

14 composing this document. Are you sure that these

15 documents were found together, and could you perhaps

16 explain to us why these empty documents are attached to

17 the document which was compiled by Mrs. Vrebac? Is

18 there any explanation for that?

19 A. The reason for this is so that, as I can see

20 it now, but I'm looking at the area numbers, this means

21 that both documents were obtained together, so as a

22 package, and therefore they were brought into the

23 system as a package, because the U.N. numbers are

24 following up corresponding U.N. numbers which, as I

25 said before, means that they must have been seized as a

1 package.

2 Q. You have obviously reviewed a large number of

3 documents that were seized there, but have you noticed

4 that this type of document was used -- does this type

5 of document with the header like this has been used

6 elsewhere, that the same heading was used, and then the

7 Defence office would also mention its title? It was

8 also used by the Defence office? Have you noticed

9 that?

10 A. No, I have not, sir, but as I --

11 Q. Thank you. We have come to the list Z505 in

12 section 12, which was composed on the 27th of February,

13 1993. Again, it's a computer printout. According to

14 this printout, if we sum up every entry, we realise

15 that the number of persons mentioned here is 433. I

16 may have made a mistake, but I think this is

17 approximately the number. Have you counted them?

18 A. No, sir.

19 Q. Unlike other documents, this list is very

20 precise in the sense that it gives citizens personal

21 numbers for every person, as well as the address and

22 other necessary identifying information. The relevant

23 identifying information, that is, the citizen's

24 personal number, address, date of birth, has been

25 indicated in, if not in all cases, then at least in 99

1 percent of them. Would you agree with that?

2 A. It gives the PIN address, sir.

3 Q. Sorry?

4 A. PIN address, P-I-N address.

5 Q. Oh, that is what you call it.

6 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic,

7 could you please explain to us, because are you

8 speaking about this list in detail, we would like to

9 know if you are disputing this list, the list of

10 persons here. This is the question.

11 We are not investigating for the sake of

12 investigating here. The question is whether there is a

13 list and if this list is disputed by you or not. We

14 are talking about it in detail, and personally I don't

15 quite understand how we are progressing in our case.

16 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours,

17 I'm disputing every single document here except for

18 this one. However, I have to check certain details.

19 But as far as I can see, it's an authentic document,

20 and except for two or three other documents that have

21 also been admitted here, that is as far as the

22 authenticity of the document is concerned.

23 As regards all other documents, I dispute all

24 of them. This is only what these documents purport to

25 be. I mean we cannot be sure. I can give you one more

1 example, but --

2 JUDGE MAY: There's no need to go on.

3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] -- our

4 argument.

5 JUDGE MAY: Let us move on. At some stage,

6 you can tell us why you dispute the authenticity of

7 these documents. Now, they appear to speak for

8 themselves, but let us move on now.

9 Do you need to ask any more questions about

10 any more?

11 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,

12 I do agree with you, that we should not waste any more

13 time on these documents. I am challenging their

14 authenticity, and I will call my evidence to prove it.

15 However, I should use two or three more

16 examples from this file which can show us the

17 unreliability of such material.

18 As regards this particular binder, Witness,

19 would you please have a look at section 9.

20 JUDGE MAY: There's no need to go through

21 these documents. We've been over them.

22 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I just wanted

23 to show you a name so that we can search for it in the

24 folder.

25 Q. In that document, Z957.1, under number 45,

1 I'm using this only as an illustration, Adis Cosic's

2 name is mentioned, father's name Ejub. That particular

3 person can be found in the large list, mentioned

4 again -- I apologise, I don't have it here -- we have

5 him in the list of the military police, the list which

6 was given to us together with the documents of the

7 previous witness, under the number 37.

8 I would like the witness to explain the fact

9 that we have one and the same person listed under two

10 units, and let us take this only as an example.

11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Spork, can you say anything

12 more than what appears in the documents?

13 THE WITNESS: No, I couldn't, sir. I

14 couldn't.

15 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,

16 I could go on with a number of examples and

17 illustrations, and that would require some additional

18 documents, but this is obviously not the right time.

19 We will be calling our own evidence as to that.

20 However, I still have a few general questions maybe.

21 No, I believe I have finished with the

22 general issues as well.

23 If you will just allow me to add, before I

24 conclude. While we were discussing the testimony of

25 this witness, my learned colleague, Mr. Nice, mentioned

1 our defence, mentioned our argument. I will just say,

2 and we will prove it later on, that the Vitez Brigade

3 was never actually in Ahmici. I wanted the record to

4 reflect that.

5 JUDGE MAY: That is a totally different

6 point. Are you disputing, Mr. Kovacic, are you

7 disputing that the 38 individuals mentioned in the

8 second binder were members of the Vitez Brigade or

9 not?

