1 Wednesday, 12 November 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: So, good afternoon everybody. Good afternoon to
7 you, Madam Registrar. Could you call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-05-88-T, The Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic, et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. All the accused are present.
11 Prosecution is Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye. The floor of the
12 Defence teams or amongst the Defence teams, I notice the absence of
13 Mr. Nikolic, Mr. Bourgon, and I think that's it.
14 Good afternoon to you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Welcome back. Did you manage to go home for the --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: -- break?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: We are going to proceed and hopefully finish with
21 your testimony today. If I remember well, we had started your
22 cross-examination, Mr. Ostojic.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Your Honours, I
24 have started it, yes.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So let's proceed with it.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay, thank you.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
3 WITNESS: BRANISLAV RISTIVOJEVIC [Resumed]
4 [Witness answered through interpretation]
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic: [Continued]
6 Q. Good afternoon, sir. Last we think we started discussing some of
7 your report and you shared with us a couple things, and I didn't get an
8 answer to a question. You told me last week that you are not well versed
9 in military terminology, that was on page 27999. You told us that you
10 were not a military expert, same page, line 7 through 8. You also shared
11 with us that you didn't see or receive any reports from the police,
12 that's again at page 28001. And then, with respect to the facts that you
13 really are testifying about Srebrenica and some of the orders in July of
14 1995, you told us that, "You only have knowledge of an average person
15 following the media." And that's on page 28007, lines 18 through 21.
16 And finally, you shared with us that you really didn't know when
17 an enemy offence started or ended, same page, 28007, and then again you
18 repeat at page 28009 at line 10, that you don't know all the facts.
19 Now, I asked you last Friday, what expertise do you have, and I
20 don't believe I got an answer to that question which appears on page
21 27999. So to be fair to you and to really to understand your report
22 better, can you tell us in your words what expertise do you have given
23 the foregoing that I just highlighted for you?
24 A. When you last asked me this question, whether I knew when a
25 military offensive starts and ends and that is how I understood your
1 question, and in those terms I believe that I said that I wasn't the man
2 who is familiar with military terminology in the sense that I do know
3 what an offensive is; but however, when it starts or when it ends I am
4 not able to tell that to either you or the Chamber because I am really
5 not familiar with military terms; and therefore, I cannot be helpful in
6 that respect.
7 Q. Okay. Well, what expertise do you have, sir? That's really all
8 I need.
9 A. Would you like to -- to tell me -- tell you what my CV says about
10 that? I teach criminal law at the Faculty of Law in Novi Sad, that is in
11 the Republic of Serbia
12 international law, and I have the title of assistant professor in that
13 particular domain. So as I said, this is the basic level of university
14 tenure in the Republic of Serbia
15 interested in, perhaps.
16 Q. Okay. Well I did get a chance to read your CV, and I do have a
17 couple of questions with respect to that. You state that you were the
18 advisor to the prime minister of Republic of Serbia
19 have a hyphen. Are you still the advisor to the prime minister?
20 A. No, no.
21 Q. Well, when did that end, sir?
22 A. Either in 2007 or 2008.
23 Q. And the --
24 A. I acted as an advisor on two occasions, and I think that it ended
25 in April or March this year. I am not sure. It was in the spring of
1 2008 when I finished my duty as an advisor.
2 Q. Okay. And that was for Vojislav Kostunica, correct?
3 A. Yes, Dr. Vojislav Kostunica was the prime minister.
4 Q. Were you ever in an organisation called Obraz, O-B-R-A-Z?
5 A. No, I know of that organisation. I read about it in the media in
7 Q. Okay. Now, I have some information, maybe you can confirm or
8 deny it. I understand that you ran for a candidate for the mayor of Novi
9 Sad in the last election; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, I ran for the mayor of Novi Sad, in my city of Novi Sad
11 that was in the spring of this year in May.
12 Q. And I understand from just reading, and when we Googled, you, we
13 found some things, and for example, you were involved in an incident
14 involving -- on April 11th, actually, where you storm through an
15 information stand and tore up posters and propaganda material that was
16 relate to the ICTY. Is that accurate?
17 A. I have no idea. Do you really think that this has something to
18 do with me. Is that what you're implying?
19 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologise, if my colleague could repeat his
20 question. I believe that will he received the wrong translation to the
22 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, on moment.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may help the gentleman.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment Professor, and you, Mr. Ostojic.
25 Mr. Lazarevic, what's the problem.
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: I think that the translation we received was
2 improper in relation to the this incident that allegedly happened.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: This is precisely why I have called upon you --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Would the speakers kindly not speak at the same
5 time for sake of interpreters.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Sorry about that. Could you explain to
7 us where the translation is faulty, please.
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: It said, "you were involved in an incident," this
9 is what my colleague said and this is not what was translated. It was
10 translated to the witness, I think.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm still not understanding.
12 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay. I think we can clear it up if I can just
13 show him a document.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but there has ban a wrong translation and
15 wrong interpretation, and we need to know exact what it consists of. And
16 we start from there; and, of course, I'm sorry for the interruption in
17 your cross-examination, but this needs to be cleared up.
18 MR. LAZAREVIC: Maybe I can explain very clearly. It wasn't
19 translated to the witness that he was personally involved in an incident.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay.
21 MR. LAZAREVIC: That's the reason why I intervened.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: But what we have in the transcript is essentially
24 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, the transcript is correct but the
25 translation was a bit wrong.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So, Professor, what I am going to do
2 and then Mr. Ostojic will beef it up, if necessary. I am going to read
3 out to you his question, and then, of course, you will be given all the
4 opportunity to reply.
5 The question as we have it in the transcript, which I understand
6 was not completely translated to you runs as follows:
7 "And I understand from just reading, and when we Googled you, we
8 found some things; and, for example, that you were involved in an
9 incident involving on April the 11th, actually, where you stormed through
10 an information stand and tore up posters and propaganda material that was
11 related to the ICTY. Is that accurate?"
12 Now, before you answer, I will let Mr. Ostojic confirm whether he
13 wishes to clarify this further and add anything or change anything.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: No, I think it's acceptable the way you read it,
15 Mr. President.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So yes, the ball is in your Court.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I understood the question,
18 eventually. And I never took part in any such incident and to tell you,
19 honesty, I don't know about such incident taking place at all. I believe
20 given the date that the election campaign was in progress at the time;
21 but, however, I really do not recall any such incident taking place in
22 Novi Sad
23 MR. OSTOJIC:
24 Q. Okay. And I will show you a document, but before I do you
25 remember a woman by the name of Jelena Gregoric, who was the chairperson
1 of the Liberal Democratic Party and having been attacked and brutality
2 beaten on April 8th in Novi Sad
3 A. No, I don't know her. I know that her party did take part in the
4 election, but I don't note this particular lady.
5 Q. Let me just quickly, and it's a minor point, but just quickly so
6 you can see it to be fair to you. I am going to show you an article
7 which states that it's from the Lawyers Committee For Human Rights,
8 captioned: "Human rights and democracy violation early warning weekly
9 news letter number 6," and on the bottom it says: "Supported by open
10 society institute."
11 And with the Court's permission if the usher can hand witness the
12 B/C/S version and place on the ELMO the English version, we will be
13 directing everyone's attention to paragraphs 6 and 7. This is the B/C/S
14 and this would be the English.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please speak into the
17 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, there is my name here says
19 that I burst in, and I tore down the posters on the wall. And this is
20 something attributed to me under item 7.
21 MR. OSTOJIC:
22 Q. And you don't know anything about that?
23 A. I do. A man from another party called New Serbia was the
24 perpetrator. Do you want to know his name?
25 MR. LAZAREVIC: Previous topic. Maybe my topic can clarify
1 where's mentioning of the ICTY in this? Because it was suggested to
2 witness that some propaganda material related to ICTY was destroyed by
3 this gentleman.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
5 MR. OSTOJIC: It's actually a follow-up to my next question. I
6 should have broke it up, but first I wanted to know if he was involved in
7 that incident on the 11th, and, in fact, the propaganda material.
8 Q. Although you claim that you weren't involved in it, sir, are you
9 familiar with the fact that the propaganda material was material to the
10 ICTY and this Tribunal?
11 A. No.
12 Q. And what's the gentleman's name that was involved in this
14 A. Rade Bastar.
15 Q. Okay.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Which party? Of which party.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Novi Serbia
18 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay. I think that I am done with this document
20 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment before you say you are done. It's still
21 a little bit unclear to me how such a mistake could happen in a document
22 like this. Is there a reason behind all this that you could advise us
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, there was a reason. I
25 was an eyewitness of the incident. I don't know if somebody put my name
1 purposefully within the context of what had happened. I cannot say for
2 sure. It is a mistake. This document that Mr. Ostojic has shown me is
3 something that I had never seen before. However, if he had browsed
4 through the press and the newspapers printed on that day, he would have
5 learned the truth. And it happened at the crossroads called Merkator in
6 Novi Sad
7 MR. OSTOJIC: May I move on, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you.
9 MR. OSTOJIC:
10 Q. Sir, I still don't believe, and I am sure the Court will correct
11 me if I am wrong, you shared with us what you what your CV and
12 educational background is. But I want to know concretely in this case
13 having reviewed although limited documents, what is your expertise? You
14 are not here as a military expert, and we understand that you are an
15 associate professor of law and you studied law, and we accept that. What
16 is your expertise, then?
17 A. Well, as I told you I teach international criminal law at the
18 Fault of Law in Novi Sad
19 of all the subjects that I teach. I don't know what else I can add. I
20 can now, however, give you an example. The OSCE branch in Serbia
21 they want to engage someone to deliver a lecture to the judges or
22 prosecutors for war crimes in Belgrade
23 believe that they would do that if I were a person who is in contempt of
24 this sort -- of this court, who were tearing up the material and the
25 propaganda material relating to this Tribunal?
1 Q. Okay, sir. I let -- you talk a little bit about resubordination.
2 Is that an area of expertise that you maintain that you have, the issue
3 of resubordination?
4 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Mr. Lazarevic.
5 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, the issue of resubordination is in
6 relation to the laws regulating it. So I think it would be fair to just
7 say to the witness this, because I do believe that this is something that
8 is regulated by law, and he was the one who analysed legal regulations in
9 Republika Srpska, which is clearly explained in his expert report.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think it makes much difference the way we
11 are going, so Mr. Ostojic and Professor, please proceed.
12 You have heard in any case what Mr. Lazarevic had to say.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have. What I said last time
14 I can repeat now. I am not a military expert, but I do believe that in a
15 certain sense I am qualified enough to interpret legal instruments,
16 particularly those relating to criminal responsibility. And I do believe
17 that I am an expert in that area; however, it is an unthankful task to
18 speak about one's self. It is up to other people to say whether they are
19 qualified or not qualified. I don't think it's appropriate for me to
20 speak about my achievements and qualities.
21 Sir, did you have any objections to my training and qualification
22 when I was accepted as a witness? If you didn't have any objections at
23 that time, I don't see why we have problems now.
24 MR. OSTOJIC:
25 Q. Okay, let me ask you this, sir. With respect to this order of
1 the 10th of July 1995 that you reviewed where the task was signed by the
2 President Karadzic, and ultimately ordered by Mr. Kovac, to:
3 "Crush the enemy offensive," and you've explained quite
4 thoroughly, repeatedly, in fact, that you don't know what the term
5 "offence" means, so I'm I am not asking you that. But did you learn or
6 obtain any information whether that goal, which was supposed to be
7 precise and specific as you outlined, was it ever modified at any time
8 subsequent to the 10th of July 1995?
9 A. If you think if I saw any legal document that he is talking
10 about, my answer is no, I haven't.
11 Q. Okay. Did you learn any information from any source whatsoever
12 whether that July 10th, 1995
13 resubordination assignment of the special MUP to the Drina Corps, whether
14 or not that was ever modified?
15 A. If you think that I have seen the document relating to this
17 Q. No, because they always object, so I am trying to break it down
18 as simply as possible for you. First I asked if you saw any document and
19 you gave us an answer to that. Now I am asking you if you learned from
20 any source from either the lawyers or from other witnesses --
21 A. No, no.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: Let's take a look at P60, please.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: While we are waiting for this, I forget to mention
24 earlier on today that we are sitting pursuant to Rule 15 bis.
25 Judge Kwon's absence is due to some official business that's attending to
1 and that we will continue to be sitting in this day until the end of the
2 week. He will be back with us on Monday.
3 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
4 Q. Sir, now you have P60 in front of you and it deals with the 12th
5 of July, 1995. And you remember last week we listed out those five
6 specific units of the MUP that were going to be considered as special
7 police brigade that was purportedly going to be resubordinated to the
9 I should say, it identifies the 5th Company of the Zvornik CJB as being
10 involved in such tasks relating to the Muslim column that was passing
11 through Susnjari, et cetera, towards Tuzla, et cetera.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
13 MR. OSTOJIC:
14 Q. If we look at the first order --
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologise, I think that my colleague should be
16 a little bit more careful, because he said that, "MUP that were going to
17 be considered as special police brigade," this is not what the document
18 says. This is not what the evidence says. Only one part, one unit
19 within this unit was a special police brigade -- only part of the special
20 police brigade. It was a special police detachment, actually.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. That's clear enough. I think it's
22 clear enough such that we can proceed. Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
24 Q. Now, sir, if you look at this document, P60, they add another
25 unit or whichever term you like to use, although I hesitate to use the
1 military terms because I know that you are not that familiar with them.
2 But if they add the 5th Company of the Zvornik CJB to this, is that
3 something that is separate and apart from the special units that were
4 assigned on the 10th of July, 1995?
5 A. Just a moment, let me read this. I've not seen it before.
6 Very well. I have read the document. Now, what was your
8 Q. This 5th company of the Zvornik CJB --
9 A. Okay.
10 Q. -- was not resubordinated to the Drina Corps or any VRS unit,
12 A. I can only tell you who was subordinated -- resubordinated to the
13 Drina Corps according to Order 6495 and whether any other units were
14 subordinated to the Drina Corps pursuant to any other orders. I don't
15 know, because I've not seen any such orders. This order, 6495, implies
16 only the units that are mentioned in here as being subordinated to the
18 Q. Okay. And the 5th Company of the Zvornik CJB was not, correct?
19 MR. LAZAREVIC: I think that the witness already answered.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 64/95, the answer is no.
