1 Thursday, 7 December 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
7 The affirmation you made at the beginning of your evidence, of
8 course, Mr. Vuga, still applies.
9 Mr. Weiner, have you had a fresh breath?
10 MR. WEINER: Yes.
11 WITNESS: PETAR VUGA [Resumed]
12 [The witness answered through interpreter]
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Weiner: [Continued]
14 Q. Good morning, sir.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. I'm just going to tell you where we left off yesterday and ask the
17 final the question and then we are all done, at least on this side of the
18 court. Yesterday, we discussed the various officers and soldiers in
19 Negoslavci, Vukovar, and Ovcara that were aware or had heard of the
20 disappearance of the prisoners and that they might have been murdered, and
21 some of them even were aware of the murders and participated in the
22 murders. And you stated at page 15880 that there was a certain circle of
23 persons among whom this circulated. That's 15880 in the transcript. Do
24 you recall your testimony that there was a certain circle?
25 The last question was: And that circle of discussion about these
1 murders and -- or disappearance reached Major Vukasinovic. Based on the
2 testimony, isn't that correct?
3 A. Based on what exactly was said about this circle of persons, well,
4 it's difficult to at the define them as a circle of persons, because that
5 would be quite specific in terms of the way they related to each other;
6 but, rather, the number of people involved because these people were in
7 different places. Therefore, I would be hard put to say it was a circle
8 of persons, but I do accept that it was a certain number of persons who,
9 while in touch a Major Vukasinovic, shared information with him that he
10 has spoken about.
11 I'm not saying that this information was not good information in
12 terms of what could be inferred based on such information. However, the
13 problem in my research was this: What became later of any information
14 obtained by Major Vukasinovic? That is the trail that I haven't found.
15 And for me, as a counter-intelligence man and someone who has spent a
16 great deal of my life gathering information, this indicated that some
17 information had gone missing somewhere or had been blocked somewhere. The
18 original sources, as they were, were impossible for me to reconstruct and
20 There are other references, two references specifically, where I
21 found a certain resistance, the resistance towards the environment by
22 formation units that were part of OG South. I would not like to detain
23 you on this, but such resistance indeed existed. It is my job to tell you
24 that. Just a piece of statistics from my experience, which will perhaps
25 help you understand why it my position was what it was.
1 I studied the security situation in the JNA from the point of view
2 of counter-intelligence and receiving early information received by any
3 operative officer. I did that throughout the JNA as the chief of an organ
4 for research. While doing that, I established the following, rather, my
5 results were the following: 67.5 percent of any first information, early
6 information, used later on for purposes of work would be erroneous. It
7 was bad information, poor information, or one jumped the gun too early and
8 went with that early information.
9 That is what led me to conclude that experience of mine that the
10 first report was not done properly, because the early information was
11 taken at face value. The problem is there is a person who receives this
12 with his own, reflects his abilities, problems, and so on and so forth,
13 let me not tell you this. So the first recipient of information in this
14 case did not meet certain criteria that I spoke about.
15 I thank you indeed for your patience but this is the answer coming
16 from an expert.
17 MR. WEINER: Excuse me, Your Honour.
18 No further questions. Thank you very much, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Weiner.
20 Yes, Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
22 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic
23 Q. Good morning, Mr. Vuga.
24 A. Good morning, Mr. Lukic.
25 Q. We'll try to tackle some topics raised by my colleagues.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Can Mr. Lukic please speak
2 into the microphone, the interpreters can barely hear him.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. First of all, let me ask you a couple of questions stemming from
5 Mr. Domazet's questions two days ago.
6 Mr. Domazet put it to you -- leave that report be for the time
7 being, Mr. Vuga, just listen to my question; and as soon as necessary, we
8 will be going back to your report.
9 Mr. Domazet put it to you that in your report, you stated that a
10 decision was made at the government meeting on the 20th of November. He
11 asked you how you were able to ascertain that decision had been made and
12 based on which documents. This is at page 48, the draft version.
13 Let us look at your report, page 63 of the B/C/S, paragraph 10,
14 please. This is footnote 127 and 128.
15 A. I have that page.
16 Q. You say: "Commander Mrksic authorised Lieutenant-Colonel Panic to
17 give his consent for the surrender of POWs from the hospital."
18 In the last paragraph of this paragraph,"Miodrag, following
19 consent from the commander of" --
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't get the footnote that
21 Mr. Lukic read.
22 Q. -- You're not talking about any agreement from the government;
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to the interpreters. I
1 will repeat the last portion that I read out in English. "Miodrag Panic
2 having received authorisation from the commander of OG South gave his
3 approval for the POWs from the hospital to be handed over to the
4 government of the SAO SBWS, so they might be tried for any crimes that
5 they committed in Vukovar."
6 Q. Mr. Vuga, based on your conclusions in your report, with regard to
7 these prisoners as far as the security aspect was concerned, what was the
8 decisive factor, the decision of the government or the consent of Colonel
9 Mrksic which he had granted through Lieutenant-Colonel Panic?
10 A. Based on what I'm looking at and also based on what can be gleaned
11 by looking at the documents, and if you look at the parties involved, it
12 is my conviction that the decisive factor was that the prisoners of war
13 were later found along an axis, which according to previous experience
14 with the Mitnica group, or later for that matter because there were none,
15 so if you ask me this was a water shed.
16 I can't say whether the one or the other was the decisive factor
17 but there was some sort of a water shed, a turning point. That at least
18 is my understanding. Decision, well, what is a decision? Formally
19 speaking, it's just a piece of paper, perhaps, in a legal sense. But it's
20 hardly something for me to address.
21 Q. If there was a government decision in any form or shape, do you
22 think that would have affected the army in terms of the army not granting
23 their approval for the prisoners of war to be handed over?
24 A. In my report, I did say that there was no subordination between
25 these two bodies. They were mutually independent. The army had no power
1 over that government and vice versa. That particular government had no
2 power over the army, and that, I suppose, answers your question.
3 Q. Very well. Another question that stems from Mr. Domazet's
4 questions. You told him about when, how, and why this was handed over by
5 the government; and then at page 58, you placed this in relation to the
6 barracks. I'll show you a page of your own report, which is page 66.
7 You state on that page that those persons were in actual fact part
8 of the security of the 80th Motorised Brigade, up until the time that this
9 was taken over by the TO and the 80th Motorised Brigade had already
11 Mr. Vuga, based on the documents that you analyse and the witness
12 statements and everything else that was available to you, these TO
13 members, did they have any effective power, control over those people up
14 until the moment the security of the 80th Brigade withdrew from the area?
15 A. No, or at least they weren't supposed to have any power
17 Q. Thank you very much.
18 Let's move on to something different, please. Again, something
19 that was raised by Mr. Domazet. He showed you the evidence of Mr. Panic
20 about the fact that purportedly Sljivancanin had been appointed to be in
21 charge of the hospital evacuation. He told you that Mr. Panic had said
22 that and that this was recorded in the transcript. Please leave that be,
23 just listen to me, sir.
