140825IT

Page 24656

1 restrictive and that they restricts the right of our client to defence.

2 Let us start by saying that our position is that the Rules of the

3 presentation of case cannot be changed mid-case after the Prosecution had

4 its opportunity to present its case. We also believe --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I tried to immediately follow your

6 reference, your page reference. For me at this moment, but it may be a

7 technical issue, the transcript of the 24th of July starts at page 24623,

8 whereas you are referring us to page 23648. Is that the slip of the

9 tongue, or is there ...?

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Obviously this has been misrecorded.

11 I said T 24648, line 23.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then I'm with you. Please proceed.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 We believe that we have the same rights and that we should abide

15 by the same rules that the Prosecutor abided by during the Prosecution

16 case. Otherwise, the rights of our client to fair trial would be

17 seriously threatened.

18 And now I would like to start with the first instruction on page

19 T 24649, line 8. [In English] And I will quote:

20 "To this end, the Chamber notes with concern that many court

21 hours have been spent adducing evidence of questionable relevance, much

22 of which appears at this moment to also have questionable probative

23 value. Many Defence witnesses have given a great deal of evidence about

24 matters that neither appear or form part of any recognisable defence nor

25 relate in any material way to the crimes alleged in the indictment."

Page 24657

1 [Interpretation] With all due respect, we have to point out that

2 we do not agree with this opinion of the Chamber. First of all, we would

3 like to say that a testimony has to be put in a context and has to

4 provide a broader picture of the developments in order to be able to

5 assess the credibility of a witness and to give weight to his or her

6 testimony.

7 Some of the statements prove legitimate defence, although this is

8 not expressly stated. We did not put legal terms into our witnesses'

9 mouths.' We did not write our statements in that way. We used the

10 language that was used by the witnesses themselves.

11 Before the trial started, we asked for the indictment to focus on

12 certain things, and we wanted to be told who exactly were members of the

13 joint criminal enterprise. This never happened. Today we have an

14 indictment in which in Articles 11, 12, and 13, it is stated who members

15 of the joint criminal enterprise are.

16 Apart from the specific names in paragraph 10 of the indictment,

17 in paragraph 11 it is stated that those were members of the leadership of

18 Bosnian Serbs, members of the Serbian Democratic Party, members of the

19 state organs of Bosnian Serbs at the republican regional municipality and

20 local levels including Crisis Staff staffs, War Presidencies, war

21 commissions, commanders, assistant commanders, higher-ranking officers,

22 chiefs of units of the Ministry of the Defence of Serbia, the JNA, the

23 Army of Yugoslavia, the VRS, the Ministry of the Interior of

24 Bosnian Serbs, the Territorial Defence of Bosnian Serbs, at the

25 republican, regional, municipality, and local levels, as well as the

Page 24658

1 leaders of Serbian paramilitary and voluntary units.

2 Article 12 goes even further than that, and it says that all the

3 local Serbs - i.e., all Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina - were members of

4 this joint criminal enterprise. During the pre-trial conferences, this

5 was clarified and it was specified that those were all the Serbs over the

6 age of 16.

7 In the case of an indictment like this, it is absolutely

8 impossible for us, even if we wanted to, to bring and present a wrong

9 witness. Whomever we ask whether they participated in this joint

10 criminal enterprise, we challenge this indictment. Whomever we bring

11 here to testify only about this fact, they are legitimate witnesses who

12 can be presented to this Trial Chamber.

13 Therefore, in the case of such an indictment, it is virtually

14 impossible to locate anybody who was over the age of 16 who resided in

15 Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time who is not a suitable witness for this

16 trial.

17 Pursuant to Rule 98 bis, the Defence asked for the scope of the

18 indictment to be reduced. Since nothing has been deleted from this

19 indictment, we have to challenge every single thing. We have to know

20 that in this case after the Prosecution case ended barring bar tabled

21 exhibits, over 3.000 pieces of evidence were tabled and this contributed

22 to the burden on the Defence to challenge the counts of the indictment.

23 As the Trial Chamber already knows, our Defence is also revenge.

24 For example, that people did something in retaliation without that being

25 planned, ordered, or indeed envisaged by Ratko Mladic. Our Defence is

Page 24659

1 also a legitimate response to attacks coming from the other side.

2 We heard the Prosecutor's theory in our case, that the shelling

3 of Sarajevo was aimed at terrorising the civilian population there.

4 According to that -- according to them, this was done without any reason,

5 which is why our witnesses have to explain that the BiH Army nonstop

6 shelled, nonstop opened fire, and the VRS had to respond to those

7 attacks. Whoever testifies about that challenges the indictment. In

8 such cases this could not be a tu quoque defence. This is just

9 challenging the indictment.

10 The Trial Chamber allowed the Prosecutor to go beyond the scope

11 and the geographical range of this indictment. We have the right to

12 defend our client against everything that was presented against him. The

13 Defence should not be held against trying to contest what the Prosecutor

14 did during the Prosecution case relative to the scope of the indictment

15 which was extended.

16 On page T 24649, lines 14 to 16, this is what is objected against

17 us:

18 [In English] "Additionally, during cross-examination, it has

19 often come to the light that the source of a witness's knowledge about a

20 particular incident merely stems from media reports or from the Karadzic

21 defence."

22 [Interpretation] With all due respect, we do not agree with this

23 conclusion reached by the Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber generalises,

24 erroneously in this case, and the Trial Chamber misunderstands the

25 testimonies of the witnesses who stated that they had been faced with the

Page 24660

1 facts about which they were supposed to testify. In other words, the

2 Karadzic defence was not the source of knowledge for our witnesses. It

3 was the source of questions for them, and I'm talking here primarily

4 about the adjudicated facts.

5 The witnesses do not have any other means of knowing what was

6 accepted as adjudicated facts in any of the other cases if they're not

7 told so. In other words, the Karadzic defence told them what was

8 admitted as adjudicated facts in that case, and they put questions to

9 them about those facts. For example, Witnesses Radojcic and Sehovic,

10 they said that they had seen a picture of Hrasnica which confirmed what

11 they said. It was not Karadzic's defence that informed them about the

12 events -- actually, they showed them something. They showed them a photo

13 which confirmed what they had already known, what they had witnessed

14 during a war.

15 Next, on page 24649, lines 6 through 21, and I quote:

16 [In English] "The Chamber also notes that often these witnesses

17 make sweeping generalisations in their statements which then trigger the

18 Prosecution to spend a great amount of time in cross-examination

19 attempting to show what is readily apparent from the start; that is, that

20 sweeping generalisations have little, if any, probative value."

21 [Interpretation] We believe that as a matter of fact is a

22 generalised statement on the part of the Trial Chamber. We brought and

23 presented very specific, very relevant witnesses for the counts of it --

24 in the indictment relevant to Sarajevo, because this is the part of the

25 indictment that we have been dealing with so far. We can give you each

Page 24661

1 of the witnesses' names and counts of the indictment that they testified

2 about. We brought battalion commanders, brigade commanders, company

3 commanders who spoke about very specific incidents, and it is not true

4 that their statements are just sweeping generalisations and that they

5 don't have any probative value.

6 It is with regret that we have to say that this type of reasoning

7 on behalf of the Trial Chamber shows that our witnesses are viewed

8 differently than the Prosecution witnesses. The Prosecutor brought

9 several witnesses who did provide sweeping generalisations. For example,

10 their witnesses said, "Serbs destroyed a cultural edifice," and they did

11 not say anything specific about either a possible perpetrator or the way

12 the crime had been done. At the same time, the Trial Chamber and the

13 Prosecutor conducted investigations by examining our witnesses, and that

14 was directed against the members of the Defence team. A lot of time was

15 lost unnecessarily in that.

16 If the Trial Chamber decided to conduct investigations, they

17 should have informed us about the results of those investigations. We

18 believe that we have the right to know. You checked the private e-mails

19 of our witnesses. We ask you to say publicly what you found out; i.e.,

20 please inform both us and the general public as well.

21 At the same time, the Defence requested from this Trial Chamber

22 during the testimony of Momir Nikolic to investigate how come that in the

23 report of Bursik, who is the Prosecutor's investigator, that he in his

24 report claimed that Momir Nikolic said something in a recorded

25 conversation which is not true. We want you to inform us whether

Page 24662

1 anything was done, whether there was any investigation about that. If

2 so, what were the results of that investigation?

3 In order to make things even more drastic, the Trial Chamber

4 attacked a member of our team as if we had done something wrong. Now we

5 raise a question: Why the Prosecution Witness Momir Nikolic, who was

6 found by this Tribunal that he was lying, why he wasn't asked how come

7 that he hadn't remembered that before? The first time he ever said that

8 was during the Popovic trial. After that report presented by Bursik, the

9 report which was erroneous, and this was a thing that had to be

10 investigated, we do not have the power like the Prosecutor has to offer

11 relocation, various bargain deals. We believe that when investigation is

12 done, this investigation is channeled in a totally wrong direction.

13 Furthermore, on page 24649, lines 22 through 25, I quote:

14 [In English] "Conversely, relevant content has sometimes been

15 removed from witness statements, apparently triggering the Prosecution's

16 need to explore these subjects as well as the reasons for removing them,

17 all of which needlessly uses a great deal of valuable court time."

18 [Interpretation] I have to tell you, and I have to be very

19 sincere in saying that the Defence was dumbfounded by this finding on the

20 part of the Trial Chamber. The same procedure was used by the Prosecutor

21 when they introduced old statements and compiled new statements of the

22 witnesses in this case or when the Prosecutor used transcripts from the

23 same witnesses' previous testimonies. The Trial Chamber never asked the

24 Prosecutor why they were doing that. Obviously, in such situation, the

25 Defence had to use its valuable time for cross-examination, and this is

Page 24663

1 precisely what the Prosecution has to do now. We don't see anything in

2 dispute here.

3 Why didn't the Trial Chamber ever mention that during the

4 Prosecution case? In that way the Defence would be well informed and in

5 due time that that was a wrong way to do things. Presenting this as a

6 problem at this moment is precisely what constitutes changing the rules

7 of a case at the detriment of the Defence, mid-case. Let's give you a

8 specific example: Witness RM314, the Prosecutor took three statements

9 from him. It has to be known that the statements taken by the Prosecutor

10 are over ten years old, and again there are changes. This has happened

11 all the time. For every Prosecutor witness we received proofing notes

12 about changes, perhaps not for each and every one, but I can easily say

13 that there were over 75 per cent of them. We can present those proofing

14 notes to you if you wish.

15 Witness RM314, the Prosecutor filed his first, second, and third

16 statements. The Prosecutor did not file his proofing notes and his

17 testimony in the Popovic case, which explicitly denies some parts of his

18 previous statements. In other words, the proofing notes and their

19 testimony in the Popovic case change and negate the statements of the

20 same witness that were filed by the Prosecution and admitted by the

21 Trial Chamber. The Prosecution just ignored those things. My colleague

22 Ivetic fought very hard against such an approach by the Prosecution and

23 later by the decision of the Trial Chamber, and you will find that on

24 T 10853.

25 This is just one of the many examples showing how things were

Page 24664

1 changed. Obviously, the Defence had to use a lot of time to correct

2 things that were obvious from the very start. Let me share some more

3 examples with you. RM013, two statements were filed and one set of

4 proofing notes. Witness Ibro Osmanovic, there are three statements, two

5 were admitted as exhibits. Ado Medic, two statements, plus proofing

6 statements presented in the courtroom. Both statements were admitted.

7 RM280, four statements. And the last two are the corrections of the

8 first two statements. All the four statements were admitted into

9 evidence.

10 The Prosecution had 17 years at their disposal to investigate

11 whatever they liked before the trial began. We heard from the

12 Prosecution investigators that they launched investigations as early as

13 1995; specifically, Investigator Ruez told us so. The Defence had five

14 months to complete its investigation after the last Prosecution witness

15 was heard. I wanted to inform you that we asked for more resources, more

16 personnel, who would be members of our team, and more time. It was not

17 approved.