21 MR. OSTOJIC:
22 Q. Thank you for that, sir. I know we can all go back and read
23 that. I just wanted to know if you know. Now, who is ordering this 5th
24 Company of the Zvornik CJB to perform certain combat tasks, activities or
25 operations? And just take a look at P60 and I think you'll find the
1 words, "I have ordered" in the last paragraph, and then you can tell us
2 and identify who the person or the author of this report is.
3 MR. LAZAREVIC: It's a call for speculation, and furthermore it
4 relates to the previous paragraph, not the last one.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: I really don't -- I have no response.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Then let's move to your next question.
9 MR. OSTOJIC:
10 Q. Sir, are you familiar with Dragomir Vasic? Do you know who he is
11 in the context of reviewing this material and preparing this report?
12 A. I can't remember this name as having seen it any of the documents
13 that I perused. I can't remember. And he is speaking in the first
14 person singular, and you are asking me about the third paragraph of this
15 document where he is, actually using the first paragraph -- first person
16 singular. Is that what you are asking me?
17 Q. Sir, I just asked if you know who Dragomir Vasic was in the
18 context of the issues that you've given us a report on, mainly Srebrenica
19 1995. Are you tell this Court that you have no idea what his role or
20 function was in July of 1995?
21 A. The name does not ring any bells. I've not seen this name in any
22 of the documents that I am inspected.
23 Q. Okay. Well, when you reviewed some of the law, and I know that
24 you didn't look at any of the facts. But you also told us last Friday on
25 page 28005 on lines 10 through 15 that - and it was discussing the issue
1 of resubordination, still, sir - that: "The resubordinated unit is
2 commanded by the military unit..." and you go on, obviously.
3 But in this instance, by looking at P60 and I would like to draw
4 on your expertise if I may, and P60 is on the screen for you. The 5th
5 Company of the Zvornik CJB was actually being command by the chief of the
6 centre of the centre CJB, was it not?
7 A. Let me just read this once again, please. It seems so. If this,
8 that is mentioned in the third paragraph refers to the second paragraph,
9 but I am -- can't be sure of that either.
10 Q. Okay. Let's forget about P60, sir. Because I don't want you to
11 have too much trouble. You're an assistant or professor of law, and you
12 know the law; and you talked about in your introduction the relationships
13 between the MUP and the VRS, just generally speaking from reviewing the
14 law, who does accompany within a centre, hypothetically Zvornik, to whom
15 does it report?
16 A. Are you talking about P60 --
17 Q. No.
18 A. About the 5th company?
19 Q. No.
20 A. You are speaking in general terms? You are speaking in general
22 Q. I am, sir. Just forget about P60 as I said. In the circumstance
23 that we have here, looking at the orders that we have with respect to
24 resubordination, which units were purported resubordinated in July, just
25 reading the law and from your experience and knowledge, to whom would
1 these companies who are within the Zvornik centre CJB, to whom would they
3 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment before you answer that question.
4 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, I believe that this is not an
5 propriety question for this expert witness. We had an expert witness who
6 dealt exclusively with police issue, reporting within the MUP was a whole
7 chapter in his expert report. And my colleague has a chance to explore
8 this topic in detail with that witness. I don't believe it would be fair
9 with this witness who is not a police expert witness to -- to give
10 answers to these kinds of questions.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic, but it could also be a matter
12 of what the law provides on such matter. So I think the witness can
13 proceed with his answer. It's within what is permissible.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In the Law on the Internal
15 Matters and the Law on Internal Affairs and the Law on Immediate Threat
16 of War, I did not see any provisions strictly regulating who is reporting
17 to whom. This is what you have concretely asked me. I have not seen
18 anything to that effect in the law. I don't have any doubts that there
19 are some rules in the police that regulate such matters; however, this
20 was not the subject of my expertise, so I was not looking for those. I
21 don't remember having seen anything about reporting in the Law on
22 Internal Affairs. No such thing have I seen, and I can't remember.
23 MR. OSTOJIC:
24 Q. Okay. Well, I'll look at that answer again a little later, but
25 just to follow-up on what my colleague Mr. Lazarevic said, you are also
1 not a police expert, correct?
2 A. It depends on your definition of a police expert. If you are
3 implying that I am familiar with the work of the police, I would not be
4 able to call myself an expert. However, I can interpret this document if
5 we are talking about the Law on Internal Affairs, if we are talking about
6 all sorts of responsibilities that it provides for, such as disciplinary
7 or criminal responsibilities. But if you are asking me about whether I
8 have ever professionally studied the work of the police, no, I've never
9 done that, and I can't in those terms be called a police expert.
10 Q. Okay. Well, let's take on a look at another document.
11 MR. OSTOJIC: P886. It's also from this gentleman that you don't
12 what his role is.
13 Q. Although, just to be fair to you. It says on the bottom of his
14 reports that he's the chief of the centre, and the centre would be as we
15 can see in the top page that it was of the Zvornik CJB.
16 Now -- and when that comes up sir, I have a couple of questions
17 in connection with that.
18 Now, we talked about the 5th company and whether or not that
19 company was ever purported resubordinated to the VRS based upon the order
20 of the 10th of July, 1995
21 paragraph 4. It looks as if the chief of the centre of the Zvornik - and
22 I want you to accept it as being true unless you know otherwise - that he
23 is sending on the 13th of July, 1995, a special the detachment to
24 Konjevic Polje from the Srbinje or Doboj units. Do you see that on
25 paragraph 4?
1 A. Send a detachment from Srbinje or Doboj to Konjevic Polje, item
2 4. Is that what you're asking me about?
3 Q. And I appreciate you reformulating every question I ever asked.
4 But yes, specifically it is paragraph 4 relating to those two
5 detachments. And I am asking you whether or not these two were mentioned
6 or have you seen any other evidence that they at any time were
7 resubordinated purported to the Drina Corps based on the 10th of July
8 1995 order?
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, I believe that this was taken out
11 of context of this document because I think the very beginning of the
12 document says that, "Earlier at the meeting with General Mladic, we were
13 informed that," and then follows 1, 2, 3, 4 -- 4 items. So I believe
14 that this was taken out of context.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic. What do you have to say about
17 MR. OSTOJIC: I don't believe that it was taken out of context at
18 all. I think he's an expert here, and --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Anyway, let's simplify it. Do you have the text in
20 front of you? Okay. So that shouldn't be a problem.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Is best placed to know whether it's taken out of
23 context or not. If you feel it's taken out of context and you wish to
24 clarify things, please go ahead and do that first and foremost.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please repeat the
1 question, what are you asking me? Whether these units mentioned under 4
2 were ...
3 MR. OSTOJIC:
4 Q. Ever resubordinated to the Drina Corps?
5 A. The order, 64/95, does not mention any units that would have
6 anything to do with Srbinje or Doboj. Here a -- an abbreviation is used
7 or a shortened form "special." So I don't know the strength of the unit;
8 however, in document number 64/95 there is no reference to any unit from
9 either Srbinje or Doboj.
10 Q. And who would be ordering like these three units if they were on
11 the scene, 5th Company of the Zvornik CJB, the Srbinje and/or Doboj
12 Special Detachment. Who would be their superior?
13 A. According to the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Internal
14 Affairs, if a police unit pursuant to that law is resubordinated to a
15 military unit in who's area of responsibility it is engaged in combat, if
16 it is resubordinated to it, then it is only natural that the
17 resubordinated unit receives orders.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. This is us coming back again to the law again that we have
20 mentioned so many times already.
21 Q. We have, and you keep going over it, and thank you for that.
22 What if it was not resubordinated? To whom would these three units or
23 detachments be subordinate to?
24 I mean, you have no evidence that they were resubordinated, you
25 shared that with us. You have not seen it. You have not been advised of
1 it. But these three units, just the 5th company of Zvornik CJB, the
2 Srbinje, and the Doboj Special Detachments. Who is their superior?
3 That's all I want to know. You don't have to keep repeating to me that,
4 "if they were resubordinated," I'm telling that you if you haven't read
5 it. There is no order of resubordination who would be their superior in
6 July of 1995?
7 A. Sir, I can only interpret the law. I can't tell you who they
8 were subordinated to. I only saw this Order 64/95, and as far as the
9 units that were resubordinated according to that order, I can tell you
10 who they were resubordinated to. Under the law if a unit is indeed
11 resubordinated then such a unit will be under the command of the military
12 unit in whose area of responsibility it is engaged in combat. If a unit
13 is not resubordinated, then it has never left the system of command of
14 the Ministry of the Interior. That's how I understand the law.
15 Q. Okay. And thank you for that, sir. And similarly if a unit that
16 was purportedly going to be resubordinated to the Drina Corps, let's say,
17 in July of 1995, once there is specific and precise tasks -- task ceases
18 or ends, whenever that might be, but we do know what the task was, they
19 also would then go back to be under the command of the MUP. Correct?
20 A. That's how I understand the law.
21 Q. And --
22 A. A police unit that is subordinated. Shall I complete my
23 question -- or my answer, sorry?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let him finish, Mr. Ostojic. Go ahead,
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's how I understand the law.
2 While a unit is engaged in combat and performs a task for which it is
3 resubordinated to a military unit. It is under the command of that unit
4 in whose area of responsibility it performs its combat task. When the
5 combat task is accomplished, then the MUP unit goes back under the
6 command of the Ministry of the Interior.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay. Now let's look at 4D339, if you will.
8 Q. And as this is coming up, I am just going to ask you, maybe I can
9 draw upon your expertise here. And do you know what the staff of a
10 centre of a police centre is or a public security centre, do you know
11 what that means, the staff of the centre?
12 A. The staff of the public security centre, you're asking me for a
13 definition of this term? I wouldn't be able to give you one.
14 Q. Well, do you know what it even means when think use the term "the
15 staff of the centre"? Do you know what they are talking about?
16 A. I will repeat. I am not able to give you a legal definition. I
17 can only share with you my assumption. In terms of any precise police
18 terminology or legal terminology, I am not in a position to give you a
19 legal definition of this term.
20 Q. Okay. Well, maybe I will just still ask you to direct your
21 attention to the bottom portion of this 4D339 exhibit, where it starts in
22 the paragraph before the numerical number 1, 2, and 3. It states:
23 "The staff of the centre has engaged part of its PJP (special
24 police units forces to carry out the following task):" And then it lists
25 three specific things. I understand what you're saying, sir, that you
1 don't have that experience or knowledge or information, but looking at
2 this maybe you can help me out. Does it look as if at this point on July
3 12th, 1995, that it's actually the staff of the centre of the Zvornik CJB
4 given again that the staff commander, Dragomir Vasic, signed this report,
5 that he's the one issuing orders to the PJP?
6 A. As far as I understand the Serbian language, the answer would be
7 no. The first sentence is impassive, and the document was signed by the
8 person that you mentioned. If you're using a passive form, then there is
9 no subject. The -- either in the Serbian language or any other language.
10 So this person is not speaking in the first person singular as in the
11 previous document. This sentence does not have the doer, the subject.
12 Q. Okay. Now, just -- I want to focus your attention on paragraph
13 number 2 or the paragraph that's identified with the numeric 2. It talks
14 about the PJP engaging and setting ambushes in the direction of
15 Srebrenica and securing the Drinjaca-Hans Pijesak Road. Do you see that
17 A. Can you scroll down the document just a little so I can see the
18 whole of it? Yes. Thank you. That's it. I can see that yes, one
19 company has been engaged in pulling up ambushes.
20 Q. Do you know which company it was?
21 A. I don't. It says 1, no name, some --
22 Q. Now, I don't want to -- I don't want to get into too great a
23 discussion with you regarding linguistics and passive usage of words and
24 reports and orders, sir; but if you look at the first and third paragraph
25 where they seem to mention either cooperation and/or coordination with
1 parts of an infantry brigade, the second paragraph doesn't mention that
2 at all, correct? And it basically is giving them this assignment
3 independent of any cooperation, coordination, or assistance from the VRS
4 or any portion thereof, right?
5 A. Let's take things slowly. You have now established a link
6 between the 1st and the 3rd. Did I understand you correctly? If I
7 understand you properly.
8 Q. Mr. Ristivojevic, let's me ask you this: You don't see that
9 there is a link between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd with what was said in the
10 paragraph above that. That they were engaging them in the following
11 tasks? You don't think that any of the three are linked?
12 A. Yes, three companies are indeed being engaged. I understand that
13 the centre staff is engaging three units under paragraph 1, 2, and 3.
14 Yes. But let me hear your question again.
15 Are you establishing a link between the first and the third
16 paragraph? It says here that the centre staff is engaging three units,
17 but it doesn't say which one. What you are you asking me? Can you
18 repeat your question? Are you establishing a link between the first and
19 the third paragraph? Could you please repeat the last part of your
21 I understand that what you're saying is that the staff centre has
22 engaged three units but please repeat the last part of your question.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: And I -- one moment, I think we are going too fast.
24 I sense it in the efforts that the interpreters are making to catch up
25 with you. And please slow down, both of you.
1 MR. OSTOJIC:
2 Q. Yes, I am making a link, sir.
3 A. Very well. And your question, the last part of your question,
4 what was it? I have a problem. I have to listen to the interpretation
5 and at the same time, I have to read documents. It takes time. When the
6 interpretations are there. I have to stop and read the document.
7 Please, I am sure you will appreciate that. So can I kindly ask you to
8 repeat the last portion of your question?
9 Q. Actually I do appreciate it, sir; and I will give you all the
10 time that you need. First, let me know if you've read the document.
11 A. Yes, and now, please, your question.
12 Q. If you look at numeric one and three, you see that there is
13 verbiage there --
14 A. Very well.
15 Q. -- with respect to cooperation and/or coordination for certain
16 tasks, but specifically in paragraph number 2 --
17 A. Very well. Very well.
18 Q. When they are discussing the ambushes particularly in the
19 Srebrenica direction on the road of Drinjaca-Hans Pijesak, it only
20 involves the one company of the PJP, correct?
21 A. Very well, yes, correct. Under 2.
22 Q. To whom is this one company regardless of the fact that you may
23 not know which company it is, to whom is it subordinated to?