24 You gave the answers that you gave. I will read to you what Mr.
25 Domazet had put to you as Panic's evidence. This is 14385. He says: "The
1 fact is Major Sljivancanin was given the task of selection, rather, than
2 not only selection and not only he but also his organs. Dr. Vesna
3 Bosanac, the hospital staff, organs from the security administration that
4 had arrived to separate the combatants from the non-combatants."
5 That's what Mr. Panic said on that page. There is another page of
6 the transcript that was put to you by Mr. Domazet, 14294 and 14295.
7 Panic says: "We asked him what his task was in relation to the
8 hospital evacuation, and he said he had a very serious task, a difficult
9 one alongside with the security organs of OG South and those who worked at
10 the hospital, the doctors, as well as those who had been discharged from
11 the hospital and who were familiar with the hospital, to separate the
12 wounded and the patients from the combatants with the assistance of Dr.
13 Bosanac and everybody else."
14 Once this has been read back to you, and this is something that
15 you invoke in one of your own footnotes, is that not consistent with the
16 conclusion in your report that you were never able to ascertain, with sure
17 and certain knowledge, that Sljivancanin was in charge of the hospital
19 A. This is entirely consistent with my own findings. There is one
20 thing that can be raised in relation to this though. I'm not sure of the
21 term that I used can be translated into language properly.
22 Q. Let me ask you a question about something that Mr. Weiner asked
23 you yesterday. He asked you something about whether Mr. Sljivancanin had
24 been carrying out tasks outside his purview, and then he put it to you
25 that he did things in relation to logistics and morale and artillery
1 guidance. I will be asking you further questions about that later.
2 What do you think -- this may be outside your own competence as a
3 counter-intelligence expert, but it does have to do with issues raised by
4 Mr. Weiner. Mr. Sljivancanin, as a member of command, a commander of a
5 brigade or an operations group, was he required to inform the commander of
6 anything that he noticed while touring a certain unit?
7 A. I retired several years ago, but I had previously spent a total of
8 40 years in the army that we are talking about. The entire idea of the
9 JNA rested on the idea of support to command and control by everyone
10 involved in this military organisation. As far as the support went, some
11 were extremely enthusiastic, some were a little less enthusiastic, and
12 some took no part in it at all. I did not assess Major Sljivancanin's
13 position inside this chain of support, but certainly what he did was not
14 contrary to anything that a JNA officer would have been expected to do.
15 It certainly wasn't contrary to anything that the JNA, as the official
16 armed forces of the SFRY, rested upon or was based upon.
17 Q. Did it run counter to anything that he did, that he often toured
18 the front line to look for missing soldiers or, indeed, to be in touch
19 with officers and soldiers along the front line?
20 A. When we speak about these things, first, you need to consider the
21 problems and then the place where these problems are. The security
22 problems were a -- the worst in a place of conflict where the sides were
23 clashing or somewhere else; hence, desertion, drops in morale, all other
24 subversive actions. This is all something about the front line. Whoever
25 has the courage to face these problems can go and face these problems or
1 remain at a safe distance.
2 Q. Would this be contrary to what a security organ would normally do?
3 A. I omitted this, because I wrote about this in my report. In my
4 report, I wrote that this was by no means contrary. You had to know where
5 the problem was, and you had to know about how doing to go about it.
6 Q. Yes, that is entirely true. You did note that in your report in
7 no uncertain terms. What about defeatism and spreading misinformation?
8 A. When I talked about the purview at the outset -- I'll have to go
9 back to this. I told you at the outset that we'd be talking about it over
10 and over again, because this really is the gist of everything. One thing
11 is certain though, anything that undermines the combat readiness of a unit
12 or its ability to carry out its tasks must be studied in order to be
13 forestalled and nipped in the bud. Defeatism grows into panic; and once
14 you have panic, the army is soon off the front line. This is a very
15 important task for security organs and for everybody else alike.
16 Q. There were a lot of questions and answers about artillery fire
17 correction. You are familiar with the facts related to that, aren't you?
18 My question is: If artillery fire is directed in a poor way, what can
19 possibly be the reasons, and what can a security organ have to do with
20 that? How can a security organ get involved?
21 A. I'd have to tell you something about something else that dates
22 back to 60 years ago. It's experience that is 60 years old. I'm talking
23 about shot, gunpowder. The epilogue was this: Whoever finds that
24 something is not right is merely the first link in a chain that a security
25 organ has to use to look for reasons, and this is also your answer.
1 Did one have to look for reasons at the time as to why we were
2 suffering losses from our own artillery. Was this gunpowder? If so,
3 then why? Was this something else? If so, then why? Okay. Here is
4 where a security organ steps in, because this is exactly the sort of
5 situation where you get a lot of underground subversive activity.
6 Q. Yesterday, at page 17 of the draft transcript, Mr. Weiner asked
7 you about these very things. And you said your job was to ascertain
8 whether Mr. Sljivancanin's role as a security officer was well within the
9 regulations, and you answered that question. I'll ask you: What is your
10 conclusion? Was it within the regulations or not?
11 A. At the beginning of my report, I indicated that I dealt with the
12 function. And everything else that was outside of the framework of the
13 function, I did not deal with them because I didn't believe that they
14 belonged in my expert report. I presented this function the way it was;
15 and in this function, I did not find anything that would be contrary to
16 the regulations.
17 The only thing one could discuss here would be to see whether the
18 regulations themselves are perfect or not, but there isn't such a thing as
19 perfect regulations.
20 Q. Thank you. Let me move on to another topic now that was touched
21 upon in the cross-examination when Mr. Weiner asked you about your
22 conclusions that you were unable to determine unequivocally whether
23 Sljivancanin had been appointed to command the evacuation of the hospital.
24 You said that yesterday at page 12.
25 He put to you the statement made by Mr. Panic, the statement he
1 gave to the OTP and some other statements that you have been familiar
2 with. But as indicated in your footnotes, you were also made aware of his
3 testimony and I actually showed you his testimony yesterday.
4 I will not now quote from that. But once you know about what Mr.
5 Panic testified, is there any other document, statement, testimony,
6 anything that would bring into question this conclusion that you made that
7 you have been unable to unequivocally determine whether Sljivancanin was
8 indeed appointed to command the evacuation?
9 A. If you allow me. I have had time to think about all those issues,
10 but I'm concerned about the understanding of the term "unequivocal" here.
11 It seems to me that it caused much more confusion than I intended. I said
12 that I didn't determine this unequivocally. This means that any other
13 statement might be equivocal so -- or ambiguous, so I should be in a
14 position where there is absolutely no other way to interpret this; and
15 then I will be in the position to say yes, this is how it was.
16 I simply left some leeway for myself, because I didn't have the
17 kind of evidence that I would consider complete. And I left it for the
18 Trial Chamber to make the final determination on the basis of those facts
19 that were not at my disposal when I was making my conclusions.