18 All Defence team members worked tirelessly, nonstop, and to

19 sanction them for not having been allotted the time, the resources, and

20 staff they requested, is not only unjust but also cynical. Let me remind

21 you: In this courtroom on the Prosecution side we saw 26 attorneys who

22 led witnesses. At the beginning, on the Defence side, you saw four

23 attorneys. However, due to the lack of funding, after several of the

24 fist witnesses we had to bring down to only three, and the three who are

25 in the courtroom are not all paid equally as attorneys-at-law, as

Page 24665

1 counsel. We have two paid counsel and one assistant.

2 The next point. At transcript page 24650, line 1, I quote:

3 [In English] "Moreover, the Chamber notes the unfortunate

4 tendency of both parties to adduce evidence that is unnecessarily

5 repetitious or that relates to matters that are not in dispute in the

6 first place; for example, the Chamber has now heard several witnesses

7 give evidence concerning the strength and positions of ABiH units, but

8 when these matters are explored by the Chamber in court it discovers that

9 the parties are more or less in agreement about such facts and there was

10 never a reason to spend court time adducing the evidence to begin with."

11 [Interpretation] I say yet again, it all comes as a consequence

12 of the Prosecution case, the numerous exhibits, and the scope of the

13 indictment. We are prepared to accept any kind of Prosecution

14 stipulation in this matter, and of course any potential Chamber decision

15 as to the location of ABiH army positions, their facilities, warehouses,

16 and command posts in Sarajevo. Of course, unless all positions known to

17 the Defence are accepted where there were ABiH members in Sarajevo, we

18 will keep on leading evidence in that regard.

19 By supporting or corroborative evidence have a particular role to

20 play since they add to the probative value of previous witnesses and the

21 exhibits themselves. The role of such evidence is to deny the evidence

22 led by Prosecution.

23 The next item I have is page 24650, lines 16 to 22. I quote:

24 [In English] "More significantly, the Chamber notes, with serious

25 concern, that witnesses have testified about alarming statement taking

Page 24666

1 practices such as being pressured to sign statements which they knew to

2 contain errors or signing statements that they have not read. A great

3 deal of court time has been used trying to clarify and correct such

4 issues as, for example, those encountered with the statements of

5 Witnesses Deronjic, Batinic, and Tusevljak."

6 [Interpretation] The Defence agrees with this finding as well.

7 We wish to state that the witnesses were not forced to say something.

8 What they said was that they did not have the time to correct their

9 statements but were told that they could do so during their testimony

10 live, which was done every single time. It comes about as a consequence

11 of lack of time, and all such cases happened at the time when we were

12 told that we had to have signed statements. Such mistakes were made only

13 in the course of the following few days following the request by the

14 Chamber.

15 We had to come up with signatures without any delay whatsoever,

16 and it did not provide sufficient time to the Defence to deal with

17 corrections at that point in time, but we did deal with such corrections

18 in our proofing notes and during the main hearing. Nothing was hidden.

19 I will leave the witnesses explained why they had to sign, in what way,

20 and that they were told that they would be accorded an opportunity to

21 have it corrected before the Court and that they were indeed given that

22 opportunity.

23 Page 24651, lines 2 through 4. It was the next objection voiced

24 by the Chamber and the first instruction. I quote:

25 [In English] "First, the parties I expected to limit the

Page 24667

1 production of evidence to matters that are relevant and start by adducing

2 evidence which is most important" -- or "relevant," actually, sorry.

3 [Interpretation] This is new and it was not in place during the

4 Prosecution case, although it is stated that it refers to both sides but

5 the Prosecution was no longer leading its evidence. It is therefore

6 clear that this instruction only affects the Defence. We believe that

7 the Defence has a right to decide on its own order or presentation. We

8 believe that at this stage the Chamber has no right to influence our

9 decision on presentation order. At this point in time, it is unclear why

10 the Defence is leading that particular evidence before some other. Such

11 assessment could only be done at the close of our case.

12 The next point is on page 24651, lines 4 through 7. I quote:

13 [In English] "The Chamber reminds the parties that relevant

14 evidence has been defined by the Appeals Chamber as evidence relating to

15 a material issue and that the material issue of a case are to be found in

16 the indictment."

17 [Interpretation] Precisely. We saw what the indictment is. We

18 simply cannot miss by responding to it. We have no problem with this

19 particular standard to be applied. We believe that all our evidence is

20 relevant, and we believe that our evidence needs to be viewed in a

21 more -- in a wider context at all times. Of course this is not something

22 the Prosecution finds to its liking, but we don't know why the Chamber

23 shares that view.

24 Our evidence cannot be understood unless viewed in totality.

25 This Defence is not afraid of the truth. Everything is being pronounced

Page 24668

1 tu quoque. Anything that aims at providing a wider context, it is

2 impossible to avoid this wider context in the situation in which all

3 Serbs older than 16 in 1992 were members of the same JCE. We wish to

4 show you that there were several levels, and that is why we bring

5 witnesses who may not have participated in a specific operation but, for

6 example, the man in question was the municipal head at the time and under

7 the indictment he was a JCE member. He is a relevant witness who needs

8 to say whether the JCE existed and what was it that the members of that

9 JCE did. Of course we don't only lead soldiers as witnesses who had

10 participated in particular operations.

11 The next point. Page 24651, line 7 to line 9. I quote:

12 [In English] "Inasmuch as the Defence finds it preferable to use

13 witness statements from other trials, it is expected to remove irrelevant

14 material from such statements before they are tendered in this case."

15 [Interpretation] In addition to this general or generalised

16 indictment, the Defence was put in a position to listen to Prosecution

17 evidence which did not refer to directly. When one of the last few or

18 perhaps the very last Prosecution witness was examined, we also found out

19 that the indictment included something that is not in the text itself

20 which is the time before the relevant period in 1995 as well as a

21 specific geographic location in Croatia. You can find it in the witness

22 testimony provided by Theunens at transcript page 20318 and onwards.

23 We now have to deal with Croatia it seems. And we also have to

24 deal with the period of time before the 12th of May, 1992. Who is to

25 blame for that? Not the Defence and it cannot be held responsible.

Page 24669

1 The next point, page 24651, lines 13 through 16. I quote:

2 [In English] "In short, this means that the Defence should avoid

3 adducing evidence including in written statements for which there is no

4 factual basis or which could be characterised as a sweeping

5 generalisation."

6 [Interpretation] We believe, in this case as well, that this part

7 of the Chamber's instructions should also reflect the situation in this

8 case; i.e., the indictment needs to be taken into account as well as the

9 statement by the Prosecution that they would go beyond the scope of that

10 time in both temporal and geographical terms. Of course, one also needs

11 to bear in mind the enormous amount of documents filed by the Prosecution

12 that we need to respond to.

13 I'm nearing the end, and I would kindly ask for a little bit of

14 patience.

15 On page 24651, lines 24 through to line 6 on the next page, the

16 Chamber states the following in item 4, I quote:

17 [In English] I'm sorry if I said item 4, it's item 3, third.

18 "Third, the Chamber expects the parties to carefully consider the

19 necessity of adducing repetitious or background evidence. The Chamber

20 reminds the Defence that should it wish to offer evidence that is, for

21 example, cumulative in nature or which relates to the historical,

22 political, or military background of the case, it should seek to do so

23 pursuant to Rule 92 bis, a Rule created precisely for the purpose of

24 expanding complex trials by eliminating the need to use court time for

25 adducing such evidence."

Page 24670

1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I take it was a slip of the tongue when you

2 wanted to say "expediting" rather than "expanding."

3 MR. LUKIC: Expediting, I'm sorry.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 [Interpretation] In what kind of situation are we at this moment?

7 Before proposing the signed witness statements, we did our own research

8 and we often realised that statements contain elements of background

9 facts as well as the context as well as addressing the acts and conduct

10 of General Mladic. They oftentimes also included things that should not

11 be in those statements under 92 bis but should enter under 92 ter.

12 Given the fact that the Rules do not allow for a statement to be

13 filed that contains something that has a direct bearing on the accused

14 needs to be introduced through 92 bis. The fact that such statements

15 contain background information and historical context is no reason for

16 rejecting them, especially if it is known that the Defence is -- does not

17 waste time on it because it had already been contained in the statement,

18 and the Prosecution needs to assess whether there is any need to go into

19 questioning such background and historical facts. Or, rather, to simply

20 focus on the gist of the statement, which is the acts and conduct of

21 General Mladic.

22 I thank you for having given me this opportunity to state our

23 position regards the remarks the few days before the recess and we could

24 not respond to it at that point in time. That is why I thank you again

25 for this opportunity. Thank you.

Page 24671

1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

2 Could I seek some clarification. Page 16, line 13, start with

3 the word "needs..." I reread your sentence. You said:

4 "Given the fact that the Rules do not allow for a statement to be

5 filed that contains something that has a direct bearing on the accused

6 needs to be introduced through 92 bis ..."

7 May I understand you wanting to say that does not allow for a

8 statement to be filed that contains something that has a direct bearing

9 under the accused to be introduced through 92 bis?

10 MR. LUKIC: Exactly, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and you were, as I understand from what you

12 later said, you were not talking about a direct bearing but about acts

13 and conduct. Is that well understood?

14 MR. LUKIC: I think that it's acts and conduct and bearings.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Well that's --

16 MR. LUKIC: Because we have --

17 JUDGE ORIE: -- not what the Rules says, but let's have --

18 MR. LUKIC: Usually they combine all three, and usually you can

19 find it at the end of the statement.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I leave it to that at the moment. I tend to

21 agree that at least if it's about acts and conduct of the accused that it

22 may have a direct bearing, whether the -- it's true the other way around

23 is, I think, still to be something to be thought of.

24 Again, thank you, Mr. Lukic.

25 Does the Prosecution wish to respond, and if so, now or at a

Page 24672

1 later stage?

2 MS. BIBLES: Your Honour, I could speak for probably three

3 minutes and address at least an initial response to the Defence comments.

4 I think for the purposes of today --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, as a matter of fact, I'd like you to either

6 to -- not to start now but a little bit and then later expound to it. So

7 could you please make up your mind as to whether you want to respond now

8 or at a later stage.

9 MS. BIBLES: Your Honour, we disagree rather strongly with many

10 of the comments made by the Defence. We are willing, if the

11 Trial Chamber would like, to submit separate individualised responses to

12 some of the allegations made during the statement. Otherwise, it's

13 well-established law that matters of practice, procedure, and the general

14 conduct of the proceedings are well within the Trial Chamber's

15 discretion. So with that, Your Honour, I think those are our comments

16 for now. If the Chamber would like to have -- like us to address some of

17 the specific examples that were raised by the Defence, we're certainly

18 willing to submit submissions with respect to those.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ORIE: If there are any specifics where you think it would

21 be appropriate to deal with them, then the Chamber would preferably

22 receive any comments in writing. Then we are five minutes away from the

23 break. There were other preliminary matters, I do understand, from the

24 Prosecution. And perhaps if I understood the gist of at least one of the

25 preliminary matters to be raised by the Prosecution, well, I wonder

Page 24673

1 whether the following might even remove the necessity to deal with it

2 because the Chamber would like to briefly deal with the revised

3 translation of P6690.

4 The Chamber admitted P6690 into evidence on the 23rd of July,

5 2014, during the testimony of Milan Pejic. On the 19th of August the

6 Prosecution advised the Chamber and the Defence through an informal

7 communication that it had requested and received a revised English

8 translation of this exhibit. That has now been uploaded in e-court under

9 doc ID 1D08-10188-A. I did misspeak and I'll repeat because the

10 transcriber indeed copied exactly my mistake. I'll repeat: Uploaded

11 into e-court under doc I ID 1D08-0188-A. Upon agreement of the Defence,

12 which I received on the 24th of August, 2014, through an informal

13 communication, the Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the

14 current translation with the revised version.

15 But there was another matter, I do understand, Ms. Bibles, that

16 you wanted to raise.