24 A. I don't know. How should I know? I don't even know what company
25 it is. I only know that pursuant to Order 64/95 which units were
1 subordinated to the Drina Corps, pursuant to this Order 64/95. As for
2 the rest, I can only give you my speculations and say which orders were
3 issued to resubordinate other unit, which units those are. This would be
4 pure speculation on my part.
5 Q. Well, do you think setting an ambush has anything to do with
6 crushing an enemy offensive? I mean, clearly you might know the
7 difference between those two orders "offensive" and "ambush"?
8 A. Well, let me put it this way. If you are asking me strictly in
9 military terms, I've already told you that I can't give you any
10 definitions. I was in the army. I've been through wars. If you're
11 issued an order, you carry the order out.
12 Is your question whether an ambush equals an offensive? Is that
13 your question? I really don't know what to tell you. I believe that you
14 would need a military expert here, somebody who's familiar with the
15 military definitions and military terms.
16 Q. Okay.
17 MR. OSTOJIC: Let's then look at another document, P62.
18 Q. Sir, maybe that will that might be a little bit easier for us.
19 This is a MUP document or a document, I'm sorry, it's P62, it's a
20 document again sent by the chief of the centre at the Zvornik CJB,
21 Dragomir Vasic, to the MUP RS and police headquarters in Bijeljina. And
22 let me know when you've had a chance to look at this document.
23 A. I don't have it on the screen yet.
24 Q. They are bringing it up, sir. Just be a little patient. And
25 when you look -- just let me know when you've had a chance to look at it.
1 A. Yes, I have.
2 Q. Okay. I want to just understand how the MUP works, and you've
3 helped us a lot with this resubordination issue when it comes to the VRS.
4 If the MUP is involved in anything the centres within the MUP are
5 subordinate to the minister, correct? Today and probably correct in
6 1995, if you know?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: I think that the witness already answered this
9 very similar question in relation to MUP and the structure of MUP and
10 responsibilities within the MUP. I mean, going on and on with same kind
11 of questions, I don't think it would be helpful for the Trial Chamber.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, what's your comment to that.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: I don't have a comment to it. I think that it
14 would be helpful and I think it's important if they are going to bring an
15 expert to give evidence --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's see. Professor, do you have anything that
17 you think you could add?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so. I was just about
19 to repeat what I said last time. As for strict inner workings of the
20 police and their organisations, I wouldn't dare speak about and call
21 myself an expert in the area.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed, Mr. Ostojic.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay.
24 Q. Let's try this topic that you've spent some time giving evidence
25 on, and that's the prisoners of war. Do you know anything about
1 prisoners of war in a general sense from your expertise?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Under what circumstances, sir, would a civilian like a civil
4 commissioner let's say, in July of 1995, under what circumstances would
5 he be involved with prisoners of war, if at all?
6 A. A civilian, according to the rules or regulations that I
7 reviewed, there is a document according to which the civilian
8 commissioner was appointed in Srebrenica but with very ambiguous
9 responsibilities assigned to this person. It's called the "Civilian
10 Commissioner for Prisoners of War [as interpreted]." After reading this
11 document and trying to understand it, it does not use any imperative
12 forms of verbs, i.e., ordering the civilian commissioner to deal with the
13 issues of the prisoners of war, but rather uses some more ambiguous
15 Q. Okay, and are you referencing, sir, Exhibit P24, and if you have
16 it you could tell us and if not we could bring it up, or we should
17 probably bring it up --
18 MR. LAZAREVIC: Just one small correction. The witness said
19 civilian commissioner for the municipality of Srebrenica and here it
20 says, "Commissioner of Prisoners of War," just that correction. It's on
21 page 27, line 6 in this transcript.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: If that is agreed to, we will proceed. I hear no
23 comments. So the --
24 MR. OSTOJIC: I think -- I mean, I am sure he is correct on that.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So the correction will be made in due
2 MR. OSTOJIC: It's on the screen in any event, Mr. Ristivojevic.
3 Q. It's on the screen, I think, or will be soon.
4 A. I don't have it yet.
5 Q. Here it comes. Is that what you're referencing?
6 A. Can it be scrolled a bit downwards, please.
7 Q. And if we could highlight paragraph 4, that might be helpful
8 because that's the one we are trying focus on.
9 A. Yes. I don't think that's the document that I had in my set, but
10 the content is similar. It refers to the appointment, and it measures
11 the specific name of the person. If you have time, I may try and find
13 Q. With all due respect, I don't know that I do.
14 A. Yes, here it is. It's P10.
15 Q. Okay, well, let's bring up P10, sir. And I know you were
16 starting to describe the passive use and other linguistical terms to
17 describe this specific document. But are you saying that in July of 1995
18 that the Self-Commissioner Miroslav Deronjic had no authority and no
19 involvement with respect to the prisoners of war that were captured in
20 and around the Bratunac area?
21 A. No, no. That's not what I said.
22 Q. What responsibilities and duties did Mr. Deronjic have on July
23 12th, 1995, as the civil commissioner with respect to the prisoners of
24 war? List them out for me based on your expertise?
25 A. Well, I am going to. Item 4 of this order, or, excuse me,
1 decision. It says that the commissioner shall ensure that all civilian
2 and military organs treat all civilians who participated in combat
3 against the army of Republika Srpska as prisoner of war and ensure that
4 the civilian population can freely choose where they will live or move to.
5 What I wanted to say a minute ago when I was speaking was not how you
6 interpreted it. I said that the verb used under Item 4, to ensure that
7 civilian military organs, treat everybody who took part as prisoners of
8 war is rather vague, because it does not say specifically what kind of
9 powers it places on him for dealing with prisoners of war, exactly, that
10 is, precisely, unlike some other documents that speak about, or orders,
11 that speak about military authorities where it is clearly stated who has
12 powers regarding the POWs, and what kind.
13 I say he does have certain powers, but in any view I don't know
14 exactly what they are. And I'm not sure whether you can classify them as
15 some sort of executive powers. And the gentleman appointed on the basis
16 of this decision had a superior power in treating POWs in the
17 municipality of Srebrenica, whether he had the last say and whether his
18 decisions were binding for everyone. If you look at item 5, it reads
19 that "the decisions by the civilian commissions shall be binding for all
20 civilian authorities." So that this word "ensure" mentioned in number 4
21 does not imply any powers over military authorities regarding POWs as
22 well as other authority vested in the civilian commissioner.
23 Q. Okay. And that's what I wanted to show you P24 that we were
24 looking at earlier, which is an order from Dr. Radovan Karadzic dated the
25 12th of July, 1995, to the Zvornik CJB. In that particular order on the
1 5th paragraph, if you will, it says: "Establish close cooperation with
2 Miroslav Deronjic, civil commissioner for the municipality of Serbian
3 Srebrenica as well as with other organs and organisations in the area."
4 What I am asking you is this order was not sent to the militarily
5 as you can see that. Do you agree?
6 A. It's addressed to the chief of the CJB Zvornik.
7 Q. And then, it also directs them to be in close cooperation with
8 Miroslav Deronjic who is the civilian commissioner as we know, and I
9 think as you shared with us previously or last week that he became --
10 A. Yes, yes. He was appointed on the 11th of July.
11 Q. Yes. And on the 14th of July, 1995, he got a new position; is
12 that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what is that position?
15 A. The president of the War Presidency of Srebrenica municipality.
16 Q. And that's because a state of war was declared, correct? And
17 prior to that it was only an imminent threat of war, and that's why the
18 titles change, would that be fair?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Are the duties and responsibilities different for a civil
21 commissioner with respect to POWs as they would be for the president of
22 the War Presidency?
23 A. After I have looked at the decision on the appointment of War
24 Presidency issued by the president of the republic, I wasn't able to
25 pinpoint any authorities of the president -- War Presidency relating to POWs.
1 Q. Okay. And who can actually direct, let's say, the civil
2 commissioner or even the president of the War Presidency to either move
3 POWs or to place them in certain warehouses? Who would have that
4 ultimate authority? Would that be the Supreme commander?
5 A. As far as the civilian commissioner is concerned, he's appointed
6 based on the decision of the president of the republic. And in that way,
7 I believe that once the president of the republic appoints him, because
8 that's what it says under item 2, which reads --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note the witness is ask kindly
10 asked to slow down, please.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Please slow down a little bit because the
12 interpreters are having problems.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies.
14 MR. OSTOJIC:
15 Q. I am not sure if you finished, sir. I was looking at another
16 document. Did you finish what you were saying?
17 A. Well, as -- as far as. Yes. Go ahead.
18 Q. Okay. Now, let's take -- put on the ELMO P1149 A and B. A being
19 the English version and B being the B/C/S version -- I'm sorry, did I say
20 ELMO. I meant in e-court, I apologise. Thank you.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Again, it's P1149 A and B.
22 Q. And sir, this is an intercept that the Prosecution claims in
23 their evidence between -- they say an intermediary with Karadzic and with
24 Deronjic. And it's dated, from my understanding of what the
25 Prosecution's position is, the 13th of July 1995, a day after the
1 previous exhibit that we were talking about, at approximately 8.10 p.m.
2 or 2010 hours. And take just a moment here to read this rather short
3 intercept, to yourself, of course.
4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic, Mr. Lazarevic, and the witness.
6 This -- I am told that the B/C/S version of this document is under seal.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: You know, there is a name on the typed version or
8 at least initials, forgive me for not pointing that out.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: For unknown reasons, the English version is not
10 under seal. In any event, in order to avoid any possible miscarriage, I
11 have ordered to have no broadcast of this document. So keep that in
12 mind, please.
13 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
14 Q. Sir, just let me know what you've had a chance to look at that
15 document and review it.
16 A. Can you scroll it up, please? Yes. Very well. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. Have you seen this document before? Okay. Well,
18 it's a short document. Let's assume for the moment that the Prosecution
19 is correct, that this is a correct intercept between an intermediary of
20 Karadzic's and Mr. Deronjic on the 13th of July, 1995, a day right after
21 the discussion or the order that we saw with the exhibit, prior to that.
22 Do you know what they are talking about there, that they have 2000 and
23 they should be transferred to warehouses and any of that stuff? Do you
24 think you can give us an opinion as to whether or not they are talking
25 about POWs or something else?
1 A. Look, if I attempt to comment any of this, I would totally move
2 from the sphere of facts into the sphere of guesswork, and I don't think
3 that in that way I would be of any assistance to this Chamber. I don't
4 think you need an expert for this. Anyone can read this and then guess.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I would be trying to go too
7 much into the facts here.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I think and I seem to have -- my colleagues agree
9 with me on this, that we need to proceed with your next question. I
10 think what the witness has just said is pretty much obvious.
11 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay.
12 Q. Under the laws that you've reviewed and told us, if the VRS
13 purportedly was in charge of the POWs, can you please explain why
14 Karadzic -- and accept this as being true for the moment - why would
15 Karadzic be telling the civil commissioner where to place POWs? And you
16 can accept this as a hypothetical sir? As an expert I am sure you've had
17 those types of questions to you.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Does it fall under his expertise, Mr. Ostojic? I
19 don't see it falling under his expertise.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: With all due respect to the Court, I'm not sure if
21 it does or doesn't.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's ask the witness. Do you think it falls under
23 your expertise or is it a question that you can comfortably answer
24 straight forward -- in a straightforward fashion?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I cannot. I would be asked to
1 speculate on the facts. We have a decision on the appointment of a
2 civilian commissioner, it's a legal document. This decision was made by
3 President Karadzic, pursuant to the constitution of Republika Srpska.
4 This is where I could be of help; however, I don't think I would be of
5 any assistance to you if I try to make assumptions or guesswork in any
6 other area.
7 MR. OSTOJIC:
8 Q. Okay, well --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed to the next question.
10 MR. OSTOJIC: We will. Let's look at Exhibit 5D1389.
11 Q. And this goes to the topic in your report, sir, of logistics. In
12 your report you talk about how food was supposed to be provided to any
13 unit that was resubordinated, et cetera. So they will bring it up on the
14 screen, 5D1389. And you know, again, I'm sorry, it's the same
15 individual, Dragomir Vasic, and is dated the 5th of August, 1995. And
16 they are talking about diesel fuel and litres of fuel. Can you just help
17 me understand from your expertise, what would a police commander or
18 centre chief be needing this amount of fuel or diesel?
19 MR. LAZAREVIC: I really don't know how this witness can answer
20 this kind of question. This is so factual that it --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, I -- you know, he should either tell us
23 that -- what's his expertise, honestly? Without being rude in front of
24 the witness, I don't think he's ever answered that just to tell us what
25 his educational background is. He tells us that he wants to look at
1 facts and doesn't want to speculate. Here are some concrete facts for
2 him to draw upon where he can give us a reasonable opinion to the extent
3 that he's able to. I don't believe the objection is sound. I don't
4 believe the witness has been forthright in the answers given. We are
5 giving him specific documents that were introduced into Court --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop, stop, stop because I think you are abusing of
7 our patience and tolerance, to be honest with you. Can you read your own
8 question, page -- this page 34, lines 5 to 11 and explain to us how this
9 fits in. The expertise on legal matters that this witness supposedly has
10 been summoned to testify upon?
11 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, Your Honour, this witness in his report talks
12 about certain logistics and certain items such as supplies that have to
13 be given purportedly to a special police unit that becomes resubordinated
14 to the Drina
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but your question is: "What were the police
16 commander or centre chief be needing this amount of fuel or diesel for?"
17 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's get to your next question. Come on.
19 MR. OSTOJIC:
20 Q. Are you, sir -- have you seen this document before? Yes, yes,
21 I'm asking you.
22 A. No, no.
23 Q. Now, when we talk about logistics as you do in your report, sir.
24 Is fuel -- diesel fuel or motor fuel, is that also something that would
25 be given to a MUP unit that's resubordinated purportedly to the Drina
1 Corps? Is that something that typically would be provided to them in
2 they needed it?
3 A. In my report I discuss logistics, in terms Article 14, paragraph
4 4, on the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Internal Affairs during
5 an imminent threat of war or state of war. So I didn't make anything up.
6 And also on other documents I saw a paper issued by the assistant of the
7 Drina Corps command asking whether he was responsible for the logistics
8 for -- to supply logistics -- logistics supply for the MUP unit
9 resubordinated to him. And he's also asking for certain quantity of dry
10 rations to be provided.