20 Q. Could you please move on to page 56 of your report, that's the
21 page that contains the footnote number 98 for the Prosecution and Your
22 Honours. This, again, concerns the testimony of the Mr. Panic, and this
23 is something that my learned colleague cross-examined you on.
24 In paragraph 3, you first use the term -- you say:
25 "In documents, the activities of Colonel Pavkovic are quite
1 clearly defined, particularly when it comes to the tasks and jobs that, by
2 their character and significance, pertain to the role of an officer
3 commanding the evacuation."
4 In your conclusions, and I will be asking you questions about
5 that, you referred to the documents from the ECMM, the war log, and the
6 video recording of the conversation between Borsinger and Pavkovic?
7 A. Yes, that is correct.
8 Q. My question to you is: Based on the documents that you had at
9 your disposal, who was in charge of the negotiations regarding the
10 surrender of the Mitnica Battalion, just very briefly?
11 A. Based on the documents, the negotiations on the surrender of the
12 Mitnica Battalion were led by Colonel Pavkovic.
13 Q. Based on the documents that you used, who was in charge of the
14 negotiations with the ECMM and the International Red Cross regarding the
15 evacuation of the hospital on the 19th of November in Negoslavci?
16 A. Again, Colonel Pavkovic.
17 Q. Who interpreted the positions of the supreme command to the ECMM
18 and the ICRC regarding which of the wounded could be evacuated and which
19 could not?
20 A. Colonel Pavkovic.
21 Q. This interpretation take by Colonel Pavkovic to the effect that
22 the supreme command would not allow the wounded members of the ZNG to be
23 evacuated, was that the basis for the triage that was conducted in the
25 A. It was one of the basis for that, in addition to all the other
1 laws and regulations that deal with this issue.
2 Q. Based on the documents that you had at your disposal, who brought
3 in the convoy of the ambulances to the hospital on the 20th of November
4 for the evacuation of the hospital?
5 MR. WEINER: Objection. There were two evacuations, Your Honour,
6 on the 20th. He should specify the prisoner evacuation or the evacuation
7 of the wounded.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Well, this was a really very quick
10 response on your part, and the witness could not respond. My question was
11 quite clear: The evacuation of the wounded, not of the prisoners.
12 Q. Who led the convoy for the evacuation of the wounded on the 20th
13 of November. That was my question.
14 A. Colonel Pavkovic was at the head of the column that was supposed
15 to evacuate the wounded on that day, and it is quite clear, there is quite
16 a lot of evidence to that fact.
17 Q. Who led or who handed over the convoy to the wounded to the
18 Croatian side, and who was commended on the Croatian side?
19 A. Based on all of the documents that pertain to this issue and that
20 I had at my disposal, the role of Colonel Pavkovic is quite clearly
21 outlined in all those documents.
22 Q. And the last question on this topic, regarding all those issues,
23 problems about the convoy, and so on, who reported to the OG South?
24 A. On the basis of combat documents referring to this activity, the
25 person that is named there is Colonel Pavkovic.
1 Q. Thank you. You drew certain conclusions in your report, so I will
2 not be going into that. Let me move on to another topic.
3 The Prosecutor asked you some questions about Bogdan Vujic and his
4 communique regarding the events in Velepromet. Colonel Bogdan Vujic
5 within the tasks that he performed in the evacuation of the hospital,
6 could he have been subordinated to Major Sljivancanin? Could Major
7 Sljivancanin issue any orders to him?
8 MR. WEINER: I object to that, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
10 MR. WEINER: That's outside the scope of the cross-examination.
11 JUDGE PARKER: What do you say to that, Mr. Lukic?
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I don't think so, because Mr. Weiner
13 did ask an explicit question to Mr. Vuga whether he had any knowledge if
14 Colonel Vujic informed Major Sljivancanin about the events in Velepromet.
15 And if this actually stemmed from their relationship of subordination,
16 then I have to clear this up. So that was Mr. Weiner's question, explicit
17 question: Is Mr. Vuga aware that Mr. Vujic said that on the 19th in the
18 evening, he informed Sljivancanin about the bodies in Velepromet.
19 In order to clarify this issue, I want to establish whether there
20 was any subordination relationship between the two in accordance with the
21 regulations and the report.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
23 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour. The question was concerning what
24 happened at Velepromet, which I asked the witness if he was aware of
25 certain things at Velepromet including the room of death and killings; and
1 then I asked him if he was aware that Mr. Vujic informed Colonel Mrksic
2 during the late evening, and between 1.00 and 2.00 in the morning, he also
3 informed Mr. Sljivancanin. I didn't ask anything about their command
4 relationship, any -- I didn't get into subordination between the two.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] If I may supplement my interpretation
7 before your decision.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic, the vote is in your favour at the
9 moment. Ask again.
10 Q. So, Mr. Vuga, you know what I want to hear. In accordance with
11 what you put in your report and the regulations, in light of his task in
12 Vukovar, did Vujic -- was Vujic subordinate to Sljivancanin in any way?
13 A. This question that you asked is something that I dealt with at
14 length in my report, so you can either be satisfied with that or let me
15 make you -- let me make a more simple explanation. Because regulations
16 sometimes may seem complex, it must be said that the officers from the
17 superior command, who go to a place to offer help, go there as officers
18 holding a post and having the kind of experience that guarantees that
19 their capabilities are greater than the persons to whom they offer this
20 kind of assistance, which is called direct assistance in the regulations.
21 So this is not only the usual occurrence, it is actually
22 stipulated in the regulations. In order to preserve this kind of
23 relationship, these capabilities, this kind of assistance are not made
24 subordinate to the person who is not able to use them to the end and in
25 the way that they were meant to be. That is why very seldom those forces
1 are subordinate to the officer to whom they have come to provide
2 assistance. This is stipulated in the regulations.
3 Q. Thank you. Let me move on to another topic. You were shown
4 Exhibit 718, the report on Arkan drafted by the security organ from the
5 1st army Colonel Mile Babic, I will not be putting that on the screen. If
6 necessary, we can do that later. My question to you is whether this
7 document or any other document that you had at your disposal indicated to
8 you that this information was submitted to the security organ of the OG
9 South or Guards Motorised Brigade?
10 A. When I saw this document yesterday, I was doubly surprised. The
11 first surprise was that an operational information was actually that this
12 kind of report was actually drafted by General Babic, the chief of
13 security in the 1st army. The second surprise to me was what actually
14 happened in this report. In light of the position that he held and his
15 duties, General Babic was supposed to indicate that he had informed his
16 commander about the problem that he had identified.
17 That was his duty so that his superior organ, in technical terms
18 or professional terms, may have a complete picture of what happened with
19 this report. This was not done. And this is quite unusual in light of
20 the gravity of the problem and the responsibility, because problems
21 occurred in the area of responsibility of the 1st Army District.