17 Please proceed.

18 MS. BIBLES: Thank you, Mr. President.

19 Your Honour, the Defence did provide additional witness

20 statements to the Prosecutor on the 15th of August. We now have

21 statements for 152 prospective witnesses. I would simply put, for the

22 purposes of the record, that according to the agreement between the

23 parties, for those witnesses for whom we do not have statements they are

24 either experts or internationals, witnesses for whom Karadzic or Popovic

25 statements may be used, or the witnesses will be called viva voce. Thank

Page 24674

1 you.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for raising that issue. I put it on the

3 record.

4 As far as experts are concerned, the Chamber will deal with them

5 rather soon. But there is one item which may even need urgent attention,

6 and I'll deal with that in the remaining two minutes.

7 On the -- it's about the safe conduct motion. On the 12th of

8 August of this year, the Defence filed a safe conduct motion for a

9 witness who is scheduled to testify during the first week of September.

10 As the Registrar requires some time to process safe conduct

11 orders, the Chamber would like to ask the Defence to consider

12 rescheduling the appearance of that witness in order to allow: First of

13 all, the Chamber sufficient time to consider the motion; and second, the

14 Registry sufficient time to process the order should the Chamber decide

15 to grant the motion.

16 Then finally, since we've got one minute left, I will deal with

17 P6649, which is a criminal report dated the 26th of October, 1992.

18 On the 9th of July of this year, P6649 was tendered and marked

19 for identification as a confidential document. On the 24th of July, the

20 Chamber admitted P6649 into evidence, and the Chamber hereby clarifies

21 that P6649 is admitted into evidence under seal.

22 I leave it to that for the time being, although there are a few

23 matters the Chamber would like to raise pretty soon.

24 We first take a break and we'll resume at 10 minutes to 11.00 and

25 expect the Defence then to be ready to call its next witness. We take a

Page 24675

1 break.

2 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

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

4 JUDGE ORIE: We have a bit of a late start. That's due to some

5 urgent matters we had to deal with. Apologies for that.

6 Is the Defence ready to call its next witness?

7 MR. IVETIC: We are, Your Honour. The next witness is

8 Goran Sehovac, testifying without any protective measures.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could Mr. Sehovac be escorted into the

10 courtroom.

11 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, if I may, before the witness is brought

12 in.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

14 MR. LUKIC: I spoke with Mr. Traldi and we agreed that the

15 Defence will use with our Witness GRM251 statement -- his statement

16 marked as 1D1773 instead of 1D169. When the witness is here, we filed

17 both statements. You will see that there are some cosmetic changes and

18 you can explore with the witness how it comes that he signed both

19 statements.

20 [The witness entered court]

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's the third witness to appear this

22 week.

23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

25 Good morning Mr. Sehovac.

Page 24676

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you

3 make a solemn declaration, the text of which is now handed out to you.

4 You do not hear -- can you hear the interpreters now?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Sehovac, before you give evidence, the Rules

7 require that you make a solemn declaration, the text of which is now

8 handed out to you, and I'd like to invite you to make that solemn

9 declaration.

10 WITNESS: GORAN SEHOVAC

11 [Witness answered through interpreter]

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I'll speak

13 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Sehovac. Please be seated.

15 Mr. Sehovac, you'll first be examined by Mr. Ivetic. Mr. Ivetic

16 is a member of the Defence team of Mr. Mladic.

17 Mr. Ivetic, if you're ready, please proceed.

18 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

19 Examination by Mr. Ivetic:

20 Q. Good morning, sir.

21 A. Good morning to you, too.

22 MR. IVETIC: I'd like to call up in e-court 1D01609, and I have a

23 hard copy -- a clean hard copy for the witness. With the usher's

24 assistance and the co-operation of the Prosecution counsel, we could

25 perhaps already get that to the witness.

Page 24677

1 Q. Sir, on the screen in front of you I would direct your attention

2 to the signature. On the first page of the Serbian, can you identify

3 that signature?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Whose signature is it?

6 A. This is my own signature.

7 MR. IVETIC: And now I'd like to turn to the last page of the

8 document in the Serbian original.

9 Q. And, sir, could you confirm for us whose signature is located on

10 this page?

11 A. We are talking about the last page; right? Yes, this is my

12 signature.

13 Q. Subsequent to signing this statement for the Defence team of

14 General Mladic, did you have occasion to review the same in proofing with

15 myself in the Serbian language?

16 A. Yes, yes. I did make some minor changes, though.

17 Q. Thank you. I'd like to take a look together at paragraph 9 of

18 your statement.

19 MR. IVETIC: Page 3 in the Serbian, page 2 in the English.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, go ahead.

21 MR. IVETIC:

22 Q. In the last line of that paragraph you say that you have personal

23 knowledge of civilians being used as human shields. Can you explain that

24 phrase for us?

25 A. No, not personal knowledge. This was misrecorded. However, at

Page 24678

1 that moment I was in that area in Nedzarici on the front line facing the

2 city of Sarajevo. In that part of Nedzarici the Serbs were fleeing using

3 their own secret roads across the line, and those people talked to us

4 when they crossed over to our territory. They told us what was going on

5 in the city of Sarajevo and how the police treated those civilians, how

6 the civilians were being pushed among the soldiers in order to create an

7 erroneous picture of what was going on. This means that I heard that

8 from the people who had left Sarajevo, who had fled Sarajevo. Those are

9 the Serbs who found themselves in Sarajevo when the war started, and they

10 used covert roads to cross the lines and join us in Nedzarici. That's

11 the explanation of that part of the statement.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. IVETIC: Now if we can look at paragraph 10 which is the same

14 page in the Serbian and is on page 3 in the English.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, Witness, are you in a position to

16 tell us any name of any of those persons that told you this?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I? Well, listen, it was a long

18 time ago, over 20 plus years. Those people left --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you don't have to explain why there was a

20 good reason not to know. Do you have a name? If so, please give it; if

21 you don't have names, please tell us as well.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

24 MR. IVETIC: If we can look now at paragraph 10, which is on the

25 screen.

Page 24679

1 Q. Here you talk about the situation in Vares and you say that you

2 establish a line at Brgule, facing part of Croatia. Do you have a

3 clarification here?

4 A. That was not Croatian territory. We established our line in

5 Brgule. That part was controlled by the BH army together with the HVO.

6 So that was that. That was not Croatia. That was a territory partly

7 controlled by the HVO. That's where we established our line. The

8 Croatian civilians and troops were a majority there, as it were.

9 MR. IVETIC: And if we can turn to paragraph 14 of your

10 statement, which is on page 3 in the English, and crosses between pages 3

11 and 4 in the Serbian.

12 Q. Here you talk about a Franciscan monastery and the priests,

13 friars, and students leaving. Were you present at the time that they

14 left?

15 A. No, no. I was not there. According to what I know, they left of

16 their own will. However, throughout the war the Franciscan monastery in

17 question was guarded and protected.

18 Q. Thank you. Now apart from these clarifications to your written

19 statement, do you stand behind the same as being accurate?

20 A. Of course, fully. I'm here to defend the truth.

21 Q. If I were to ask you the same questions about the same topics

22 today, would your answers in substance be the same?

23 A. Certainly.

24 Q. And having taken the solemn declaration to tell the truth today,

25 would those answers, as contained in your written statement, be truthful?

Page 24680

1 A. As a citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina, i.e. Republika Srpska, I am

2 duty-bound to tell the truth. This is why I'm here.

3 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I at this time tender the written

4 statement 1D01609 as a public exhibit.

5 JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objection, Madam Registrar,

6 the number would be...

7 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D01609 receives number D596,

8 Your Honours.

9 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

10 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I have a summary to read of the

11 witness's testimony which has been given to the booths and which has been

12 explained to the witness.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.

14 MR. IVETIC: The witness was a young soldiers from the Nedzarici

15 settlement in Sarajevo. In mid-1992 he was sent to do his compulsory

16 military service at the VRS in Han Pijesak where after two months of

17 training he was assigned to the anti-terrorist unit of the protection

18 regiment. During this time his unit was sent to protect territories in

19 the areas of Zepa, Zvornik, and Vlasenica.

20 In 1993 the witness was assigned to the military police of the

21 Ilidza Brigade as a resident of that area. In early 1994, the assault

22 detachment of the military police was formed and the witness became its

23 member. He stayed in that position for the duration of the war.

24 The witness knows that civilians were fitted with explosives by

25 the ABiH and forced towards the Serb lines. The witness's father saved

Page 24681

1 several such persons.

2 In 1993 the witness and his unit received orders to assist the

3 threatened Croatian civilians in Vares, at which time these Croats were

4 provided security and given the option of staying on Serb territory or

5 continuing to Croat lines. His unit accomplished this task successfully.

6 The Franciscan monastery at Nedzarici was also under the

7 protection of the VRS, and the only damage came from ABiH fire.

8 The witness states that he was under orders to allow humanitarian

9 aid arriving from Butmir airport to cross through check-points unhindered

10 after performing a superficial cursory examination. There was one

11 striking incident where the witness personally found ammunition in a food

12 shipment. This was covered by the media. He knows of other such

13 incidents, including when gunpowder was found in oxygen tanks intended

14 for hospital use.

15 This completes the summary of the statement.

16 JUDGE ORIE: If you have any further questions, Mr. Ivetic, you

17 may put them to the witness.

18 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.

19 Q. Mr. Sehovac, I do have some follow-up questions. To start with,

20 if we look back at paragraph number 2, page 2 of both versions of your

21 statement, here you talk about being a soldier who had not done

22 compulsory military service. Can you please explain to us how it is that

23 you came to know that the SDA had stolen the military records?

24 A. May I? As a teenager, at the time I was 18, according to the

25 rules of the then Yugoslav and under the law of the then Yugoslav, all

Page 24682

1 lads who come of age have the right to serve in the JNA. It was a lovely

2 custom in the former Yugoslavia. All the nations and nationalities sent

3 their sons to the army irrespective of whether they were Serbs, Croats,

4 or Muslims. We all served in the army together. We learned how to

5 defend our homeland. But the Bosniak policies, i.e. the Bosniak

6 political party, the SDA, which stole documents in Novi Grad. But first

7 I need to explain that every municipality had its recruiting centre where

8 documents were kept regarding all the lads who were to be recruited into

9 the JNA.

10 At Novi Grad municipality is a big municipality, one of the

11 biggest ones in the city of Sarajevo, and there were a lot of

12 administrative workers in the municipality. At that moment my parents,

13 as well as the parents of all the other lads - Muslims, Croats, and

14 Serbs - prepared us for service in the JNA, i.e. in the common army.

15 However, that didn't happen because the SDA stole the documents or moved

16 them away or burned them of all the lads residing in the municipality of

17 Novi Grad. I don't know how that happened. I wouldn't be able to tell

18 you.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could you tell us how you found out? That

20 was the question. And -- but if you say, "I don't know how that

21 happened," where you said before that they stole them or moved them away

22 or burned them, does this mean that you do not know whether they were

23 stolen or burned or moved away?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My father learned that, i.e., the

25 information leaked from the municipality of Novi Grad. At that moment,

Page 24683

1 my father was preparing a party to send me off into the army. However,

2 the information was leaked by the administrative workers of the

3 municipality; those people who worked at the municipality informed my

4 father that the documents had gone missing and that nobody from Novi Grad

5 would be sent to serve in the JNA. That's the line of information.

6 Since everybody knew each other, there were Serbs, Muslims, and Croats

7 there, I suppose that a Serb double-checked that information and learned

8 that the documents had been stolen and informed not only my father but

9 all the other parents whose sons were about to be recruited into the JNA.

10 To put it simply: The objective was to boycott the JNA, to

11 prevent citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina from serving in the JNA. That's

12 the explanation of some people from that political party. At that time

13 as a young lad, I could not understand that somebody could commit such a

14 crime against the sovereignty of its own state, a state that we all lived

15 for. My father was very disappointed with the fact that I was not going

16 to serve in the army, because he was a member of the League of Communists

17 and he was a Yugoslav at heart.

18 MR. IVETIC: Did Your Honour have additional follow-ups?

19 JUDGE ORIE: No, I leave it to you at this moment, Mr. Ivetic.

20 MR. IVETIC:

21 Q. Sir, if we can now focus on your compulsory military service with

22 the VRS in Han Pijesak. And you say that the training lasted two months

23 at paragraph 3. Can you tell us what kind of training you underwent at

24 that time including the topics of that training?