11 So I was mentioning logistical issues only in this context.
12 Please don't take it as if I am an expert in that area as well.
13 Q. Trust me I haven't --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Lazarevic.
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, when looking at this document it
16 speaks about a fuel for the need of the centre. I really -- I must have,
17 I am puzzled a bit with my colleague's position, whether he claims that
18 all the units were resubordinated, which units were resubordinated,
19 doesn't he claims that the centre was resubordinated to the centre of the
21 that my colleague is making to the witness.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
23 MR. OSTOJIC: With all due respect to my colleague, he should
24 know that not one of the units was resubordinated because the combat task
25 to crush the enemy offensive never took place. So I think that maybe he
1 could review the document, again, with all due respect to him. But I am
2 going to move on, if I may.
3 Q. And, sir, let me the direct your attention to paragraph 4.13 of
4 your report, which is page 30 in the English version. And there you
5 talk --
6 A. What paragraph, again? Can you please repeatedly.
7 Q. Sure. 4.13.
8 A. Yes, I am turning the pages. Very well. All right.
9 Q. Now -- now in the middle of that paragraph you state:
10 "According to the available information in relation to this case,
11 the closest camp for prisoners of war was located in a village of
12 Batkovic, the municipality of Bijeljina
13 Do you see that?
14 A. Yes, do I.
15 Q. What information are you referring to here, sir?
16 A. Oh, yes. The location of the camp Batkovici, Bijeljina
17 municipality. Well, it's common knowledge.
18 Q. Well, it may be, sir, but you preface it by saying "according to
19 the available information in relation to this case."
20 All I want to be is what information are you relying on if it's
21 just common knowledge given that your knowledge of Srebrenica is drawn
22 from watching the media as other average people have done at that time.
23 Is that the basis of this?
24 A. Look, when it comes to the territorial jurisdiction of courts, I
25 wasn't able to locate any documents governing that. But I nevertheless
1 drew a conclusion based on what I know. Do you understand?
2 So knowing that this was the closest court territorially, this is
3 what I put in my report and this is how I drew up this conclusion as well.
4 I think I said that at our last session that I hadn't seen the document
5 governing the territorial jurisdiction division among courts, but I did,
6 nonetheless, drew the conclusion. Because I know that geographically
7 Bijeljina and Bileca are closer, and there are military courts well.
8 Q. Okay. Well have you seen any evidence so suggest that that's
9 where the VRS officers wanted to send the POWs in July of 1995?
10 A. Have I seen that in the documents that I examined? No.
11 Q. If you did see such a document, let's hypothetically say from the
12 Croatian intercept materials that were recently provided to us, that
13 would be consistent with what they were required to do this, is it not?
14 Is to order or send those individuals to the Batkovici camp in Bijeljina
15 municipality, correct?
16 A. Please, I know nothing about these intercepts. I am just telling
17 you about what I put in my report. In my view, the POWs must be treated
18 in the following way: First they have disarmed, then taken to a specific
19 area, designated for taking -- giving them over to security guards and
20 then escorted to camp. I had never seen any intercept transcripts from
22 I saw in the document.
23 Q. Now, let me switch a little bit here. You talked a little bit
24 briefly - and this I think is my last topic - about the military
25 Prosecution office and the obligation of people to report crimes. Is
1 there any obligation of the police subordinated or not, or resubordinated
2 or not, to report any crimes that their members were involved in to
3 either the civilian or the military prosecutor's office?
4 A. The SFRY criminal code and the criminal code of the Republika
5 Srpska have certain crimes.
6 Q. We read that in your report, we know that, we read that.
7 A. It's a general obligation. There is no distinction in these
8 laws. Everybody is bound to adhere to this, whether a policeman or not.
9 Every person is obliged to report a crime and shall be held responsible
10 for failing to report it. The difference is that an official is held
11 responsible and faces a greater sanction and is obligated to report a
12 broader range of crimes. And an ordinary citizen, a narrower range of
13 crimes and his sanction is more lenient.
14 Q. To whom would a police commander, let's say, if he learned of a crime
15 committed by his police unit member, to whom would he report that crime to?
16 A. The purpose of reporting a criminal offence is to provide police
17 with certain information for it to be able to the make a criminal report,
18 go to the Prosecutor, and then launch the whole proceedings. If the
19 policeman whose duty is to file a report, he doesn't have to write
20 anything, he will report to the prosecutor directly. And he is a
21 policeman on duty when the crime was committed. I compiles a criminal
22 report and files it to the Prosecutor. Do you understand? That's the
23 duty of the police --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic. You had asked for one hour. You've
25 been putting questions for over an hour and 45 minutes. You need to
1 finish your cross-examination before the break.
2 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Within the next four minutes.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
6 MR. OSTOJIC:
7 Q. Sir, just help us, he's supposed to report it to which
8 Prosecutor? The civilian Prosecutor, isn't that right? Yes or no,
9 Mr. Ristivojevic? Is he --
10 A. Sir --
11 Q. Did the police guy have to report it to a civil Prosecutor or to
12 a military prosecutor?
13 A. The police do their job. The police do their job, and to the best
14 of their knowledge, because ex officio they are obligated to take into
15 account the jurisdiction, they will report it to the prosecutor who they
16 believe has jurisdiction for this crime. Do you understand?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
18 MR. LAZAREVIC: I really hate to disrupt.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, then tell us.
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: Is Mr. Ostojic talking about any police officer
21 in regular circumstances or he's talking about police -- commander of the
22 police unit resubordinated in combat activities to the military unit in
23 whose zone of responsibility is performing tasks?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, could you clarify that, Mr. Ostojic, and conclude please.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: I think it was relatively clear, and I think we
1 have his ambiguous answer on the record. I have no further questions.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ostojic. We'll have the
3 break now --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understood your question as being
6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So Ms. Nikolic, how much time do you
7 think you will need? Sorry to ask you again, but I think now you could,
8 after having heard Mr. Ostojic's cross-examination and others, you would
9 be in a position to give us a bitter outlook.
10 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. As things stand
11 now, I shouldn't take more than 10 or 15 minutes at the most.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Ms. Fauveau?
13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No question, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Josse?
15 MR. JOSSE: Well, good news, Your Honour, on Friday I said it was
16 very unlikely. I can now say definitely not.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. And Mr. Haynes.
18 MR. HAYNES: I hope to be half an hour.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. We'll have the break now.
20 25 minutes, thank you.
21 And one moment, Ms. Fauveau, are you in a position to start your
22 Defence case today?
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 4.13 p.m.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: We are told, Mr. McCloskey, you wish to address the
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. We were informed just so --
6 I don't know within an hour ago, that Mr. Mijatovic, that investigator
7 witness for the Popovic team is apparently here and ready to testify.
8 It's the first we've heard of that, so we just wanted to get an idea of
9 when the plan was that he was going to be testifying. And did you want
10 us to question him or how was that going to work? But, of course,
11 whenever, we just weren't sure what the time-frame was.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, we are ready to -- to hear
14 cross-examination -- to have examination-in-chief with him regarding
15 Hotel Fontana, as you ordered. But if you ordered that -- that it should
16 be done just by the Prosecutor or by the Chamber, we'll comply with it.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. What's exactly your problem,
18 Mr. McCloskey? Is it that you --
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: No problem, just wanted to know when so we can be
20 prepared to do whatever you want us to do.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. We were surprised as you were, Mr. McCloskey.
23 We were not put on notice -- given no information about the arrival and
24 the availability of this witness today. So we haven't had an occasion to
25 discuss amongst ourselves; and we have only done so now, and as you would
1 have noticed we are short of one judge here today. So however, we
2 believe that the best way to go about it is as follows:
3 You should go first, Mr. Zivanovic, and make it clear to the
4 witness what the parameters are, why he has been recalled, in other
5 words, this is not a total unconditioned reopening of his testimony.
6 It's limited by the subject matter which is the reason why we have asked
7 you to bring him back.
8 Mr. McCloskey will then cross-examine this -- or whoever, I mean,
9 I don't know who, will cross-examine this witness, again limitedly on
10 this area of his testimony.
11 After which, we'll see which questions would like to put, if at
12 all, because I suppose like Mr. McCloskey would like to go back to his
13 previous testimony. And also what prompted us to ask for his
14 re-presentation. Is that agreeable to both of you?
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. That sounds fine. Just as I
16 am sitting here thinking about this, just it -- to put you on notice, I
17 seem to recall Mr. Zivanovic in one of his filings said that part of the
18 problem here was a translation issue with -- with the booth. We have
19 reviewed that audio and -- and we have -- I believe we have got a
20 transcript, or I've been told by my people that the translation was --
21 was pretty good but that there was part of what he had said that was left
22 off the transcript, which we now have a transcript of. I'm not sure
23 we've communicated that with Mr. Zivanovic yet. We can and show him that
24 thing so he can double-check the material. But that's just one other
25 additional issue.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's -- yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I would just like to inform the Trial Chamber
3 that we asked correction of the translation on 29th September, and it is
4 still is pending.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I hope its --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. In any case, let's play it by the ear.
8 We'll see how far we can go with your examination-in-chief, and with the
9 cross-examination, if at all. If you find yourself unprepared for this,
10 Mr. McCloskey, and you wish an adjournment, we will, of course, consider
11 the matter. But at least that shouldn't be a problem with starting with
12 the examination-in-chief today, in any case.
13 Yes, Ms. Fauveau.
14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I might maybe have my first
15 declaration and then we will hear the witness later on, just to be
16 available if it's easier for everyone. You know, I could just have my
17 opening statement immediately after this witness if that suit the
19 JUDGE AGIUS: That's another possibility, and I thank you for the
20 pragmatic way in which you make your proposal, Ms. Fauveau. Let's leave
21 it. As I said, let's play it by the ear. We'll see how far we can go,
22 if at all. But first priority is to finish with this witness now.
23 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we will not have any
24 cross-examination for this witness. However, should any issues arise
25 after my learned friend's cross-examination, I will ask the Trial Chamber
1 to give me some time for a few questions that I may have. I have reached
2 this decision in consultation with my client.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. That's fair enough.
4 Mr. Haynes.
5 MR. HAYNES: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes:
7 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Ristivojevic.
8 A. Good afternoon -- good evening, rather.
9 Q. You're probably right. My name is Peter Haynes, and together
10 with Djordje Sarapa, I represent General Vinko Pandurevic, who in July of
11 1995 was Lieutenant Vinko Pandurevic, the commander of the Zvornik
13 I have a few areas to cross-examine you about, and you'll be
14 comforted to hear they substantially involve regulations that you have
15 already reviewed in your report. But what I may invite you to do is to
16 apply those regulations to factual situations, which do or may arise in
17 this case. And I trust you feel confident and able to do that given your
18 experience and expertise. Do you?
19 A. Well, yes, I suppose so.
20 Q. Can we start, please, by considering what is our P409, the
21 regulation on the applications of the International Laws of War in the
22 armed forces of the Soviet [sic] Federative Republic of Yugoslavia. Now,
23 I don't know the tab number, I can have them called to know screen, but
24 if you prefer to find them among your bundle of documents please go ahead
25 and do so.
1 Sorry, I did, didn't? Sorry, I meant socialist.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: In fact, I was wondering whether I had heard you
3 say, because I was sure I did hear you say, "soviet." At the same time,
4 I was wondering where you got this from.
5 MR. HAYNES: Well, sometimes we float off into different worlds,
6 Your Honour.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: That's good.
8 MR. HAYNES:
9 Q. Now, I'm conscious of the fact, Mr. Ristivojevic, that you have
10 come here as somebody whose expertise is in the laws of the former
11 Yugoslavia and the republics that were formed after its dissolution. But
12 would it also be correct to say that particularly when we are looking at
13 the International Laws of War, that is an area of law you have also
14 studied and with which you are very familiar?
15 A. Well, one could say that this is a field of my scientific
16 interest. This is one of the topics of the International Criminal Law,
17 but as I've already said, it is a rather unthankful thing to speak of
18 one's self. I cannot be the judge of my own ability or expertise. It's
19 really not up to me to talk about myself and what I can do or what I
20 can't do.
21 Q. Very well. Well, let's deal with a few basics in relation to
22 these regulations. These regulations that were used not only by the
23 Yugoslavia national army but also adopted by the armies of each of the
24 independent republics that were formed after its dissolution; is that
1 A. When Yugoslavia broke up, whether these rules were applied in all
2 the republics and all of the militaries, I've never checked. However,
3 what from I know about the ways the state were building their new legal
4 systems after the breakup of Yugoslavia, I can say with a high degree of
5 certainty that the assumption is correct. Why am I so certain? I am
6 certain because such a good and well-elaborated document on the
7 application of the international law did not exist elsewhere; and all the
8 states were interested in applying these documents. They were duty-bound
9 to implement them, to adopt them; and instead of coming up with something
10 new from scratch, I am sure that they decided to adopt what already
11 existed and was good on top of that.
12 Q. Thank you very much. And as far as your study of these
13 regulations is concerned, they are and were consist with the
14 International Laws of War as you understand them to be?
15 A. Yes. At the very outset, the regulations explicitly says that
16 and lists the international law sources. It says according to the Rules
17 of the International Laws of War in terms of this document, there will be
18 the laws ratified by the SFRY, the International Laws of War, and the
19 international customs of war. This document was drafted with the goal of
20 adopting very complex forms of international law and adapt them to the --
21 for the use in the army and also to classify all these documents and put
22 them together in one place so as to provide for an -- for their easier
23 use in an armed force.
24 Q. Thank you. And can I suggest to you that the purpose of them for
25 the army was to -- was twofold. Firstly, to inform them when they were
1 breaking the rules, and secondly to inform them when the rules afforded
2 them no protection. Would that be correct?
3 A. That may also be one of the purposes. It's only natural that if
4 somebody is duty-bound to familiarise themselves with the rules that they
5 should also be able to draw some conclusions as to what punishment could
6 arise if they don't comply with such rules. When such rules protect
7 them. When, on the other hand, they don't offer them any protection.
8 Q. Thank you. Now, I am going to take you through a handful of the
9 rules, if I may, starting with Rule 48, paragraph 4 --
10 MR. HAYNES: And in e-court, that's B/C/S page 24 and English
11 page 24.
