Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 4405

 1                           Friday, 2 November 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused not present]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 6             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 8             This is the case IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             I put on the record that Mr. Mladic is not present.  Mr. Mladic,

11     the Defence has waived the right of Mr. Mladic to be present yesterday

12     and today.  Therefore, we'll proceed.

13             Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.

14             Meanwhile, I raise the following issue.  The Chamber notes that

15     yesterday in the 1st of November, the Prosecution has filed an urgent

16     motion to add 13 exhibits to its 65 ter exhibit list which are to be used

17     during the testimony of Richard Philips.  Philips is due to testify

18     Wednesday next week, the 7th of November.  Given the urgency of the

19     matter the -- would the Defence be ready to indicate its position on this

20     motion and when.

21             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we can give a

22     response on this issue on Monday.

23                           [The witness takes the stand]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  That's appreciated.  Preferably not close of

25     business, but if somewhere during the day, that will allow us to further

Page 4406

 1     look at it.

 2             Good morning, Mr. Mole.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mole, please be seated.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mole, I'd like to remind you that you're still

 7     bound by the solemn declaration that you have given at the beginning of

 8     your testimony.

 9                           WITNESS:  RICHARD MOLE [Resumed]

10             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  Yeah.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  And Mr. Ivetic will continue his cross-examination.

12             Mr. Ivetic.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

14                           Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]

15        Q.   Good morning Colonel.

16        A.   Good morning, Mr. Ivetic.

17        Q.   I'd like to take up with paragraph 128 of your amalgamated

18     statement which will be P421, and it will be page 29 in the English,

19     page 32 in the B/C/S.  And just a point of clarification.  In this

20     paragraph, sir, which is not hopefully up on the screen, you describe the

21     use of mobile mortars as a "relatively frequent occurrence."

22             First of all, are you talking here exclusively of the

23     Bosnian Muslim or Presidency side?

24        A.   Which paragraph was that, please?

25        Q.   128.

Page 4407

 1        A.   Thank you.

 2        Q.   Should be the first line.

 3        A.   Yes, the reference to the PTT building indicates that I was

 4     referring to the Presidency side.

 5        Q.   Thank you, sir.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take it that everything since the heading is

 7     Bosnian government mobile mortars that it ...

 8             THE WITNESS:  Within paragraph 128, sir, yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MR. IVETIC:

11        Q.   And in paragraph 125 which is earlier on the page, you describe

12     the Serb response was sometimes overkill.  But would you agree that if a

13     combatant persistently fires upon a party with mobile mortars from a

14     location that that party is entitled respond with counter-fire to

15     neutralize the source?

16        A.   In essence, yes, but, of course, the fact that it's a mobile

17     mortar means that it is probably well gone by the time the response

18     occurs.  So it is that timeline that we're discussing, not the principle.

19        Q.   Would you agree, then, that such counter-fire in order to be most

20     effective would need to be undertaken as soon as possible after the

21     incoming fire is experienced.

22        A.   Absolutely.

23        Q.   And in that instances would you consider it plausible or

24     reasonable that a local artillery commander would have a level of

25     autonomy to be able to respond on his own to such attack without seeking

Page 4408

 1     approval of superior commanders for that particular target?

 2        A.   There seems to be a disconnect in the statement, because you're

 3     assuming that the person who's retaliating is on the scene, but they're

 4     not.  So they probably won't have a visual on the target that they're

 5     trying to engage.  So I'm not sure I understand the question in relation

 6     to that.

 7        Q.   With respect to once fire is determined to have come from a

 8     particular direction, return fire can be initiated -- kept by a certain

 9     calculations to determine the source of that incoming round.  Am I

10     accurate?  Approximate location.

11        A.   One assumes that should the target be an unidentified it would

12     then be sent back to the weapon position and the weapons position would

13     then respond.  But they might not have visual contact with the actual

14     target.  So there is -- your statement, therefore, doesn't quite make

15     sense.  Because, yes, they would be responding of their own initiative,

16     but through a chain of command and through a series of events, which is

17     not the one-to-one event that perhaps you were trying to describe to me.

18        Q.   Agreed.  My focus was that that all would happen within the local

19     level of that particular battery that would be responding.

20        A.   It could do.  Depending where they had the observation points

21     that were looking and seeking for the targets.  Of course, we don't know

22     that.

23        Q.   Right.  I'd like to ask you to comment upon the --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I -- could I try to better understand the

25     testimony because there seems to be a bit of a -- of a -- apparently you

Page 4409

 1     are not using language which the witness grabs as making sense at this

 2     moment.

 3             Now, I'm trying to understand the situation.  A round is fired

 4     from within the city by a mobile mortar to, wherever, outside

 5     Serbian-held territory.  Now, I can understand that if you target a

 6     firing position on the Serb side that they see incoming round and they

 7     want to respond if they can see where it came from.  But I also can

 8     imagine that a round is fired which ends somewhere at a distance of

 9     1 kilometre, 500 metres, 2 kilometres from a firing position.

10             Now who would then respond to that incoming fire if you have 5,

11     6, or 7 positions from where you could respond to that fire?  It's not

12     entirely clear to me if you said, A one-to-one position it looks as if

13     from a mobile mortar you fire at a Serbian fire position and then they

14     return that; whereas, that seems to be rather unrealistic.

15             Is that what keeps you apart?

16             THE WITNESS:  That was exactly the point I'm making.  This is not

17     a one-to-one engagement.  Can we have a scenario:  Let's say, for

18     example, I mention it in my statement about mobile mortars in a

19     location - doesn't matter where it is - if they fire those weapons, the

20     other side are looking obviously for military targets, they perceive that

21     as a military target because it's engaged them, but the who looks to see

22     what that target is, in my parlance would be a forward observation

23     officer.  He would have good vision of the area of conflict.  He --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  If I would stop you there.

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

Page 4410

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Wouldn't it be necessary, first of all, to decide

 2     which firing positions from the Serb side would respond.

 3             THE WITNESS:  I'm coming to that, sir.  Because the forward

 4     observation officer operates to all the guns.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 6             THE WITNESS:  So he would pass the information back to a control

 7     centre, who would then, with that information, select the weapons to

 8     engage the enemy and would give them the details of that and then the

 9     engagement would take place.

10             So the people on the weapon site on the Serb side wouldn't

11     necessarily have visual with who they're engaging, obviously by virtue of

12     the range of the weapon.

13             Does that make that clear?

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think it's clear to me now.

15             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Apart from the fact that the mobile mortar may have

17     moved [Overlapping speakers] ...

18             THE WITNESS:  That's another issue.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  That's another issue, yes.

20             Please proceed.

21             I think I understand what the discussion was about.

22             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

23        Q.   And thank you, Colonel, for clearing that up.

24        A.   Okay.

25        Q.   With regard to these mobile mortars would you be able to make any

Page 4411

 1     comment as to their -- how precise or accurate they were compared to

 2     regular mortars in the manner that they're being used?

 3        A.   Well, a mortar is a mortar.  Doesn't matter if it's on the back

 4     of a vehicle.  It depends on the operator and how effective he is.

 5        Q.   Okay.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one question in this respect, perhaps

 7     technical.

 8             The fact that a mortar is mobile and therefore perhaps installed

 9     on a vehicle, that vehicle might be more subject to movement when firing

10     than a mortar which is installed on firm ground.  Does that also make no

11     difference at all?

12             THE WITNESS:  One would have to reset the weapon after each

13     round, because of that movement that you're suggesting.

14             But even if it was bedded in on the ground, there is inherently a

15     movement anyway.  They -- by virtue of them being the indirect fire

16     weapon they are, they are not hugely accurate.  They are a significant

17     area weapon.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

19             MR. IVETIC:

20        Q.   Would you agree that these mobile mortars being used by the

21     Bosnian Presidency forces in the manner -- in this manner from vehicles

22     could result in short rounds falling within their own territory instead

23     of on enemy territory?

24        A.   It's distinctly possible.  It is up to the efficiency of the

25     operator.

Page 4412

 1        Q.   Thank you.  And would you agree with me that for purposes of the

 2     UNMO statistics any such short rounds coming from these mobile mortars

 3     would be indistinguishable from the increp that you would attribute to

 4     unmonitored Serb positions?

 5        A.   Don't forget that we had people on both sides so that we were

 6     always trying to connect outgoing rounds to incoming rounds, so taking

 7     that into account, your point is well made.  It's a possibility.

 8        Q.   And that's why I said unmonitored --

 9        A.   Right.

10        Q.   Now, I'd like to call up 1D387 again.  That would be your

11     statement from 1997.  And this time I'd like to focus on page 12 in the

12     English, page 10 in the B/C/S.

13             And if we could focus on the first full paragraph.  We're talking

14     about Sarajevo.  I'd like to focus on the third sentence onward of this

15     where you say:

16             "This meant that on the one side the Bosnian Serbs would -- could

17     put pressure on the Presidency in an attempt to control their actions,

18     and on the other side that the Presidency side used Sarajevo to

19     perpetuate their 'victim status' even if they caused the perpetuation.

20     For example, I am aware that on a regular basis, the Presidency forces

21     would employ weapons within the vicinity of Kosevo hospital.  In my mind,

22     the Bosnians were on such occasions responsible for bringing fire down

23     upon the hospital.  I also know that the Presidency forces could

24     sometimes drive one of their tanks around in the same vicinity.  This, I

25     felt, was a direct provocation to the Serbs to shoot at it."

Page 4413

 1             First of all, sir, these words that I have read out from your

 2     statement, are they truthful and correct?

 3        A.   Yes, they are.

 4        Q.   We talked about, I think, the other incident.  I'd like to focus

 5     on the tank for the time being and if you could clarify.  With the tank

 6     being an obviously more visible military target than these soft-skinned

 7     civilian mobile mortars, would you expect that it could be target of

 8     legitimate incoming fire even if that tank had not fired any rounds?

 9        A.   Of course.

10        Q.   And would you agree with me -- this statement is referencing

11     Kosevo hospital but would you agree with me that the Presidency forces

12     also utilised mobile mortars from near the PTT building, other hospitals

13     and other humanitarian buildings, including UN installations?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And am I correct that at least on some occasions you and/or

16     perhaps others in the UN structure in Sarajevo asked for these Presidency

17     forces to please move their weapons from near these UN installations

18     before engaging the Serbs?

19        A.   Yes, we did.

20        Q.   And if I recall correctly, I think the request may have been to

21     place their artillery pieces at least 500 metres from such installations.

22     Am I accurate?

23        A.   I don't recall the exact distance, but we would certainly be

24     insistent to move them with -- so that collateral damage couldn't occur.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Now I'd like to discuss a different topic.  First of

Page 4414

 1     all, with regard to the Presidency forces in the Sarajevo area, do you

 2     recall that to be the 1st Corps of that army?

 3        A.   I do.

 4        Q.   Do you recall that approximately half of the 70.000 members of

 5     that 1st Corps were located within the inner city itself?

 6        A.   Could you define inner city for me.

 7        Q.   The Papa zone.

 8        A.   So within the city.

 9        Q.   Within the city.

10        A.   I agree.

11        Q.   Would you agree with me that the roughly 30- to 35.000 members of

12     the 1st Corps located within the Papa side of the confrontation line

13     would be legitimate military targets?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Did the UNMO mission have information that such members of the

16     1st Corps in the Papa side were locating themselves in schools or other

17     civilian type buildings in order to evade being identified as targets by

18     the VRS forces?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   At paragraph 129 of your amalgamated statement, that would be

21     P421, and this is again page 29 in the English, page 32 in the B/C/S, and

22     while we wait for that, sir, perhaps I can remind you, there you talk

23     about there being a conflict between some elements of the Presidency

24     forces.  And as you will see, you give the example of a Juka and again

25     it's paragraph 129.  And, first off, I want to ask you when you say

Page 4415

 1     conflict, do you actually mean that the so-called Presidency forces or

 2     factions thereof engaged in combat with one another?

 3        A.   No, the expression conflict there would be one of policy and

 4     command, not necessarily direct conflict in the combative sense of the

 5     word.

 6        Q.   And just to clarify who this Juka was, am I correct that this was

 7     Juka Prazina a local hood or criminal who became propelled to a position

 8     as a local military commander?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And -- pardon me.

11             If we can now turn to 1D391, which is the transcript of some of

12     your testimony from the Karadzic proceedings, and page 6 in e-court of

13     that document is transcript page 5885 where you were asked a question

14     about the Muslim side --

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this is document D86.  And it has

16     only three pages.

17             MR. IVETIC:  One moment.  I apologise.  I think it's 390.  And it

18     should be page 6.  Yes, that's it.

19        Q.   And here -- well, let me just present to you the question and the

20     answer as you phrased it:

21             "Q.  Would you agree that the Muslim side targeted their own side

22     of the city, that there were shells directed at their own neighbourhoods,

23     their own citizens with the aim of causing them to be perceived as

24     victims and thus inviting international sympathy, compassion and, of

25     course, the military" --

Page 4416

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Could it be shown on the screens.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  I'm sorry, it's line 15 and further.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If you indicate the line, it's easier for the

 4     usher to find it.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise.

 6        Q.   "Q.  ... and, of course, the military intervention that you

 7     mentioned.

 8             "A.  You raise a very good but controversial issue here.  I've

 9     already in my testimony tried to explain that when incidents are

10     investigated, because we were not in a cease-fire situation but were

11     still engaged in a war, full forensic analysis of all incidents, such as

12     those you've already seen on the incident reports which we discussed

13     yesterday, are such that individual assessment was impossible.  On

14     top," and then we have to go to the next page at line 1, "... on top of

15     what I've just said, there was suggestion and there was sufficient

16     unknowns for members of UNPROFOR to be reasonably sure that what you have

17     stated is true.  I would not, because of what I've just said, be able to

18     tell you of specific incidences because I would deny anybody in the

19     environment which we lived to have the ability to conclude a satisfactory

20     forensic investigation to prove whether what you have suggested was true

21     or not.  So all I can suggest to you was that we, as UNMOs, were

22     uncomfortable about that question because we sensed that what you say may

23     have been true.  But there are a lot of riders to what I've just said.

24     It can't be determined that it's a fact, but there are very strong

25     suspicions."

Page 4417

 1             And, sir, this portion of the testimony, do you confirm it to be

 2     accurate and truthful as to this topic?

 3        A.   Yes, I do.

 4        Q.   And have I presented the entirety of your comments on this

 5     question; that is to say, the riders?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   I wish to move on to a new topic, and I propose to go through

 8     some Sarajevo-Romanija Corps reports with you.  First, I would like to

 9     call up 1D149.  And as we wait for the document, I'll preface my question

10     by indicating that it is dated the 1st December, 1992, and is titled to

11     be a report from -- from Colonel Galic to the Main Staff of the VRS and

12     I'd like to focus on the first paragraph, if we can, which discusses

13     heavily artillery fire coming on the Serb forces from the Presidency

14     forces at Igman, Ctes and Kovaci.

15             First of all, we've discussed Igman, but did UNMO have

16     information about Presidency artillery attacks from these other two

17     locations Ctes and Kovaci?

18        A.   We were aware of fire coming into the Serb-controlled areas from

19     other regions.  The names of the specific locations, I can't recall.