25 A. All sorts of incidents started occurring all around

Page 24684

1 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and especially in Sarajevo. Our Crisis Staff in

2 Nedzarici, somewhat older people in it, gathered all the young men and

3 advised them to go and serve in the JNA. As a result of that, all of us

4 lads gathered in Han Pijesak, that was our base because the barracks were

5 there and all the recruits arrived there, they were deployed across

6 various units, and they were trained. How were they trained? One part

7 of that training was theory and the other part was practical training.

8 Every army does that: Theory and practice. Theoretical training

9 regarded the conduct of a soldier in service: How should a soldier

10 behave in the case of war; how to treat prisoners of war; military

11 officers; what does a soldier do confronted by many civilians.

12 After that it was handling all sorts of fire-arms. That training

13 was the result of an order received by our command. They were supposed

14 to speed things along because combat had started around Han Pijesak,

15 around Zepa, and the entire territory of Romanija. The expedited

16 training that we completed in Han Pijesak had me sent to the PT unit or

17 the protection regiment. The PT stands for "anti-terrorist unit" which

18 was part of the military police. The mission of that unit was to

19 military policing and defence of the territory where they were deployed.

20 In other words, they were supposed to protect the sovereignty of the

21 Yugoslav Peoples' Army. We thought that it was still the

22 Yugoslav Peoples' Army but that was transformed into the Army of

23 Republika Srpska as the war started.

24 Q. Now, sir, you say that while you were a member of the

25 anti-terrorist unit's military police, you were given the toughest tasks

Page 24685

1 in Zepa, Zvornik, and Vlasenica. Can you just briefly give us more

2 detail about what you were doing there and why? Why was it necessary?

3 A. First of all, the military police received very difficult tasks.

4 The war had literally begun by that time and the military police was

5 supposed to keep order among soldiers and the people who had been

6 recruited or were reservists. That is why the military police intervened

7 when there were disturbances of law and order and when people

8 disrespected the law of Republika Srpska and its armed forces. The

9 anti-terrorist unit had that as its principal task as well as to

10 implement all orders of its military command when it comes to its own

11 soldiers. All VRS soldiers had to be brought in if they refused to

12 implement their duties.

13 Another goal of the anti-terrorist unit was the one that had to

14 do with the war. I can address that in detail. When we were sent to the

15 area of Zepa, to Laze, I believe, we came across a police APC, a civilian

16 police APC, that had been hit by an anti-armour asset. I came across two

17 dead policemen there. It was my first stressful situation, so to speak,

18 because it was my first time to see some dead people. I entered the APC

19 to extract the bodies, and I remember well that one of the policemen had

20 sneakers on. They were basically not killed by bullets. They probably

21 tried to look out of the APC and received a bullet to the head, and due

22 to a detonation the other bodies were shattered inside.

23 Our goal was to pull out those people and then we retreated to

24 Laze where there was some kind of facility. I think before the war it

25 had been a school. We were trapped there and we spent some 10 to 15 days

Page 24686

1 in encirclement. That is that regarding Laze. We managed to pull out a

2 fortnight later.

3 Some elderly people, locals, managed to break through the line

4 from Sokolac and reach us. They basically left their homes to bring all

5 of us, the boys, out. We were all between 18 and 20. Out of the 60 that

6 we started off with, only around 20 able-bodied soldiers were left. That

7 is that regarding that particular incident.

8 We also went Crni Vrh. It was a critical point en route to

9 Zvornik. That is the area where our civilians from Sarajevo came, using

10 that route to flee to Serbia with their children. Many ABiH soldiers

11 went through that area as well in their attempt to reach Tuzla, killing

12 our civilians in the process. According to our information, Naser Oric's

13 unit controlled that area on the side of the ABiH. We had prevailed over

14 them on several occasions before at Crni Vrh securing the route for the

15 mothers and children and other civilians to traverse the critical area.

16 Q. I'd like to move on as we are short with time. I'd like to focus

17 on the Croat population in Vares that is discussed at paragraphs 10

18 through 12 of your statement at page 3 in both versions. And, first of

19 all, you say in your statement that:

20 "The threatened citizens of Vares, predominantly Croats ..."

21 How were they being threatened and by whom?

22 A. You see, it was never clear to me. The war in Bosnia-Herzegovina

23 as a whole remains unclear to me. It is a very ugly thing that happened

24 and I wish no one suffers the same fate ever again. It isn't clear to me

25 that the Croats and Muslims tied their -- would tie their flags together

Page 24687

1 in Sarajevo. As an observer on the VRS side, we established our line at

2 Brgule, towards their territory, because we had been informed that the

3 army of BiH would attack RS territory. And our goal was only to defend,

4 never to attack. We were to defend it at any cost. All of a sudden we

5 could hear artillery fire and we thought the RS was being attacked. I

6 woke up, I didn't understand anything, and I saw in Vares and its

7 environs and villages there, I don't know their names because I do not

8 hail from that territory, it is foreign to me, but I could see that there

9 was a war there. We were told by our Ilidza Brigade command to get ready

10 in case of attack, because the ABiH apparently had attacked the HVO, the

11 territory controlled by the Croats. It was completely unclear to us. We

12 literally simply observed and did not wish to get involved. It was a

13 conflict between the Muslims and Croats, but we were also told that there

14 were many civilians, children, and mothers, as well as the elderly in

15 Vares who were unable to defend themselves. We were asked if we were

16 ready to intervene in order to save them.

17 As a soldier, as a Serb, as a Yugoslav, I was proud to be issued

18 that order. I said that I would save every last person if I can together

19 with the VRS and my unit, and that the command was to discuss it with our

20 neighbouring units to lend a hand as well. There were many units there.

21 Our order was to go halfway to Vares and that the civilians would be

22 fleeing in our direction.

23 In Vares the civilians had been told that they could freely go

24 towards VRS lines, that they would be welcomed there. The first people

25 that I came upon was a mother with two children, one of whom had fallen

Page 24688

1 down. I placed both girls on my back and invited their mother to follow

2 me. We went through the woods and reached Brgule. There was a column of

3 people following, many civilians. It was our task only to simply

4 physically secure them. The Army of BiH, I have to say, constantly

5 targeted that part of the forest. They couldn't see through the forest

6 and were not successful in targeting the civilians, but the

7 Ilidza Brigade and the military police sustained between 10 and 15

8 wounded soldiers. I was also lightly injured, thank God not seriously.

9 Q. [Overlapping speakers]

10 A. I was grazed by a bullet.

11 Q. If I could interrupt you and ask you, sir, if you know how many

12 Croat civilians were assisted in this manner from Vares?

13 A. [No interpretation]

14 Q. One moment, one moment.

15 JUDGE ORIE: We don't receive interpretation.

16 Could you please restart your answer, the question being how many

17 Croat civilians were assisted in this manner from Vares?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I go on? First I have to say

19 that it was an interesting task and a challenging one for me and the

20 entire brigade and its military police. It was a difficult one because

21 on the Serb side many parents had lost their children. Their sons were

22 being killed in different areas where Serbs engaged Croats. It was very

23 difficult to secure those civilians because people might react and open

24 fire at them. There were some small groups surfacing here and there,

25 between 5 and 10, mostly criminals, and our order was to sanction them,

Page 24689

1 so to speak, and if they disobeyed they were to be arrested if they

2 disturbed the civilians.

3 We managed to secure the civilians and remove those groups. We

4 placed the civilians in an encirclement, secured them, and we

5 successfully executed the task. I am proud that as a VRS soldier I

6 helped those civilians and I keep meeting them all over

7 Bosnia-Herzegovina to this day.

8 Now how many were there? They were starved and when we ordered

9 food from our quartermaster's service to feed them, I could see that we

10 requested between 3- and 3-and-a-half thousand servings, there were that

11 many people.

12 MR. IVETIC:

13 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to turn paragraph 16 found at page 3

14 in both versions of your statement where you talk about a humanitarian

15 convoy that had NATO rifle ammunition, and you talk about a video.

16 MR. IVETIC: I would like to at this moment call up video D472,

17 and I will not be playing the video nor the audio but I have selected a

18 freeze-frame portion from that video at 20 seconds into the exhibit, and

19 it should be visible if we switch over to the Defence monitor.

20 Q. Sir, I would ask you to take a look at this freeze-frame of this

21 video and tell us if you recognise anyone who is depicted in this portion

22 of the video.

23 A. That is me dressed in a military police uniform. I was checking

24 a UN vehicle. It is me until the camouflage uniform.

25 Q. And is this the incident that is described in paragraph 16 of

Page 24690

1 your written statement?

2 A. Yes, that is the very incident.

3 Q. Do you --

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can I ask to clarify, I see two people in

5 camouflage uniforms. Can you tell, is it you who is visible in the

6 middle of the picture or on the right side?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The person in the middle. I'm much

8 younger and much thinner, please do not be confused. But the person in

9 the middle.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Fewer kilos.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

13 MR. IVETIC:

14 Q. Do you have a recollection of the month or time of year that this

15 incident occurred?

16 A. Of course. It was sometime in 1993, perhaps March or April. One

17 of the two. I don't know the exact date. I cannot recall it. In any

18 case, March or April. I remember it well. If need be, I can describe

19 the incident itself.

20 Q. We have that in your statement. I'd like to move on since we are

21 pressed for time.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have just have one question --

23 MR. IVETIC: Yes.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- on this paragraph.

25 Sir, how did you establish that the rifle ammunition with a

Page 24691

1 caliber of 5.56 millimetre belonged to NATO?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, when we were informed our

3 captain, the late Obrad Popadic, was informed that there was a suspicious

4 load moving towards Butmir -- well, let me clarify first: All aid and

5 all UNPROFOR vehicles moved freely through the territory of the

6 municipality of eastern Ilidza. There was never any problem and there

7 were strict orders in place that no vehicle should be bothered, that they

8 would go through freely save for some routine checks in order to avoid

9 potential criminal activities. We checked the container and found two

10 types of ammunition, one was 5.56 and the other was 12.7 millimetre

11 calibre. It's not in the statement, but I remember well that there were

12 two kinds of ammunition: 5.56 millimetre ammunition is for rifles and

13 12.7 for machine-guns. I could establish that because I was a soldier

14 and I know very well what kind of weapons uses what kind of bullet and

15 calibre. I hope this suffices.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: That doesn't suffice because you haven't answered

17 my question. My question is: How did you determine that this ammunition

18 belonged to NATO?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, who was driving the truck?

20 Was it me? It was an international community vehicle. You would have to

21 ask them.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, sir. You have written in your statement that

23 it belonged to NATO. How did you establish that this ammunition belonged

24 to NATO? If you don't know how you established, you are just guessing,

25 you can say so.

Page 24692

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was an UNPROFOR vehicle

2 transporting the cargo. Anything onboard an UNPROFOR truck is UNPROFOR

3 property. That is how we drew the conclusion.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And it is up to the court to prove

6 it.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers]

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I'm simply trying to

9 explain that it was an international community vehicle owned by UNPROFOR.

10 All cargo on such vehicles -- I do have some kind of education. If there

11 is such cargo on a vehicle, it is a criminal act unless it is on the bill

12 of lading and approved. The ammunition was not and it was being taken to

13 Butmir and Hrasnica. It was an international community UNPROFOR vehicle.

14 I am not in the position or do not have the competence to examine who

15 that ammunition belonged to. It was in the vehicle and as a soldier I'm

16 saying that it was found in an UNPROFOR vehicle. I do not wish to be

17 misunderstood, and I wish to address you with the utmost respect.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You obviously didn't know

19 who it belonged to. All you know is that --

20 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers]

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Don't talk when I'm talking. From your answer I

22 take it that you don't know who the ammunition belonged to. All you know

23 is that it was in an UNPROFOR vehicle. Thank you so much.

24 MR. IVETIC: If I --

25 JUDGE ORIE: I have one short follow-up question: Is UNPROFOR

Page 24693

1 the same as NATO for you?