22 So the security organ, with General Babic as the chief and the
23 commander of the 1st Army, were in fact responsible for it. This is what
24 follows from this report, from an expert point of view. I don't know
25 whether I'm missing anything here, but this is my conclusion based on the
1 information that I had.
2 Q. This is an additional explanation, but this is not a very specific
3 answer to my question. From the document, from the addressee, and from
4 the other documents that you had at your disposal, were you able to
5 determine that this document was actually delivered to the security organ
6 of OG South?
7 A. I missed that, because I thought that the way that this document
8 was treated was the same as when I explained that what is usually done
9 with this documents is you inform your subordinate organs and you give
10 them guidelines. So this was not done. This requirement was not met.
11 Q. Thank you. The document that I believe that you are familiar
12 with, that's the order 161482/81, Exhibit 415 issued by General Panic.
13 This is something that you referred to in your expert report. Now my
14 question to you is -- if you want we can put this document on the screen.
15 A. Yes, perhaps it would be good to put the document on the screen.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please put the last page of
17 Exhibit 415 on the screen. Could we please zoom in. I'm interested in
18 paragraph 8.
19 Q. It is stated in quite uncertain terms in this paragraph 8 that
20 nobody has the right to revenge -- to retaliation and other forms of
21 revenge such as those perpetrated by some TO units; and in the future, any
22 such activities -- the perpetrators of any such activities should be
23 arrested and appropriate legal action should be taken.
24 My question to you: Is it clear what TO units are referred to in
25 this, in light of the fact that this was a document originating from the
1 1st Army District?
2 A. There is a clear designation here, local TO; and local TO, in
3 principle, in accordance with the concept and the structure of the TO was
4 the territorial element that was operational in the area where it had
5 actually been mobilised and under the command of the local authorities.
6 Q. Can one determine unequivocally whether this refers to the Vukovar
7 TO or any other TO that was under the jurisdiction of the 1st Army
9 A. This is about the units of the local TO, some units of the TO, in
10 plural, all units of the TO that are in the area of the 1st Army District.
11 I don't know what units it actually referred to. But if there were any TO
12 units in this area, it referred to all those units.
13 Q. Let me just point to you that you may be mistaken. All or some
15 A. Some units within the local TO, so this is a more specific
16 explanation. I was just giving you just a very general one.
17 Q. Fine. If you have a military unit, who in that unit is in charge
18 of taking disciplinary measures in terms of command and control?
19 A. This is something that a unit commander does.
20 Q. In this document, there are references to General Panic holding
21 the commanders of all levels responsible for the implementation of this
22 order. My question is: What about the security organ? Are they part of
23 the chain of command in any direct way?
24 A. I've explained to you the position of a security organ. They are
25 technically in charge of state security affairs. As for command, they are
1 outside the chain of command. I do have to provide another clarification
2 with regard to the first part of this question, something that had slipped
3 my mind initially.
4 When talking about the area covered by the 1st Military District,
5 anyone wishing to interpret this must take into account everything that
6 fell under the command of the 1st Military District. That's what I wanted
7 to point out, so as to leave room for no exceptions.
8 Q. What about discipline, and what about obeying command orders? Is
9 that considered state security business?
10 MR. WEINER: Objection, Your Honour. Once again, we're outside
11 the scope of cross-examination.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic.
13 MR. LUKIC: I withdraw that, Your Honour.
14 Q. [Interpretation] I will now move on to the last topic, something
15 to do with what Mr. Weiner raised, something that you addressed towards
16 the end of your report. This is page 70 of your report. Just before the
17 summary, your opinion is that some knowledge attained by some individuals
18 in relation to the killing of the POWs was concealed before the security
19 organs. Those persons were afraid of being the source of information or
20 potential witnesses for such horrible events. This is what Mr. Weiner
21 asked you about Mr. Vukasinovic's evidence.
22 During our proofing, I think I told you this. But Mr. Weiner
23 invoked the evidence of Mr. Vukasinovic, and I'm telling you that Ljubisa
24 Vukasinovic stated this. This is page 15048. He says that he had heard
25 this from Bozic about certain persons going missing over the previous
1 night, and that these persons had been taken away and killed.
2 And he says, [In English] "I heard this, but I couldn't believe
3 that something of the sort might be possible. At that time, while the
4 combat operation were underway, there were many rumours flying around. It
5 was a war of misinformation."
6 [Interpretation] This is Mr. Vukasinovic's evidence in it's
7 entirety, but Mr. Weiner didn't show you the whole thing. When you
8 answered that question yesterday, at one point in time at page 78, you
9 said in reply to a question about ...
10 My question is: With regard to what I've just read to you,
11 Vukasinovic's evidence, that portion of Vukasinovic's evidence in it's
12 entirety, is it the responsibility of a security organ to check any rumour
13 that get wind of or only what appears to be reliable and already verified?
14 MR. WEINER: I object to that, Your Honour. That's a leading
15 question. That can be asked in a much different way without telling the
16 witness where it's going.
17 JUDGE PARKER: You're quite right, Mr. Weiner. Having now been
18 asked ...
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think there is an alternative
20 included in my question. I'm just telling the witness what he said, and I
21 think things were taken out of context yesterday. Bits of sentences were
22 read out, instead of whole portions of what certain witnesses said.
23 JUDGE PARKER: You can specifically remind the witness of the
24 evidence he gave yesterday; then if you think it's relevant, put to him
25 other passages or the complete passages and ask whether he has anything to
1 add to his answer yesterday.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Vuga, now that I've familiarised you with this entire portion
4 of Mr. Vukasinovic's evidence, does that change anything about your
5 report, or do you stand by your report?
6 A. Thank you. Thank you very much. Both you and Mr. Weiner have
7 greatly assisted me in saying something now that I may have put in very
8 mild terms in my report. It is this: In wartime, there is also a flood
9 of information and misinformation. If you have a melange like that, it is
10 an insurmountable difficulty if you have to track down reliable
11 information and follow it through.
12 I told you what this looked like in peacetime; and now having seen
13 this evidence, this is further confirmation of how it can be under
14 conditions of a civil war, which is a particularly cruel and merciless
15 kind of war. If I knew everything now at the time that I was writing my
16 report, I would have put this conclusion in even stronger terms than I
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Can we please go
19 into private session.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
21 [Private session]
11 Page 15904 redacted. Private session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open session, Your Honours.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Vuga, my final question is about the totality of questions
15 that you were asked by all the parties. Certain facts were put to you,
16 but I'm interested in the facts in relation to my client, specifically.
17 The very last page of your report at page 79 is your final conclusion in
18 actual fact, isn't it? I'll first read to you what you say there.
19 You compiled an expert report based on the witness statements, and
20 your conclusion was that Veselin Sljivancanin as acting in compliance with
21 the regulation envisaging what the purview, tasks, competencies and
22 responsibilities of a security organ should be in as far as securing
23 prisoners of war was part of their involvement.