20        Q.   Okay.  At paragraph 2 of this document, there's talk of a

21     successful counter-attack.  Would it be reasonable for such a

22     counter-attack to have included counter-fire from artillery or other

23     heavy weapons at these outside regions that you have mentioned and that

24     this document mentions?

25        A.   I would expect a response, a military response from a side that

Page 4418

 1     was so engaged.

 2        Q.   Okay.  Would it be reasonable for a military commander having

 3     received such a report to conclude that munitions replenishment requests

 4     from the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps were to replenish stocks depleted as a

 5     result of the counter-fire used in the counter-offensive against the

 6     Presidency forces that had attacked on the 1st of December, 1992, from

 7     Igman, Ctes and Kovaci?

 8        A.   Yes.  I think just yesterday I mentioned that the resupply during

 9     that period would obvious be significantly enhanced to support the

10     operation.

11        Q.   And would you consider, generally speaking, that such

12     counter-fire could be considered militarily justified or legitimate by a

13     trained military commander?

14        A.   Yes.

15             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I would seek to introduce this

16     document as the next available Defence exhibit number.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  In the absence of any objections, Madam Registrar.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D149 becomes Exhibit D87, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  D87 is admitted into evidence.

20             MR. IVETIC:  I would now like to turn to 1D129 and the first page

21     in both languages.

22        Q.    This is another report from Colonel Galic to the VRS Main Staff

23     and it is dated the 4th of December, 1992, a time-period when you were

24     still in the Sarajevo sector.  And --

25             THE REGISTRAR:  I apologise.  We don't have English translation

Page 4419

 1     in e-court.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Uh-huh.  Let me ...

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any way the Prosecution could assist.

 4             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Yes, Your Honour.  I believe that we noticed

 5     this yesterday and we pulled it.  I'm just looking for it now.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  I could also skip this one and come back to it.

 7     That would perhaps be the most efficient use of time.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and perhaps meanwhile the Prosecution further

 9     seeks to assist you.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

12             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I'm sorry to interrupt.  I do have the English

13     translation that I pulled this morning.  It doesn't have an accompanying

14     ERN but I can hand it to the Chamber if that would assist.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  If it would -- if it would

16     be [Overlapping speakers] ...

17             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  [Overlapping speakers] ... witness.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  If it would be copied and then at a later moment you

19     use that.

20             MR. IVETIC:  That's fine.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could it first be copied.

22             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.  We'll move on then for the time being to

23     the next document, which would be 1D130, which -- 1D130 should be dated

24     the 5th of December.  I see we still have the prior document.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  I apologise.  We don't have this document, as

Page 4420

 1     well as English translation.

 2             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Sorry, I had both of these.  I've handed them

 3     both to the - thank you - court usher for copying.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But I do understand that the original is not

 5     there.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, the original is.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  The original is.  Okay, then ...

 8             MR. IVETIC:  If we can try 1D131.  I'm sounding like a broken

 9     record.  But hopefully we'll get one that works.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  No English translation.

11             MR. IVETIC:  1D132.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Same, Your Honours.  And it seems that they are

13     not released.

14             MR. IVETIC:  I suspect that as much, and I'm trying to get word

15     of that to the back but I'm not getting a response yet.  Well, let's move

16     ahead then to a document that I know is in the system.  Let's -- to deal

17     with this document we'll need to go into private session.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

19                           [Private session]

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 4421











11 Pages 4421-4423 redacted. Private session.















Page 4424

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18                           [Open session]

19             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

21             MR. IVETIC:  And can we try -- let's try 1D130 and see if that

22     one has been resolved.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand that copies are available of 1D129

24     and 1D130 in English.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

Page 4425

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Even if not uploaded, but at least we have --

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, it seems it is now uploaded in

 3     e-court.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is uploaded.  And we can use it from the

 5     screen.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 7        Q.   Sir, again as we wait for the English to come up, this particular

 8     document is dated the 5th of December, 1992, and is dated to be from

 9     Colonel Galic to the VRS Main Staff.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And it is 130.

11             MR. IVETIC:  130, correct.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

13             MR. IVETIC:  I started with this one because this one was the

14     first one they told me should be in the system, so going out of order

15     somewhat.

16        Q.   And appears to be a combat report for that time-period.  If we

17     look at paragraph 1 which describes the enemy forces and there it says

18     that 50 artillery shells were fired upon the Serb forces, and if you look

19     at the third item number it says at 1335 hours 30 shells from

20     122-millimetre Howitzer were fired from the Brijesce Brdo sector into the

21     Vogosca and Ilidza sectors.

22             The next line says at 1215 hours another attack on Orlic began

23     using gas-filled artillery shells.  And the next line, from the Kovaci

24     sector mortar and infantry fire was opened on Vojkovici.

25             First of all, sir, Brijesce Brdo, would you agree that this was

Page 4426

 1     another high point outside of Sarajevo that was controlled by the

 2     Presidency forces and which was not monitored by the UNMO mission?

 3        A.   From that comment I can tell you that we did not monitor that

 4     position.

 5        Q.   And we see here a reference to poison gas filled artillery shells

 6     allegedly being used against the Serb forces.  Did UNMO receive

 7     complaints or ever verify that any such armaments were being used by the

 8     BiH Presidency forces?

 9        A.   Not to my knowledge.

10        Q.   Would it be reasonable to assume that the VRS

11     Sarajevo-Romanija Corps responded to such attacks with artillery

12     counter-fire directed on the forces in Brijesce Brdo and Kovaci?

13        A.   I assume so.  We didn't monitor it.  I'm not aware of it.

14        Q.   Would you consider, generally speaking, that such counter-fire

15     could be considered militarily justified or legitimate by a trained

16     military commander?

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Mr. Ivetic kindly slow down and repeat

18     his previous question.  Thank you.

19             MR. IVETIC:

20        Q.   Would you consider, generally speaking, such counter-fire could

21     be considered militarily justified or legitimate by a trained military

22     commander?

23        A.   Yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Just for my understanding, would that be

25     irrespective of what that counter-fire would be, would -- if an atomic

Page 4427

 1     bomb would be -- well, of course, this is not to be taken seriously but

 2     would it be conditioned in any way whether it would be militarily

 3     justified or legitimate apart from whether legitimate is the same as

 4     militarily justified.  You gave a simple yes as an answer.

 5             Do I understand that whatever the counter-fire was, it was always

 6     militarily justified or legitimate?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I gave a yes answer because

 8     yesterday I was asked to keep my answers brief.  We're speaking about

 9     something that I wasn't present at, that my observers didn't observe,

10     about weapons which we were never had reported to us --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  But "it depends" would be a brief answer as

12     well.  If that is ...

13             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, sir.  This is war.  It means nothing to

14     answer the question intelligently, quietly in a courtroom about such an

15     issue when there are so many other issues that need to be discussed.  It

16     depends how long we can sit here and discuss it.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  Let me -- let me be clear.  Mr. Ivetic asks you

18     a question whether, generally speaking, such counter-fire, of which you

19     say you have got no idea what it was, could be considered -- you can say,

20     You can always consider something to be justified or legitimate, you

21     always can do that by a trained military commander.

22             So the question, if you wanted to say, Yes, you can do that, but

23     it depends on how it was fired, what was fired, where it was fired.  Then

24     the yes is still, I think, the short and accurate answer, because you

25     could do it.

Page 4428

 1             Now, of course, this Chamber is not interested in what one could

 2     do but is mainly interested in how you should consider that.  Now if you

 3     say, Without facts, I can't answer that question.  That's an answer as

 4     well.  I'm justifying to find out how we can receive answers which assist

 5     the Chamber in its task.  And that's the reason why I'm focussing on this

 6     matter [Overlapping speakers] ...

 7             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, sir.  I would expect -- sorry.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, one of the problems that arises here is

10     that there is a lot of hypothesis in your questions, which leads to these

11     kind of discussions.  This is a witness of fact.  Could we keep that in

12     mind.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, it is, Your Honour.  And the witness has

14     testified as to certain conclusions that he believes that a military

15     commander should have had based upon -- asks for -- for a request for

16     replenishment of ammunition.  And I'm trying to demonstrate that there

17     are whole other scenarios that are not covered in the witness statement

18     which could be other reasonably understood reasons for replenishment of

19     munitions and asking if they're reasonable.  These are the reports that

20     would have been sent to the Main Staff.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I focussed on the question you have put here, and

22     the Chamber sends as a message to you that the hypothetical character of

23     it is strong and that a witness of fact may have difficulties in

24     answering such a question and that's what we established for a fact a

25     minute ago.

Page 4429

 1             Would you please keep that in mind.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  I will.  And I will try to focus my questions more.

 3        Q.   Sir, would it be reasonable for a military commander receiving

 4     such a report as this one to conclude that ammunitions replenishment

 5     requests from the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps would be to replenish stocks

 6     depleted as a result of this counter-fire against the Presidency forces

 7     in Brijesce Brdo and Kovaci?

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me be clear.  Is there anything about return

 9     fire, the quantity of that which would, I think, be very important to

10     know before you can ask any question about replenishment of ammunition?

11     Is there anything in this report?  Let's first try to establish that.

12             MR. IVETIC:  Well, Your Honours [Overlapping speakers] ...

13             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers]... the report as we've

14     seen -- yes.  Counter- fire.

15             MR. IVETIC:  If we can -- if we can [Overlapping speakers] ...

16             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... of course replenishment

17     has got something to do with quantities, or am I wrong?  I mean, if you

18     fire one shell in return, the need for replenishment might be less than

19     if you fire 10.000 rounds in return.

20             THE WITNESS:  Engagement itself is not significant.  It's the

21     quantities, you're right.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And if there was anything found in this

23     document, then we have, I would say, a factual basis for any further

24     assessment of what a reasonable commander could or should do.  But ...

25             MR. IVETIC:  If we look at item 2 where there is the action --

Page 4430

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... okay let's look at --

 2             MR. IVETIC:  The way these reports are done, the first item, 1,

 3     is always actions; the enemy course is -- item 2 is actions of the

 4     friendly forces.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, let's then not talking simultaneously.

 6     Let's then take the facts first and then see whether that gives a basis

 7     for the question you would like to put to the witness.

 8             So we now moved from page 1 to page 2.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Item 2.  There's only one page.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Item 2.  Let me have a look.  I think there is a

11     second page in English.  We are there, yes.

12             Item 2.  Okay.  Let's put -- Please put your questions to the

13     witness so as to establish a basis for.

14             MR. IVETIC:  In item 2 we see that the Ilidza Brigade in

15     co-ordination with the Igman Brigade successful carried out an operation

16     Otes and the 1st Sarajevo Brigade is carrying out operations in the

17     direction of Trnovo, as planned, and the other units are firmly holding

18     their previous sectors.

19        Q.   Based upon your knowledge of the time-period and in particular

20     the operation in Otes, would you agree that there was artillery fire

21     utilised by the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps that would have required

22     replenishment of their stocks in relation to this combat that is

23     reflected in this report sent to the Main Staff?

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Let first try to take it step by step.

25             Mr. Mole, your knowledge of what happened on this day in this

Page 4431

 1     context, is that -- do you have any recollection of it personally?  Or is

 2     it on the basis of this document that you have to find a basis for any

 3     answer?

 4             THE WITNESS:  The paragraph 2 in particular which relates to the

 5     Otes operation I have, as you will have seen from previous testimonies, I

 6     have knowledge of that element of this.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  We have not studied all the previous testimonies.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  We have your statement [Overlapping speakers] ...

10             Was artillery used at this point in time in the context of this

11     operation?  The report is of the 5th of December.  And it describes --

12     it's a regular combat report at 1400 hours on that date.

13             Could you tell us anything about the use and the intensity of the

14     use of artillery fire?

15             THE WITNESS:  May I clarify, are we talking about Otes operation

16     here?

17             JUDGE ORIE:  We're talking about what happened on the 5th of

18     December and what the situation was at 2.00 in the afternoon, not the

19     whole of the Otes operation.  Perhaps if -- later, Mr. Ivetic, if you

20     would have questions related to the whole of the Otes operation.  But we

21     are at this moment looking at this document, and Mr. Ivetic phrases his

22     questions on the basis, at this moment, of paragraph 2 of this document

23     and, therefore, I'm inquiring what your personal knowledge about this is

24     at this moment.

25             THE WITNESS:  The period, the 2nd of December through to the

Page 4432

 1     7th of December, which includes this date, was, in my understanding, part

 2     of an operation called Operation Envelope.  It was mounted by the Serb

 3     side in response to Presidency attacks on a number of fronts, and the

 4     engagement at Otes, yes, it involved significant artillery engagements.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So apart from the document, you say not on the

 6     basis of it but that your recollection for those days.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Specifically Otes, yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then, Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

10        Q.   Would it be reasonable for a military commander receiving such a

11     report from this time-period to conclude that munitions replenishment

12     requests from the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps artillery were to replenish

13     stocks depleted as a result of this specified activity?

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, what happens now, Mr. Ivetic, is I more or less

15     provided you with a basis for the use of artillery fire but the report

16     doesn't say anything about the intensity of it.  And now you focussed the

17     question again on -- on -- on this report which doesn't say anything

18     about artillery ammunition used for artillery fire.  I could imagine that

19     you ask the witness, On the basis of your knowledge what you knew if that

20     would be reported, would a reasonable commander under those circumstances

21     take care that replenishment would be there.  And then we make it apart

22     from a document which doesn't say anything about it, but it's -- at the

23     same time, it's covering this time-period of early December.

24             Do you understand my comments.

25             MR. IVETIC:  I do.  I thought I asked the witness whether --

Page 4433

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  I think you said --

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Might have been for the previous document.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  -- receiving such a report.  But you apparently

 4     wanted to say, Receiving reports containing the information as we just

 5     learned you had at the time.  Because such reports do not say anything

 6     about artillery.  The uses of artillery ammunition. [Overlapping

 7     speakers] ...

 8             MR. IVETIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... no reports talking about

 9     replenishment yet we have the conclusions of this witness going one way

10     about replenishment, so I'm a little bit confused how to proceed.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Proceed as you wish.  But I think I've explained

12     sufficiently what we understand the -- this document can give as

13     assistance and what the information the witness just gave us could assist

14     in further exploring the need for replenishment of artillery ammunition.

15             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

16        Q.   Based on your experiences including your military experience and

17     your experience as the SMO in Sector Sarajevo during this time-period,

18     would you expect that there would have been a need for replenishment of

19     stocks depleted by artillery action in these engagements that we've

20     discussed?

21        A.   I have no experience of anything other than that in the first

22     line relating to Otes.  I have indicated in statements previously the

23     numbers of artillery rounds that we were able to verify had been fired

24     into that location and over the period of 2nd to the 7th of December.

25     And that, just to remind you, it was somewhere in the region of 1600

Page 4434

 1     rounds during daylight hours.  It was estimated at probably double that

 2     over a 24-hour period for the full period, 2nd to the 7th of December.

 3             I would obviously expect the weapons that had fired those rounds

 4     into that location to be resupplied, to put them back to the stocks that

 5     they were at before they began the engagement.

 6        Q.   And this area, Otes, would that be within the area that you

 7     previously defined as being the front lines?

 8        A.   Not precisely.  The front line went to the west of the village of

 9     Otes, and the taking of the village of Otes, of course, went beyond the

10     front line.  That's what taking a village would be.