2 Yes, I see that you are nodding "yes."

3 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

4 MR. IVETIC:

5 Q. Sir, in the arsenals of the JNA --

6 MR. IVETIC: Oh, I'm sorry, the translation has not yet come in

7 of your question, I'm told.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I saw the witness nodding "yes." I asked you

9 whether UNPROFOR was the same as NATO for you and I saw you nodding in

10 the affirmative; is that correct?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no. You misunderstood me.

12 At that time there was only UNPROFOR and we co-operated with them. There

13 is no dispute about that. I do not connect NATO and UNPROFOR. I don't

14 think that they are one and the same thing. They are two different

15 things.

16 JUDGE ORIE: One second then, please.

17 Mr. Mladic, if you once again --

18 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]

19 JUDGE ORIE: If you once again --

20 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]

21 JUDGE ORIE: If you once again communicate with the witness in

22 the way you did it before, laughing, et cetera, you know what the result

23 will be. You'll be removed from the courtroom.

24 Then I -- one second, please, again. And the same, Witness, is

25 for you: You don't have to salute to the accused in this courtroom. You

Page 24694

1 should not in any way communicate with him, even without words.

2 Mr. Mladic, no demonstrations. Sit down. You know --

3 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]

4 JUDGE ORIE: No speaking aloud, Mr. Mladic. Once again, you'll

5 be removed from the courtroom if it once ...

6 The Chamber doesn't like the little games you are playing.

7 One second please, Witness.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 MR. IVETIC: Perhaps if I can ask the Prosecution is there any

10 dispute that 5.56 calibre ammunition is NATO-grade ammunition?

11 JUDGE ORIE: My question was to test the -- not the ammunition

12 but the knowledge of the witness about NATO and UNPROFOR.

13 In your statement, Witness, you say it was NATO rifle ammunition,

14 and your explanation in court you said you concluded that it was NATO

15 because it was in UNPROFOR hands, which seems to -- that you are mixing

16 up the two. Because UNPROFOR -- if it's not NATO, how could you possibly

17 conclude from it being transported by UNPROFOR that it was NATO

18 ammunition? Any explanation for that?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I? Yes, yes. As a soldier at

20 the time, I was not specialised in either NATO or UNPROFOR. We were told

21 it was NATO ammunition and the vehicle belonged to UNPROFOR. NATO did

22 not exist at that time, but we were told it was NATO ammunition; i.e.,

23 people from the command told us that it was NATO ammunition and the

24 vehicle - or, rather, the vehicles - that transported that ammunition

25 were UNPROFOR vehicles. That's the explanation.

Page 24695

1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

2 By the way, you had used already 33 minutes before the

3 question --

4 MR. IVETIC: I know.

5 JUDGE ORIE: -- put by Judge Moloto. Please proceed.

6 MR. IVETIC: I will be brief. I only have about three questions

7 left.

8 Q. What was the calibre of rifle ammunition used by the JNA and by

9 the VRS?

10 A. 7.62. The VRS never used the other kind of calibre. We did not

11 have the weapons for this type of ammunition, which is why I can tell you

12 that we had automatic rifles that used calibre 7.62. It's a well-known

13 and widely used calibre, so I'm -- I suppose you know what I'm talking

14 about.

15 Q. I do. Now, as a member of the Ilidza Brigade's military police,

16 did you ever receive orders to terrorise the civilian population of

17 Sarajevo?

18 A. No. That was not our priority. Moreover, as military policemen,

19 we toured the lines and we would tell all the people never to use weapons

20 against the civilians. Unless there was a BiH Army attack against

21 Ilidza, if the line was at risk, then they were instructed to destroy the

22 enemy, but not civilians only the troops.

23 Q. Did you ever hear of VRS snipers be ordered to be engaged against

24 Sarajevo civilian targets?

25 A. No, there were no such cases at all. Just the opposite was the

Page 24696

1 case. The BiH Army constantly opened fire on Nedzarici and Ilidza. They

2 opened sniper fire on the two. I never received such an order. Nobody

3 was ever ordered to terrorise civilians. That was not our objective.

4 Our sole objective was to defend the territory of the Serbian

5 municipality of Ilidza, which is what we did at the end of the day.

6 Q. Sir, I thank you for your answers to my questions.

7 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I have no more direct. But, again, I

8 would ask the Prosecution if there is an agreement as to NATO-grade

9 ammunition being 5.56 millimetres and Warsaw Pact being 7.62 millimetres

10 and that is a notorious fact in how these ammunitions are called in the

11 military industry.

12 MR. WEBER: Good morning, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Weber.

14 MR. WEBER: I don't believe that was the issue that was at the

15 heart of the matter --

16 JUDGE ORIE: No --

17 MR. WEBER: -- with the witness, so I'm happy to check into that,

18 and then if there's -- yes, I believe there is an expert on this point

19 that testified to some of the matters. So if I could just check

20 something.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So --

22 MR. WEBER: It might be --

23 JUDGE ORIE: -- after the break --

24 MR. WEBER: -- in the evidence anyway.

25 JUDGE ORIE: So after the break -- well, yes, if something is in

Page 24703

1 evidence in the record about this type of ammunition and the VRS. A

2 quick search revealed some examples, and I just provide them quickly on

3 the record. P4404, page 5 in the B/C/S and page 8 in the English; and

4 P355, one of General Mladic's notebooks, specifically an entry from

5 23 September, 1992, which is located at page 115 in the English. So

6 thank you for the opportunity for us to look into that.

7 JUDGE ORIE: And do you mean to say that reference is made there

8 to 5.56 millimetre ammunition in the -- not in NATO but, rather, in other

9 hands?

10 MR. WEBER: Yes.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I take it that you'll have a look at

12 it --

13 MR. IVETIC: But, Your Honours, that does not address my request

14 for stipulation, which I repeat from page 42, line 3 through 7. I asked

15 the Prosecution if there is an agreement as to NATO-grade ammunition

16 being 5.56 millimetres and Warsaw Pact being 7.62 millimetres and that

17 this is a notorious fact as to how these ammunitions are called in the

18 military industry. I had nothing to do with the VRS. 5.562 in its name

19 is NATO ammunition, Your Honours. That's what I'm getting at.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I do not know what the difference is between

21 the name and the calibre itself, so you would call it different from what

22 the real calibre is. Is that --

23 MR. IVETIC: In the military industry, 5.52 by 43 millimetres is

24 called NATO cartridges.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. 5.52 or 5.56?

Page 24704

1 MR. IVETIC: 56, I apologise.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Well, that's -- well, apparently there is no

3 agreement on that. I take it that the issue was whether by the mere

4 calibre of the ammunition found, whether that would be an indication as

5 to where it may have come from.

6 MR. IVETIC: Exactly, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE ORIE: That, apparently, is not resolved by the -- by a

8 stipulation.

9 Let's move on.

10 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

12 MR. WEBER:

13 Q. Mr. Sehovac, in paragraph of your statement, you state:

14 "In 1993 at the request of Obrad Popadic, who is in command of a

15 unit in Ilidza at the time, I was assigned to that unit as a resident of

16 Sarajevo."

17 Obrad Popadic was the deputy commander of the Ilidza Brigade up

18 until May 1994; correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. When did you make this request in 1993? Or when was this request

21 in 1993?

22 A. Captain Obrad Popadic made that request in 1992 and sent it to

23 the command of the protection regiment. He addressed it to me. He

24 stated that he needed me in Ilidza, he needed military policemen, and

25 since I was well familiar with the area he thought that I would be of

Page 24705

1 great use to him there.

2 Q. Sir, please focus on my question. I was just asking you when.

3 Are you able to provide us anymore specificity aside from in 1992 this

4 request was made?

5 A. He made the request in 1992. And then in late 1992 on the eve of

6 the new year I was assigned to the Ilidza Brigade. I joined from the

7 protection regiment.

8 Q. Okay. That -- that helps out answer one thing. But just going

9 back to the request, was that made well before you joined the protection

10 regiment or right beforehand -- or, I'm sorry, before you joined the

11 Ilidza Brigade, not the protection regiment. I'm sorry, that's my fault.

12 A. He submitted a request and perhaps within a month later or so I

13 joined the Ilidza Brigade; i.e., I became a member of the military police

14 of the Ilidza Brigade. So we're talking about a month or so.

15 Q. Thank you very much.

16 A. I'm so glad to be of assistance.

17 Q. Who was your immediate superior in the military police of the

18 Ilidza Brigade?

19 A. When I first joined, the late Captain Obrad Popadic was the

20 deputy commander. He was my friend and my neighbour in Nedzarici. He

21 was the one who received me, and he asked me to help him with the men and

22 to organise the military police unit in Ilidza since I had completed that

23 training in Han Pijesak. I was a trained military policeman. So I

24 helped him. And the commander of the military police at the time and my

25 superior was Borislav Krajisnik. He was the commander of that unit, of

Page 24706

1 the unit of the military police that is.

2 Q. Your father, Jovo Sehovac, was the company commander of the

3 1st Battalion, 3rd Company, of the Ilidza Brigade; is that correct?

4 A. Yes, my father, Jovo Sehovac, was a company commander in the

5 1st Battalion in Nedzarici, and the 1st Battalion was part of the

6 Ilidza Brigade.

7 Q. Is it correct that your father was injured on 29 December 1993

8 when one of his own men threw an explosive device and the shrapnel hit

9 him in the right foot?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. During the war, did you have any relatives who were members of

12 the RS MUP in Ilidza?

13 A. To try and explain, I'd like to say that when it comes to the

14 Sarajevo Romanija Corps, 360 members of my family, my -- the relatives

15 were members of that corps. They were either with the military or they

16 were members of the military of defence, 360 in total.

17 Q. Okay. Are you related to Milorad Sehovac, the commander of the

18 2nd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade?

19 A. Yes, but we are not close relatives. We are a bit removed in

20 that sense.

21 Q. All right. Are you related to a member of the RS MUP in Ilidza

22 who shares your own name but is older, Goran Sehovac?

23 A. Yes. He was a member of the police at the Kula station. You

24 have to know that the municipality of Serbian Ilidza had a very

25 challenging terrain. It was split into parts during the war. There was

Page 24707

1 a part called Kula-Vojkovic-Krupac and the area in the nearer --

2 Trnovo --

3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter missed the second part of that

4 answer.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was a public police station

6 in Ilidza and another one in Kula. We did not have any physical contact

7 with them.

8 MR. WEBER:

9 Q. Yes. That Goran Sehovac oversaw the Kula detention facility;

10 correct?

11 A. I don't know. I really don't know. We were not close, hence I

12 don't know.

13 Q. Are you related to Srdjan Sehovac?

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, until now it escapes the Chamber what the

15 relevance of family relations in this context is, so if you think it's

16 relevant try to get to the point as quickly as possible.

17 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I -- fine.

18 Q. Sir, the reason I'm asking about your relatives is that part of

19 your evidence in a part appears to come from things you've heard, so

20 there may be other evidence in this case or other individuals that may

21 have communicated information that they were aware of. So I'm just

22 asking you to clarify if you know some of these individuals, just so we

23 have it for the record. I appreciate your patience with this.

24 Are you related to Srdjan Sehovac of the RS MUP in Ilidza?

25 A. Yes.

Page 24708

1 Q. Okay. Thank you for helping us with that. I would now like to

2 turn your attention to the monastery in Nedzarici and discuss some

3 instances that took place during your time in the Ilidza Brigade.

4 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 1D02008.

5 Q. This is a 26 July 1993 disciplinary order from Ilidza Brigade

6 commander Vladimir Radojcic. The person being disciplined is a

7 Novak Popadic.

8 MR. WEBER: Can the Prosecution please have page 2 of the English

9 translation, and same page on the B/C/S.

10 Q. In the statement of reasons section of this order, there are four

11 events mentioned. I'd like to discuss the first one with you. It's the

12 one that states:

13 "In the immediate vicinity of the monastery in Nedzarici, at

14 about 0830 hours on 26 July 1993, Novak Popadic fired a zolja hand-held

15 rocket launcher at an ambulance, a Toyota vehicle owned by the

16 1st Battalion, causing considerable ... damage to the vehicle and making

17 it useless."