12 Q. I don't know, Mr. Ristivojevic, whether you're reading it in the
13 folder or if you're reading it on the screen, but if you're reading on
14 the screen, I think that you have it now. And it reads so that it's in
15 the record:
16 "A citizen who during an armed attack or a military operation in
17 preparation for an attack wears no identification marks and cannot be
18 distinguished from the civilian population shall be considered a
19 competent and a member of the armed forces on condition that he openly
20 bears arms during the military engagement."
21 And that would have been a provision known to anybody who had
22 been trained in the Yugoslavia national army, wouldn't it?
23 A. Well, yes, you may put it that way.
24 Q. So any army operating within that territory in 1995, which was
25 comprised partly of those in military uniform and partly of those not in
1 military uniform but bearing arms would know that those who were not in
2 military uniform were not protected by the International Laws of War?
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: I wonder if my colleague might rephrase the
5 question. It seems a bit ambiguous as it's put, and that's predicated
6 upon the condition that's indicated in sub-division 4 that he just read,
7 "not openly bearing arms."
8 MR. HAYNES: Mr. Vanderpuye, can phrase questions very elegantly,
9 I'm sure. And he gets the right to cross-examine after me so he can tie
10 it up as he wants to.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. If you have difficulty understanding the
12 question, then please say so, Mr. Ristivojevic. If you can proceed with
13 answering the question do so by all means, otherwise, Mr. --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the gentleman to
15 repeat the question because a lot has been said in the meantime.
16 MR. HAYNES:
17 Q. Yes, certainly. The question I put was that -- so an army
18 operating in one of the republics of the former Yugoslavia in 1995 which
19 comprised forces which were partly in combat outfits and those who were
20 in civilian clothes would know that those civilians who were bearing arms
21 were not afforded the protection of the International Laws of War under
22 this regulation?
23 A. Yes, pursuant to these rules on the condition that somebody knows
24 them that extensively.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. HAYNES: Can we move now to point 54 which is on the B/C/S
2 page 25 and English page 25. In fact, I think we probably need to look
3 at Article 53 first which describes the protection afforded at the
4 civilian population.
5 Q. Now, Article 53 sets you out, doesn't it, the protection afforded
6 the civilian population under the rules in -- in military combat, and
7 thereafter Article 54 sets out the exceptions to that protection. And I
8 would like to look, please, at the three specific exceptions, afforded --
9 the three specific exceptions to that protection listed under Article 54;
10 namely one, if the civilian population is in a military facility; if a
11 person who falls within the category of a civilian population is with a
12 military unit; and three, if the civilian population is in any way in the
13 immediate vicinity of a military facility during combat operations
14 against such a facility.
15 A. Yes, that's how it is. Item 53 or Article 53 sets out the rule
16 and Article 54 sets out the exceptions in that rule.
17 Q. And so that we understand what Article 54 means, we may have to
18 go to Article 71 which is at B/C/S page 29 and English page 30. So could
19 we do so, please.
20 And Article 71 says:
21 "The concept of military facility. A military facility in the
22 meaning of the provisions of these instructions shall be understood to
23 mean any facility which by its character, location, purpose, or use
24 effectively contributes to military action ..." et cetera, et cetera.
25 And you are familiar with that provision, are you?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And that presumably would cover a houses being used as a
3 defensive position by military forces, would it?
4 A. If it is used -- used as a Defence position, I would say the
5 answer would be yes.
6 Q. Or even more so, a hospital with fighters or artillery units
7 within its ground?
8 A. Well, in such a case combat activities should proceed with a lot
9 more caution. However, if a hospital were to be used or abused in this
10 way, then one could say yes to that question.
11 Q. Well, we're coming on to that in a minute. It would also
12 include, wouldn't it, communications facilities within buildings or any
13 operational facility within a house or a building or anything like that?
14 Those would all be military facilities, as you understand them within the
15 meaning of these rules?
16 A. Well, one could say so. However, before that, one should
17 establish whether the facility or the house has indeed been used in
18 combat operation and that its either partial or complete destruction
19 would destroy its military purpose.
20 Q. Thank you. We'll come on to Article 72 please, now.
21 Which is at B/C/S page 30 and English page 31. And just the
22 first bullet point:
23 "Allowed attack. Direct attacks on and bombardment of military
24 facilities alone is allowed. Before launching an attack, it is necessary
25 to determine whether the facility to be attacked has been identified as a
1 military facility." Can you see that?
2 A. Yes, paragraph 1.
3 Q. And you say that that objective achieved by the obtaining of
4 target maps which illustrate where the military facilities lay in any
5 urban area?
6 A. You're saying the -- or asking, rather, whether a target map
7 would be a good way to identify valuable targets? According to Article
8 72, before launching an attack, it is necessary to determine whether the
9 facility to be attacked has been identified as a military facility. This
10 could be one of the ways. I am sure that this could serve to determine
11 whether such a facility is, indeed, a military facility.
12 Q. And lastly, drawing all these regulations together, would those
13 trained within these rules who placed military facilities either as it
14 were within civilian buildings or next to a civilian population, be
15 knowingly placing those people outside the international rules of war as
16 described by this set of regulations?
17 A. Look, if a target is not a military target per se, if a facility
18 is not a military target it cannot come under attack as a rule. However,
19 in practice things happen; hence, paragraphs 2 and 3 that speak about the
20 vicinity of military facility, the civilian population; and it provides
21 guidance as to how such a military facility should be attacked. Any
22 attack should be proportionate to the significance of the military
23 facility. If an attack would incur major losses among the civilians,
24 then such an attack would be contrary to the Rules of the International
25 Laws of War. But the estimate of that would be a complex exercise that
1 would depend on a number of factual factors.
2 Q. Okay. Thank you very much.
3 MR. HAYNES: I'd like to move on to a different area now, which
4 is Article 213, which is at B/C/S page 57 and English page 63.
5 Q. And it's really the second sentence of the first paragraph that
6 I'm interested in, please, Mr. Ristivojevic which reads in the English:
7 "When capturing a member of the enemy armed forces, the
8 commanding officer of a unit of the SFRY armed forces shall take all
9 precautionary measures for the security of the unit."
10 A. Yes. That's what para 2 of item 213 reads.
11 Q. And so that we are clear the unit referred to in Article 213 is
12 the unit commanded by the commanding officers; in other words the
13 commander is under an absolute obligation to ensure his own units are
14 safe and secure when taking prisoners; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. Let me give you another factual situation. Against the backdrop
17 of enemy soldiers doing everything they could to avoid capture, including
18 detonating explosives resulting in the death and injury of his soldiers,
19 it would be consistent with a commander's duty under that article that he
20 gave an order that nothing should be risked in the taking of prisoners,
21 wouldn't it?
22 A. Pursuant to para 2 he is bound to undertake all precautionary
23 measures. However, it does not specify which measures it involves, it
24 just says "all measures." So if it is left up to the commanding
25 officers, let's say a sort of the discretion with regard to the selection
1 of the measures that he will employ. But I -- repeating again, there is
2 no specific measures mentioned here as the ones being obligatory to
3 employ or not.
4 Q. Well, I'm -- I put as it were the factual situation in this case
5 to you, the commander is alleged to have given an order that nothing
6 should be risked in the taking of prisoners against that factual
7 backdrop. Would you agree that that does not offend and is consistent
8 with his duty under Article 213 to safeguard the security of his units?
9 A. That no risks must be taken? Well, perhaps, it could be
10 construed in that way that all precautionary measures as paragraph 2
11 reads could mean that. Which means that no risks must be taken, take,
12 all steps or undertake all measures to secure that. That's what I would
13 assume would this hypothetical order would instruct. So if no risks are
14 to be taken, then all precautionary measures have to be undertaken, and
15 in that case I think that would be consistent with Article 213.
16 Q. Thank you. Well, we can leave that behind us now and move
17 earlier in the regulations to Article 21.
18 MR. HAYNES: Which for those operating the e-court system is at
19 B/C/S page 16 and English page 15. Thank you. I think we all have it
21 Q. I am not going to read all this out to you, I am sure you are
22 very familiar with it Mr. Ristivojevic. It's effectively creates two
23 responsibilities on A, I'm an officer, firstly one to prevent crimes
24 which he knew or could have known were about to be committed. And
25 secondly, to institute disciplinary or criminal proceedings against
1 offenders who have committed offences. Do you agree with that?
2 A. More or less that would be the summary of Article 21.
3 Q. It -- in order to comply with the first of those two duties, you
4 would have to have knowledge that something was going to happen and fail
5 to prevent it at a time when it was still possible according to the
6 regulation; is that right?
7 A. I can read this rule. If he knew or could have known that units
8 subordinate to him or other units or individuals are planning the
9 commission of such violations, and here it refers to the violations of
10 the International Laws of War, at the time when it was possible to
11 prevent their commission, failed to take measures to prevent such
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. HAYNES: Could we now have in e-court 7D717, English pages 2
15 to 3
16 Q. And so that you know and everybody knows what it is, this is the
17 regulations regarding the brigade commander's authority in the regiment
18 of 1965.
19 This article reads:
20 "In the absence of the commander the Chief of Staff or the deputy
21 commander stand in for him with all the commander's rights and duties."
22 Do you see that?
23 A. Yes, I do. Article 17.
24 Q. And in the situation where the commander is absent, do you
25 understand that regulation to mean that the Chief of Staff also has the
1 duty to prevent any crime being comitted under Article 21 that we were
2 just looking at?
3 A. Article 17 says, "with all the commander's rights and duties,"
4 including inter alia the ones specified in Article 21. So this falls
5 under the category of the duties referred to previously.
6 Q. And so in this situation where the Chief of Staff in the absence
7 of the commander came into the possession of knowledge that crimes were
8 about to be comitted, the duty would fall upon him and only him at the
9 time that he came into that knowledge?
10 A. Provided that he acted in compliance with the rights and duties
11 of a commander, I would say that in that case this refers to him as well,
12 I mean, Article 21, because he exercises all his rights and duties
13 including the duty to undertake measures to prevent violations of the
14 International Laws of War that were in the offing.
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Ristivojevic.
16 MR. HAYNES: Can we now come on to as it were the second limb
17 Article 21, the duty to institute disciplinary or criminal proceedings
18 against an offender.
19 Q. You've already given evidence about this, and I'm not going to go
20 over old ground unnecessarily; but there is a distinction between what
21 acts would call for disciplinary measures and what acts would call for
22 criminal proceedings. And if we were concerned with a solitary act of
23 murder, for example, there would be no question that that called for
24 disciplinary proceedings. It would call for a criminal investigation,
25 wouldn't it?
1 A. Yes, by all means, of course. Any violation of the laws of war
2 stipulated under these regulations are not all within the range of
3 serious violations. There are violations that are not serious and a
4 disciplinary responsibility would be more appropriate. But this, of
5 course, this what you mentioned without question would fall under serious
6 violation; and it would entail criminal responsibility.
7 Q. Thank you. And can we just clear up one thing, and that is the
8 question of the establishment of special military courts.
9 MR. HAYNES: And we would need to put into e-court at this stage
10 4D525, at English pages 2 to 3 and B/C/S page 2.
11 Q. And I'd like you and perhaps all of us to consider firstly
12 Articles 8 and 9 and then Article 13, please, of these regulations.
13 Article 8 states that:
14 "A court-martial may be convened during a state of war to try
15 criminal acts as defined under Article 9 of this law ..."
16 And then we can go to Article 9 and sees that it says:
17 "Pursuant to Article 8 of that law, a court-martial shall try
18 military personnel from a military units whose officer has convened the
19 course as well as other persons caught in the zone of responsibility of
20 the said unit for criminal acts against the army of Republika Srpska,
21 specifically for: Failure and refusal to carry out an order, opposing a
22 superior officer, defection and surrender to the enemy, failure to
23 discharge one's duty ..."
24 And then we can go over the page and see the conclusion of that
1 "Wilful abandonment of duty, abandonment of a position, weakening
2 combat morale, attack on a service member."
4 Can we now go over the page and see Article 13, please, which
5 sets out the solitary pair of sentence under these regulations. And
6 Article 13:
7 "The sentence of a court-martial for special wartime situations
8 may only be the death penalty ..."
9 Now, just so we are clear about this, a special court-martial has
10 no application to the situation where a commander discovers -- or might
11 discover that crimes have been comitted towards enemy prisoners, does it?
12 I mean, it's got nothing to do with that at all.
13 A. The Law on the Application of the Military Courts in wartime do
14 not have any specific explicit provision in that sense. It is possible
15 that one of the other provisions sets it out broadly; but, however, there
16 is no explicit mention of that. If we go to the top of the page to
17 Article 9 here, second paragraph is the only one which allows for a
18 possibility to draw a conclusion within the broad context on the
19 jurisdiction of military courts over such criminal acts, inter alia. But
20 as I say, we need an interpretation.
21 Primary courts were devised to try criminal acts committed
22 against the army of Republika Srpska, and we have seen the list of these
23 criminal offences.
24 Q. Yes. I mean the purpose of this set of regulations is to permit
25 a commander in wartime to summarily execute those who commit acts of what
1 might be called treason, isn't it?
2 A. Well, it depends on what you call "acts of treason" and how you
3 understand that. In legal science, we only construe that as an attack on
4 the constitution order, but this is just a definition. This is not a
5 specific criminal act. This law and these court-martials are primarily
6 oriented towards those perpetrators whose acts are directed against the
7 army of Republika Srpska. So there is a possibility to construe the last
8 sentence of Article 9 in such a way to include into the jurisdiction of
9 this course the acts that you mentioned, but I say again that would
10 require a much broader interpretation.
11 Q. Very well. I am simply trying to narrow down what it is the
12 commander should do upon discovery of a criminal offence; for example,
13 murder, and I was doing suggest to you that disciplinary proceedings are
14 simply out of the question. And even if they had been created under
15 these regulations, the special military courts have no jurisdiction
16 unless the murderer were one of his own forces; isn't that right?
17 A. Yes, the last thing that you mentioned, any disciplinary
18 proceedings would be totally inappropriate in the case of murder. And an
19 officer cannot initiate [Realtime transcript read in error, "finish"]
20 criminal proceedings. He can just propose that procedure to be followed.
21 The only thing that he can do is to report what he knows.
22 Q. Thank you. And so that --
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologise, I believe that I really need to
24 intervene because on page 58, line 20, it says "cannot finish criminal
25 proceedings," it says "initiate." That's what witness said.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you. Very pertinent remark. Yes, Mr. Haynes.