11        Q.   And in that area, there were Bosnian Presidency forces I presume,

12     fighting back.  Is that accurate?

13        A.   Absolutely.

14        Q.   Okay.  And those forces fighting back and in the context of that

15     operation that region would have been appropriate for a military target.

16     Is that accurate?

17        A.   Yes.  It was an engagement.

18        Q.   Would you also agree, based upon this document, that there were

19     potential other engagements of which the UNMOs would not have had any

20     information but which could also serve as an explanation for any

21     replenishment requested by the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps from their

22     superiors?

23             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I'm going to object to that question as

24     extremely -- calling for speculation.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I didn't fully understand the question.

Page 4435

 1             Mr. Ivetic, would you rephrase it and perhaps split it up,

 2     because based upon this document that there were potential other

 3     engagement, what do you mean by based on this, upon this document--

 4             MR. IVETIC:  All right.

 5             JUDGE ORIE: -- to say there was something beyond this

 6     document [Overlapping speakers] ...

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Well, Your Honours, if the witness limited his

 8     knowledge to item number 1 of the -- of the section 2.  So I presume that

 9     means that he is not familiar with the engagements in the direction of

10     Trnovo.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Then put to him clearly based on this document, say,

12     may it -- is it possible that beyond what is described here that you may

13     have missed information about other -- be concrete, please.  I'm not

14     going to phrase the question for you.  These are your questions.

15             MR. IVETIC:  I am, sir.  And presume we're still going on we had

16     decided -- the longer sessions.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think we take the shorter sessions.  That is

18     agreed upon.

19             Then perhaps you have 20 minutes to think about how to phrase

20     your questions, Mr. Ivetic.

21             We'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23                           --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

Page 4436

 1                           [The witness takes the stand]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 4        Q.   Colonel, I believe we were still dealing with this document

 5     that's on the screen, which should be, I believe, 1D130.  And if I can

 6     ask to direct your attention to the item we have been looking at, number

 7     2, would you agree with me that based on this document what is

 8     represented here as to Trnovo that at least on this date there was an

 9     operation or engagement in an area that would not have been known to the

10     UNMO mission?

11        A.   Yes.

12             MR. IVETIC:  And -- now, can we have this document, then,

13     introduced into evidence as the next available exhibit number.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D130 becomes Exhibit D89, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

17             MR. IVETIC:  If we can turn to P421 and paragraph 63 of the same.

18     This is the amalgamated statement of the witness.  And it's page 15 in

19     English, and I believe it is page 16 in the B/C/S.

20        Q.   And, sir, I'd like to keep in mind the last several lines or --

21     or sentences of this paragraph of your amalgamated statement in regards

22     to the documents we've just looked at and the documents that we will be

23     looking at for the remainder of the questioning, and I will quote for

24     you, sir:

25              "If ammunition was being replaced on a daily basis, it must be

Page 4437

 1     going somewhere.  So the question begs:  Where was it going?  As a

 2     commander, I would hope to know where it was going.  In this sense, fire

 3     missions cannot occur on their own without some kind of accountability,

 4     at the minimum through expenditure of ammunition, which the commander

 5     would be aware of."

 6             Now, sir, in the context of what we've seen at least in the two

 7     documents that we've looked at now, would you permit that a commander

 8     receiving those specific reports would have an answer for where the

 9     ammunition was going and that it would be that it was going towards these

10     other areas outside of the Papa zone?

11        A.   Clearly an army commander is dealing with a theatre.  You have

12     introduced other aspects of that theatre.  My concentration was on

13     Sarajevo and the weapons that we monitored directly pointing at and

14     targeting that city.

15             Weapons, of course, can be moved and target different parts of

16     the same area within range, and we have indicated that the weapons that

17     we monitored sometimes engaged some of the targets that you have just

18     been outlining.

19             Of course, if we're monitoring the firing of those weapons, we're

20     also monitoring the resupply of those weapons.  Now, we were not in a

21     position to monitor the resupply of weapons outside of our area of

22     observation, so many of the weapons, which will have engaged the targets

23     that you suggested, could just as easily -- weapons which we weren't

24     monitoring as those that we were.  But those that we were, we have an

25     idea of where they fired to, because they are in the shootreps, which

Page 4438

 1     we've indicated.

 2             So an army commander has to balance the theatre, ammunition

 3     expenditure, he and his staff.  He would have an expectation of how much

 4     ammunition it would require to fulfil his objectives.  An army commander

 5     who commands throughout Bosnia would treat Sarajevo as but one sector of

 6     his responsibility.  He would be familiar by reportings, which we've

 7     already seen, how much ammunition was being expended to fulfil the task

 8     he has given to his subcommander.  And I, in my statements, indicated

 9     that the numbers of rounds required to fulfil the task of containment of

10     Sarajevo seemed to be at variance to the task.  In my understanding, from

11     our comprehension of the front line round Sarajevo, the lack of that

12     variation on that front line through that three-month period, there

13     were -- there was more ammunition expenditure within that period than one

14     would expect to contain the city militarily.  That is the point I'm

15     making.

16        Q.   Fair enough.  And just to be clear, in paragraph 63, the

17     commander you're talking about is identified as Commander Galic.

18        A.   Well, it says "any commander."

19        Q.   Okay.  But the -- the paragraph 63 talks about:

20             "Giving Galic's dependancy on artillery it would have been

21     essential for him to essentially -- to carefully monitor the use of

22     artillery.

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Would you agree that the battle around and the takeover the Otes

25     that we discussed would have been a change in the front lines?

Page 4439

 1        A.   Absolutely.

 2        Q.   I'd like to now turn to 1D131 in e-court, dated the

 3     5th of December, 1992.  And hopefully -- hopefully both versions are in

 4     e-court.  And this is a report from Colonel Galic to the VRS Main Staff.

 5     And if we could focus on paragraph 1 which would be the recitation of the

 6     enemy activity.

 7             And we see here that is says:

 8             "In the afternoon the enemy continued persistent attacks on Orlic

 9     and Zuc and succeeded in pushing back the forces of the Vogosca Brigade

10     by 700 metres in the Orlic area."

11             And then if we could look at the last line:

12             "During the whole day, the enemy opened strong artillery fire on

13     the whole zone of the corps."

14             And we see also there:

15             "Attacks continued from Ormanje and Igman towards Hadzici."

16             First of all, is Ormanje another Presidency heavy -- heavy weapon

17     site that was outside of Sarajevo and thus unmonitored by the UNMO

18     mission?

19        A.   If it was unmonitored by the UNMO mission, I have no idea.

20        Q.   Okay.  With regard to the Orlic and Zuc areas, are you familiar

21     with a BH Presidency force offensive that, in fact, captured and took

22     over this region during the time-period that you were at the UNMO

23     mission?

24        A.   Yes.  I'll very familiar with Zuc, having gone up there and

25     visited it.

Page 4440

 1        Q.   And would that be a change in the situation as we discussed

 2     before, a change in [indiscernible].

 3        A.   I was just coming to that.

 4        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] ...

 5        A.   The map which I drew in the early days you'll recall, if you've

 6     seen it, has a dotted line across Zuc and that was because it was an area

 7     that went backwards and forwards in terms of possession for either side

 8     throughout the period.  And if I might, I'll just make the connection

 9     here, that I perhaps corrected you earlier on in terms of fire going to

10     places that you weren't necessarily sure, and you were suggesting that it

11     was a Serb province as opposed to Presidency.  I'll make it clear now

12     that the Presidency forces within Sarajevo city fired in support of their

13     forces at Zuc and that was the rationale for my commenting earlier on

14     that it was not just a Serb feature firing onto Igman as opposed to

15     firing upon into Sarajevo.

16        Q.   Thank you for that information.  And with regard to this

17     document, if we can look at item number 2 and we see here that:

18             "Despite strong enemy resistance the Ilidza Brigade in

19     co-operation with the Igman Brigade is successfully operating in Otes -

20     two thirds of Otes had been liberated."

21             Can we confirm that this would be the same Otes operation that

22     you previously testified to have knowledge of?

23        A.   Yes, indeed.

24        Q.   And --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  You're invited by one of my colleagues to slow down,

Page 4441

 1     Mr. Ivetic.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise and thank you for the advice.

 3        Q.   The second paragraph of item 2 says that the

 4     1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade is conducting operations towards Trnovo.

 5     First of all, a mechanised brigade would be heavy weapons.  Am I correct?

 6        A.   Appreciating that all organisations under different militaries

 7     have different compositions, but the premise of a brigade is it's the

 8     first level of command where you'll get all arms involved in one unit.

 9     I'm sorry.  That's rather a long answer to a straightforward question,

10     but you would expect artillery within the brigade and under command of

11     that brigade.

12        Q.   And again, the location of this engagement towards Trnovo, I

13     believe you've already identified that was not a combat engagement that

14     you or the UNMO mission were monitoring or were familiar with; is that --

15        A.   Correct, yes.

16        Q.   For purposes of this report would a commander receiving this

17     report be able to understand and answer the question of where munitions

18     were going?  Would he be looking at these specific engagements as

19     rationale for replenishment of munitions to this particular subordinate

20     unit, the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps in your --

21        A.   As a principle, yes.  But the quantities we've already discussed

22     are not something that we could identify.

23        Q.   Agreed.  And again, the quantities are not listed here,

24     obviously.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Can we have this introduced as the next available

Page 4442

 1     exhibit number, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D131 becomes Exhibit D90, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  And if we can turn to 1D132 in e-court.  This is

 6     another report from Colonel Galic of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps to the

 7     VRS Main Staff.  This one dated the 6th of December, 1992.

 8        Q.   And here, again, in the first paragraph we have the enemy action

 9     where it is reported that from 200 hours the enemy continually fired

10     105-millimetre and 102 [sic] millimetre shells and VBR multiple

11     rocket-launcher missiles at Ilidza, Hadzici, Zunovicna, Ilinjaca,

12     Dobrinja, Nedzarici and Vojkovici.  From Malo Polje, Veliko Polje and

13     Hrasnici and that over 200 missiles were fire.

14             First of all, sir, I believe, Malo Polje and Veliko Polje are the

15     Igman location that we've previously discussed, and we have had Hrasnici,

16     I think, in a previous document.  Would you agree that these are all

17     sites that the UNMO was not in a position to monitor, these BH Presidency

18     artillery locations?

19        A.   Yes.  And just to make the matter totally clear that if weapons

20     such as that had been available to the Presidency forces within Sarajevo,

21     then, clearly, we would have been monitoring them.

22        Q.   And if we could look at item number 2 on this document which

23     indicates the action of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps and states that:

24             "Our artillery pounded at the firing positions of enemy artillery

25     at Igman and at Hrasnici and also fire at infantry in Sokolovic Kolonja,

Page 4443

 1     Buca Potek and Boljakov Potok."

 2             Are these combat engagements that you had any knowledge of as

 3     part of the UNMO mission or would they be outside of the remit of the

 4     UNMO -- of -- not the mission but outside the remit the facts that you

 5     had?

 6        A.   Yes, and [indiscernible] shot, the firing of the weapons or the

 7     monitoring had been executed as part of the UNMO mission and you know

 8     what that was, then clearly these were outside it.

 9        Q.   Thank you, sir.  And then again, a senior commander receiving

10     such a report would answer your question posed of where the ammo -- could

11     answer the question of where the ammo is going in relation to this

12     particular combat.  Would that be, generally speaking, a fair statement?

13        A.   There will be a relationship between that report he has received

14     and the presumable ammunition resupply requests he'd receive.

15        Q.   Thank you.  That's exactly the correct answer that I was looking

16     for.  I apologise for not being able to correctly ask the question.

17             With -- with regard to -- strike that.

18             MR. IVETIC:  I guess -- I tendered this document, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Madam Registrar.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D132 becomes Exhibit D91, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

22             Mr. Ivetic, yesterday we received an indication of one hour 15,

23     one hour 20.  We went already beyond the one hour 20, I think.  Could you

24     give us an indication as how much more time would you need.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.  I have just one or two more documents, and

Page 4444

 1     that's it.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  I'd like to look at 1D325.

 4        Q.   And this, sir, is dated the 23rd of December, 1992, so it would

 5     have been near the end of your tour of duty at the UNMO Sector Sarajevo.

 6     Again, it is a report of Colonel Galic reporting to the Main Staff of the

 7     VRS.  And once the English comes up if we could focus on the first

 8     paragraph to begin.

 9             And we'll see here that the enemy artillery is reported of

10     engaging in fierce offensive activity in the north western sector of the

11     front.  And we see here various amounts of shells being shot into

12     Hadzici, Ilidza, Rajlovac, Vogosca and Ilijas.  And there's indication

13     there that says:

14             "Which is an indication that the enemy has received larger

15     quantities of ammunition of all calibre, since they fired from all the

16     artillery weapons at their disposal."

17             And I would ask you, sir, first of all, do you recall, based upon

18     your information, if there was a time-period when even the artillery

19     within the Papa zone of the Presidency side was able to have more

20     ammunition than in previous months when your testimony was that it had --

21     that it had -- minimal amount of ammunition?

22        A.   Could I just ask you to clarify that question.  Are you asking

23     was the Presidency side within the city now reinforced with additional

24     ammunition, as a result of this piece of paper?

25        Q.   No.  I'm asking whether you had any knowledge of them being

Page 4445

 1     reinforced with additional munitions, you being the UNMO mission?

 2        A.   They being within the city?

 3        Q.   Within the city, correct.

 4        A.   Okay.  Yes, there is no doubt that they could not have continued

 5     with the -- and maintained their resistance to the siege situation unless

 6     they had had access to additional ammunition, which, of course, we had no

 7     direct knowledge of.  But I'm not too sure how you relate this answer to

 8     the question about the enemy artillery opening fire from the following

 9     areas.

10        Q.   I was more concerned about the time-period.  Did you note that

11     near the end of your tour of duty that the Bosnian Presidency forces

12     within the Papa zone appeared to have more ammunition available for their

13     heavy weapons than they did at the beginning of your tour of duty?

14        A.   Yes, they certainly did.  And they also had additional weapons.

15     Of that we're quite sure.  We wouldn't document that but we are pretty

16     sure that that was the case.

17        Q.   And just to be clear you say additional weapons, do we mean heavy

18     weapons?

19        A.   More medium weapons, I would suggest.  If one takes a tank as a

20     heavy weapon, major artillery piece is a heavy weapon, not so.  But more

21     mortars, yes, of the higher calibre, yes.

22        Q.   Thank you, sir.  And if we can look at item number 2 on this

23     document, it starts of by saying that:

24             "All SRK units are in full B/G combat readiness.  They are

25     repulsing the enemy attacks successfully."

Page 4446

 1             And would, therefore, a commander -- well, first of all, do you

 2     have knowledge of these attacks that were occurring on the

 3     23rd of December on these regions, Hadzicic, Ilidza, Rajlovac, Vogosca,

 4     Ilijas by artillery bombardment by the Presidency forces.

 5        A.   Yes, we were very familiar with what was occurring within the

 6     region of Sarajevo.  You'll recall that earlier in my testimony I related

 7     the fact we had operations group meetings in the morning, and information

 8     such as this would be made available to the sector and therefore to the

 9     United Nations Military Observers.  So we always tried to place into

10     context what was occurring on in direct area of Sarajevo the city with

11     what happened in the region.  And this example that you're pointing out

12     to me now was part of a significant Presidency offensive on a number of

13     fronts.  This identifies that offensive and it identifies the response to

14     it, of which Otes was another response to it.