18 Were you aware of this incident?

19 A. No. Ilidza is big. It was wartime. God knows where I was at

20 that moment. I'm sure that I was not in that territory at the time

21 because I'm not familiar with this.

22 Q. Is it correct that the monastery was located in the zone of

23 responsibility of the 1st Battalion of the Ilidza Brigade?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Is it correct that members of the brigade held positions in the

Page 24709

1 immediate vicinity of the monastery while they were equipped with zoljas?

2 A. I can only say that the first line was in the barracks just below

3 the monastery. It was held by the 1st Battalion of the Ilidza Brigade of

4 the VRS. The soldiers were equipped, of course, and they had all the

5 weapons necessary to defend themselves from the enemy.

6 Q. Did you ever personally see them equipped with zoljas at the

7 monastery?

8 A. Sir, I am a soldier. The army had everything that was needed to

9 defend from the enemy. If you could only come to Nedzarici, you would be

10 able to see that the distances are never greater than 50 metres including

11 the distance between Nedzarici and the monastery; that is to say, the

12 first line and the monastery.

13 Q. Sir, I -- I was just asking you something really specific: Did

14 you ever see them with zoljas at the monastery? I don't want to dwell on

15 this for long. If you could please listen to my questions.

16 A. I don't understand the question and I do not understand its

17 importance. You were asking me whether the soldier had a zolja, and it

18 was in the middle of the war. People were being killed in the

19 settlement. Over 300 people were killed in the settlement alone. Of

20 course we were armed. We were the armed forces.

21 Q. Okay. Now -- [Overlapping speakers]

22 A. I apologise.

23 Q. Did you see the type of equipment that people -- that members of

24 the Ilidza Brigade were armed with at the monastery? I'm asking you if

25 you saw it.

Page 24710

1 A. I was at the front line. I was a soldier. I was a direct

2 participant. I toured all those front lines towards Stupska Petlja and

3 the city where my father was in command. I was at the front lines. We

4 had automatic weapons of smaller calibre.

5 JUDGE ORIE: It seems that your answer is just "yes," you saw it.

6 Please proceed.

7 MR. WEBER: Okay.

8 Q. Are one of those weapons that you saw zoljas, the members of the

9 brigade at the monastery? Did you see that?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Okay. Is it correct that Novak Popadic later became a member of

12 the Ilidza assault battalion in 1994 along with yourself?

13 A. Novak Popadic? I don't remember. No.

14 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution would tender this document into

15 evidence. For the record, the document was also previously used with

16 Witness Radojcic at transcript pages 23267 to -68.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.

18 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, the witness was asked about this

19 incident. He has no knowledge of it. So I don't believe it's

20 appropriate to enter the document in through cross-examination of this

21 witness.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.

23 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'm doing it a matter for -- well, for

24 expeditiousness. I mean, it was used with a previous witness. I believe

25 it was an associated exhibit to Mr. Radojcic's materials. I would have

Page 24711

1 to confirm that through checking, but at issue is what the witness

2 claimed to have known about the monastery, he's made a statement about it

3 being a medical facility. This document contradicts in part his evidence

4 showing that -- that actually there were armed people at the monastery

5 and engaged -- or at least were equipped with zoljas.

6 MR. IVETIC: I don't -- Your Honour, where does it say that? It

7 says in the vicinity of the monastery. It does not say any of the stuff

8 that Mr. Weber has just said. That [Overlapping speakers] --

9 MR. WEBER: In the vicinity. In the vicinity of the monastery.

10 In the immediate vicinity of the monastery.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, it's not appropriate to introduce this

13 piece of evidence through this witness. Please proceed.

14 MR. WEBER: Okay. Let's look at another example. Could the

15 Prosecution please have 65 ter 31027, page 17 of the B/C/S original and

16 page 35 of the English translation.

17 Q. Mr. Sehovac, coming up before you is a section of the RS military

18 prosecutor's official report on the crime trends in the SRK dated

19 5 July 1993. I would like to direct your attention to a specific event

20 in this document involving five members of the Ilidza Brigade. I'm going

21 to read it into the record so we have -- we know what it says.

22 "On 6 April 1993 at about 0300 hours in the Nedzarici barracks

23 dormitory, Cvijetic and Domazet arranged to go and pull down the Ilidza

24 municipal government building, and then Domazet went to call for Savic,

25 who was with the battalion commander in his office, telling him: 'Let's

Page 24712

1 go and level the municipal building,' after which they got into a

2 Campagnola jeep and drove up to the monastery in Nedzarici, where Savic

3 woke up Knezevic, a driver, and Zelovic, a T-55 tank crew member, and

4 said that they were going into action. When the crew had taken their

5 position," it's noted in a tank, "they drove it up to the Ilidza

6 municipal government building, where Savic hit the building with a

7 subcalibre shell and about 200 machine-gun bullets, while Cvijetic and

8 Domazet were standing behind the tank firing their pistol and automatic

9 rifle in the direction of the building ..."

10 It then contains information that there were over 2 billion

11 dinars of damage to the Serbian municipality building of Ilidza.

12 Were you aware of this incident as a member of the Ilidza

13 military police?

14 A. I wasn't aware of this incident, but I do know these people.

15 They were prone to causing problems, and we brought them in on several

16 occasions and they were sanctioned in the military prison. I know who

17 they are but I do not recall the incident. I was not in that territory

18 at the time most likely. Sarajevo covers a large territory. We had

19 several different departments, and I did not deal with this. I wasn't

20 duty-bound to be informed of everything. I know them and I know the --

21 were under the law several times.

22 Q. Is it correct that a T-55 tank was located at the monastery?

23 MR. IVETIC: Objection: Misstates the document.

24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'm entitled to put it to him.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I don't think as a matter of fact you refer to

Page 24713

1 the statement. You just put a question to the witness.

2 Could you please answer that question. Was a T-55 stationed at

3 the monastery?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not according to my knowledge.

5 MR. WEBER:

6 Q. Okay, well, according to this event in the early hours of the

7 morning, members of the Ilidza Brigade went to the monastery to wake up

8 the tank crew or members of that tank crew which they then found the tank

9 and took it to the Ilidza municipal building. Were you aware of whether

10 the tank crew was stationed at the monastery?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Did you see this damage to the Ilidza municipal building?

13 A. Damage was being caused daily by the ABiH shelling, so one

14 couldn't tell what damage was caused by what shell. So in short my

15 answer is no.

16 MR. WEBER: I'm done with this document.

17 Could the Prosecution please have P775, page 5 of both versions.

18 For the record, this document was marked "not admitted without prejudice"

19 on 28 February 2013. It was an associated exhibit to the statement of

20 Witness Rose, specifically paragraph 183 of P728.

21 JUDGE ORIE: What do you intend to do with the previous document,

22 Mr. Weber?

23 MR. WEBER: I -- I wasn't planning on tendering it. I had

24 read --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

Page 24714

1 MR. WEBER: -- the incident and I was going to move on.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's fine. Please proceed.

3 MR. WEBER:

4 Q. Right now I'd like to change topics and talk about humanitarian

5 aid convoys. And I believe the part in the B/C/S that I'm going to be

6 referring to is towards the bottom of the page in front of you on the

7 screen. This is an UNPROFOR weekly situation report for the week of 3 to

8 10 December 1994. According to this report, it states:

9 "The Serbs continued to blockade Sarajevo for most of the week,

10 then eased off later in the week. Three convoys entered the city on

11 Friday -- the first to arrive in almost a month."

12 The next paragraph then starts:

13 "Serb controls on the road between Sarajevo airport and the city

14 continue to restricts the movement of humanitarian supplies."

15 Now, in your statement, and I'm specifically referring to

16 paragraph 15, you claim that humanitarian aid from the airport passed

17 through your lines and check-points unhindered after a cursory

18 inspection. You've repeated this today in court. I put it to you, based

19 on the document in front of us, that your evidence is inaccurate, and, in

20 fact, there were weeks where humanitarian supplies were not allowed to

21 pass. Do you have any comments?

22 A. Of course I do. Taking into account your position, with all due

23 respect, I believe you are incorrect. Now, what happened? If I may, I'd

24 like to explain. The inhabitants of Ilidza and the members of the

25 Ilidza Brigade never even discussed the issue of preventing the entry of

Page 24715

1 humanitarian aid into Hrasnica and elsewhere. We never even considered

2 it, and we never received any orders to prevent it. Now, what happened

3 when there were no trucks and when there was -- there were no goods

4 entering Sarajevo? If there was an offensive underway or if the ABiH was

5 attacking parts of Nedzarici, as one enters Sarajevo, due to war

6 operations the vehicles were unable to enter the city itself. In all

7 other instances, and I'm telling you the truth, we never even considered

8 prohibiting the entry of anything in order to assist the civilians. That

9 is true and that is the only truth there is that I'm sharing with you.

10 Q. So are you acknowledging that there were weeks where convoys were

11 not allowed to pass?

12 A. It is not true that they were not allowed to enter. It was your

13 assessment -- actually, it was UNPROFOR assessment whether it was safe

14 for the trucks to go through due to wartime operations. If there is a

15 thousand shells in a day landing on Nedzarici, not a civilian can pass

16 through let alone an aid convoy or a truck when there was wartime action

17 between Nedzarici, Ilidza, and Sarajevo airport. I don't know how to

18 explain it in physical terms. It wasn't up to us. We did not prohibit

19 it. It probably only depended on the assessment of the international

20 community whether it was safe or not for the trucks with humanitarian aid

21 to enter Sarajevo or not. It was their assessment, not ours.

22 Q. Okay. You've given some general explanations. I'd like you --

23 to ask you specifically, do you know why these three convoys were allowed

24 into the city and they were the first to arrive in almost a month? And

25 if you don't know, fine, but you've given some very general answers. I'm

Page 24716

1 putting it to you very specifically, do you know why this happened?

2 Specifically, this incident.

3 A. I don't understand. What convoy?

4 Q. Okay. This document indicates that three convoys entered

5 Sarajevo and that they were the first to arrive in almost a month. Do

6 you have any specific knowledge about this event? Those convoys being

7 allowed to enter the city and them being the first ones to arrive in

8 almost a month?

9 A. No, I can't comment on it. I'm not competent enough.

10 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution will retender this document into

11 evidence.

12 MR. IVETIC: Again, the witness has not shown any personal

13 knowledge for the document. I do not know the reason why it was not

14 admitted the first time around, but with this witness there is nothing

15 that makes this document tied to the testimony.

16 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'm offering it to the credibility of

17 the witness. The information is inconsistent with the statements of the

18 witness, and I offer it to assess his credibility. Furthermore, there is

19 additional information that's now been put in this document that wasn't

20 necessarily a part of General Rose's evidence, so therefore we'd be

21 tendering it. It's a document that's now been referred to on multiple

22 occasions during these trial proceedings.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. The witness has testified

25 about a matter which is covered to some extent by this document and to

Page 24717

1 that extent there is a link between the testimony and the subject matter

2 covered by the document.

3 Madam Registrar, the number would be? Oh, P --

4 THE REGISTRAR: I would just say the --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

6 THE REGISTRAR: -- 65 ter number because it was used with all

7 numbers, so document 08163 keeps or receives number P775.

8 JUDGE ORIE: And P775 is admitted into evidence.

9 Please proceed.

10 MR. WEBER:

11 Q. I would now like to discuss the municipality of Vares with you.

12 Is it correct that this municipality is located to the north of Sarajevo,

13 adjacent to the zone of responsibility of the Ilijas Brigade?

14 A. Yes, it was the zone of responsibility of the Ilijas Brigade.

15 Q. And just so we don't have any confusion, it's not actually within

16 the zone of responsibility of the Ilidza Brigade but just to the north of

17 it? Or the Ilijas Brigade.

18 A. Yes. Now, whether it's up north or not, I don't know. But it

19 was in the area of responsibility of the Ilijas Brigade. The Nisici

20 plateau and the surrounding area for the most part was controlled by the

21 Ilijas Brigade.

22 Q. Okay.

23 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 31024.