2 MR. HAYNES: Thank you, that was very helpful indeed. Thank you.
3 Q. And so that we are clear, you haven't specifically gone over
4 this, but you deal with it as it were the legal requirements of the
5 commander to investigate crime at paragraphs 5.6 to 5.8 of your report,
6 Which we'll see at B/C/S pages 39 to 40 and English pages 41 to 43. And
7 it might be helpful if you and we just reminded ourselves what you had to
8 say there.
9 A. We are talking about item 5.6 of my report, right?
10 Q. Items 5.6 to 5.8 please, Mr. Ristivojevic.
11 A. Yes, yes. This is this last obligation mentioned under item 21
12 of the rules on application of Law on International Laws of War in the SFRY
13 armed forces. What I wanted to explain was how criminal responsibility
14 is generated and how it becomes the result of this violation.
15 Since Item 21 does not establish criminal responsibility itself.
16 It just establishes the duty, whereas it’s up to the criminal law to
17 define the criminal responsibility. Specifically that would be Article
18 199, failure to report a crime, from the former Criminal Code of the
19 SFRY, which was at the time called the Criminal Code of Republika Srpska,
20 parts from Article, I think, 185 of the Criminal Code of Republika
21 Srpska – special part, which is the former Criminal Code of the Socialist
22 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. So here I was explaining what that
23 concept means, it was so to speak a crime that was common to the whole
24 territory of the former SFRY and in all the laws later on you can –-
25 I’m sorry, I’m sorry.
1 So what I wanted to explain was how this criminal responsibility
2 looks like, how a report should be made. It should be either oral or
3 writing. It is completely irrelevant.
4 The law also does not stipulate or prescribe any other subsequent
5 form of a criminal report. Another thing that the law lays down is that
6 it did not establish clear distinction between the organs who are
7 responsible for receiving this report. When the law was drafted, nobody
8 had commanding officers, military officers, in mind. The law was drafted
9 and designed for a man in the street. The average man would just go to
10 the police and report a crime. Isn’t that right? This is –- this is
11 normal, regardless of the fact that the proceedings are really the
12 jurisdiction of the prosecutor, isn’t that right?
13 So the legislator's assumption was that an average person didn't
14 know which organ is responsible for dealing with it. So he doesn't know
15 whether he is reporting to the competent or incompetent organ. It is up
16 to the organs to take care of that, that if a citizen reported a crime to
17 a body that was not competent, forward it to the competent body.
18 Therefore, the criminal code did not specify either the form of the
19 report or the body responsible or having jurisdiction to receive it.
20 In the event --
21 Q. Thank you. Now, I want to leave that to one side for a moment.
22 And go, please, if I may to paragraph 3.19 of your report.
23 MR. HAYNES: That's at pages 16 both I think in the English and the B/C/S.
24 Q. And remind you there of the provisions within the Rules of
25 Service of the Security Organ that you set out, paragraph 51 to 56. Tell
1 us, please, Mr. Ristivojevic, when you've got them in front of you and
2 you've familiarised yourself with them.
3 A. Yes, I have it.
4 Q. Within the structure of a brigade of the army of Republika
5 Srpska, the responsibility for the investigation of criminal acts fell
6 with which organ?
7 A. When we were discussing the Law on Military Courts, we said that
8 the powers of the MUP and its members, according to the Law on Military
9 Courts and the proceedings conducted by them, shall be taken over by
10 security organs and the military police, each in their respective scopes
11 of responsibilities.
12 Q. And if we can look in particular at Article 52 where it reads:
13 "When there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a criminal act
14 within the security organs competence has been committed, authorised
15 superior officers of the security organs are obliged to take measures
16 that the perpetrator of the criminal act is found and the perpetrator or
17 the accomplice does not go into hiding or escape."
18 And in Article 53:
19 "On the basis of the information gathered, superiors officers of
20 security organ of the army command, Territorial Defence staff, the
21 security organs, superior officers equal or superior to them --"
22 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please slow down.
23 MR. HAYNES: I'm very sorry.
24 Q. "-- shall submit a criminal complaint to the competent military
25 Prosecution office."
1 Does it follow from that that howsoever the security organ come
2 to know about the commission of a crime, they have a duty and an
3 obligation to investigate it and ensure that the perpetrator does not go
4 into hiding or escape?
5 A. One might say that it has these powers stipulated in Article 52,
6 but this is not yet strictly speaking an investigation. Therefore, there
7 was no decision taken to launch an investigation pursuant to Law on
8 Criminal Procedure, strictly speaking an investigation, as I said.
9 Q. But the power to do that does not derive from any order of the
10 commander of the brigade, does it?
11 A. Yes, yes, it doesn't follow. Just like the police without any
12 previous order would do the same tasks in proceedings before the regular
13 courts, they don’t need any specific orders, if they learn about the
14 commission of a crime, to respond, so the security organs, or the
15 military police, again as the law says, each within its respective
16 jurisdiction, do not need a special order for a crime they are aware
17 of to investigate it, to establish what actually happened.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.
19 MR. LAZAREVIC: Just one mall intervention. In the transcript
20 it's on page 62, line 8. The witness was referring to regular courts and
21 regular situations, because here it says, "vis-a-vis courts."
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Haynes.
23 MR. HAYNES: If Mr. Lazarevic says it's so, I dare say it is; but
24 we ought to check with the witness.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Professor, do you agree with Mr. Lazarevic's
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's proceed.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is precisely what I said, yes.
5 MR. HAYNES:
6 Q. So to give a concrete example, in the circumstances where a brigade --
7 MR. HAYNES: [French spoken on English channel] I am receiving
8 French translation at the moment.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: So am I -- so are we, rather, because I've checked.
10 I think it's a question of wrongly pushed button.
11 MR. HAYNES: Okay.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed.
13 MR. HAYNES:
14 Q. In the circumstances where the chief of security of a brigade
15 comes to know of the possible commission of a crime, it's his duty under
16 these rules to investigate it, irrespective of any order of his brigade
17 commander; that's correct, isn't it?
18 A. Yes, I believe that it arises as a logical conclusion of what
19 I've said previously.
20 Q. And, in fact, it goes further than that, his brigade commander
21 cannot, in fact, order him not to investigate a crime because he has a
22 duty to investigate it under the rules?
23 A. If he were to receive an order that was not legal, any member of
24 the armed forces, pursuant to Article 239 of the criminal code of
25 Republika Srpska, may refuse to obey such an order. Because according to
1 the Law on the Army, nobody is duty-bound to carry out an illegal order.
2 When we are talking about the criminal code, we have to talk about an
3 order of the superior, it can be the basis for exclusion but not in the
4 case when an order is illegal. Whoever receives an illegal order is
5 duty-bound to refuse such an order.
6 Let me go back to your question. Any illegal order anybody
7 receives that person should not -- or must, rather, not carry that order
9 Q. Thank you. Then can we go back, please, to the duty of the
10 commander to report crime as set out by you in paragraphs 5.6 to 5.8 of
11 your report.
12 Within the context of an army brigade, if a commander of the
13 brigade discovers that a crime has been committed, his duty is primarily
14 to report it to his chief of security. That's correct, isn't it?
15 A. Well, one could say yes to that. The proper place where to
16 report any crime should certainly be a military prosecutor. However, the
17 criminal code does not strictly name the addressee of such a report. It
18 is possible to report such a case to a body which is not strictly
19 competent and still comply with the reporting application. In practice,
20 this is what normally happens. A layperson does not know much about law
21 and competences and when they learn about a crime, they will first go to
22 the police rather than to the Prosecutor. We could draw a rough parallel
23 between these two cases. So a commander of a unit relays the
24 information about the crime to his security organ or his military
1 Q. But you mention in your report at paragraphs 5.6 to 5.8, that
2 that duty will cease to exist in circumstances where there is an
3 objective reason for not complying with it. Do you still stand by that?
4 A. Hold on just a second. No. This is what I've just said. I did
5 not change anything there. There is an obligation in the criminal code,
6 and is binding for every citizen, and it may be considered as complied
7 with if a crime is reported to anybody, anybody, for various reasons
8 which may be subjective or objective. The legislator did not want to
9 encumber a crime with many elements because he started from the
10 assumption that the reporting obligation applies to everybody across the
11 board, primarily a layperson, a common citizen. I've provided both
12 examples that may be -- become part of the situation under the criminal
13 code but the reasons are not important, are they?
14 Q. Well, there is a set of circumstances I'd like you to consider
15 which is within the context of a brigade commander discovering of the
16 commission of a crime in which his own chief of security and perhaps his
17 professional superior were involved. Along what routes would you say he
18 should report those matters?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Nikolic.
20 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that
21 Mr. Ristivojevic has already told us on several occasions that he is not
22 familiar with the military rules and that he's not military expert. He
23 has repeated that on several occasions.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, having heard this, Mr. Haynes, do you wish to
25 proceed with your question?
1 MR. HAYNES: Well, it seems to me this is the very substance of
2 his report. Paragraphs 5.6 to 5.8 are about this very topic, I'm simply
3 inviting him to consider a factual situation and apply paragraphs 5.6 to
5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Mr. Ristivojevic, you can answer the
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Look, I understand the logical loop
8 that Mr. Haynes is putting me in with his hypothetical question. The
9 person who should investigate such a crime is allegedly, as you say,
10 involved in that crime. I believe that the legislator never envisaged
11 such a possibility. Thus the articles 199 of the criminal code of the
12 Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, and the similar one in the criminal
13 code of Bosnia and Herzegovina do not provide for such a situation. The
14 state will never start from the assumption that it will be the police or
15 the Prosecutor who commit crimes, so there is nobody to report crimes to.
16 I would say that the law does not provide any solutions in such a
17 case. In my view, this would be a factual matter rather than a legal
18 matter. It is very difficult to say who would be the addressee of such a
19 report in such a case. My answer would be that the criminal code that
20 was in effect at the time did not envisage or regulate such a matter. I
21 will agree with you that it would be only logical to think along your
22 ways, and it's absurd if the example that you have provided is really
23 absurd because the perpetrator of the crime is the one who should deal
24 with the crime and punish the crime. However, the legislator never
25 envisaged such a situation and that's why he did not regulate it.
1 I would have to give it a second thought, and I would have to see
2 how the obligation might be fulfilled in this particular case.
3 Q. Well, I'm going to put a situation to you. Might it be fulfilled
4 by the brigade commander informing his superior officer, the corps
6 A. To be honest, I personally, if I were in such a situation, I
7 would certainly talk to somebody, because the perpetrator of such a crime
8 who in normal circumstances should be prosecuting crimes also has to be
9 reported. If a -- the crime involves a person who should fight crime --
10 should also be reported. And since he is the first reporting person and
11 he is out of the question, you have to report to somebody else. In any
12 case, you would have to report to somebody. That would be my
13 interpretation of the law or the requirements under the law binding the
14 person who discovers that a crime has been committed.
15 Q. I don't want to be difficult, Mr. Ristivojevic, but we've all
16 taken law examines in this room, and we've all had to apply the law to
17 factual situations. And you're here as an expert to give us your
18 opinion, and I am going to put that question to you one more time: In
19 the circumstances where a brigade commander feels he cannot report to
20 matter to his chief of security because his chief of security might be
21 implicated in the commission of crime, would he fulfill his duty under
22 disclosure of defence of Yugoslavia law by report the matter to his
23 superior officer, the corps commander? That's the question.
24 A. I understand. I believe that that might be the case. Based on
25 what I've said previously, I believe that in this way the disclosure
1 obligation would be complied with; but in that case not only the crime
2 should be reported but also the subordinate who is implicated in the
3 commission of such a crime.
4 Q. Thank you very much.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Haynes. Ms. Nikolic, you've had
6 time to --
7 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] No thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Vanderpuye.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President, and good evening to
10 you and Your Honours. I do have a few questions I would like to put to
11 the witness.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, last time you gave us an indication of 15
13 minutes or something like that. So yes, we'll proceed now until we have
14 the break.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Hoping that you will finish by then.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Please go ahead.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
21 Q. Good evening to you, Professor Ristivojevic.
22 A. Good evening.
23 Q. My name is Kweku Vanderpuye. On behalf of the Prosecution I am
24 going to put some questions to you in relation of your direct-examination
25 and also some of your cross-examination. If I ask you something that's
1 unclear to you please let me know, and I'll try to rephrase it in a way
2 that you can better understand what I am driving at, all right.
3 Now, you can see, don't you, throughout your testimony that the
4 international standards with respect to the treatment of prisoners, such
5 as the Geneva Conventions, apply in the circumstances that you evaluated
6 for the purposes of your report?
7 A. Yes, of course. The international laws on -- of war say that
8 they are based on the provisions of the international law, i.e., the
9 international treats that the former SFRY had ratified. In other words,
10 this document on the application of the rules does not establish any new
11 rules or obligations, but rather just adopt the international rules and
12 present them to a foot soldier in a way that they might understand. So
13 my answer to you would be yes, of course they are applicable, even if
14 they did not exist. Still the former state of Yugoslavia would have been
15 duty-bound by the international laws because that state had ratified all
16 the Geneva Conventions and protocols.
17 Q. All right. Thank you for that. And in preparing your report,
18 you prepared it with specific regard to the charges that have been
19 brought against Mr. Borovcanin in this indictment, right?
20 A. We can say that my task was also to check and provide my opinion
21 as to what the legal position of the commander was, if he was
22 resubordinated to a unit of the army Republika Srpska in combat. And, as
23 we know, Mr. Borovcanin was such a police commander.
24 Q. All right. And the conclusions that you drew in your report were
25 drawn having that in mind, correct?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. And in evaluating the international laws that apply to the
3 particular circumstances that you looked at or addressed in your report,
4 you, of course, recognise the authority of this court to apply the Geneva
5 Conventions in evaluating or -- evaluating the circumstances with which
6 Mr. Borovcanin is charged, the crimes with which he's been charged?
7 A. Well, yes. This is not in dispute, anyway, in my report -- the
8 report. This is not the subject of my evaluation at all. I was just
9 tasked with analysing the national law or provide my expert opinion on
10 the domestic law, i.e., the national laws and provisions of Republika
12 Q. Well, it is the case, is it not, even in your report that the
13 national laws of the Republika Srpska by expressly, and certainly if not
14 by implication, apply the International Rules of Law, right? I am sorry
15 for that, I just don't see an answer in the record.