15        Q.   And, again, to tie this to the question that you posed in

16     paragraph 63 of your amalgamated statement, would a commander receiving

17     reports of such significant actions have at least one answer for where

18     the ammunition was going in terms of those particular engagements?

19        A.   Yes.  And just to supplement my yes, we, as UNMOs, would be fully

20     appreciative of the expenditure of ammunitions on these supernumerary

21     tasks, if one could not make that comment sound too trite, but

22     supernumerary military tasks that were occurring outside our immediate

23     area of responsibility.  So our awareness of them tells you that we would

24     account for them in terms of expected ammunition expenditure.

25        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Fair enough.

Page 4447

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, if I can ask for this document to be

 2     accepted into evidence as the next --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D325 becomes Exhibit D92, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honours, Madam Registrar.

 7        Q.   Colonel, I thank you for your time and your detail to answer my

 8     questions.  You've helped me understand your testimony a lot.

 9        A.   Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Hochhauser, any need -- yesterday you said about

11     four questions.  Has that grown during the night?

12             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Yes, well, not during the night but it has grown

13     in the last session.  I would -- also I can, whenever the Court suggests

14     that I do it, address the matters of the evidence that was MFI'd, that we

15     left MFI'd yesterday.  I can do that at the conclusion of the witness's

16     testimony or now.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's first try to conclude the evidence of the

18     witness and then deal with these administrative matters.

19                           Re-examination by Ms. Hochhauser:

20        Q.   Colonel Mole, first I would just like to turn your attention to

21     the subject matter of the mobile mortars that was discussed with you

22     during cross-examination.

23             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  And if we could have on the screen, please, the

24     witness's statement, which is P421.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Which paragraph on which page?

Page 4448

 1             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  And it would be paragraph 126, Your Honours,

 2     which is at page 29.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the hard copy page, yes, in English.

 4             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

 5        Q.   Okay.  And, Colonel, do you have it on the screen in front of

 6     you?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And I would draw your attention to the portion of that

 9     paragraph where -- again regarding mobile mortars, where you write, "When

10     the Serbs fired in response" -- I'm sorry.  Beginning at the sentence

11     above:

12             "If a professional operator targets something, you can expect a

13     concentration of fire in that area.  When the Serbs fired in response,

14     there was no such concentration of fire because the mortar had gone.

15     This was therefore retaliation rather than a military response."

16             Can you explain to us what you're talking about there in terms of

17     the concentration of fire that you would expect to see and what your own

18     observations were of what you saw of Serb responses -- military response

19     to mobile mortar fire?

20        A.   When engaging a target such as you've pointed out to me, the

21     mobile mortar, it's a matter of timeline and proportionality.  Sometimes

22     it's also a matter of what weapon you use to engage the enemy as to how

23     effective that would be.

24             Let me take that point first.

25             Earlier on, we were talking about the possibility of a lone tank

Page 4449

 1     moving somewhere close to a sensitive area, such as a hospital, to draw

 2     fire, and I stated that that happened.  The response to that by firing

 3     artillery rounds at a tank isn't necessarily the best response.  It's not

 4     appropriate because an indirect fire weapon of the accuracy we're talking

 5     of is unlikely to be effective against that particular weapon, a tank.

 6     You would want to take that tank out by another direct fire, i.e., an

 7     anti-tank round or a tank.

 8             So the first part of engaging one of these targets is decision of

 9     what you're going to use to engage it, the quantity, therefore, its

10     proportionality, and then the timeline.  So now we move maybe to the

11     mobile mortars.  The very fact that they are mobile, the very fact that

12     they were located proximatus to a sensitive area means that one's

13     response has to accord with the target.  We've already discussed that

14     there is a passing of time, crucial time, between identifying that

15     target, let's say, a forward observation officer identifies the mobile

16     mortars firing from its firing location, reports that fact back to his

17     commander.  His commander would then presumably allocate the weapons to

18     return the fire, and by the time that detail is passed to the heavy

19     weapon operator and the target is engaged, obviously the weapon that

20     you're originally engaging, the mortars, could and probably have moved.

21             So that's the timeline.  And then one has to consider what sort

22     of response it is that you are giving to the initial engagement.  If

23     there are a lot of rounds fired at a place that the enemy is no longer

24     at, not only is that a waste of ammunition, but it is also, of course,

25     likely to cause casualties beyond what your original target was.

Page 4450

 1             Those are all the considerations that one would take into account

 2     when considering an engagement such as you described.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one follow-up question in this context.

 4             A mobile mortar fires and the time it needs to respond to that

 5     fire is such that the mobile mortar most likely will have left the

 6     location from where it fired, which leaves you almost empty handed

 7     because either you fire at the larger region where the mortar initially

 8     was, which you say is not an appropriate way of doing, if I understand

 9     you well, which means that you would be left behind with frustration and

10     no legitimate answer.

11             Is that -- well, at least more or less what you are telling us?

12             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.  That's war, isn't it?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  That's fine.  I would just like to understand if you

14     criticise the answer given, the response given by the attacked party,

15     that there is no -- whatever you do, it's always wrong.  You would agree

16     with that?  Apart from lodging complaints and -- I mean, but militarily.

17             THE WITNESS:  It's extremely frustrating and what you're dealing

18     with are two totally different weapons systems and it's sledge hammer to

19     crack a nut.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, thank you.

21             Please proceed.

22             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

23        Q.   Colonel Mole, is -- just in terms of -- in terms of the -- a

24     legitimate response to a -- to a mobile mortar in that situation, would

25     an attack on another military target in response also be a possibility?

Page 4451

 1        A.   Are you suggesting that from, say, the Serb side, that by not

 2     being able to engage the original target, they might engage another?

 3        Q.   For example.

 4        A.   No, it's -- is that what you're asking me?

 5        Q.   Yes.

 6        A.   It is.  Yes.  They might well do that.

 7        Q.   Yesterday -- I'm moving on from that topic.  Yesterday at

 8     transcript page 70 to 71, you -- you agreed, and I'm paraphrasing here

 9     that the incident forms that we've discussed in the course of your

10     testimony that your UNMOs used could also include outgoing fire.  So

11     could -- sorry.  Your incident forms recorded fire on those incident

12     forms could also include outgoing fire from Serb artillery directed at

13     Mount Igman rather than at the Papa zone.  Do you recall that testimony?

14        A.   Yes, I do.  Obviously if an increp is being completed

15     appropriately then the fact that the weapon fires means that you would

16     continue the completion of the serial on the increp by filling out that

17     information that you're just suggesting, i.e., what was the proposed

18     target.

19        Q.   Okay.  I'm sorry, just so -- so I understand you, it would be a

20     shootrep?

21        A.   [Overlapping speakers] ... yes.

22        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] ... then not an increp; is that right?

23        A.   If you're monitoring the weapon and the weapon happens to be

24     firing at a different target than what you expected, it's still a

25     shootrep and it would be recorded as to what the expected target was,

Page 4452

 1     assuming that the UN Military Observer asked the commander the question.

 2        Q.   And so taking that into account, does -- does that in any way

 3     affect your observations, the possibility that -- that these shootreps

 4     could have -- could also include outgoing fire from Serb artillery

 5     directed at Igman, although the shootreps would have, if done correctly,

 6     recorded that.  Does that in any way affect your observations about the

 7     fire that was being directed from Serb positions into the centre of the

 8     city of Sarajevo?

 9        A.   No, because the completion of the shootrep would indicate what

10     the expected target was.  So we would be familiar with it.  We would

11     understand it.  We would accord it as part of our assessment.

12        Q.   I'm going to turn for a moment to the document -- actually, I'll

13     do that, sorry, at the end because it will require going into private

14     session.  So I'll put that question later.

15             Yesterday you testified at page what was page 28 -- I'm sorry

16     today page 28 of the temporary transcript, line 24, to page 29, line 3,

17     you were asked whether those forces fighting back and in the context of

18     that operation that region would have been appropriate for a military

19     target, in the context of, I believe, it was talking about the Otes

20     operation.  Do you recall that testimony?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Okay.  You were asked is that accurate.  And your answer was,

23     Yes, it was an engagement.

24             And I'd like to just draw your attention to that question and

25     answer and ask you to clarify.  In the context of -- even in the context

Page 4453

 1     of the military engagement does that make that whole region into an

 2     appropriate military target, or are there still tactical decisions to be

 3     made about what can be targeted within that region?

 4        A.   I would just have to be reminded of the region that we were

 5     discussing.  Can you help there?

 6        Q.   Yes.  I believe that we were discussing the region of Otes but

 7     just for certainty's sake, I'm going to look.  If you'll give me a

 8     moment.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  The question was:  And this area, Otes, would that

10     be within the area that you previously defined?  No, that's the front

11     lines.  Let me see...

12             Yes.  And those -- so you were talking about the area of Otes:

13             "And those forces fighting back and in the context of that

14     operation," and that was the operation about Otes, "that region would

15     have been appropriate for a military target.  Is that accurate?

16             Your answer was:

17             "Yes.  It was an engagement."

18             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  The engagement in Otes, by virtue of

19     what was going -- what the objective was from the Serb side, was to take

20     the village of Otes and to square off the west hand -- western end of the

21     city to allow communications for themselves on a north/south axis to be

22     easier.

23             The front line originally was obviously to the west of the

24     village of Otes, and that conflict to which you refer became the area of

25     intense artillery fire for the period we've discussed 2 through 7 of

Page 4454

 1     December.

 2             So of necessity, behind the front line where you would expect

 3     conflict then became the front line, by virtue of that conflict.  That

 4     was the basis of my saying that the area was a military target.

 5             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

 6        Q.   Okay.  Thank you for clarifying that.

 7             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  I'd like to ask, please, for Exhibit P425 up on

 8     the screen.  And if we could just -- if we could, please, have, I

 9     believe, it's the next page, the second page.

10        Q.   Colonel Mole, I'm afraid this is going to be a long question.

11     Several of the exhibits that you commented on during the course of the

12     cross-examination, such as D87, 90 and 91, illustrated the confrontation

13     that was going on in the first week of December 1992; is that right?

14        A.   Yes, very much so.

15        Q.   And several of those -- the questions and answers that you gave

16     when commenting on those documents show that BiH forces from Igman,

17     amongst other places, such as Kovaci and Otes were attacking Serb

18     positions.  So I'm drawing your attention to that area of the

19     cross-examination.

20             Now, P425 on the screen, which is the December end-of-month

21     report, if we look at the entries for, let's say, the 1st through 4th of

22     December, 1992, which is the same time-period as those reports.  We see

23     on the 1st of December 330 rounds recorded into the Presidency -- the

24     Presidency positions -- the Presidency monitoring sites in Sarajevo.

25     UNMOs recorded 330 rounds into the Presidency positions; 264 rounds on

Page 4455

 1     2nd of December; 1284 rounds on the 3rd of December; and 1480 rounds on

 2     the 4th of December.

 3             Can you explain to us, please, is there any connection or what is

 4     the connection, if any, between the confrontation described -- as

 5     described in the Defence exhibits in those areas outside of the --

 6     outside of the city of Sarajevo where your UNMOs were located at their

 7     Papa positions and what your UNMOs were observing in Sarajevo as shown in

 8     this December en- of-month report, P425.

 9        A.   May I try and paraphrase the question so that I can answer the

10     right one?  But I think, are you asking what the relationship is between

11     the weapons we monitored and what targets they engaged during that

12     period?

13        Q.   Well, can you answer that question and then I may follow up on

14     your answer.

15        A.   During this course of this period of intense artillery activity,

16     all the weapons that we were monitoring were engaged in the conflict.

17     The majority of them, should they be in range, fired at Otes and into the

18     region of Otes.  That is not to say that some of them didn't fire

19     elsewhere because we know that the range on some was insufficient for

20     purpose to support that engagement.  We also know that having seen the

21     evidence that there were other pressure points that the Serbs felt that

22     they were under by virtue of attacks the Presidency were making.  Zuc was

23     a good example, and there were others besides around the front line of

24     the city.  So other weapons that we were monitoring targeted there.

25             I also state that during the course of that period, there were

Page 4456

 1     considerable number of rounds still fired into the city, not on the front

 2     line, not into Otes.

 3             I don't recall ever knowing of or being told or reporting that

 4     any of the weapons that we monitored or were aware of fired out of the

 5     city at that time; i.e., they concentrated their fire at Otes or the

 6     front line or the city.  I cannot recall any report - I might be wrong -

 7     but I cannot recall any report of any of that fire being directed

 8     elsewhere.  It was concentrated very much on the city.

 9        Q.   Okay.  So can I just ask you to clarify from what you've -- the

10     end of that answer that you've just said:

11             "I don't recall ever knowing or being told that any of the

12     weapons that we monitored or were aware of fired out of the city at that

13     time."

14             Which weapons are you referring to?

15        A.   Those weapons that we monitor or we were aware of.

16        Q.   Inside the city of Sarajevo.

17        A.   No.  The ones we monitored on Lima side, on Serb side.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I try to see whether we understood as well.

19     What you are actually saying is all those weapons we monitored were

20     focussing either on the conflict on Otes or perhaps Zuc.  They were also

21     firing into the city itself.  But you're not aware of any engagement to

22     other front lines or other combat areas apart from these at that point in

23     time.

24             THE WITNESS:  At that point in time, sir.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 4457

 1             MS. HOCHHAUSER:

 2        Q.   And the numbers that are reflected -- the numbers that are

 3     reflected in your December end-of-month report as incoming rounds into

 4     the Presidency side, that's referring to -- into the centre of the city

 5     of Sarajevo?

 6        A.   Yes.  Into the area of observation from our UN Military Observers

 7     without being too pedantic, in principle, yes, inside the city.

 8        Q.   Finally, Colonel Mole, in terms of -- and I believe you touch on

 9     this in your -- in your statement as well.  But in terms of what you

10     would expect to see -- what you would expect to see in terms of the

11     locations that were damaged within the city of Sarajevo, for fire that

12     was targeting military -- military targets, can you explain to us what

13     your expectations would be even taking into account that sometimes

14     military targets are missed or mobile, and what the actual damage that

15     you saw was?

16             Do you understand my question?

17        A.   Yes, I do.  Am I allowed a relatively long answer?

18        Q.   You can't look at me for that question.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, usually long answers are triggered by -- by

20     questions with some vagueness in it.  But please give it a try, as short

21     as possible.

22             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  It's a balance between what is expected from

23     our understanding of the military situation and what we saw.

24             If I might give you an example.  If there was a headquarters

25     position within the -- within the city and it's an accepted military

Page 4458

 1     target for the Serbs to engage, I would expect a concentrated fire order,

 2     a concentrated attack, and consequent damage.  Otes says they could do

 3     that.  We know that they could engage targets effectively.