10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Except one or

11 two, at present, I cannot say that. What I mean is

12 some of them were members of the Vitez Brigade at some

13 point in time, which means, in view of the time when

14 the Vitez Brigade was founded, it could have been

15 sometime in summer or sometime, perhaps, in autumn,

16 perhaps after the period for which Mr. Cerkez is

17 indicted.

18 What I do dispute is that any one of those 38

19 was a member of the Vitez Brigade on the 16th of April,

20 or that he committed a crime as a member of the Vitez

21 Brigade.

22 There are some individuals who joined the

23 brigade in August or September, for instance; there are

24 some people who never were members of the brigade;

25 there may be some who were with the brigade in May,

1 then they went to another unit, and then they came back

2 in June. But I dispute that those people were members

3 of the Vitez Brigade, as it is put to us here, and that

4 they committed crimes as members of that brigade.

5 There are also some persons who were

6 so-called -- and I'm referring to 1992 -- who were

7 so-called shift soldiers, that is, a soldier would be

8 called up to go to the front line with the Serbs, and

9 he would go there, he would be treated as a military,

10 and then he would go back to his place, he would go

11 back to work in his factory, or work his land, or

12 whatever. And if he committed the crime at that

13 particular time, then he is not a member of the unit at

14 that particular time.

15 That is our view.

16 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you.

17 Mr. Sayers.

18 MR. SAYERS: No questions, Mr. President.

19 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

20 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

21 Mr. President, if I may, just a very brief comment to

22 begin with. I listened to Mr. Kovacic. The Vitez

23 Brigade is evidently a brigade one joins and then

24 leaves whenever one wants. They are part-time soldiers

25 when they have time because they are not working the

1 land, or whatever.

2 All I wanted to ask the witness, Mr. Spork,

3 is if he could simply tell us something about the

4 soldier called Zoran Matosevic, a soldier figuring

5 under 39, entry 39. Does he know something about his

6 lot?

7 Q. It is true, Mr. Spork, that this soldier was

8 killed on the 11th of June, 1993, that is, on the day

9 when the convoy known as the Convoy of Joy was blocked

10 in the area of Vitez.

11 A. That's correct, sir.

12 Q. Who killed that soldier?

13 A. He was killed by members of BritBat, I

14 assume.

15 Q. I should like to show you a document, a copy

16 of a document, naturally, which seems to show -- where

17 we see that he was killed, and this is the document

18 2807/2.

19 I should also like to show you, once again, a

20 document that we discussed this morning and which has

21 to do with the soldier Zoran Sero.

22 A. Yes, sir.

23 Q. As for the Zoran Matosevic document, there is

24 a signature and there is a name.

25 A. That's correct, sir. Mr. Mario Cerkez.

1 Q. That is also the name -- or, rather, this

2 signature is identical with the one which we found on

3 the identity card issued to Zoran Sero.

4 A. I'm not an expert, but I would say so, yes.

5 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, are those

6 documents from the files? It seems not.

7 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Oh, yes,

8 indeed.

9 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's move on. Let's come

10 to an end.

11 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Mr. Kovacic showed to you the big list, and

13 here Mario Cerkez appears as the first member of the

14 92nd Brigade. We were shown the signature of

15 Mr. Cerkez, and, yes, indeed, we see that Mr. Cerkez's

16 signature varies, we have different signatures. And

17 this is the list of the 92nd Regiment, these are the

18 same, but it is, again, the same signature here I've

19 shown you, not the one that we see here in the long

20 list.

21 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Yes, I am

22 about to finish, Mr. President.

23 JUDGE MAY: He's not a handwriting expert.

24 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Very

25 well.

1 Q. Mr. Carry Spork, again, a clarification as

2 regards the list, the list 808, that is, the list

3 signed by Mr. Cilic. In the transcript it says that,

4 but I believe it was your slip of the tongue, that it

5 is a list of the members of the Vitezovi killed in

6 Vitez, but it is a list of members of the Vitez

7 Brigade, or Viteska Brigade.

8 A. Yes, that was a slip of the tongue. Sorry.

9 Q. When you spoke about the Alfa Force, about

10 that unit, and there is a list where there are a number

11 of names, the first known name on it is Kriss Wilson,

12 and it is the document issued on the 3rd of November,

13 1992. Do you remember the document?

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. You told us that this same Kriss Wilson, when

16 he was wounded in Novi Travnik, on the 14th of October,

17 1992, that is, a few days earlier, that he said that

18 his direct superior was Mario Cerkez, didn't he?

19 A. According to the certificate we have, yes, he

20 did.

21 Q. You verified two of those soldiers, Bralo and

22 Perica Vukadinovic, and after the verification that you

23 undertook, were those two soldiers ever condemned for