16 Maybe I can re-ask the question.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it will be better.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was waiting. There is no answer
19 to be recorded. I was waiting. If I understood your question properly.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE:
21 Q. Okay, I'm sorry. It's my fault. Let me re-phrase it. It is the
22 case that the laws of the Republika Srpska that you evaluated,
23 incorporate, by reference, the international rules and laws of war,
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. So by definition in evaluating the domestic rules as you did in
2 your report you necessarily evaluated the application of the
3 international rules, right?
4 A. To the largest extent one could say "yes" to that, but I would
5 also have to say that there are some minor discrepancies between the
6 domestic roles and the international laws, and that is due to the fact
7 that the former Yugoslavia, when adopting international rules and when
8 prescribing its own documents, sometimes it would go a step further from
9 the international laws or went in a different direction.
10 However, in principle my answer to your question could be "yes."
11 What I'm saying is that the laws were not copied word for word. You will
12 find some differences. And of course the international law regulates
13 only certain things leaving national legislator to elaborate certain
15 In principle the former state of Yugoslavia was up to date in
16 that area, and the state that inherited its laws adopted them to the
17 full, because they did not have either the time or resources to draft
18 their own laws, especially during the war. That's why they adopted fully
19 almost to the letter, the laws that were applied in the former state of
21 Q. All right. Thank you for that. Let me just go back to a brief
22 point because I am not sure that I got your answer. You don't actually
23 dispute the authority of this Tribunal to apply the Geneva Conventions in
24 evaluating the crimes with which Mr. Borovcanin's been charged, do you?
25 A. No, of course not. No.
1 Q. All right. Now, with respect to the application of international
2 laws, it is the case that the domestic laws call for their application
3 specifically under the Law of Internal Affairs; that's correct, isn't it?
4 And in particular, I mean, I can put it up on e-court if you need
5 to see it, but in particular I am referring to the obligations that are
6 imposed on officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on Article 35,
7 which calls for upholding, as it were, the constitutional order of the
8 Republika Srpska, right?
9 A. Yes, but what were you referring to specifically? Yes. Yes.
10 You are talking about Article 35, the last paragraph and the oath that an
11 official has to take, if I understood you properly.
12 Q. That's correct, sir. All right. And that calls for that
13 official or any authorised official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
14 to up hold the constitutional order, right?
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. And that's also repeated, in effect, in Article 36 where it calls
17 upon authorised officials to perform tasks and duties aimed at protecting
18 the constitutional order, right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you know that under the constitution of the Republika Srpska
21 under Article 5 that defines the constitutional order, amongst other
22 things, as protection of ethnic groups and other minorities and also
23 guaranteeing and protecting -- the guarantee and protection of human
24 rights with respect to international standards, right?
25 A. Yes, yes. Most constitutions incorporate provisions of that
1 sort, yes.
2 Q. And all of these obligations with respect to the implementation
3 of international standards that apply in the law of the -- Law of the
4 Ministry of Internal Affairs applies in peacetime and in wartime equally,
6 A. Please be more precise. You say all these standards, is that
7 what you said? Could you please maybe rephrase or be a bit more precise
8 when putting that question?
9 Q. Yes. The standards that require officials in the ministry to
10 observe international standards and the discharge of their duties apply
11 equally in peacetime and in times of war and in threat of war, right?
12 A. In principle, yes. However, the word, "standard" that you're
13 using is rather broad and not very specific, and that's why I'm saying
14 that whenever it comes to drafting legislation and respecting certain
15 norms, international standards have to be defined, precisely defined.
16 The Law on the Application of International Laws are the
17 consequence of precisely such an approach. In other words, the
18 legislator of the former SFRY, in his intent to make the Geneva
19 Conventions more approachable or accessible to the members of the armed
20 forces, came up with a form that was more understandable, more clear to
21 everybody. Whenever you have something wide-ranging and broad, you have
22 to narrow it down to very concrete and specific norms to make it more
23 easily understandable by all.
24 Q. All right. Well, the norms that I am referring to in particular
25 are contained in the regulations on the application of International Laws
1 of War and the armed forces of the Socialist Federalist Republic of
2 Yugoslavia, that's P409.
3 And in particular, tell me if you need me to put this up on the
4 e-court, and I will. In particular, under sub-6 -- I'm sorry, my
5 mistake, under sub-9, it details international treaties and other legal
6 documents in the domains of the law of wars which the SFRY has ratified
7 and recognized. And there are a number of them, 20 as I see in this
8 particular document. Those are the standards to which I am referring.
9 And do you agree that those particular standards are what are referred to
10 within the constitutional order of the Law on the Ministry of Internal
11 Affairs and the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Ministry of
12 Internal Affairs. Do you agree with that?
13 A. I agree that these are international agreements that the former
14 SFRY had ratified. I found them binding. In other words, they became
15 binding laws in the state binding upon all of its citizens. Irrespective
16 of whether a person is a member of the police or not, they would be bound
17 by these norms. They didn't even have to belong to the police to be
18 bound by these norms.
19 Q. And in the case of Mr. Borovcanin in particular, those rules
20 would be binding on him in his capacity as a -- an authorised official of
21 the Ministry of Internal Affairs whether he's resubordinated to the VRS
22 or not, right?
23 A. When an authorised official, according to Article 35, is involved
24 in discharging tasks of state and public security, then the set of
25 authorities binding upon him are of one kind. When they are subordinated
1 to a VRS unit, in other words, when they are engaged in combat, then they
2 lose some of their obligations but not all of them. It is impossible to
3 claim that somebody only because they have lost the status of an
4 authorised official are no longer duty-bound to respect the life and
5 health of a prisoner of war which he is obliged to respect according to
6 the Geneva
7 If we go down to a lower level and talk about members of the
8 Ministry of the Interior performing tasks and duties, and when we are
9 talking about individual roles what makes the authorities of an
10 authorised official, since we are talking about the tasks and duties of
11 public and state security, when they are given combat tasks, they no
12 longer have to perform those tasks and duties. And that is why the
13 amount of authority changes in keeping with the Law on Internal Affairs.
14 It is only natural that one who is engaged in combat can no longer
15 perform tasks and duties of public and state security, but this does not
16 imply - and I agree with you in that - that that person is no longer
17 bound by the international laws and the provisions thereof. Such a
18 conclusion would be completely wrong.
19 Q. Well, you would agree, would you not, that under Article 2 of the
20 implementation of the Law on Internal Affairs during imminent threat of
21 war or state of war, under that particular article, the provision of the
22 Law on Internal Affairs and other laws on regulations in the domain of
23 interior affairs, apply unless they are specifically exempted in that
24 law; that is, any obligations Mr. Borovcanin would have had under the Law
25 on Internal Affairs will continue to apply in the case of imminent threat
1 of war or a state of war unless that law, the latter, specifically
2 cancels out his prior obligation?
3 A. I would agree, but you used the word "specifically." The law
4 says unless otherwise provided in the law. As I understand Article 13 of
5 this law, it stipulates what the units subordinated to the VRS are going
6 to do. They will be engaged in combat operation, ergo, that cannot be
7 involved in the duties of public and state security. These two things
8 are incompatible. The law needn’t specify everything explicitly.
9 So, this power exists, this –- automatically, this one doesn’t exist.
10 I mean, if you pass a legal instrument on one and the same thing, later on
11 it naturally supersedes the earlier ones, isn’t it so? Here you have a law
12 regulating internal affairs during an imminent threat of war –- state of
13 war which stipulates in Chapter 4 the use of police units in combat
14 operations. In order to use them, the logical interpretation of this law
15 would be that you cannot use them for public or state security. What other
16 solution could you arrive at in practice? If you have a policeman assigned
17 to a duty, in combat would have to put down his arms and go back to his
18 regular police work and say, I don't want to fight. He has no choice. He
19 has no option. He simply, one set of powers is taken away in order for him
20 to get other powers, which in my humble opinion are much more unfavourable,
21 because he can get killed in combat, whereas the chance of his getting killed
22 on state public security business is less. I think it would be -- it would
23 not be a good interpretation of the law on, Article 13 that the powers
24 remain together, so, at the moment someone is assigned tasks in combat,
25 the interpretation of the law that one and the other power remain together.
1 I think that would not be a good interpretation of this law.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I have, probably, I think five or ten
3 minutes. So maybe if -- if you would like, we can break or I can continue.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I let you go beyond the time because I thought you were --
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: I was closing in.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: -- finishing. So we'll have the break.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we can continue, of course, if it is
8 all right with everybody else, it really doesn't clash with the rules.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Well, it's better if we break, I think.
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, because I am going to have some redirect.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. In fact, I was going to ask you whether you
12 had planned a redirect. So we'll have a 25-minute break now, and we'll
13 continue afterwards.
14 In the meantime, please, Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Zivanovic, and
15 Madam Fauveau, if you could meet for five minutes outside and decide
16 exactly how you wish to proceed. We are at your disposal.
17 --- Recess taken at 5.51 p.m.
18 --- Upon resuming at 6.16 p.m.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. Good evening again, Mr. Ristivojevic. Where we left off --
22 A. Good evening.
23 Q. Where we left off, I was talking about the law concerning the
24 implementation of the Law on Internal Affairs, and we were talking about
25 Article 2.
1 Now, it's not your position is it that that law, the Law on
2 Implementing the Law on Internal Affairs at a time of war, it's no your
3 position that that law some how supplants Mr. Borovcanin's obligations
4 under the Law of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to abide by
5 international standards including the Geneva Conventions, is it?
6 A. My view is that international law norms are binding to a state
7 and its citizens, provided they accept them by ratifying an international
8 agreement. And that is speaking in principle. However, if we start
9 speaking about specifics, then an individual normal can be observed by a
10 citizen whereas another citizen is not in a position to do so.
11 For example, everyone taking part in combat regardless of their
12 rank and the unit they belong to, is by all means duty-bound to spare the
13 life of a prisoner and to treat him humanely. There shouldn't be any
14 difference. If we are to go into detail diminution of the application of
15 these norms, we would arrive at a conclusion that some men could abide it
16 and some couldn't. If we speak about Article 20, point 24, we can see
17 that only senior officers can impose punishments.
18 Q. Sir, I am not asking about punishment or anything like that, I
19 just want to know whether it is your position that as the Law on the
20 Implementation of the law regarding the Ministry of Internal Affairs
21 applies during a time of war or threat of war, I want to know whether
22 it's your position that that law supplants any obligation that
23 Mr. Borovcanin might otherwise have had to abide by international
24 standards and, in particular, Geneva Conventions? That's all. Is it
25 your position that he doesn't have to abide by the it Geneva
1 under that law or that he does?
2 A. No, I cannot state that this law, in any way, and in principle,
3 gives a right to any member of the police not to observe the provisions
4 of the International Laws of War.
5 Q. All right. Thank you for that. Now, let me ask you, I think I
6 can bring this to a little bit more to reality. In a situation where you
7 have a MUP commander of a unit that is resubordinated, as you say,
8 pursuant to this July 10 order, resubordinated to the VRS.
9 In a situation where he is present at a location where there are
10 prisoners of war, where his units are stationed throughout the area, the
11 immediate vicinity of that facility, where he has at his disposal the
12 resources and the men to address a situation concerning those prisoners;
13 and he's aware that those prisoners have been killed in some instances
14 and injured in other instances. And there is a fair number of them that
15 he, himself, actually observes. Doesn't he have an obligation to stop
16 what is transpiring under the Geneva Conventions?
17 A. I think that I had an opportunity a couple of days ago to answer
18 a similar question, specifically, whether Article 21 of the Rules on the
19 Implementation of the Laws of War binds a commander of a police unit
20 resubordinated to the VRS. And the answer I gave then is that it is my
21 opinion that is binding with regard to his subordinates, which is to say that
22 he is obliged to undertake measures to prevent the commission of acts that
23 are being prepared. I also said that it was my opinion, even it is not
24 explicitly written out in Article 21, that it is a logical consequence that
25 he is obliged to prevent acts that are occurring and after that, a consequent
1 obligation that he is obliged to report if he learns subsequently, at a later
2 point, of a crime, to report them, as Article 21 says, to the competent
3 military officer. So this is -- this stems from the international law.
4 This is not any -- in any way an outcome of resourcefulness and ingenious
5 of our local legislators. It just stems from the international law.
6 Q. Wouldn't he under circumstances where he's aware that killing is
7 in progress be under an obligation to stop that from occurring?
8 A. I think that's what I said a minute ago. The primary obligation
9 is if he knows that his subordinates are preparing to commit crimes, he
10 should undertake measures to prevent them.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
12 MR. LAZAREVIC: The opinion of an expert witness about an
13 ultimate issue, I believe it's improper in our view, and it is up to the
14 Trial Chamber to determine, based on all the facts, whether there is some
15 sort of responsibility of Mr. Borovcanin and not for this witness.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to comment on that, Mr. Vanderpuye?
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think it's an entirely appropriate question
18 given this witness's stated area of expertise.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Anyway. No harm is done. He's answered it
21 already, and to us it was a pertinent question; however, we do wish to
22 make it clear that his answer does not bind the Trial Chamber,
23 ultimately, when it comes to international criminal law it is us who will
24 decide and that doesn't necessarily depend on what the witness says.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Absolutely, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. As long as that is clear, let's proceed then.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE:
3 Q. Sir, did you understand my question?
4 JUDGE AGIUS: He's already answered --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed. He's already answered. I thought I
7 was stopping him in time, but I wasn't.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Thank you, Mr. President. I
9 appreciate that. I hadn't noticed it in the record.
10 Q. Wouldn't that obligation also extend to stopping other
11 individuals that are engaged in killing or other conduct detrimental to
12 the welfare of prisoners as well? Wouldn't he have an obligation to stop
13 that conduct as well?
14 A. In my opinion, item 21 that we are talking about, was originally designed
15 for military officers as its title indicates. We are now talking about
16 a different kind of commander. We are talking about a police commander
17 who, unlike military officer, has no rank which is a necessary prerequisite
18 for him to be able to discharge duties of a military commander.