 4             Therefore, one then has to question why we saw - and they are

 5     recorded - so many rounds throughout the city not anywhere near targets

 6     we knew of.  I accept the rider that we didn't know all the targets, but

 7     we knew a lot from the sources of information that we had.  My own

 8     personal experience of driving round the city, walking, was such that I

 9     had a free remit to walk and go anywhere I wished.  My personal

10     experience of weapons that were being engaged whilst I was walking or

11     driving round the city say to me there were no direct targets of a

12     military nature where those rounds were landing.  Excuse me.  If I'm

13     driving in the western part of Sarajevo, Novi Grad, there were very few

14     buildings on the road network.  Why, then, would there be multiple rounds

15     in a very general area fired into empty space?  Space that anybody could

16     be travelling through at any particular time, and, more often than not,

17     my UN Military Observers, or myself, was doing exactly that.  There's no

18     perceived target there.  What else are we expected to think?  We have the

19     analysis which I've tried to explain to the courtroom of where you would

20     expect fire to be at any particular time.  To experience that then has to

21     be rationalised.

22             Going back to where the headquarters may be, for example, in the

23     old town on the east of the city, a concentrated fire mission could

24     effectively destroy it.  If you are an intelligent person, you would

25     remove the headquarters or remnants of it, if it had been hit, somewhere

Page 4459

 1     else, then explain to me why we would get continued rounds going into the

 2     old city not in a particularly targeted fashion, not concentrated fire,

 3     and over a long period of time.  It doesn't make any correlation to the

 4     ability that we knew that the Serbs and their artillery had available to

 5     them.  And it's that mismatch which we're trying to analyse.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Hochhauser, I'm looking at the clock.  How

 7     many --

 8             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  That concludes my re-examination, Judge.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  You concluded your re-examination.

10             MR. IVETIC:  One question that arises out of it.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps I'll first ask my colleagues.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, I would have one or two relatively short

14     questions, and I hope relatively short answers as well.

15                           Questioned by the Court:

16             Mr. Mole, a number of questions were asked in relation to the

17     number of incoming fire on the Serb side and on the Papa side.

18     Specifically two or three documents were shown to you where the incoming

19     fire on the Serb side was at a higher number than at the Papa side.

20             Does that reflect the overall picture?  Was it equal incoming

21     fire?  Was there ordinarily, that means more days, more incoming fire on

22     the Papa side?  Could you give us any indication where we looked at

23     instances where clearly the incoming fire on the Serb side was of a

24     higher number.  The overall picture.  Without going into details.

25        A.   Our concentration was very much looking inwards to the city by

Page 4460

 1     virtue of the location of the UN Military Observer OPs.

 2             When we started, that was very much our focus, but it would be

 3     very unfair and unbalanced if we didn't accept that parts of the city

 4     were actually occupied by the Serb side rather than the Presidency side,

 5     which I'm sure you're probably aware of, but Nedzarici, Ilidza and so on.

 6             As a consequence, we have to include them within our observations

 7     and it is only appropriate that we do.  And as soon as we do that, we see

 8     that those places came under intense pressure from artillery fire outside

 9     of our immediate area of observation.  That's the reason those figures

10     are presented to you, and they are rightly and appropriately interpreted

11     that way.  They have come from outside our immediate area of

12     responsibility, but the pressure that the Serb side, or Lima side, felt

13     was very understandable and intense on occasions.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Some questions were put to you in shells

15     falling short although directed outside -- from inside the city to the --

16     to the Serb positions outside the city.

17             Did you -- that was suggested as a possibility and I think you

18     agreed that such a possibility does exist.  Did you ever find incidents

19     where you could establish that a shell fell fired from a direction where

20     you could not but possibly conclude that it fell short of where it should

21     have landed, in terms of direction and in terms of where it fell close to

22     the confrontation lines?  Did you -- apart from the theoretical

23     possibility, did you ever find such a thing on the ground or indications,

24     not necessarily conclusive evidence?

25        A.   No, sir, if I'm going to be very brief in the answer, that isn't

Page 4461

 1     the case.  The only experience that I personally had of such an event was

 2     when a tank round hit the room that I was in but fortunately didn't go

 3     off.

 4             Now you would say, Was that one from the Presidency side that

 5     fell short and hit us, or did it come from outside the other side of the

 6     confrontation line.  That is the difficulty we have in interpreting it.

 7     But I think to answer your question that, overall, no, I can't recall

 8     ever being aware of a specific incident where that occurred.  But it has

 9     a possibility, of course.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You have testified to that.  Thank you for

11     those answers.

12             Mr. Ivetic, I suggest that we take a break after we concluded the

13     testimony of Mr. Mole.

14             MR. IVETIC:  Agreeable, Your Honour.

15                           Further cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:

16        Q.   Sir, very briefly, at temporary transcript page 50, lines 12

17     through 17, you were asked by the Prosecution whether the numbers that

18     are reflected in your December end-of-month report as incoming rounds

19     into the Presidency side are referring to -- into the centre of the city

20     of Sarajevo.  You answered:

21             "Yes, into the area of observation from our UN Military Observers

22     without being too pedantic, in principal, yes, inside the city."

23             Am I correct that the rounds that were directed towards Otes

24     would have been considered rounds into the zone of observation of UNMO

25     and therefore into the city as well?

Page 4462

 1        A.   Yes.  And specifically Papa 5 was the location.

 2        Q.   That's what I thought.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4        Q.   Thank you, Colonel.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  And thank you, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Hochhauser, for the MFIs from yesterday -- well,

 7     let me first doing something else.

 8             Mr. Ivetic, I think I fully understand that you do not need to

 9     tender 1D00387.  That's the statement from Mr. Mole from 1997.  I think

10     you have read everything you wanted to.  Same would be true for the

11     transcript of the Karadzic case, 18th of August, 2010 and finally also

12     the -- what you read from the transcript in the Galic case, the evidence

13     of Mr. Tucker.  Yes.

14             MR. IVETIC:  That is correct, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we've dealt with that.

16             Ms. Hochhauser, should the witness be present if we deal with

17     your last --

18             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  There's no need for him to be.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I'll first -- Mr. Mole, I would like to thank

20     you very much for coming to The Hague and for having answered all the

21     questions that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench.  And I

22     wish you a safe return home again.

23             THE WITNESS:  Thank you very much, sir.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  The witness may be escorted out of the courtroom.

25                           [The witness withdrew]

Page 4463

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Hochhauser.

 2             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Your Honours, Mr. Ivetic and I communicated last

 3     night.  He proposed to me and we agreed that P430 -- that's currently

 4     MFI's as P430 that the whole document would be end into evidence.  He has

 5     withdrawn any objection to that.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  That's correct, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  P430 is therefore now admitted into evidence.

 8             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  As to P431 which is the transcript of the 6th

 9     Assembly -- the transcript of the 6th Assembly --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly slow down, please.  Thank you.

11             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  As to P431 which is the transcript for the

12     16th Assembly, we have agreed that, through Colonel Mole, only the

13     excerpt regarding Mr. Karadzic's statement on a the fifth strategic

14     objective would be entered into evidence through this witness, but I

15     have -- we have a suggestion if it is acceptable to the Court to enter it

16     as P431A and to keep the entire document MFI'd as P431.  The reason

17     being, Your Honours, that I believe that others, during the course of the

18     Prosecution case, will refer to portions of the transcript, and -- and we

19     may as well actually at some point offer the entirety the transcript, and

20     it would prevent the record from being littered with little pieces of it.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Has the excerpt P431A been uploaded and under what

22     number?

23             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  No.  I wanted to wait for Your Honours'

24     permission before doing that.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Chamber grants leave to proceed.

Page 4464

 1             So we'll wait until you have uploaded it and then we'll decide on

 2     admission, once we have the 65 ter number.

 3             MS. HOCHHAUSER:  Okay.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we take a break, and we resume at 25 minutes

 5     past 12.00.

 6                           --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 12.26 p.m.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness.

 9             MR. JEREMY:  Yes, Your Honours.  The Prosecution calls

10     Elvir Pasic as the next witness.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

12             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, as the witness is being brought in,

13     perhaps I might give a brief explanation of the exhibit that has recently

14     been added to the exhibit list for this witness.  That's Exhibit 28487.

15     During the proofing on the 31st of October, 2012, the witness was shown a

16     list of 64 names.  These 64 names were taken from an exhumation report

17     from Paklenik pit.  That is Prosecution Exhibit P00315 that was on the

18     list for this witness.  The witness was also shown an additional name

19     that appears in a separate table on page 8 of this exhibit.  That name

20     was provided in the statement of another witness.  The witness was given

21     no information about these names by the OTP, and the witness provided

22     comments on the names he recognised in that list together -- and that

23     list, together with the witness's comments were made into a Prosecution

24     exhibit, 65 ter 28487.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  From the Defence, will it be --

Page 4465

 1     Mr. Stojanovic, will it be you who will examine the witness or

 2     cross-examines the witness?  Are there any problems in relation to this,

 3     and the way in which the Prosecution proceeded here?

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour.  We

 6     have received this and we believe that there will be no problem in using

 7     it during the examination of this witness.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon, Mr. Pasic.

 9             Mr. Pasic, before you give evidence, the Rules require that you

10     make a solemn declaration.  The text is now handed out to you.  May I

11     invite you to make that solemn declaration.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

13     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

14                           WITNESS:  ELVIR PASIC

15                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Pasic.  Please be seated.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Pasic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Jeremy.

19     Mr. Jeremy is counsel for the Prosecution.

20             And, Mr. Jeremy, I hereby inform you that leave is granted to add

21     65 ter 28487 to the 65 ter list.

22             You may proceed.

23             MR. JEREMY:  Thank you, Your Honours.

24                           Examination by Mr. Jeremy:

25        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Pasic.

Page 4466

 1        A.   Good afternoon.

 2        Q.   Can I ask you to please state your full name for the record.

 3        A.   My name is Elvir Pasic.

 4        Q.   Mr. Pasic, is it true that you have previously provided a written

 5     statement to the Office of the Prosecutor and testified before this

 6     Tribunal in other trials?

 7        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 8        Q.   In particular, did you provide a written statement to the

 9     Office of the Prosecutor dated 21 October 2004?

10        A.   Yes, that's correct.

11             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, I ask that 65 ter 28434 be brought on

12     our screens.  It is a statement of Mr. Pasic dated 21 October 2004.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Jeremy, it says 1994 on the document that was

14     given to us.  Which one is correct?

15             MR. JEREMY:  Forgive me, Your Honours.  It's 1994.  That's my

16     error.  1994.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Where it is transcribed "2004", we're talking

18     about the statement, 1994.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. JEREMY:

21        Q.   Mr. Pasic, can I ask you to view the page on the screen before

22     you; and at the bottom of that page, can you recognise your signature?

23        A.   Yes, that's my signature.

24             MR. JEREMY:  Can I ask that we go to the last page of this

25     statement; e-court page 14.

Page 4467

 1        Q.   Again, Mr. Pasic, do you recognise your signature at the bottom

 2     of that page?

 3        A.   Yes, I do.

 4        Q.   Have you had an opportunity to read and review this statement in

 5     preparation for your testimony today?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And having read that statement, do you have any changes that you

 8     wish to make?

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   If I were today to ask you questions similar to those that you

11     were asked in the taking of that statement, would you provide the same

12     answers, in substance?

13        A.   In substance, yes, to the best of my recollection.

14        Q.   And now that you have taken the solemn declaration, do you affirm

15     the accuracy and truthfulness of this statement?

16        A.   Fully.

17             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders

18     this is statement, 65 ter 28434 as the next Prosecution public exhibit.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, no objections?

20             Madam Registrar.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 28434 becomes Exhibit P434,

22     Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  P434 is admitted into evidence.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, with your leave I'll now read a brief

Page 4468

 1     summary of the witness's evidence.

 2             In 1992, Mr. Pasic was a serving policeman in Rogatica.  He

 3     describes the takeover of Rogatica and his detention in the

 4     Veljko Vlahovic secondary school, the Susica camp and the Batkovic camp.

 5             After the takeover the people were told that Rogatica was

 6     designated a Serbian municipality and that the Serbs intended to cleanse

 7     the town of Muslim extremists.

 8             The witness hid in the basement of his apartment block together

 9     with a number of other Bosnian Muslims, including his mother and

10     grandmother.  On the 7 of June, 1992, the witness and others were

11     captured by men in military fatigues.  They separated the Bosnian Muslim

12     men from the women and their hands were tied with wire.

13             The witness, together with Muslim men and women, were then

14     detained in the Veljko Vlahovic secondary school for 20 days.

15             On the 27th of June, 1992, the witness and about 280 others were

16     transferred.  En route, the witness and 28 other Muslim men were then

17     separated and detained in an abandoned farm building for 20 days.

18     Thereafter, the witness was transferred to the Susica camp in Vlasenica

19     where he and others were physically abused by the camp commander, Dragan.

20             The following day, the witness was transferred to Batkovic camp

21     where he remained for over a year.

22             That concludes the summary, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Jeremy.  Do you have any further

24     questions for the witness.

25             MR. JEREMY:  Yes, Your Honours.

Page 4469

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

 2             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, at this time I would like to tender

 3     the one associated exhibit for this witness, 65 ter 28435.  This is a

 4     sketch of Batkovic camp.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 28435 becomes Exhibit P435,

 7     Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 9             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, I would also like to place on the

10     record the adjudicated facts on reliance on which the 92 ter statement

11     has been redacted and the reliance on which certain evidence will not be

12     elicited during this examination.  They are as follows:  505, 506, 508,

13     509, 510, 512, 513, 514, 516, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1125, 1128, 1129,

14     1132, 1133, 1258, and 1263.

15        Q.   Mr. Pasic, in paragraph 12 of your statement, now in evidence as

16     P434, e-court page 4 in both languages, you state that in

17     late March/early April 1992, you decided to leave the Rogatica police

18     force shortly after it had been separated along ethnic lines.

19             Why did you make the decision to leave at that time?

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly slow down for the interpreters.  Thank

21     you.

22             MR. JEREMY:  Apologies.

23             THE WITNESS:  As for this decision to leave the police, I reached

24     it for a simple reason because the police force in Rogatica was divided

25     in two, of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of Republika Srpska.  And this led

Page 4470

 1     to a single development:  Conflict.  I personally did not want to be

 2     drawn into any kind of conflict, political or armed conflict, so I

 3     decided to leave the police force and I returned my uniform, therefore,

 4     as well as my weapons, and the ammunition that I had and that I had

 5     received as a member of the reserve police force in Rogatica.

 6        Q.   In paragraph 17 of your statement, e-court page 5, you state that

 7     on May the 25th, 1992, around mid-day, the conflict broke out in

 8     Rogatica.  In a few sentences can you tell us when you realised that the

 9     town was being attacked?

10        A.   On that day, I was in one of the cafes in town with my girlfriend

11     and with my friends.  We were playing billiards.  All of a sudden we

12     heard strong reverberations, a sound which we could not trace.  We ran

13     out to see what was going on, and we realised that the city was being

14     shelled and that shells were falling in the centre of town.  We were

15     confused.  We didn't know what to do.  We tried to hide.  We tried to

16     save ourselves, and I decided to save my mother and I went throughout

17     town in order to get home, even though shells were falling.  When I got

18     home, my mother was also confused.  She didn't know what to do.  She

19     started carrying food, putting it into a car that we had.  We thought

20     that we would be safer in this big building, but halfway the car broke

21     down so we had to hide in one of the private houses in one of those

22     streets there for a while until the shelling stopped.  This lasted for

23     about three or four hours.  After that, we managed to go to the building

24     where we had lived basically.