24 Mr. Vuga, yes or no please, yesterday or the day before yesterday,
25 based on any questions that you were asked, would that -- would any of
1 those questions lead you to question this conclusion, your final
2 conclusion in relation to Mr. Sljivancanin?
3 A. After all the questions I've been asked, as far as this sentence
4 is concerned, and if you read it accurately, if you interpret it
5 accurately, translate it accurately, if you understand it accurately, if
6 you see it in the truest possible light, there has been absolutely nothing
7 to lead me to change anything about it.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours. I
9 have no further question for Mr. Vuga.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 Questioned by the Court:
13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Vuga, you may be able to help the Chamber with
14 one issue. You have, as attachments to your report, two charts showing
15 attachment 1, The Composition Formational Structure of the Guards
16 Motorised Brigade; and the second, attachment 2, showing The Composition
17 of an Infantry Brigade.
18 A. Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Now, one material distinction between those two
20 charts is the chain of command from the commander to the military police.
21 In the Guards Motorised Brigade chart, as we understand it, you say there
22 is a direct command link from the commander to the military police
23 battalion. So it's commander to battalion commander to the composite
24 units of the military police; whereas, in the infantry battalion chart,
25 you show that the only line of command to the military police unit is
1 through the security organ, and in your evidence you gave explanations
2 about that.
3 What interests the Chamber is what is the basis for this
4 distinction? Is there any legal order or provision or is this just the
5 way it happens?
6 A. This solution that we have in this infantry brigade, this is the
7 infantry mountain motorised brigade of that type. They have a military
8 police unit the way it follows from the functions and the purpose of such
10 This is a standardised solution which, in principle, applied to
11 all brigades of this kind throughout the JNA. What is noteworthy, and
12 this is something that I pointed out at the outset, is the fact that the
13 Guards Motorised Brigade was a peculiar unit and did not function in
14 keeping with these standards or in the same way that these other units
15 were meant to be used.
16 This is also the reason that the functional links within the
17 brigade command were adjusted in such a way that it could carry out its
18 tasks successfully in the way that it was structured, because it did not
19 need and did not like the kind of links that were established in other
20 brigade commands such as discussed earlier. This is the essence, and if I
21 may just provide an additional explanation.
22 The Guards Brigade, if you look at its special purposes and tasks,
23 those that it carried out under regular conditions, those would be very
24 much like the tasks normally carried out by military police units. If you
25 go through the typical tasks of military police units, there are a great
1 deal of similarities; securing persons and buildings, for example. The
2 same thing that military police units do based on their rules of service.
3 Hence, the way the military police were used within the Guards
4 Brigade was different, because this military police unit was an operative
5 unit of the brigade as well as other battalions. And it was trained to
6 efficiently carry out the special-purpose tasks of the brigade; whereas,
7 the military police unit in the infantry brigade did military police work
8 for the purposes of the brigade.
9 Your Honours, I hope the explanation is clear and please tell me
10 if there is any other explanation that is necessary. The other thing is
11 the method. How exactly does the chain of command react in situations
12 like these?
13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Vuga, from what you say, the difference arises
14 because the Guards Motorised Brigade military police battalion is used for
15 some purposes, at least, that are unique to the Guards Motorised Brigade
16 and aren't encountered in the course of ordinary military police work in
17 ordinary infantry brigades. Is that a correct understanding?
18 A. Your understanding is correct, Your Honour. This is precisely
19 what it's like, and if I may add one thing: Since the function is of a
20 military police nature, then the units in the brigade carrying out that
21 function are very much like a military police unit. It's not the same
22 thing because of the complex nature of their tasks; but in terms of their
23 function, they are very similar.
24 The drills you have within this special-purpose function is --
25 this, for example, a military police battalion, for example, does a drill
1 that would be the sort of drill that a brigade would be expected to do.
2 So that is how relate within the brigade, and then the task is given to
3 the brigades brigade -- right, okay. Thank you. I'm sorry.
4 For a task like that, a brigade staff would have two military
5 police liaison or desk officers who are familiar with that work and who
6 are trained for the monitoring of those drills and also any operative
7 actions taken by that brigade, they are sufficiently qualified. Then a
8 security organ, just as Mr. Pringle pointed out in his expert opinion,
9 can, from their own position, furnish information to the brigade commander
10 based on which the brigade commander may conclude, prompted by a proposal
11 of the security organ, whether he would be using the military police unit
12 according to his own ideas or whether he will incorporate his own ideas in
13 a proposal to the security organ.
14 It is the entitlement of any commander to accept orders -- miss
15 any proposals. There is no direct line between a security organ and a
16 battalion commanders in the sense of any greater influence, because that
17 would constitute an interference with the chain of command which is
18 undesirable. There is communication. There is cooperation. That applies
19 to any unit across the spectrum, but there is certainly no influence being
20 exerted that would he in any way constitute an interference with the chain
21 of command.
22 JUDGE PARKER: What you've been explaining, the difference in
23 structure, then, follows from the distinct functions and purposes to be
24 found for military police in the Guards Brigade as opposed to other
1 A. Yes, Your Honour, precisely.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Is there any legal basis for this distinction, or
3 is it merely a distinction that has grown out of the functions that are
5 A. The legal basis is the organisation and establishment structure,
6 and then there are the orders stipulating the tasks that are to be
8 JUDGE PARKER: Now, what is the -- we're trying to track down what
9 is the legal basis of that structure. Is it just something that appears
10 in a manual somewhere, or is it just something that works and therefore is
11 recorded as the way this sort of thing should normally be organised?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What is important here is
13 specificity. So this is something that falls outside of the standardised
14 solutions, and the specifics lie in the specific orders that are issued,
15 specific tasks. But in the rules and regulations, there is no mention
16 made of the Guards Brigade as part of the Military District, and so on.
17 And that is why it was subordinate directly to the Federal Secretary of
18 National Defence.
19 JUDGE PARKER: So the -- in the rules and regulations, there's no
20 formal distinction made between the Guards Motorised Brigade and other
21 brigades for this purpose; is that correct?
22 A. In the rules and regulations dealing with the other brigades,
23 there is no mention made of the Guards Motorised Brigade.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Does that mean there is no mention anywhere of the
25 Guards Brigade for this purpose?
1 A. When I talked about the purpose in terms of rules of service, the
2 Guards Brigade is not mentioned there. I did not find any rules that
3 would specify this kind of purpose for the Guards Brigade that we are now
4 talking about.
5 JUDGE PARKER: So is it the case that you've prepared attachment 1
6 to reflect what you see to be the actual position in the Guards Motorised
8 A. I was given approval to inspect the establishment structure of the
9 Guards Brigade, that document. I did that. I studied it from the point
10 of view of the functioning of the security organ; and in doing so, I was
11 able to understand the distinction between this brigade and the other
12 brigades, because I had previously studied the functions of the security
13 organ in the other brigades. So my opinion was based on this difference
14 between the position of the military police and the security organs in the
15 two types of brigades.