24 Your Honours, I just want to -- in order to hopefully head off

25 any confusion once the document comes off. The Prosecution notes there

Page 24718

1 appears to be a possible error in the translation of a date in the first

2 full paragraph of this report as 18 August 1993. The number is not fully

3 clear in the original, but all other references in the document,

4 including the stamp at the bottom, appear to be to June 1993. I will try

5 to seek to clarify some dates with the witness, and I just wanted to

6 alert you to it.

7 Q. Mr. Sehovac, before you is a SRK command security and

8 intelligence report dated 18 June 1993 from Colonel Marko Lugonja. We

9 can see that the document was sent to multiple SRK brigades, including

10 the Ilidza Brigade. In the first paragraph there is reference to

11 representatives of the HVO from Kiseljak requesting assistance in the

12 form of authorisation to transfer civilians and soldiers from the area of

13 Vares through the territory controlled by the VRS. Do you see this

14 information?

15 A. I apologise, but it is unclear to me. It's a very poor copy and

16 the document is unclear. In my statement I did say that we had received

17 an order from our command, the command of the Ilidza Brigade. The order

18 stated that we should act and save the civilians from Vares, which is

19 probably what you just read out. However, I cannot read it as it is a

20 poor copy.

21 Q. Okay. If it helps --

22 MR. WEBER: If we could just have the B/C/S version and just

23 the -- the first two paragraphs for right now on the screen before the

24 witness. And I also do have a hard copy for the witness, if it would

25 assist him.

Page 24719

1 Q. And, sir, I'm going to go through the document with you part by

2 part, but are you able to read the information in the first part of the

3 document before you?

4 A. It is very unclear, but I can see it.

5 Q. Okay. If any information is not clear to you, please let us

6 know. Can you tell by the information in front of you whether these were

7 the operations you were involved in?

8 A. Could I see the precise date, and maybe you could read out the

9 text and then I'll try to follow?

10 Q. Sir, the date would be in the heading. It's 18 June 1993. The

11 information I -- I'm at least directing your attention to right now is

12 at -- in the -- it says -- starts with donna 10 [phone], and then the

13 number is unclear, 1993, representatives of the HVO from Kiseljak

14 requested assistance in the form of authorisation to transfer a certain

15 number of civilians and soldiers from the area of Vares through territory

16 controlled by the VRS. I'll go through the numbers then after that, but

17 do you see that information?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Okay. Were these the operations that you were involved with?

20 A. Yes, but I didn't see any soldiers. Only civilians.

21 Q. Okay. Did you learn of any plans for this operation in June of

22 1993?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Okay.

25 A. No, simply put: I was a military policeman and it was my duty to

Page 24720

1 implement my command's orders. They ordered that we should save these

2 people and we went to save them, to save the Croat civilians, or rather

3 civilians of Croat ethnicity.

4 Q. Okay. The next sentence says:

5 [As read] "Representatives of the HVO and the civilian

6 authorities in Kiseljak requested the transfer of approximately 3.000

7 civilians and approximately 400 soldiers in 20 buses from Vares."

8 Were you aware of this request?

9 A. I do know that all of the civilians were transported to Kiseljak

10 on board buses, and I also know that our civilian authorities offered all

11 of them to remain in RS territory. And I'm happy to be able to explain

12 that.

13 Q. Sir, sir --

14 A. And they were also offered --

15 Q. Sir --

16 A. -- to send their children to schools --

17 Q. Sir, if you could please focus precisely on my questions. I'm

18 asking you were you aware of the request by the HVO representatives? If

19 you don't, it's fine; if you did, please let us know.

20 A. I did not deal with requests specifically. I worked in the

21 field. We transferred the civilians to Kiseljak, and we provided

22 security for them en route to their free territory as they had requested.

23 It was probably pursuant to their request. Our order was to secure them,

24 take them out of Vares, and escort them to the free territory held by

25 Croat forces.

Page 24721

1 Q. Okay. I want to talk a little bit about the order that you

2 received. According to this document in front of you, the Croats'

3 request was forwarded to the Main Staff of the VRS, which decided as

4 follows: That the requested number of civilians and soldiers may be

5 transferred in the following manner, and then there is three items; that

6 the civilians should be transported separately and in the first rounds of

7 buses; second, the transport of HVO soldiers is to be allowed only after

8 the civilians have been transported. The soldiers are to be transported

9 unarmed and without any especially conspicuous insignia of belonging to

10 the army; the third item, the soldiers' weapons and ammunition are to be

11 transported in a special convoy separate from the soldiers.

12 Did you receive this order?

13 A. No. I was in charge of saving the civilians. We completed the

14 task successfully and then we returned to the base. I suppose that

15 somebody else did the rest. We were in charge of one part of the job, we

16 did it successfully, we saved the civilians, and our -- I am proud as a

17 soldier of the VRS for having saved many mothers, many children in that

18 territory. I take pride in my words, Mr. Prosecutor.

19 Q. Okay. In your statement you say you received an order from the

20 superior command to undertake the transfer of the civilians. When you

21 refer to "superior commander," are you then referring to just your

22 immediate command in the Ilidza Brigade?

23 A. I'm talking about the Ilidza Brigade, yes. I was a soldier of

24 the Ilidza Brigade, but there was also a hierarchy. I suppose that the

25 Ilidza Brigade received its order to carry out a task which they conveyed

Page 24722

1 to the soldiers, and we acted upon the order of our command. It was not

2 transferred. It was assistance. We assisted those people, me personally

3 and all of my soldiers. We all acted humanely.

4 Q. Sir, I'm sorry to cut you off but you actually answered my

5 question right out of the gate there. I do want to move so that we get

6 you home hopefully after today.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one additional question.

8 MR. WEBER: Sure.

9 JUDGE ORIE: The order that you are talking about, that is to

10 assist the civilians, was that a written order or was that an oral order?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We had radio sets. We did not

12 receive written orders. We had radio sets, all of us did, in all of the

13 bases, and we received a coded order as to what to do and how to proceed.

14 JUDGE ORIE: So the simple answer is then it was an oral order

15 communicated through a radio.

16 Please proceed.

17 MR. WEBER:

18 Q. When did you carry out this order that you received? When was it

19 that you moved the civilians from Vares?

20 A. Late in the day. One part of that, the part that we were in

21 charge of, we received that late in the day. We received one part

22 sometime late in the afternoon and the other part during the night.

23 Q. Do you remember what month this was in 1993?

24 A. No, I can't remember. I can't remember. It was a long time ago.

25 A long time ago, it was.

Page 24723

1 Q. Okay. Toward the end of this document, there are references to

2 the Ilidza SJB. Is it correct that members of the public security

3 service of the RS MUP also participated in these operations?

4 A. Of course, of course. Ilidza was a very compact unit. The

5 troops co-operated with the civilian police. We carried out tasks

6 together, especially when it came to the defence of the territory and

7 saving the civilians. I have to tell you that the civilian and military

8 authorities co-operated in saving those people, which means that the

9 police was also involved.

10 Q. In paragraph 13 of your statement, you state:

11 "The police from the corps as well as senior officers were

12 present on this occasion."

13 Are you referring to this occasion where you carried out the

14 orders from Vares? It's unclear from the statement what occasion you are

15 referring to.

16 A. That area in Brgule was very narrow as you go from Vares via

17 Brgule. There was a lot of troops deployed there. The corps military

18 police were also there. They had come to assist with the task ordered by

19 the command of the Ilidza Brigade, and they in turn had received that

20 order from the main command; i.e., the general himself.

21 Q. Is it correct that --

22 A. Because it was not only a task of the Ilidza Brigade. All the

23 brigades had to take part in the action to save the civilians from there.

24 It was a major operation.

25 Q. Is it correct that the occasion that you are referring to is the

Page 24724

1 occasion where Croats were transferred from Vares?

2 A. This is not what I think. I was there and we helped the Croatian

3 population to get out of there.

4 Q. Sir, just help me out here. If you look at paragraph 13, what

5 occasion are you referring to? Are you referring to Vares?

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If you refer to paragraph --

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If you refer to paragraph 13 of his statement --

9 MR. WEBER: Yes.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- you should call up it on the screen because he

11 is looking at the screen.

12 MR. WEBER: Thank you.

13 Q. Yes. I am referring to your statement which I see you have in

14 front of you.

15 A. Yes, paragraph -- yes. Yes.

16 Q. And in that paragraph of your statement you're referring to the

17 occasion that you've been talking about with respect to Vares?

18 JUDGE ORIE: The answer of the witness does not appear on the

19 transcript.

20 Do I understand that you confirmed that the occasion you refer to

21 in paragraph 13 was the occasion where citizens of Vares were assisted in

22 leaving?

23 A. Yes, yes.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.

25 MR. WEBER: Thank you very much, Your Honour.

Page 24725

1 I tender this document into evidence.

2 MR. IVETIC: No objection.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Document 31024 receives number P6692,

5 Your Honours.

6 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

7 Mr. Weber, when you quoted the first line where you said there

8 may be some mistake about the month, you refer to it as the 10th of what

9 you think, but even the number 10 --

10 MR. WEBER: Okay.

11 JUDGE ORIE: -- may be something like 18 --

12 MR. WEBER: Eighteen -- yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: -- or so. Therefore, if there is any dispute about

14 that, I just want to put on the record that the Chamber does not

15 immediately, or at least I do not immediately, agree with you that it's

16 for certain a 10.

17 MR. WEBER: I actually agree with you, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 MR. WEBER: I think I said it wrong and thank you for catching

20 it. It's the Prosecution's position that the correct date would be

21 18 June 1993.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

23 Witness, one additional question in relation to this document.

24 Was this what you say major operation the only time you assisted in the

25 escort of Croats from Vares? That this was a one-time operation? A

Page 24726

1 similar thing did not happen in the same year at other moments? You

2 understand my question?

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Translation.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Or is there a translation issue?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When it comes to Vares -- I

6 understood your question. When it comes to Vares, it was a major

7 operation. A very demanding operation, Your Honour. And it --

8 JUDGE ORIE: I just was interested to know whether such an

9 operation - that is, a large number of civilians moving out of Vares,

10 where you were involved in it - whether that was the only time that you

11 were involved in such an operation in relation to Vares?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we are talking a major

13 operation, then yes.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, I'm looking at the clock. It's time for

15 a break. Where are we as far as time is concerned?

16 MR. WEBER: I will definitely finish today in the next session.

17 I think if there is only 20 minutes, I will probably use most of the next

18 session.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I will ask Madam Registrar how much time you

20 have used until now.

21 But we'll hear that during the break.

22 Witness, we'll take a break of 20 minutes. You'll be escorted

23 out of the courtroom.

24 [The witness stands down]

25 JUDGE ORIE: And we resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.

Page 24727

1 --- Recess taken at 1.23 p.m.

2 --- On resuming at 1.44 p.m.

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

4 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, could I correct a transcript reference

5 from earlier today?

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Weber.

7 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at page 48, line 18, I believe today's

8 transcript records me as referring to P55. The correct reference would

9 be P355.

10 [The witness takes the stand]

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's then hereby corrected.

12 Mr. Weber, you may proceed.

13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

14 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have P2006, page 3 of

15 the B/C/S original and page 2 of the English translation.

16 Q. Sir, I just want to broaden out from Vares a little bit and ask

17 you more generally about some information. Before you is Directive 5

18 from General Mladic, dated 25 June 1993. Specifically, I'd like you --

19 to focus your attention on section 3 that discusses the battle that is

20 raging between the Muslims and Croats. Just stopping here, in June of

21 1993 were you aware that the Muslims and Croats were fighting one

22 another?

23 A. No, we had other problems. That was not one of them, and I

24 really did not understand because the Muslims and the Croats tied their

25 flags together in Sarajevo. That had never been the case before. I

Page 24728

1 didn't realise why that was happening.