25        Q.   And had you been given any warning that this attack would start?

Page 4471

 1        A.   No.  No warning whatsoever.  It was totally out of the blue.

 2        Q.   In paragraph 20 and 21 of your statement, e-court page 6 in the

 3     English and 5 in the B/C/S -- 5 and 6 in the B/C/S, you refer to a JNA

 4     armoured personnel carrier entering Rogatica town.

 5             Soon after you refer to an announcement being made, stating:

 6             "The Serbs intended to cleanse Rogatica of Muslim extremists and

 7     so-called Green Berets allegedly consisting of 4.000 people."

 8             Mr. Pasic, were you aware of the existence of any of these 4.000

 9     Muslim extremists or Green Berets in Rogatica?

10        A.   No.  As far as I knew, there weren't any military organisations

11     or extremists in the territory of Rogatica.

12        Q.   And shortly before this time, you were a policeman in Rogatica.

13     If such extremists or Green Berets were active, would you have expected

14     to have been aware of them?

15        A.   Probably.  Because, as a policeman in Rogatica, I noticed columns

16     of the JNA passing through town but I didn't notice any other military

17     formations near town or going through town.

18        Q.   At paragraph 22 of your statement, e-court page 6, you describe

19     hiding in the basement of your apartment building shortly before you were

20     arrested.  How many others were hid in the basement with you?

21        A.   About 20 or so people were there in the basement where I was.

22        Q.   And upon your arrest, could you tell us what you could observe

23     when you came out of the basement in a sentence or two?

24        A.   When we were thrown out of the basement, what impressed me was

25     the flames around our building.  You could feel the smell of houses

Page 4472

 1     burning.  People were lying on the ground.  Faces to the ground, hands on

 2     the back.  Women were standing in a corner by the building.  There were

 3     about 20 of them there with children.  The shelling of town was still

 4     going on, but the intensity was not as high as it had been about half an

 5     hour before that when it started.

 6        Q.   And in paragraph 22 of your statement you state that the men

 7     were:

 8             "Masked and uniformed."

 9             Can I describe the uniforms of these men?

10        A.   Yes.  The soldiers that came to take us prisoner in the building

11     and to evict us from the building, they wore camouflage JNA uniforms that

12     were olive green grey.  Some of them wore grey-blue camouflage uniforms

13     that I had occasion to see in the police.  For the most part their faces

14     were covered with black caps.  There were only two of them that did not

15     wear any caps like that.

16        Q.   And you refer to the names of these men in paragraphs 22 and 24

17     of your statement.

18             MR. JEREMY:  And, Your Honours, I would note that these names are

19     listed as names 3, 6, 18, and 26 in Exhibit P00313, which I don't wish to

20     call up at this stage.

21        Q.   Mr. Pasic, the men who had been separated from the women you have

22     said their hands were behind their back.  Were their hands tied?

23        A.   At first, when we just got out, we all had to lie on our chests

24     and to face the ground.  At that point in time, our hands had not been

25     tied.  However, later, I noticed that the men who remained in front of

Page 4473

 1     the building were lying there with their hands tied.

 2        Q.   Did you observe what their hands were tied with?

 3        A.   Their hands were tied with a wire.  It would be easiest for me to

 4     describe it in the following way:  It looked as if a tire, a car tire had

 5     burned and then there are wires left.  That's what it looked like.  The

 6     wires that were used to tie their hands.

 7        Q.   In paragraph 25 of your statement, e-court page 7, you describe

 8     being the only man permitted to leave with the group of women that were

 9     taken to Veljko Vlahovic school.  The other men being taken from the

10     basement remained behind.  Aside from one man, Enes Korjenic, whom you

11     refer to in paragraph 26 of your statement, did you ever see any of these

12     men alive again?

13        A.   No, I did not.

14        Q.   In paragraph 26 of your statement, you state that Enes Korjenic

15     told you that a man named Rajko Kusic intervened to release him from this

16     group of men.  Who was Rajko Kusic?

17        A.   As far as I know, Rajko Kusic was the main commander of the Serb

18     armed forces in the territory of the town of Rogatica.  He was an

19     inhabitant of Rogatica before the conflict.  He worked in a company

20     there, a factory, and Enes Korjenic worked in the same company.  Now

21     whether this affected Rajko Kusic's decision to let Enes Korjenic go back

22     to his family or not, I cannot say.

23             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, I would ask that 65 ter 28487 be

24     brought to our screens.  And this is the list of names that I mentioned

25     at the start of this session.

Page 4474

 1        Q.   Mr. Pasic, while this exhibit is being brought onto the screens

 2     during your proofing on the 31st of October, 2012, do you recall being

 3     shown a list of 65 names?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And were you told any information about these names by the

 6     Office of the Prosecutor?

 7        A.   No.

 8        Q.   Do you recall recognising certain of these names and providing

 9     comments on the names to the Office of the Prosecutor?

10        A.   Yes, that's correct.

11             MR. JEREMY:  Could we please go to the last page in e-court.

12        Q.   Mr. Pasic, do you recognise your signature on this last page?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And do you recall whether any of the names you recognised and

15     commented on were involved in any military activity in Rogatica?

16        A.   I don't believe that any of them was involved in any military

17     activity in Rogatica.

18        Q.   Mr. Pasic, you recognised 16 of these 64 names.  Of these 16

19     names you recognised, you referred to last seeing ten of these persons

20     listed as name 4, 12, 15, 41, 42, 48, 53, 59, 60, and 64.  You're listing

21     these names, these men as having their hands tied behind their back with

22     wire.  Were these men among the group that you discussed earlier in your

23     testimony today, the group of men with their hands tied behind their back

24     on the ground outside your apartment building on the 7th of June, 1992,

25     who were being guarded by the Bosnian Serb soldiers?

Page 4475

 1        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 2        Q.   And was one of these men your uncle?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Mr. Pasic, in paragraph 30 of your statement, e-court page 8, you

 5     state:

 6             "On June 27, we were all picked up with the exception of doctors,

 7     engineers, and mechanics."

 8             And here you're referring to being picked up from the

 9     Veljko Vlahovic school.  Was one of the men who remained behind

10     Muho Besilja [phoen]?

11        A.   Mujo Besilja, yes.  He stayed behind.

12             MR. JEREMY:  And, Your Honour, I would note that on the last page

13     of 65 ter 28487 Mr. Pasic provides details about the last time he saw

14     Mujo Besilja.  At this time, the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 28487 into

15     evidence.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic.

17             Mr. Stojanovic, no objections?

18             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] The Defence objects to this

19     proposal, simply because we don't think that this is sufficient standard

20     to introduce this document through this witness.  First of all, this

21     document is practically a product of the Prosecution, and it is a

22     compilation of statements and lists made by the OTP.  By compiling a

23     piece of evidence in that manner and then tendering it into evidence, we

24     don't think satisfies the relevant standard.

25             Secondly, on the basis of footnotes and comments which are an

Page 4476

 1     integral part of this document, you can see that there are comments that

 2     only testify to the fact that this person was recognised and identified,

 3     whereas his subsequent fate is not known.

 4             For all these reasons, the Defence is opposed to tendering this

 5     into evidence.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jeremy.

 7             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, as earlier described, the names were

 8     given to this witness.  No indication was given to the witness from where

 9     they came.  The witness has -- this is an exhibit created by this witness

10     in terms of the comments that he provides in respect to the names from

11     this list that he recognises.

12             On that basis, I submit it's relevant and probative and should be

13     accepted into evidence.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, I did not fully understand your

15     observation that, since the final fate of these persons is not known, is

16     it your position that you cannot ask a witness to recognise people and

17     ask him when you saw them last time without the witness knowing what

18     finally happened?

19             Is that -- would you expect a witness to provide the full

20     evidence until the very end, or could he just give what he knows?

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before you answer, can we have the document on

22     the screen again, please.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] May I respond now, Your Honours?

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

Page 4477

 1             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I am not analysing at this

 2     moment the issue of what happened to these persons.  This is not the time

 3     to do that.  I just want to reiterate that if you look at comments

 4     provided by the witness under number 7, for example, there's no other

 5     information other than that he knew that person.  There is no other

 6     information provided as to what happened to this individual.  The fact

 7     that this is a compilation document, which was practically drawn up by

 8     the OTP based on the statement of this witness, we do not see any

 9     relevance ground for tendering it into evidence.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber denies the objection and admits the

12     document into evidence.

13             Madam Registrar.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 28487 becomes Exhibit P436,

15     Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  P436 is admitted into evidence.

17             You may proceed, Mr. Jeremy.

18             MR. JEREMY:

19        Q.   Mr. Pasic, as a final question, based only on what you could

20     personally observe, as a former policeman responsible for law enforcement

21     within Sanski Most who observed the attack from the inside and later the

22     outside of the town, did that attack appear to you to be an organised and

23     planned attack?

24        A.   I'm sorry, there's mention of Sanski Most here.  Maybe it's a

25     misinterpretation.  Probably the reference was made of Rogatica.

Page 4478

 1        Q.   The mistake is mine; forgive me.  When I referred to Sanski Most,

 2     I meant to refer to Rogatica.

 3        A.   The attack on Rogatica, as I see it, had been organised and I'm

 4     relying on the fact that it was launched exclusively on Muslim populated

 5     parts of the town and the attack was launched from nearby villages that

 6     were 2 or 3 kilometres from the town, and those villages were mostly

 7     populated by Serbs.  So, judging by all of that, the attack on town was

 8     definitely an organised one.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             MR. JEREMY:  I have no further questions at this time,

11     Your Honours?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Jeremy.

13             Mr. Stojanovic, are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Pasic?

14             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will try, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Pasic, you will now be cross-examined by

16     Mr. Stojanovic.  Mr. Stojanovic is counsel for Mr. Mladic.

17             You may proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

18                           Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Pasic.

20        A.   Good afternoon.

21        Q.   If I understood you correctly the first statement you gave during

22     the war while you were a refugee in the UK ; is that correct?

23        A.   Yes, it is.

24        Q.   On the 20th of May, 1996, you testified before this Tribunal.

25     Can you remember if that is correct?

Page 4479

 1        A.   I cannot remember the exact date, but it was in 1996.

 2        Q.   Did you testify in any other case after 1996 in this Tribunal?

 3        A.   I testified twice, once in Tadic case and the second time in the

 4     Nikolic case.

 5        Q.   Did you, at any point, receive summons from the BH Court to

 6     testify about your experience relating to Rogatica?

 7        A.   No.  I had never been summoned by the BH Court to testify about

 8     any acts.

 9        Q.   That means neither Susica nor Batkovic?

10        A.   No.  Not by the BH Court.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the speakers please pause between

12     questions and answers.  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, please, a short break between

14     question and answer.  And, Mr. Pasic, would you also take a short break

15     after the question, before you answer it.

16             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will do so, Your Honours.  Can

17     we please have in e-court the statement dated 20th October 1994, which is

18     Exhibit P ...

19             JUDGE ORIE: [Microphone not activated]

20             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] P434, paragraph 7.

21        Q.   Let me remind you, Mr. Pasic, that here you speak about the fact

22     that in the period between September 1991 until the end of that year,

23     call-ups for military exercise became pretty regular.  Then you say:

24             "The Muslims generally did not respond because it was feared that

25     they would be sent to fight at the front in Croatia.  On the other hand,

Page 4480

 1     the Serbs tended to comply with the call-ups."

 2             What was your experience that prompted you to make this

 3     statement?

 4        A.   From September 1991 onwards, there was a conflict inside the

 5     Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, specifically in Croatia and

 6     Slovenia.  The Yugoslav People's Army started becoming active in those

 7     areas and the reserve contingent of the JNA was called up to react in

 8     those areas.  The Muslim population did not want to go and fight another

 9     Yugoslav people.  The majority of my friends refused to respond to the

10     call-up and join the reserve force.

11        Q.   So, based on your experience, you made this statement.  And also

12     based on the contacts with the people that you had who refused to

13     respond.

14        A.   My experience is based on the contacts that I had with people

15     who -- both those who responded and those who did not respond.

16        Q.   Can we agree that, at the time, that was a legal obligation of

17     every conscript?

18        A.   I did not know what legal obligation was at the time; therefore,

19     I cannot provide any positive answer.

20        Q.   Were you aware that, should one refuse to receive call-up papers,

21     these persons could be prosecuted?

22        A.   I personally never refused to receive call-up papers; therefore,

23     I was not aware of consequences should one refuse to do so, and I'm not

24     knowledgeable about these processes.

25        Q.   This attitude of non-Serb population towards the JNA, was that

Page 4481

 1     something that made the JNA, at one point in time, a single ethnic army?

 2        A.   Well, I wouldn't put it that way.

 3        Q.   What would you put it like?

 4        A.   Well, I would say that the Yugoslav People's Army was never

 5     mono-ethnic, but that the majority, nevertheless, was by the Serbs.

 6        Q.   Well, we can agree that the majority part of the population of

 7     Yugoslavia were Serbs.

 8        A.   I'm not aware of that data.

 9        Q.   Well, how do you know, then, that the majority members of the JNA

10     were Serbs?  You just said that a minute ago.

11        A.   On the basis of my experience, because I served in the JNA.  I

12     served for 11 months.  And over that period, I met many people who were

13     in the JNA, most of them were Serbs, of Serbian religion.  When I say

14     "the majority," I'm not saying that I counted them or that I learned some

15     percentages.  But the majority of people I met there, and befriended were

16     Serbs, and I didn't mind that at all.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, the Chambers fails to see on many of

18     your questions what the relevance is.  And for some other questions, it

19     appears that the witness has no specific knowledge about it, such as the

20     composition of the JNA, for example.  So, therefore, would you please

21     move on.  Come to questions which are both relevant and where the witness

22     can -- has knowledge to answer your questions.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Can we now look at paragraph 8 of your statement.  In the last

Page 4482

 1     sentence of that paragraph of your statement, P434, you say that:

 2             "After period of time there was a move towards establishing

 3     separate police stations."

 4             Can you please explain how these separate police stations were

 5     established.

 6        A.   In early 1992, in Rogatica town and in the general area, a

 7     territorial creation was made, which was called Republika Srpska.  So as

 8     part of that territory, town of Rogatica was integrated into it.

 9             This creation was not established through any kind of elections

10     or through opinion polls conducted among the population.  It was called

11     the Serbian republic, which means that the majority of non-Serb

12     population started feeling as second-rate citizens.

13             Following the establishment of that territorial unit, was

14     establishment of institutions, and one of those institutions was the

15     police of Republika Srpska.  So in addition to the existing police force

16     of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the police of Republika Srpska was

17     also created.  And immediately after that, the building in which the BH

18     police was headquartered was literally partitioned by a wall, and in one

19     half of that building the police of Republika Srpska was housed and it

20     was made up of former members of the police of Bosnia-Herzegovina who

21     were of the Serbian ethnicity.

22             So in the very small territory of the Rogatica town there were

23     two police forces.  One of them was the police of Bosnia-Herzegovina; the

24     other was the police of Republika Srpska.

25             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, can we please look at

Page 4483

 1     document D176.