16 Also, because the very peculiarity begs to -- the answer to the
17 question, where is that reflected, in fact? And on the basis of the
18 materials that I studied and the expert reports that had already been
19 submitted about the Guards Brigade, I was able to come to my conclusions.
20 So this is what I base my interpretation of the whole situations, and this
21 is my answer to your question.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. So what you've done is tried to present
23 your conclusions in this -- these two organisational charts to make it
24 easy for us to follow; is that the position?
25 A. Yes. Yes. Precisely, Your Honour.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I may ask a question that follows from
4 your questions. But perhaps I can give a clarification regarding your
5 question just to clarify things for you, and then perhaps you can ask some
6 further questions to Mr. Vuga.
7 If you remember, during Mr. Panic's testimony, we tendered into
8 evidence. And it was admitted, Exhibit 851, that is the Guards Brigade
9 establishment book. This is what Mr. Vuga referred to. This is a
10 document, an official document dated 31st January 1991, and this was
11 signed by Veljko Kadijevic, this establishment book. This chart of the
12 Guards Motorised Brigade, as an official document, is a constituent part
13 of that book. And this is what Mr. Vuga actually studied. So you have
14 this organisational chart in this exhibit as an official document
15 promulgated by the Federal Secretary of Defence stipulating the structure
16 you have Guards Brigade. So I just wanted to clarify this.
17 This is already an exhibit in this trial, so lest there should be
18 some misunderstanding that he actually drew this chart himself. This is
19 the clarification that I wanted to give you.
20 JUDGE PARKER: That is the understanding I have of his evidence,
21 Mr. Lukic. Your understanding is different.
22 Perhaps you may be able to assist us, Mr. Vuga.
23 I understood you had prepared these charts yourself from your
24 research of the establishment of the different units. Is that correct or
1 A. I used the official charts as they were, but there are no charts
2 of the Guards Brigade in any other documents. This is the only chart, and
3 this is the chart that is valid only for the Guards Brigade. It was taken
4 from the establishment book, and this is what I actually talked about. I
5 said that its function was peculiar, unique, specific. I couldn't
6 describe it in any other way, and I could only interpret it on the basis
7 of the original establishment, how it was set up.
8 I didn't want to put myself in a situation where I would invent
9 some kind of a Guards Brigade. I wanted to study thoroughly the situation
10 as it was. But what I did was I did a comparative analysis between the
11 brigade as it is described in the rules of service where you have a marine
12 brigade, infantry brigade, mountain brigade, and so on; and then I
13 compared the functions, tasks, and all the other elements with the
14 function, tasks, and all the other elements of the Guards Brigade. And I
15 presented the differences that we have been talking about here.
16 JUDGE PARKER: So your attachment 1, the chart dealing with the
17 Guards Motorised Brigade, discloses the structure as you actually found it
18 to be functioning when you closely inspected the position in the Guards
19 Brigade; is that correct?
20 A. Yes, that is correct. In particular, because this was taken
21 directly from the establishment book. I had sought to have access to this
22 document in order to be able to produce my expert report.
23 JUDGE PARKER: The point of my questioning is that your chart
24 differs from the chart in the establishment book, and the difference would
25 appear to be because you have looked at what was actually happening in the
1 Guards Brigade.
2 A. I studied the actual state of affairs, and the chart was simply a
3 little bit more elaborate to clarify the part that relates to the military
4 police squad for special purposes. But at any rate, this squad did not
5 participate in the tasks that the Guards Brigade performed in Vukovar. It
6 remained stationed in Belgrade and was not an object of further study.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Anything further arising, Mr. Lukic, Mr. Weiner?
8 Very well.
9 Well, now, Mr. Vuga, could I indicate that that concludes the
10 questions that will be asked of you. The Chamber would like to thank you
11 for the assistance you've been able to give and for your attendance here.
12 And you are, of course, now free to go back to your ordinary activities.
13 So thank you indeed. You could, if you like, wait there for a few
14 moments because we expect to be rising now.
15 Do I take it, Mr. Lukic, that that concludes the case for Mr.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, all that remains to be
18 done is to tender into evidence these documents on our 65 ter list that
19 have to do with Mr. Vuga's report. Perhaps we could do that after the
20 break so that we don't take up any time that -- from tomorrow, because we
21 have a very busy schedule tomorrow; and then after we do that, this will
22 mark the end of Mr. Sljivancanin's Defence case.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Is there any opposition to any of these documents,
24 Mr. Weiner.
25 MR. WEINER: Yes, there is opposition to some.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. So we're not going to do it in a few
2 minutes. We must then adjourn until ten to 11.00 when we will attend to
3 those issues.
4 Thank you again, sir.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Lukic.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to now
11 tender certain documents. These are documents attached to Mr. Vuga's
12 report. All of these were on our 65 ter list. These documents were used
13 by Mr. Vuga in his report.
14 I have spoken to Mr. Weiner. He has no objections to some of
15 these documents, but he would like to object to some. Therefore, the best
16 course of action would be for me to start tendering one-by-one, so that
17 Mr. Weiner can object to each as he sees fit.
18 The first document is 3D050101 from our 65 ter list, number 23
19 dated the 26th of September, 1990.
20 JUDGE PARKER: What is it, Mr. Lukic?
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] All of these documents are documents
22 from a collection of orders, decisions, and reports of the SSNO. One of
23 these sets was tendered by Mr. Weiner yesterday, if you remember when he
24 talked about the negotiation talks between the JNA and the Croatian side.
25 This is a report on attacks against the JNA and military installations of
1 the Federal Secretary of National Defence dated the 26th of September,
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 1990.
4 JUDGE PARKER: The appears no objection to this.
5 MR. WEINER: There is an objection to this one.
6 JUDGE PARKER: All right, Mr. Weiner.
7 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, this is a document which discusses
8 attacks on the JNA in 1990. There is no discussion relating to Vukovar.
9 This document concerns attacks on the JNA in Slovenia and Croatia. It
10 doesn't appear to be relevant to the issues in this case, and we would
11 object to it on the basis of relevance.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic, the relevance?
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the only relevance for
14 me is Mr. Vuga used it in his expert report. The OTP didn't challenge
15 that. In chapter 3 of his report, I think Mr. Vuga invokes this document.
16 If that is deemed irrelevant, I would not fiercely oppose this document
17 not being admitted.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Is this question of relevance going to arise
19 similarly for other documents?
20 MR. WEINER: Yes, it is, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE PARKER: It looks as though it may -- our decision on this
22 document may have an impact for other documents then, Mr. Lukic. So maybe
23 you'd better not give ground too quickly.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Nothing is further from my mind than
25 to give ground too quickly. All the other documents that Mr. Weiner will
1 probably be objecting to are relevant to the time of the indictment. This
2 was about 1990, but it was about the overall context of events in Croatia
3 back at the time.