2 Q. Okay. Let's go on, and I want to focus you on a particular part

3 of section 3. It's where General Mladic states:

4 "The VRS is trying to exploit this conflict and do everything to

5 prevent that the weapons used by the HVO" from "falling into Muslim

6 hands, but rather by reasoned military and political moves to force the

7 Croats to turn these weapons and their positions over to us."

8 Do I understand correctly that you were not aware of this

9 objective while you were carrying out operations in Vares?

10 A. You have to know that Ilidza, being Ilidza where I was,

11 co-operated with the Croatian forces throughout the war; the forces in

12 Kiseljak, that is. We literally never waged war in that part, so I don't

13 understand your question. In that part we were on good terms. We did

14 not attack each other at all.

15 Q. My question was very simple and it was just: Were you or were

16 you not aware of what General Mladic says in section 3 of this directive?

17 A. No, I do not understand.

18 Q. Okay.

19 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have P358, page 243 of

20 the B/C/S original and page 240 of the English translation.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Didn't you understand the question or -- the

22 question was rather clear, Witness.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I'm listening. I'm listening.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, what Mr. Weber puts to you is that

25 General Mladic in this notebook states that:

Page 24729

1 "The VRS is trying to exploit this conflict and do everything to

2 prevent that the weapons used by the HVO not fall into Muslim hands but

3 rather by recent military and political moves to force the Croats to turn

4 these weapons and their positions over to us."

5 Now, the question is: Were you or were you not aware of this

6 position as written down by Mr. Mladic?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

9 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Q. Before you is an 8 July 1993 entry from one of General Mladic's

11 notebooks concerning a meeting with President Slobodan Milosevic.

12 According to these notes, Radovan Karadzic, General Panic,

13 Prime Minister Sainovic, and Ivica Stanisic are also present at this

14 meeting. According to the notes, General Mladic records

15 President Karadzic as stating:

16 "Help the Croats in order to force the Muslims to agree on a

17 division of Bosnia."

18 Were you aware that the Bosnian Serb leadership wanted to help

19 the Croats in 1993 in order to force the Muslims to divide Bosnia?

20 A. No.

21 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 31025.

22 Q. Coming up before you is a 20 August 1993 letter from the

23 president of the Vares municipality to President Franjo Tudjman and

24 others. According to the first paragraph of the letter, the letter

25 communicates the concerns of thousands of Croats from Vares who are

Page 24730

1 worried about unacceptable solutions being imposed on them and new

2 attempts to separate the Croatian population in this area from the rest

3 of the Croatian people. I just wanted you to see that for context.

4 I'd like to now go down and direct your attention to the fourth

5 paragraph, where the letter states:

6 "The Croats of Vares are firm in their decision to continue to

7 lead their own life on their own land. That is why they tried and

8 succeeded in preserving Vares for themselves, and not for those who

9 attack it."

10 In your evidence you have claimed that the civilians in Vares

11 wanted to leave. I put it to you that this is not accurate based on what

12 we see in this letter; is this correct?

13 A. We obviously did not understand each other. Yes, in this letter

14 we can see that the Croats wanted to remain in Vares, but they were

15 driven out by the ABiH not the VRS. The VRS saved them. They were

16 driven from Vares and attacked. The town and the villages around it were

17 attacked by the ABiH, expelling Croats. The Croats had to leave. God

18 forbid they had stayed. There would have been many victims. We saved

19 them and I'm proud of it.

20 Q. So you acknowledge that the Croats -- the local Croat, Bosnian

21 Croat population of Vares did not want to leave?

22 A. They lived there. They spent their lives in Vares and they were

23 driven out by the army of BiH. We were simply observers who came to

24 their rescue. We saved them. We saved the children. You have to

25 acknowledge that. You have to acknowledge that, sir, that we saved the

Page 24731

1 children. As a boy who was a soldier at the time, I'm proud of it, and

2 you have to be aware of it.

3 Q. We'll --

4 A. I'd rather not discuss it any longer.

5 Q. Okay. We're actually going to go through some more information

6 about that. I understand correctly that your evidence is that the local

7 Croat population of Vares did not want to leave.

8 A. Not until they were attacked. That is the short answer.

9 Q. A little later in the sixth paragraph of this letter, it states

10 that all other solutions, impossible political bargains, would be --

11 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]

12 JUDGE ORIE: No speaking aloud, no speaking aloud.

13 MR. IVETIC: I'm told the B/C/S translation has ceased. The

14 French channel is blending into the B/C/S channel.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could we continue. Let's take it that -- yes,

16 translation is okay now again.

17 Please proceed.

18 MR. WEBER:

19 Q. I'll start again.

20 A. [In English] okay.

21 Q. A little later in the sixth paragraph of the letter, it states

22 that all other solution, impossible political bargains, would be

23 interpreted by the Croatian people as a betrayal of their interests.

24 Were you aware of whether the local Croat population of Vares felt

25 betrayed by their own leaders because of an agreement with the VRS?

Page 24732

1 A. [Interpretation] At that time we did not consider that. We

2 simply followed our orders and tasks. The only thing that was on our

3 minds was to save their lives, to save those people who were incapable of

4 defending themselves from the aggression on Vares launched by the ABiH.

5 That's what I know and that's the only thing I can say and confirm. Any

6 other thing referring to politics, what was agreed with Tudjman, what was

7 agreed to by the HVO, I don't know. It was high politics for me at the

8 time. I was simply a direct participant who assisted those people to

9 leave.

10 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution would tender 65 ter 31025 into

11 evidence.

12 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, this witness has not identified

13 knowledge of any of the document's terms. It's not sent to him. We

14 think it's not a proper document to come in through the cross-examination

15 of this witness and the fashion that it's been used, to draw

16 half-conclusions from text that doesn't say what the Prosecution says it

17 says.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.

20 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Defence has now led evidence about

21 Vares, a municipality not in the indictment. And I'm attempting to lead

22 some information to give the Chamber a proper context so it may

23 adjudicate events that relate to this matter. The witness has partially

24 acknowledged certain sentiments the local Croat population and his lack

25 of awareness of certain things at higher levels. I believe this document

Page 24733

1 is relevant. It does have nexus to the topic in evidence of this witness

2 and it is important for the Chamber to have this material in order for

3 the Chamber to properly adjudicate events that happened in this

4 municipality.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, I didn't hear Mr. Ivetic complaining

6 about it not being an indictment municipality.

7 MR. IVETIC: No.

8 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- for other reasons I think he objected to

9 admission.

10 MR. WEBER: And the reason I mention it is because there is not

11 much other information so far in the record about this. So to say or

12 possibly later submit that there is a certain purpose of operations in

13 Vares based on minimal evidence led by a Defence witness and then not

14 enable the Prosecution to tender appropriately information that relates

15 to those events, I think would be quite limiting and would leave an

16 incomplete record.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The objection is denied. The document covers

18 events which are closely related to events the witness testified about

19 and that's the reason why the Chamber denies the objection.

20 Madam Registrar.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Document 31025 receives number P6693,

22 Your Honours.

23 JUDGE ORIE: P6693 is admitted into evidence.

24 MR. WEBER:

25 Q. And then, sir, I'd like to ask you just in general a more

Page 24734

1 specific time-period. Do you recall whether or not when you engaged in

2 this operation to move civilians from Vares, whether that was in the

3 summer -- I'm sorry, can you hear me? Was that operation in the summer

4 or the fall of 1993? Was it warm out or was it getting cold?

5 A. I said a moment ago that I do not recall the exact date, but it

6 was neither warm nor cold, similar to the weather conditions here today.

7 Perhaps that's how I can explain. It was rather grey.

8 Q. I'll just precisely put it -- a time-period to you. Do you

9 recall where you were at late October 1993 and early November 1993?

10 A. Believe me when I say that it was a long time ago, but it was

11 within that range of two to three months.

12 Q. When you say --

13 A. I don't know the date. I cannot say anything regard that. It's

14 been 20 years and many things happened in the meantime. Whatever I said

15 would be untrue.

16 Q. I'm not asking for a specific date, but just said: "But it was

17 within the range of the two to three months." What is the "it" that

18 you're referring to?

19 A. It concerns the event you're asking me about.

20 Q. Okay.

21 A. It was within that range, that's when it happened. I don't know

22 the exact date.

23 Q. And what months, two to three months, are you referring to? To

24 the best of your recollection.

25 A. September, October, around that time. Those two to three months.

Page 24735

1 In that period.

2 Q. Okay. One last document, actually.

3 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 31022.

4 Q. This is a letter from the archbishop of Vrhbosna to

5 President Franjo Tudjman dated 31 October 1993. In the third paragraph

6 of the letter the archbishop discusses an alleged statement from a

7 commander in a municipality in Central Bosnia who stated:

8 "We have an agreement made with the Serbian side. They will

9 offer the HVO its assistance, cleanse the area controlled by us, and the

10 Serbs will make it possible for us to move the Croats from Kiseljak,

11 Kresevo, Vares, Vitez, and Busovaca. We shall hand those areas over to

12 the Chetniks. Our bosses and the Serbian bosses have agreed on solving

13 these areas in this way."

14 MR. WEBER: And if the Prosecution could have the next page in

15 the English translation only.

16 Q. In the middle of the next paragraph, the archbishop states in

17 reference to the HVO:

18 "They constantly claim that they keep receiving such orders. I

19 am no longer confident that the Croatian politics protects us. We feel

20 that we have been sacrificed and condemned to a slow death at that."

21 I'm showing you this material for context. But based on this

22 document and the other materials we have seen today, I put it to you that

23 the local Croat population of Vares did not want to move but did so not

24 because of attacks by the ABiH but because of an agreement between the

25 Croatian and Bosnian Serb leadership which further served the

Page 24736

1 Bosnian Serb interests of dividing Bosnia. Do you have any comments or

2 any other comments other than the ones you've made today?

3 A. No problem. You are obviously good at what you do, and you're

4 trying to put a twist on the issue of transferring people. Out of

5 respect, I'd like to explain. The Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina attacked

6 the territory. It is the only fact, the only truth in all of this. That

7 was the only thing I was interested in. Now, what Puljic wrote, what

8 other high politicians wrote is their own problem. I was a soldier. I

9 saw an armed force killing people and torching villages, and I had to

10 help the people. I did. It was true that the ABiH wanted to approach

11 the Serb lines to a minimum distance because shortly afterwards they did

12 approach our lines and killed several of our soldiers at Brgule where the

13 area through which we pulled out the Croats. So I'm only speaking from

14 the military point of view. I do not wish to discuss any high politics

15 and the statements of senior politicians. I would rather not go into it.

16 I have nothing to do with it, and I don't even know what the context is

17 that you're putting me in. Why should I discuss what Vinko Puljic

18 discussed with other politicians. I do not wish to comment and I'm not

19 competent to address it.

20 Q. Okay.

21 MR. WEBER: At this time the Prosecution tenders the exhibit into

22 evidence for the same reasons as the last document.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.

24 MR. IVETIC: The witness knows nothing about the document itself,

25 but I would add, if -- given that we've learned the Prosecution's

Page 24737

1 position on this, I would inquire of the Prosecution when they will be

2 dropping the genocide counts in the indictment, if it's -- if population

3 exchanges were due to an agreement, when will the genocide count be

4 dropped?

5 MR. WEBER: Your Honour --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Weber.

7 MR. WEBER: -- if you'll forgive me, I'm not going to respond to

8 that.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber responds to the first line, Mr. Ivetic,

11 you spoke, that the witness knows nothing about the document itself. And

12 on the basis of that, that objection is denied as a reason for

13 nonadmission for the same reasons as related to the previous ones; that

14 is, that it's related to the reasons the witness has given for the

15 operations.

16 Madam Registrar, the number would be?

17 THE REGISTRAR: Document 31022 receives number P6694,

18 Your Honours.

19 JUDGE ORIE: P6694 is admitted.

20 MR. WEBER:

21 Q. And, sir, I just have one more question left for you today. And

22 it relates to the assault battalion that you joined in early 1994. Is it

23 correct that until 17 April 1994, the commander of the assault battalion

24 was Slobodan Janjic?

25 A. Yes. The assault battalion of the Ilidza Brigade.