 2        Q.   Whilst we're waiting for this document to appear, can you

 3     remember until which --

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  I apologise.  We don't have document D176.

 5             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] 1D176.  Thank you.

 6        Q.   Let us look now at -- but before that, I began my question by

 7     saying until what time you remained part of the professional force of the

 8     police?

 9        A.   I remained until the end of March or early April.  I cannot

10     remember exactly, but I think that was the time when I left the police

11     force.

12        Q.   Let's look at paragraph 4 of this document.  It is a document

13     issued by the minister of the interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

14     Alija Delimustafic, and in this document he is addressing all public

15     security stations and all security services centre and the SUP of

16     Sarajevo and is conveying an order by the staff of the

17     Territorial Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  And he says as follows:

18             "Swiftly plan and launch combat operations throughout the

19     territory of the Republic of BH and co-ordinate them with the

20     Territorial Defence staff of the region, district, and Republic of BH,

21     planning combat operations, provide for extensive measures of protection

22     of the people and property of citizens of the Republic of BH."

23             Now my question is the following:  At any point after this date,

24     did you see anything of these activities as described or as requested by

25     the minister of the interior and the TO staff in this order?

Page 4484

 1        A.   If I look at the date of this document, it's 29th of April, 1992.

 2     As I said in my previous response I said that I left the police duty in

 3     early April.  Therefore, I'm not able to give you an answer to this

 4     question because, quite simply, I wasn't there.

 5        Q.   You will agree with me that you were in Rogatica until the 7th of

 6     June, when you were practically taken into custody or arrested; is that

 7     correct?

 8        A.   That is correct.

 9        Q.   Now I'm asking you, from April until the 7th of June, did you

10     have an opportunity to hear or see any of the activities mentioned in

11     this order and requested to be implemented by the minister of the

12     interior?

13        A.   No, I did not.

14        Q.   And then I'm going to ask you whether the name of

15     Ramiz Alajbegovic rings a bell?

16        A.   It does.

17        Q.   Do you know what kind of duties he carried out in that period,

18     April, May, June 1992?

19        A.   In that particular period of time, I could not say what his

20     duties were.  The only thing I can say to you is that as far as I know,

21     Ramiz Alajbegovic was deputy commander of the police forces of

22     Bosnia-Herzegovina in the town of Rogatica.

23        Q.   At any point in time did you hear that already in June 1992 he

24     had established a unit that held part of the territory of the

25     municipality of Rogatica?

Page 4485

 1        A.   No.

 2             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at document

 3     P434 again; paragraph 15 more specifically.

 4        Q.   This is what you say there.  Paragraph 15, please.  This is what

 5     you say there:

 6             "About 20 days before the attack on Rogatica," if I understand

 7     things correctly, this was on the 25th of May, "two separate Crisis

 8     Staffs were established, one was predominantly Muslim, the other

 9     predominantly Serb.  Each one of them had three to four members

10     respectively."

11             How come you know about the existence of these Crisis Staffs?

12        A.   As for the existence of Crisis Staffs, I found out about that as

13     I talked to my friends in town.  Basically it was a small town, a very

14     small town.  And this was the ruling principle.  If anything happened to

15     anyone, people would hear about it.  Since that was a topical things at

16     the time, that these Crisis Staffs were being organised, I heard from

17     some people that were Crisis Staffs were organised on both sides.

18        Q.   When you say on both sides, on these two sides, what do you mean

19     by that?

20        A.   The Crisis Staff of Republika Srpska and the Crisis Staff for the

21     non-Serb population.

22        Q.   In view of your answer, when you said that it was a small town

23     and that the principle on which things functioned was, I have heard,

24     et cetera, did you, at any point in time while you were in Rogatica, have

25     information to the effect that through the chief of the public security

Page 4486

 1     station, Ismet Osmanovic, activities were taken to organise the Muslims

 2     in a military way to obtain and bring in weapons and distribute these

 3     weapons in Rogatica basically through ethnic Muslims.

 4             Have you heard of this information?

 5        A.   No, never.

 6        Q.   Then I'm going to ask you the following:  Is it correct that

 7     Ismet Osmanovic at the time was the chief of the public security station

 8     in Rogatica where you worked?

 9        A.   I cannot recall.

10        Q.   The next thing I'm asking you is --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Pause between question and answer, and between

12     answer and question.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15        Q.   Did you have an opportunity to hear or find out in a way which

16     you describe here that members of the police station or, rather, of the

17     public security station in Rogatica, Ragib Hodzic [phoen] and

18     Mujo Satrovic [phoen], if I'm reading this correctly, and Mrdjan Gakovic

19     [phoen] were person who were actively involved in the Crisis Staff of the

20     SDA, in Rogatica?

21        A.   No.  I did not hear that.  As I've already said, I left the

22     police force of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Rogatica for a

23     single reason:  Not to be drawn into any kind of conflict, political

24     conflict, armed conflict, or any kind of debate within Rogatica.  In that

25     way, I basically separated myself from all the developments that took

Page 4487

 1     place after I left.  I can only confirm what happened to me personally

 2     and what I saw myself.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  That is my understanding of the situation, too, but

 4     you said this, and that is why I wanted to ask you this question:

 5     Whether the principle upon which you functioned in Rogatica was I have

 6     heard such and such a thing because it was a small town.  If this is your

 7     answer, then I'm not going to put any other questions to you in this

 8     regard because I know that it would amount to hearsay.

 9             Now let us look at paragraph 17?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, for your information, the Chamber

11     has decided that we'll not take another break, and that we will continue

12     and stop at 2.15 sharp to the extent that it would be possible to

13     conclude cross-examination by then, you're invited to do so.

14             Please proceed.

15             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, I shall

16     do my best.

17        Q.   Now let us look at paragraph 17.  You say, inter alia, that on

18     the 25th of May, 1992, when the conflict broke out in Rogatica, there may

19     have been 50 to 70 armed Muslims in Rogatica and that part of these

20     weapons were obtained through private channels.  Do you know this?  Did

21     you see this?

22        A.   When I say "through private channels," I mean that the weapons

23     that people had were basically hunting guns that were used for sports,

24     for hunting, or there were individual pistols that a minority had from

25     earlier on.

Page 4488

 1        Q.   This is what my question was.  Please take a look at this.  Fifty

 2     to 70 armed persons; you say that.  Is that based on your personal

 3     knowledge?  Did you see that yourself?  Yes or no?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   On the basis of what did you say that kind of thing to the

 6     Prosecution?

 7        A.   I knew the people had weapons, but I did not see 50 or 70 persons

 8     in a single spot; 50 or 70 persons who were armed, that is.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, "through private channels," is that

10     still in paragraph 17?

11             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Maybe I have a problem with the

12     translation.  In B/C/S, it says:

13             "Part of the weapons were obtained through private channels."

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that not the redacted part of paragraph 17, which

15     is replaced by Adjudicated Fact 1128?

16             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  But since I

17     thought that this is something that this Defence would challenge I wanted

18     to put this question:  How come the witness had this knowledge?

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But the knowledge of the witness of

20     adjudicated fact seems not to be relevant anymore, just the adjudicated

21     fact itself.  And if you refer to any portion of paragraph 17 which is

22     meanwhile redacted, then at least you were expected to indicate that

23     clearly.

24             Please proceed.

25             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

Page 4489

 1        Q.   But this is what I'm going to ask you now:  Did you then have an

 2     opportunity to see these armed men in -- at any point in time?

 3        A.   Yes, I had the opportunity of seeing some of them.

 4        Q.   Will you say that I'm right if I put it to you that, then, just

 5     before the 25th of May, 1992, the Serb population from Rogatica had fled

 6     Rogatica?

 7        A.   As far as I know, most of the Serb population of Rogatica had

 8     left.

 9        Q.   And then I'm going to ask you whether you know the reason why the

10     Serb population left Rogatica.

11        A.   I don't know the reason.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please take a look

14     at P166.  While we're waiting for this document, Your Honours, I would

15     just like to say that this is a document that bears the date of the

16     23rd of May, 1992, and it was signed by Rajko Kusic, who has been

17     mentioned here.

18        Q.   Now, Mr. Pasic, I would like to ask you that we take a look at

19     this document together.  So this is the 23rd of May, 1992.  And it says

20     that the commander of the battalion of the SO Rogatica.  Can this

21     abbreviation assist you in any way?  Can you tell us what this stands

22     for, SO?

23        A.   I don't know.

24        Q.   Thank you.  It says here that on the 22nd of May, there was

25     firing against enemy strongholds.  In Dub Pokrivenik enemy strongholds of

Page 4490

 1     Dub Pokrivenik, Kopljevici, Kozici, and Cadovi and also against Pasica

 2     Kula, Rajs Laze and the Rudo 2 settlement.  And then it says as for the

 3     parts of town of Rajs Laze and Rudo 2, an infantry attack was launched

 4     against these areas.

 5             Please tell us, these names, Rajs Laze, Rudo 2, do they say

 6     anything to you?  Are these neighbourhoods in Rogatica?  Are these parts

 7     of Rogatica?

 8        A.   Rudo 2 and Laze were neighbourhoods outside the town of Rogatica,

 9     as far as I know.

10        Q.   Are you trying to say or, rather, would you please tell the Court

11     what the population was there in those areas in these neighbourhoods on

12     the outskirts of town?

13        A.   I cannot really say.  I cannot answer that question.

14        Q.   Then I'm going to conclude by putting the following question:  An

15     infantry attack was launched here - that's what it says - did you know

16     anything about that?

17        A.   No.

18        Q.   Thank you.  I'm not going to deal with this document any longer

19     then.

20             It was my understanding that it was on the 7th of June, 1992,

21     that you were brought into custody; is that right?

22        A.   I was arrested.  I was taken prisoner in the beginning of June.

23     I can no longer remember the exact date.  I believe it was the 7th.

24        Q.   You were arrested by policemen and amongst them you recognised

25     two of them, Slavisa Vukojcic and Milisav Ivanovic; is that correct?

Page 4491

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Before this happened, as you describe things here, you returned

 3     the weapons that you had received as a policeman; is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   But part of these service weapons or, rather, the pistol that you

 6     had had issued to you, did you return that as well?

 7        A.   A pistol is not a service weapon.

 8        Q.   Could you tell us whether you had a pistol of your own, privately

 9     owned?

10        A.   I inherited a pistol from my father upon his death.

11        Q.   This pistol was seized from you in the presence of your

12     colleague, an employee of the police station in Rogatica.  His name is

13     Vlado Markovic; is that correct?

14        A.   Yes, I worked with Vlado Markovic, and he is the one who took the

15     pistol away from me.

16        Q.   While that happened, and while you went to your apartment,

17     Vlado Markovic was fair towards you.  He treated you in a correct manner;

18     is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   During the next 20 days, you were in the building of the

21     Veljko Vlahovic secondary school; is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   That is also where the police provided security, the police

24     commanded precisely by Vlado Markovic yet again; is that correct?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 4492

 1        Q.   In addition to yourself in the building of the school in Rogatica

 2     there were quite a few women and children from Rogatica there; is that

 3     right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Could you please tell the Trial Chamber roughly what your

 6     estimate may be, how many people were in the school at the time.

 7        A.   My estimate is approximately 300 men, children, and -- women,

 8     children, and elderly men, that is.

 9        Q.   During the 20 days that you spent there, you were guarded by the

10     police force; is that correct?

11        A.   We were guarded by the police of Republika Srpska.

12        Q.   Thank you.  And during that period, you were allowed to go out,

13     to neighbouring houses, to do the shopping, to buy foodstuffs and hygiene

14     items, and things of that nature.

15        A.   No.  Only specific individuals had permit to leave during a

16     specific period of time to go to the neighbouring houses and to try and

17     find if there were any food left in those houses so that they could bring

18     it to the people who were detained at the secondary school.  All the

19     shops were closed at the time.

20        Q.   Were you in a position to procure a cooker and fuel so that you

21     can cook your meals in the secondary school building?

22        A.   If I remember correctly, there was only one cooker there and it

23     had been brought from a nearby house.  It was being used to prepare food

24     for 300 prisoners who were there.

25        Q.   Let us now look at paragraph 27; Exhibit P434.  It's your

Page 4493

 1     statement, Mr. Pasic, which was admitted into evidence in this case, and,

 2     there, you say, among other things.  We're going to wait for the B/C/S

 3     version to appear as well.

 4             Somewhere in the middle you say:

 5             "Then we were permitted to take three stoves from neighbouring

 6     houses.  They let us prepare meals in the school building.  Women

 7     prisoners were allowed to leave the school building to fetch supplies in

 8     town."

 9             So what is correct?  This, what is written in your statement, or

10     your evidence that you gave a minute ago?

11        A.   Well, both.  We were allowed to go out and bring in three

12     cookers.  However, only one was obtained.  As I said, certain

13     individuals, mostly women, were allowed during a certain period of time

14     to go out and try to fetch food in order to prepare meals for the

15     detainees.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Money was not confiscated from you, and, therefore,

17     you were able to buy cigarettes on the black market; is that correct?

18        A.   I personally didn't have any money on me, and I didn't buy any

19     cigarettes.

20        Q.   I'm asking you about what you saw.  Did you have an opportunity

21     seeing other detainees buying various commodities, including cigarettes

22     from street vendors?

23        A.   Yes.  On a couple of occasions I saw people buying cigarettes

24     from the soldiers who were guarding us.

25        Q.   At one point while the shelling was in progress, the guards let

Page 4494

 1     you leave the school building in order to visit your girlfriend in town;

 2     is that correct?

 3        A.   During a break in the shelling, I was told that I should go to

 4     town and to ask a number of people to come and join us at the secondary

 5     school building, including my girlfriend.

 6        Q.   Whilst you were at Veljko Vlahovic school, you personally were

 7     not physically abused or maltreated; is that correct?

 8        A.   That is correct.

 9        Q.   Let us clarify a dilemma that I have and that stems from

10     paragraphs 29 and 30 of your statement.

11             To the best of your knowledge, how long you stayed at the

12     secondary school building, Veljko Vlahovic?

13        A.   If I remember correctly, I spent 20-odd days at the secondary

14     school, Veljko Vlahovic.

15        Q.   The reason I'm asking you about this is that in that context we

16     should look at paragraph 30 of your statement, P434, where you say

17     exactly as you said today as well, and I quote:

18             "On the 27th of June, we were all picked up and the transfer

19     began."

20             And then in paragraph 29 you say that you were detained on the

21     school premises from June 7 to June 27 of 1992.

22             Can you see that?  Can we then agree that practically, if this

23     date 27th of June is correct, you spent about 20 days there?

24        A.   Yes, that is correct.  I stayed there until June 27th.

25        Q.   Thank you.  And then if -- when you say in paragraph 29 "until

Page 4495

 1     the 17th of June" is a mistake; is that correct?

 2        A.   I believe that's a misprint.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's have a look at the original because in English

 5     it says 27th.  And apparently this is it mistranslated.  Because the

 6     English seems to be the original.

 7             Therefore, Mr. Stojanovic --

 8             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  One second, please.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber has carefully monitored your

12     cross-examination until now, Mr. Stojanovic, and the Chamber expects you

13     in view of relevance and issues raised to prioritise the most important

14     matters and to finish by ten minutes past 2.00 so that Mr. Jeremy has

15     another five minutes for re-examination.  If you need any time for that,

16     Mr. Jeremy.  Would you need any?

17             MR. JEREMY:  Not at this moment, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Not at this moment.  Then we'll at least establish

19     whether this has changed at ten minutes past 2.00.