4 Wheeler, an other expert witnesses, also used documents from 1990,
5 and other such documents from 1990 were used for other reports. Mr.
6 Wheeler discussed events from far back, from long ago, and this concerns
7 certain events and certain political developments that happened on the eve
8 of Vukovar. If the OTP wish to object about the time of this document,
9 then I must leave this reservation open. But you will see that all the
10 other documents are only about the time that the indictment concerns.
11 I could furnish an additional argument. In the analysis of Mr.
12 Theunens, there were a lot of documents that were used that were in
13 relation to developments back in 1990; the break-up of Yugoslavia, the
14 special role of the JNA, Kadijevic's book was used and so was Jovic's
15 book, and all these have already been admitted by this Trial Chamber.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 MR. WEINER: Just one quick thing, Your Honour, the book from
18 Kadijevic is not 1990.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, you were wanting to put something.
20 MR. WEINER: Just very briefly. The book of General Kadijevic is
21 not a 1990 book. It does deal with some 1990 issues. But it also deals
22 with Dubrovnik, it deals with Vukovar, and it was published, I believe, in
24 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber will admit this, Mr. Lukic. It does
25 so, because it discerns a very faint thread of relevance. Because of
1 time, it's hardly relevant. But having been relied on by your expert, we
2 will have the source.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this document will be admitted as
4 Exhibit 870.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Next, Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think we may be able to deal with
7 the following three documents more expeditiously, since Mr. Weiner says
8 that he's not objecting. 3D050107, 65 ter document number 24. This is
9 the order of the SFRY Presidency dated the 9th of January, 1991.
10 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 871, Your Honours.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Document 3D050117, the
13 statement of the SFRY Presidency to stop attacks against the army. The
14 7th of May, 1991 is the date that the document bears. 65 ter document
15 number 27.
16 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 872, Your Honours.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter document number 28, 3D050121.
19 [In English] "Issue Order and Personal Safety of the Public," date of 8th
20 of May, 1991.
21 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
22 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 873, Your Honours.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Next document 65 ter list number 30.
24 [In English]... the Presidency of SFRY." [Interpretation] The number is
25 3D050129 and the date is the 23rd of August, 1991.
1 JUDGE PARKER: We missed the first part of your description of the
2 document, Mr. Lukic. It's something of or issued by the Presidency. Do
3 you know what it is?
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] That's right. I'll read the original,
5 "Communique from a session of the SFRY Presidency." The title is, Secure
6 Conditions for a Normal Functioning of Defence. The date is the 23rd of
7 August, 1991. This is tab 5, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE PARKER: There objection, Mr. Weiner.
9 MR. WEINER: No objection, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 874, Your Honours.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Next document, tab 6 for you,
13 3D050137. 65 ter list number is 32. "Information of the Federal
14 Secretary for National Defence."
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
16 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour. This document, we are also
17 objecting to on the issue of relevancy. It is a document which concerns
18 illegal gun-running. It does not discuss Vukovar. It is -- it does not
19 discuss the issues before this Court. It is very one-sided so there is a
20 question to the reliability of this document, and we would object to it.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] This is information from the Federal
23 Secretariat for National Defence. Whether it's one-sided or not is up to
24 the Chamber to judge in terms of weight. But let me remind you that when
25 Imro Agotic testified, there were lots of questions being asked about
1 illegal arming in Croatia at the relevant period. And Mr. Agotic provided
2 a lot of evidence about these issues, because he was working for the air
3 force corps in Zagreb at the time. And I think he spent an entire day
4 testifying about illegal -- the illegal arming at the time, and it wasn't
5 challenged at the time as a subject fit for cross-examination.
6 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 875, Your Honours.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Next document, tab 7. Mr. Veljko
9 Kadijevic's letter to Lord Carrington, 3D050149, the 18th of September,
10 1991, used in Mr. Vuga's report.
11 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, this document and the following document
12 are pretty much the same. They're both letters from General Kadijevic.
13 One is to the -- the first one is to Lord Carrington, the next one is to
14 Franjo Tudjman. Once again, they are not relevant to the issues before
15 this case, but they are also of very questionable reliability. They are
16 also very one-sided, and they are also in violation -- not in violation
17 but in conflict Security Council resolution 713, where the Security
18 Council finds a few days after these documents were issued that both sides
19 were violating the cease-fire agreements. So this is a very -- these are
20 very one-sided letters of questionable credibility, and we'd object to
22 JUDGE PARKER: A lot of evidence that comes before this Chamber,
23 Mr. Weiner, is one-sided. Our task is to try and see where the truth lies
24 between those two extremes.
25 MR. WEINER: Well, that's just our view on them. We claim they're
1 of very little credibility.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Have we not got the Security Council resolution.
3 MR. WEINER: It's a 65 ter document. I'm not sure -- no, it
4 hasn't been tendered.
5 JUDGE PARKER: It might become part of your rebuttal.
6 MR. WEINER: All right. Thank you.
7 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received, both of them.
8 THE REGISTRAR: The first letter to Lord Carrington will be
9 Exhibit 876, while the second letter to Franjo Tudjman will be Exhibit
11 JUDGE PARKER: Is the second letter in the bundle, is there a tab
12 for that? What number is that, please?
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] This is tab 9. 3D050155. The letter
14 is dated the 17th of October, 1991.
15 Last document, Your Honour -- I'm not sure if we have received
16 numbers for both these documents or not.
17 JUDGE PARKER: 876 and 877.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, right. There is another letter
19 by Mr. Kadijevic. This is the one that I mentioned a while ago, tab 9.
20 In actual fact, that was tab 8 in your binder, the letter to Franjo
22 The last of this series of letters by Mr. Kadijevic is at tab 9,
23 65 ter list number 35, 3D050155, the 17th of October, 1991.
24 JUDGE PARKER: To whom is this letter addressed?
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just a minute, please. This is Veljko
1 Kadijevic's letter to the ministerial council, the council of Ministers of
2 the European commission on the 17th of October, 1991 about the fact that
3 humanity convoys were being misused as the title suggests. There is
4 reference here to Vukovar and part of the letter, I think, is about the
5 October evacuation; 14th through 17th of October. You will see that at
6 page 2, there are references to Vukovar and the evacuations that took
7 place on the 13th and 14th of October by the Medecins sans Frontieres.
8 MR. WEINER: No objection, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 878, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Is that the lot, Mr. Lukic?
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just to avoid confusion, since I made
13 an error in relation to 877, this is actually 3D050153, Mr. Kadijevic's
14 letter to Franjo Tudjman dated the 23rd of September, 1991.
15 The last document being tendered in relation to Mr. Vuga's report
16 is an interview that Mr. James Baker gave to a Slovene journalist. This
17 was carried by the Belgrade based Politika newspaper on the 5th of April,
18 2005. His view of the break-up of Yugoslavia. The newspaper piece bears
19 the title --
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't catch the title.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] -- And this is something invoked by
22 Mr. Vuga in his report.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Could you repeat the title, please?
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Again, I apologise to the
25 interpreters. It's "Independence By Force." That is the title. It's
1 also on the 65 ter list.