20             Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.

21             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22        Q.   You were taken from the Veljko Vlahovic school again by members,

23     as you say, special police forces, to a farm where Vlado Markovic's

24     headquarters was also housed; is that correct?

25        A.   We were taken to the premises of former agricultural farm at the

Page 4496

 1     exit point of Rogatica town.  Two or three days later, we were able to

 2     conclude that also on the premises were the headquarters of the forces

 3     that had captured us and were guarding us there.

 4        Q.   We are again talking about the same police forces that you spoke

 5     about earlier and who were led by Vlado Markovic?

 6        A.   Those were mixed forces.  There was police.  There was army.  And

 7     apparently Vlado Markovic was the commander.

 8        Q.   During your stay there, at this farm, you were not physically

 9     abused or maltreated; is that correct?

10        A.   Yes, it is.

11        Q.   And then, on the 15th of July, to the best of your recollection,

12     you were driven towards Vlasenica and Kladanj until the place called

13     Tistje, which is located on the separation line; is that correct?

14        A.   We were told that we were going to be exchanged and allowed to go

15     to the territory controlled by some other forces; specifically the Army

16     of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  En route, we were stopped at Tistje.

17        Q.   Do you know why you were not exchanged on that particular day?

18        A.   No, I don't.

19        Q.   Did you ask to be exchanged?

20        A.   No, I personally did not.

21        Q.   What was your position?  What did you wish at that moment?  What

22     were you willing to do at the moment?

23        A.   You mean when we were at Tistje?

24        Q.   Both whilst you were on the farm and when you headed off towards

25     Tistje.

Page 4497

 1        A.   While we were on the farm, I was under a false impression that I

 2     would be allowed to continue living in my native town as a loyal

 3     resident.  However, that was not something that was going to be permitted

 4     for me to do because I was under suspicion.  Once we left Rogatica, and

 5     once we were told that we would be exchanged, my only aim was to survive.

 6        Q.   Practically you spent night in Susica near Vlasenica.  Am I

 7     right?

 8        A.   Yes, you are right.

 9        Q.   And after that, you were sent to Batkovici?

10        A.   Yes, we were transferred to the Batkovici camp.

11             JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Stojanovic,

12     you apparently read portions of the statement in the last ten minutes

13     right -- I mean, the witness has testified to that.  So, therefore,

14     unless there is any reason why you would expect him to change his mind,

15     there's no need to do that.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18        Q.   Let us now look at paragraph 41 of your statement; Exhibit P434.

19             Mr. Pasic, I'm going to put a few questions to you about

20     Batkovic, but before that, I would like just to present the Defence case

21     to you.

22             You cannot recall all the details relating to Batkovic.  You can

23     only assume who performed which duties.  Would that be a fair statement?

24        A.   No, I wouldn't agree with what you said.  I'm talking about what

25     I saw and what I know.  I'm making no assumptions.

Page 4498

 1        Q.   Now I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 41 where you

 2     say that when you arrived, the chief of the camp was a man by the name of

 3     Veljo.  Can you see that?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   To the best of your knowledge, can you tell us how long did he

 6     perform this duty of camp warden until he was replaced by a person called

 7     Drago?

 8        A.   A few weeks.

 9        Q.   What you say in paragraph 41, that the camp warden had the rank

10     of a sergeant and that was the most senior non-commissioned officer rank

11     in the JNA; is that correct?

12        A.   Yes.  That is my conclusion, based on the insignia that he had.

13        Q.   And he performed the duties of the camp warden with that specific

14     rank?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Then, in paragraph 42, you say, among other things:

17             "One night, approximately in mid-August 1992, a man from

18     Bijeljina, about 35 years of age, known to us as Professor, was taken

19     from the hangar building to the open compound area."

20             And then you go on to describe his death.

21             This date, or this period, mid-August, is this something that you

22     are sure about, or is it your -- is this your assumption?

23        A.   I wasn't assuming anything.  I said this to the best of my

24     recollection.  And that's exactly why I said mid-August, because I cannot

25     say for sure whether it was the 5th or the 10th.

Page 4499

 1        Q.   But that was not in July?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   Now, let us look at Exhibit D47.

 4             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours -- I apologise.

 5     D267.  1D267.

 6             Whilst we are waiting, let me tell you, Your Honours, that this

 7     is a -- the indictment that we had an occasion to see earlier in

 8     courtroom.

 9             THE REGISTRAR: [Previous translation continues]... D267.  Yes,

10     it's MFI'd as D47.

11             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are still

12     waiting for the translation.  That's why it was only MFI'd.  And, with

13     your leave, I would use the interpreters in the booth, in order to go

14     through these documents.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, to a limited extent, with the indulgence of

16     the interpreters, we may go on that path, although it's not common.

17             But could you then please come to your point as quickly as

18     possible.  If it is about the date, then let's deal with the date

19     immediately.  To the extent you could not agree with the Prosecution on

20     dates mentioned in documents.

21             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   I would kindly ask you to take a look at page 3 of this document.

23             You saw the first page, and you saw that four persons were

24     indicted and their names were mentioned on page 1.  The warden, the

25     deputy warden of the camp in Batkovic.  And it says that they were also

Page 4500

 1     responsible for the following:

 2             "Due to the beatings administered, the following persons were

 3     killed:  Zecevic Ferid, nicknamed Professor, passed away on 28

 4     July 1992."

 5             Do you see that?  Do you see that, Mr. Pasic.

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   This date, in connection with which four persons were indicted,

 8     would that be the exact date of the Professor's death, or is what you are

 9     telling us correct; namely, mid-August?

10        A.   I had been in captivity for quite a long time before this

11     happened.  I had seen terrible things happen.  If I misstated the date, I

12     think that it was possible that I made a mistake in terms of a week or

13     two.  This was the end of July, and I said that it was August.  So a

14     ten-day difference doesn't make this less correct.

15             To the best of my recollection, it happened in the beginning of

16     August, or in mid-August ...

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  The point is -- the point --

18             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Thank you.  I understand that.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  The point seems to be clear is that there's a

21     different date here than in the indictment.

22             Please move on, Mr. Stojanovic.

23             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   In paragraph 45 -- actually, Your Honours, to be as practical as

25     possible, I will try to fit into the time allocated to us.

Page 4501

 1             While we're still on this page, let us take a look at this

 2     indictment.  And does it not say here that in the period that is

 3     mentioned in the indictment, the period during which you were in

 4     Batkovici, six persons, six prisoners succumbed to the beatings

 5     administered to them.  And then their names are listed.  You can see

 6     that, can you not?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, could we first ask:  Have you ever

 8     seen this indictment before, Mr. Pasic?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I haven't.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  What the indictment says, Mr. Stojanovic, I take it,

11     certainly after it has been translated, you could agree on that, I take

12     it, with the Prosecution -- well, as long as it comes to Professor and

13     the 28th of July, it is not that difficult to find it, and even for us to

14     read it on page 2.  But let's not go through a document -- unless you

15     have any specific question to this witness about something which is

16     described here, point at that portion, ask the question, and then move

17     on.  But we shouldn't go with this witness through an indictment.  That

18     is not assisting the Chamber.  Certainly if he has not seen that

19     indictment ever before.

20             Please proceed.

21             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour.  And

22     I shall be done with this very quickly.

23        Q.   You saw the names:  Sutic, Husein; Zecevic, Ferid; Okanovic,

24     Iljaz; Hadziomerevic, Zulfo; Topcic, Idriz; and Habibovic, Sead.  Now I

25     would like to ask that we look at paragraph 45 of your statement, which

Page 4502

 1     is P434.

 2             This is what you say there:  "During the first two months of my

 3     detention at Batkovic ..."

 4             You say that you had the occasion to know that Mehmed Hodzic and

 5     Hamdo, whose last name you don't know, were beaten very badly and that

 6     they died as a result of the injuries sustained during the beatings.

 7             Do you stand by this part of your statement?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Then I'm going to ask you this:  Did you see that?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Tell the Trial Chamber where you were and where you watched this

12     from.

13        A.   While I was in camp Batkovic, during the first two months before

14     we were registered by the Red Cross, it would often happen that soldiers

15     would come from the front line, enter the camp, and do whatever they

16     wanted.  For the most part, they came to take things out on prisoners.

17     Actually, express their rage in that way against the prisoners.

18             At first, we were in a big military tent within the camp

19     compound, and, on one day, among other things, these soldiers came, and

20     they beat and mistreat all the prisoners who were in that tent.  The

21     prisoners were mistreated in a variety of ways.  The prisoners included

22     these two elderly men whom I knew from Rogatica.  On that same day, later

23     on, both of these men died.  They were taken out.  They were carried out

24     of the camp compound.

25        Q.   My question was whether you saw this and where you were when you

Page 4503

 1     saw this, in which facility?

 2        A.   I was in this tent.

 3        Q.   Did you see this personally?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Now I'm going to ask you another question in respect

 6     of what you said in paragraph 43.

 7             In the camp in Batkovic, you remembered two Muslims who had a

 8     special status among the inmate population.  Their nicknames were Pike

 9     and Spajzer.  Why do you remember them so well?

10        A.   I remember these two detainees because they were favoured.  They

11     had certain privileges that the camp guards gave them.  They could eat as

12     much as they wanted, and they could also behave like the Serb soldiers

13     behaved.  They could walk into the camp, and they could mistreat and beat

14     whomever they wanted.

15        Q.   Did they mistreat you?

16        A.   No, not me personally.

17        Q.   Did anyone else mistreat you personally, physically?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Did that happen in Batkovic or outside the facility at Batkovic?

20        A.   In Batkovic.

21        Q.   How many times did this happen, or was this on a single occasion?

22        A.   To the best of my recollection, it happened once.

23        Q.   You were hit by a hand.

24        A.   A hand, a foot, a rifle-butt.  I cannot remember all of it.

25        Q.   Were you registered by the International Committee of the

Page 4504

 1     Red Cross when you arrived in Batkovic?

 2        A.   Not immediately after my arrival.

 3        Q.   Tell the Trial Chamber when the ICRC came after your arrival.

 4        A.   To the best of my recollection, it was six or seven weeks after

 5     we were registered.  After -- we were registered six or seven weeks after

 6     we arrived.  Or perhaps even more than that.

 7        Q.   Did you have an opportunity to send mail through the prison

 8     administration and the Red Cross?

 9        A.   When we were registered by the Red Cross, we were given the

10     possibility of writing messages to relatives, friends, anyone we knew,

11     and we were promised that these messages would be delivered to such

12     persons, if such a person could be found in the territory of

13     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

14        Q.   Did you avail yourself of that opportunity?

15        A.   Yes.  I sent a message to my mother.

16        Q.   Did you have an opportunity of receiving an answer to that

17     message?

18        A.   I cannot remember that.

19        Q.   During your stay in Batkovic, did you get meals?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Three meals?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   I will conclude with a question related to personal hygiene.  Did

24     you receive soap and the like?

25        A.   The prison administration didn't give us anything.  As far as

Page 4505

 1     personal hygiene was concerned, we got our first supplies after we were

 2     registered by the Red Cross, the International Red Cross, for the first

 3     time.  These supplies consisted of toothpaste, a tooth-brush, and a small

 4     bar of soap.

 5        Q.   I'm just going to conclude with a question that has to do with a

 6     man who you knew by the nickname of Spajzer.  Did he leave Batkovic

 7     before you did?

 8        A.   I cannot recall.

 9        Q.   Why do you remember him so well?

10        A.   As I've already said, he enjoyed certain privileges from the

11     soldiers and the --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  The question has been asked.  The question has been

13     answered.  Please, next question.

14             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Your Honours, then

15     I'm going to conclude by putting this question.

16        Q.   You were exchanged and you went to Croatia; is that correct?

17        A.   I was exchanged and went to Croatia.

18        Q.   In July 1993?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Together with you, another group of detainees were exchanged from

21     Batkovici.  Detainees from Batkovici; is that correct?

22        A.   The group that I was in included 40 prisoners.

23        Q.   The number of prisoners from the moment when you arrived in

24     June 1992 until June 1993 when you were exchanged is the number of -- is

25     actually a number that was considerably lower than the original one; is

Page 4506

 1     that correct?

 2        A.   The number of detainees in Batkovic camp varied because some

 3     people left and others were being brought in.  I would not say that it

 4     was decreased radically.

 5        Q.   In the group --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, you have now -- you are now starting

 7     your fourth or fifth final question.  Last question.

 8             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 9             With your leave, I will just suggest that this indictment that

10     was used here in the courtroom as MFI'd, I would like to suggest that it

11     be admitted into evidence once it's been translated.  I don't have

12     anything else to tender because everything else has already been

13     admitted.  Thank you.

14        Q.   And thank you, Mr. Pasic.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, I think it was MFI'd because it was

16     tendered but there was no translation, so that status is there already.

17             Mr. Jeremy, any question?

18             MR. JEREMY:  One question, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

20                           Re-examination by Mr. Jeremy:

21        Q.   Mr. Pasic, at temporary transcript page 88, lines 17 to 23, you

22     were asked about the mixed police/army force headquartered at the farm

23     where you stayed before going onto Susica camp, and you confirmed that

24     they did not mistreat you.

25             Did any members of that unit speak to you about their operations?

Page 4507

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And what did they say?

 3        A.   They said that in the territory of the town of Rogatica, they

 4     attacked the town and they had a minor incident in which one of them

 5     almost lost his life, because they were not careful in terms of where

 6     they should shoot in the part of town where they went to cleanse the town

 7     of Muslims.

 8             MR. JEREMY:  No further questions, Your Honours.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Jeremy.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Since the Bench also has no further questions,

12     Mr. Pasic, this concludes your testimony in this court.  I'd like to

13     thank you very much for coming to The Hague and for answering all the

14     questions that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench.  I wish

15     you a safe return home again.  And I would invite you to follow the

16     usher.

17                           [The witness withdrew]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Then briefly, for the record, the Chamber

19     understands that the portions selected by both parties of P431, MFI'd,

20     has been uploaded as 65 ter 02353A and is therefore ready to be admitted

21     into evidence and will receive - Madam Registrar, please correct me when

22     I'm wrong - P431A.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  That's the 65 ter number, yes, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  But I gave -- but it will be admitted under number?

25     I think it would receive an A number as well.

Page 4508

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  The number would be the same as it was MFI'd.  So

 2     P431, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  I think P431 is the whole of the 16th Session,

 4     whereas, the selected portion which has now been uploaded as 65 ter 2353A

 5     would then be admitted into evidence separately.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Then as the number P437, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And we cannot work with P431A.  If that is

 8     impossible, then we have to take care.

 9             P437 is admitted into evidence.

10             We adjourn for the day, and we will resume, Monday, the 5th of

11     November, in this same courtroom, I, if I'm not mistaken ...

12                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  We resume Monday, the 5th of November, at 9.30

14     in the morning, in Courtroom III.

15             We stand adjourned.

16                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,

17                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 5th day of

18                           November, 2012, at 9.30 a.m.