2 The document was not originally in our 65 ter list, but it was
3 disclosed to the OTP a month ago when we submitted Mr. Vuga's report.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
5 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, we have a document here that has no
6 author listed. No person involved in this alleged interview has ever
7 testified in this case. These type of documents or similar document of
8 newspaper articles were utilised in Mr. Theunens's report; and as the
9 Court recalls, the Defence objected to every newspaper or journal document
10 that Mr. Theunens used. The Court, following a policy where the author or
11 someone who was involved was not present, was -- the documents do not come
12 in, apparently followed that same policy and did not admit any of those
13 documents from our expert on the -- in the exact same situation.
14 If that's the policy of the Court, then this document is not
15 admissible either.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have to respond and perhaps it is
18 unnecessary to remind the Chamber. Let me give you an example where we
19 really challenged the admission of an interview, an article.
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't catch the name.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] -- That was used by Mr. Theunens
22 unlike this document that we are now tendering, which has the name of the
23 journalist and everything else that is relevant for the identification,
24 yet you admitted this article that was used by Mr. Theunens and many other
25 articles that were used. So the newspaper articles are admitted.
1 They can be admitted as evidence. The question remains, as you,
2 Judge Parker, stated of the weight that you will give to those articles.
3 This is an interview carried in this newspaper with Mr. James Baker who
4 is -- who was the Secretary of State at the time, and this is something
5 that is relevant also for the expert testimony by Mr. Wheeler and was used
6 in the expert report by Mr. Vuga.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Mr. Theunens, not Mr.
10 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber will not receive this document, Mr.
11 Lukic. An interview in 2005, even if correctly reported, is not going to
12 directly assist the Chamber in this matter, and there has been no attempt
13 at of you authentication of content or of the publication.
14 MR. LUCIC: Thank you. I would like to tender two MFIs that are,
15 in fact, transcripts that we had been waiting for. These are transcripts
16 of the video recordings, and now we have the transcripts MFI 828, I have
17 to apologise here, 838, that's the transcript of the video recording which
18 is Exhibit 837. We received the official translation, that is 3D060008.
19 And can we please have this admitted as the official translation. The
20 video recording is already in evidence.
21 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received as Exhibit 838.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And the MFI 840, that's again the
23 transcript of the individuals video recording exhibited as 839. We
24 received the official translation designated 3D060035, and could this
25 transcript also be given a number as an exhibit.
1 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received as Exhibit 840.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have two 92 bis
3 statements to tender into evidence regarding the character witnesses for
4 Mr. Sljivancanin. That is a statement made by Mr. Kasim Medovic and by
5 Mr. Istuan Pap. They are not in e-court yet, so they will be there
6 tomorrow morning. So perhaps we could be given numbers for those two
7 statements tomorrow. And I would seek guidance from you, Your Honours, in
8 one matter. The issue that I have been insisting on has still to be
9 resolved, the transcript of the dialogue between Mr. Vance and Mr.
10 Sljivancanin. This is the transcript of Exhibit number 70. The
11 transcript itself bears the number 69.
12 We have spoken to our colleagues from the Prosecution, and we
13 wanted to sit down and to listen to the tape together with the
14 representatives of the translation service. That one minute of the
15 recording that we consider to be contentious, because we believe that the
16 transcript that has been tendered into evidence does not adequately
17 reflect what is actually said in the recording.
18 The Prosecution told us that they have no interest in
19 participating in the exercise, and the translation that was provided to
20 you, Your Honours, is the translation provided by the OTP. The
21 translation service agrees to do this, because it would take only a
22 minute. Only a minute needs to be transcripted, but they need an order
23 from the Trial Chamber. So could we perhaps have this order from the
24 Bench today, so that we can do this exercise this afternoon. So the
25 alternative would be to listen to this one minute of recording in the
1 presence of the interpreters, and then to have this interpretation into
2 the transcript.
3 The translation service told us that they do not want to evaluate
4 the work of the translators from the OTP, but that they would do so if
5 ordered by the Trial Chamber.
6 Let me remind you, the only contentious issue is whether the two
7 words that we claim are audible are to be entered into the transcript, and
8 there is a sentence that is not translated properly the way we hear it in
9 the B/C/S. So if you could issue this order, we would deal with this this
10 afternoon; and then tomorrow morning, we would have our final proposal.
11 JUDGE PARKER: The two 92 bis statements, Mr. Weiner, any
13 MR. WEINER: No objection.
14 JUDGE PARKER: They will each be received.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 879 and 880, Your Honours.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE PARKER: There will be an order for translation of a portion
18 of Exhibit 69.
19 I believe the transcript is 69 of 70. That's the transcript of
20 70; is that correct? The other way around?
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The video recording is 70 and the
22 transcript is 69.
23 I would like to ask you, in light of the contacts with the
24 translation service, your order should include the order to listen to the
25 video recording, because they insist on this wording in the order, just
1 the one minute.
2 JUDGE PARKER: We will make an order inviting the translation
3 service to listen to a portion of Exhibit 70 with a view to verifying the
4 translation in Exhibit 69, and to do so in the presence of Mr. Lukic or
5 his representative.
6 Is that enough, do you think, Mr. Lukic?
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. This
8 completes the Defence case for Mr. Sljivancanin.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, then remains for the recall of a
10 witness tomorrow, P002; is that correct?
11 MR. WEINER: Yes. Mr. Moore will handle that, but if I could
12 address the Court very briefly.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
14 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, unless the scheduling in the OTP
15 changes, today will be my final appearance in this case. After six years
16 with the Office of the Prosecutor, I will be leaving at the end of the
18 I would like to thank the Court for its patience and its courtesy
19 to me in this case as well as the Strugar case. I would like to wish
20 everyone in the Court, be it attorneys, staff, the translators in the
21 booths, stenographer a very happy and healthy new year as well as a very
22 happy holiday. And I would just like to say personally good-bye to
24 JUDGE PARKER: Well, Mr. Weiner, I'm sure the Office of the
25 Prosecutor will feel the loss of you. This Chamber has got to know much
1 of you in the last three years. We wish you every success in your life
2 ahead and hope you manage the translation back to the United States
3 without too much difficulty.
4 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Well, in light of this announcement, I
7 would like to wish the best of luck to Mr. Weiner on behalf of myself and
8 all my colleagues. Apparently, he will not be working in the same sphere.
9 I have been fortunate or, rather, unfortunate, because I have been on the
10 opposite side of Mr. Weiner over the past years. But I have been able to
11 cooperate with him in highly professional terms and may that be this by --
12 I would like to say this by way of good-bye and wish him all the best of
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
15 We now adjourn until 9.00 tomorrow.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.35 a.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Friday, the 8th day of
18 December, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.