19 Secondly, he doesn't have the powers of a military commander.
20 Once we reach this point, I believe that what needs to be taken into
21 account when we interpret item 1 -- 21, and the duties of a police
22 commander. Although he it doesn't say here explicitly a police
23 commander, this is just a basis for our conclusions relating to a police
24 commander, what should be relevant and taken into account is the amount
25 of powers which should be in correlation with one's duties. What does
1 that mean? That means that if a commander has powers to issue orders to
2 his subordinates, my opinion is that he has obligation concerning conduct
3 of these subordinates. Unlike a police commander, an army commander
4 issues orders to his subordinate but also to other people who are not.
5 According to Rules of Service of the VRS, I think in item 17,
6 says that he issues orders to his subordinates, and in the absence of a
7 superior, the most senior officer issues orders and everyone is obliged
8 to carry them out. As for a police commander, the Law on Internal
9 Affairs and the Law on Internal Affairs during an imminent threat of war
10 or a state of war. I was unable to find this kind of powers vested in
11 the police commander in terms of issuing orders to the individuals who
12 are not subordinate to him. Therefore, my opinion is that the amount of
13 powers is the criterion that should correlate and correspond to the
14 duties. If a person can issue orders to others then he should be
15 responsible for those orders and for these men.
16 As for the men that he cannot issue orders to, he cannot assume
17 any responsibility for their conduct. I have resorted to this
18 interpretation because I repeat item 21 speaks about military officers
19 not police officers. This served only as a basis for drawing a
20 conclusion about the duties of a police commander.
21 Q. All right. If I could show you something.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Could we have 4D371 in e-court, please. I think
23 it's page 2 on the B/C/S. And what I want to direct your attention to is
24 item number 2.
25 Q. I don't know if you can see it yet, but I'll read it into the
1 record --
2 A. Can we just scroll down a bit. And the next page in B/C/S,
3 please, if it's no problem. Yes.
4 Q. And what this document is an order on the application of the
5 Rules of International Laws of War in the army of the Serbian Republic
6 Bosnia and Herzegovina, right? And in item 2, it refers to commanders of
7 all units as well as each member of the army or other armed formation,
8 and takes place in combat activities are responsible for the application
9 of the Rules of the International Law of War, right?
10 A. Yes, yes.
11 Q. And that would apply to Mr. Borovcanin, right?
12 A. Are you talking about item 2?
13 Q. Item 2.
14 A. Item 2 says that commanders of all military units as well as each
15 member of the army or other armed formation who takes part in combat
16 activities are responsible for the application of the Rules of the
17 International Laws of War. This is a provision laid down in principle,
18 meaning that everyone participating in an armed conflict are bound by the
19 International Laws of War.
20 If we move on further, then we can find different examples of the
22 Q. That applies to Mr. Borovcanin, in other words, right? In his
23 capacity as a MUP commander of a unit that is resubordinated to the VRS
24 in July 1995, right?
25 A. In my opinion, as I already stated, is that a commander of a
1 police unit is bound by the rules vis-a-vis his subordinates in the way I
2 already explained. Once we come to specific rules, differences emerge.
3 Everyone is bound to spare the life of a prisoner. There is no
4 difference in that respect. However, it differs when we speak about
5 different ranks and different people in the army and the police and how
6 the rules apply to them.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Can we have P409 in e-court, please.
8 Q. I am going to refer you to Article 21.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think it's page 15 in the English. Just a
10 moment, I'll get you the B/C/S.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, guidelines.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Page 16 in the B/C/S.
13 Q. This has already been read into the record but, I just wanted you
14 to have an opportunity to see it. And what it describes in point 21 is
15 the responsibility for the actions of the subordinates and it says:
16 "An officer shall be personally liable for violations of the laws
17 of war if he knew or could have known that you units subordinate to him
18 or other units or individuals were planning the commission of such
19 violation ..." and so on and so forth.
20 A. Yes. Yes, we discussed this item 21.
21 Q. Yes. And that speaks to the responsibility, of Mr. Borovcanin in
22 this particular instance, as concerns units other than units subordinate
23 to him.
24 A. Is that a statement or question, I apologise?
25 Q. That's a question.
1 A. I think I already answered that, but I will repeat. My view is
2 as follows: This document was drafted in 1988 when the police was not
3 part of the armed forces. And he then took into account those powers
4 that commanders in the army and in the Territorial Defence, and they have
5 ranks too, and they are soldiers too, have with regard to their
6 subordinates, and then I quote other units or individuals’.
7 Now we are faced with another situation.
8 So now we are faced with a different situation in which we have a
9 commander of a different formation which is not part of the military, has
10 also become an integral part of the armed forces, and can be used in
11 combat activities. We cannot, if we apply purely linguistic
12 interpretation, apply this normal to him. If you read military officer,
13 then it would mean that it cannot apply to it. However, we had two
14 different types of commanders in combat, ones who were bound to take care
15 of their subordinates and the others who were not. Now, we have to find
16 a way of how to interpret this norm in order to apply to the commanders
17 of other units.
18 What I said last week, and I said 15 minutes ago and I'm going to
19 say it again, the principle and the criterion to be adhered to with
20 regards to the obligations inherent in this article to the unit which is
21 not a military unit, should be functional; and it should stipulate what
22 his powers are and what kind of obligations stem from these powers. This
23 was meant for military officers, who, I repeat, under the rules of
24 military service, can issue orders both to their subordinates and those
25 who are not. I will refer you to Article 17 of the Provisional Rules on --
1 of Rules of Service of the VRS, provisional from 1992, Article 17 which says,
2 issues orders first to his subordinates but then the most senior ranking
3 officer and to all others, regardless of whether they are his subordinates
4 or not’. So the military officer for whom this is meant. --
5 Q. All right. Thank you for that. I'd like to show you --
6 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... I think we have --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because I would like to know what the
8 witness says. We haven't receives interpretation.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Don't hold this against me. I have
10 already said this two or three times.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.
12 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, I think we have an issue with the
13 translation of this document. In English version of Article 21 of
14 paragraph 21 it says:
15 "An officer shall be personally liable," and also it refers to an
16 officer in the second paragraph of this item. But in B/C/S version, it
17 says: "Military officer." So just in order to avoid any confusion, I
18 think that the witness can read first sentence and the first sentence of
19 the second paragraph just to make sure we are talking about military
20 officer, because this refers to military officer. And he was talking
21 about linguistic understanding, that's what he was referring about. He
22 was having B/C/S text in front of him.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. Well --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, perhaps the witness can tell us whether he
25 answered the question on the basis of the B/C/S version that he has in
1 front of him or whether he was referring to the English text, because if
2 he was referring to the B/C/S version --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] B/C/S.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was referring to the B/C/S version.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: So there is no problem. Let's proceed.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: No problem. Thank you, Mr. President. Could I
8 have in e-court, please, P28. Okay. I just want to have the first page
9 up if we could, so we can see what it is; and then I'll refer you to the
10 page I am looking for. This is a Main Staff order dated 6 October 1992,
11 concerning the guidelines for determining criteria for criminal
13 Q. Have you had an opportunity to see this document in preparing
14 your report, sir?
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. All right. And what it refers to are guidelines for determining
17 criminal prosecution, and it is prepared by the military prosecutor's
18 office at the Main Staff of the armed forces, right?
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could just go one page over in the English.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You did not give me an opportunity to answer.
21 You said "right?" And then I did not get a chance to answer, may I?
22 According to this version that I have in front of me, the list
23 that one receives is in handwriting and some of it is part of the body of
24 the text. First of all I can see that it says, "guidelines for criminal
25 Prosecution and the criteria thereof." When we look at the purpose of
1 this document in the second paragraph of the heading, it says in order to
2 unify the criteria of the evelation [as interpreted] of certain crimes
3 and prosecution of the perpetrators --
4 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is reading too fast.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: May I -- stop, stop, stop. Please, listen to me.
6 The interpreters are having problems. You are reading too fast. Thank
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. What am I saying --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Lazarevic.
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: One portion of witness's answer was not recorded.
11 And he said, "I cannot see by looking at this document that it's an
12 order." This is what I heard him saying, and I cannot see this in the
13 transcript, so maybe he can repeat.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: And I am not surprised at this so because he was
15 going too fast. So I don't expect the interpreters to work miracles
16 here, especially at 7.00 in the evening.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE:
18 Q. All I want to know, Mr. Ristivojevic, is have you --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Thank you, judge.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE:
21 Q. -- before?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And have you seen this prior to and during the preparation of
24 your report?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. That's all I want to know. If I could refer you --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: How much longer, Mr. Vanderpuye, and you,
3 Mr. Lazarevic, how long do you expect your redirect to last? I would
4 like to finish with this witness today.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: This is basically my last --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- question.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Well, let's not waste more time or lose
9 more time. Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could go to page 8 in the English and page
11 29 in the B/C/S.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 29? There is no 29.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE:
14 Q. It should be on the screen in front of you.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. On the screen in front of you, sir?
17 A. You said page 29, and that page does not exist in the guidelines.
18 The guidelines finish with the age -- with the page 17. You misspoke
19 when you said the page number.
20 Q. 17 in your hard copy.
21 A. 17 does exist, yes.
22 Q. All right.
23 Then I understand that it might be 13.
24 A. I have 13 in front of me, yes.
25 Q. Then the version on e-court is one page shy of where it needs to
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could go one page forward in the e-court
3 English version, I think I can -- page 9, I think I will be where I need
4 to. All right.
5 Q. What I have in e-court now is part of the section that relates to
6 the offences against humanity and international law pursuant to chapter
7 16 of the criminal code, and what it reads is as follows, what I want to
8 direct your attention to:
9 "From this follows the explicit responsibility of the officer
10 corps of the army of Republika Srpska as the giver of orders in command
11 of the armed forces whose members could commit or are committing some of
12 these offences to take uncompromising action and to prevent such conduct.
13 This responsibility belongs by its nature, particularly, to high-ranking
14 individuals and officials in state, military, or public organisations who
15 are in the concrete circumstances in a position to issue orders. If
16 officers merely find out that units of the armed forces of the army of
17 Republika Srpska or their members have committed or are committing such
18 acts and take no measures to prevent the consequences or the acts
19 themselves, and expose perpetrators to criminal Prosecution, this in
20 itself makes them answerable for those criminal offences."
21 In your analysis of this particular provisions, these particular
22 guidelines, it is the case that this would apply directly to the conduct
23 of Mr. Borovcanin as is charged in this indictment; isn't that the case?
24 A. I would say the following: This legal document, by its legal
25 nature, is just a declaration. It does not establish any legal rights
1 and obligations. Its aim is to provide the guidelines to the legislator
2 as to what the elements of the crimes are in more specific terms so as to
3 allow the legislator to unify the crime prevention and prosecution
4 policies. This is nothing new.
5 It is just a repetition of what is already inherent in the
6 criminal law and other documents. So this does not establish new rights,
7 obligations that do not exist in the legal order. It is a mere
8 declaration of what already exists in the legal order.
9 In my view, what is said in here, what you've just read out, does
10 not differ from Article 21 that we have already discussed and that I have
11 already interpreted in my own way.
12 Q. I'm afraid you haven't answered my question, and my question is:
13 You say that these are guidelines that refer to concrete rules, and my
14 question is does that apply to Mr. Borovcanin as he found himself in the
15 circumstances in July 1995? That's my question, and you can answer that
16 yes or no.
17 A. Sir, in my opinion guidelines are of a declarative nature. They
18 do not create any legal obligations and they don't give rights to
19 anybody, including Mr. Borovcanin. They just declare what already
20 exists, they are nothing new. They were drafted with an intention to
21 list the elements of criminal acts in order to allow the military
22 judiciary to unify their Prosecution policies. So this is nothing new.
23 This speaks of the already-existing law and the existing crimes that
24 exist in chapter 16. This is an interpretation by the supreme prosecutor
25 of Republika Srpska.
1 His interpretation of the existing law of the Chapter 16 of the
2 criminal code and other legal documents. Do you understand what I'm
3 saying? He is speaking about the existing law. He does not establish
4 any new rights and obligations. This is just like an order by the
5 president of the republic that he issued in 1992 on the obligation to
6 respect the International Laws of War. This is nothing new. This is
7 just a declaration to remind everybody of the obligation to respect the
8 rules and laws of war. And particularly issued to members of the
9 military and others involved in combat. Do you understand what I'm
11 Q. Absolutely, sir. But --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: At the end of the day, as I said earlier, we are
13 the ones who are going to decide.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Absolutely.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: What's the legal effects --
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Absolutely, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: -- of such a directive, whether it's a directive or
18 an order and what responsibilities, domestically and internationally may
19 be attached to it.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. My question wasn't to
21 repeat this issue.
22 Q. What I want to do ask you, sir, was you referred earlier to
23 Mr. Borovcanin's obligations with respect to the conduct of other
24 individuals who may not have been subordinated to him or other military
25 units. You are not suggesting, certainly, by your answer that if he's
1 aware of the commission of crimes by those units, even if they are not
2 subordinated to him or under his control, that in his presence he has no
3 obligation to intervene and no obligation to stop patently and obviously
4 illegal conduct towards prisoners of war? You are not suggesting that,
5 are you?
6 A. Let me tell you this. What I've told you so far, this is what I
7 claim with regard to the obligations of an officer according to item 21
8 and my interpretation thereof.
9 In this particular concrete situation that you have just
10 proposed, the criminal code of the former SFRY, in the chapter on crimes
11 against body and limb, there is a crime that could be applied to this
12 situation that you are talking about. This is a failure to extend
13 assistance. Whoever is in a position to extend assistance to a person
14 whose life is in danger, without putting his own life in jeopardy or
15 another person's in jeopardy, if they fail to do so, they would be taken
16 to prison. So there was a punishment for that. A crime which was called
17 "Failure to Extend Assistance." What I'm saying is that the situation
18 that you are talking about is to a certain extent covered by the criminal
20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Ristivojevic. I have your answer. Thank you. I
21 have no further questions, Mr. President. Thank you.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye. Mr. Lazarevic.
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honours. Regrettably, I am going to
24 need at least 30 minutes, maybe more, because I have a number of
25 documents. However, I was informed that Mr. Ristivojevic flight is
1 scheduled for tomorrow afternoon, so I think I will be able to finish in
2 30, 40 minutes. My colleague has extended his time significantly as was
3 indicated which puts me in a situation that I really cannot finish with
4 my redirect.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think we have -- sound antagonistic in any
6 way, Mr. Lazarevic, provided we keep within reasonable time. Shall we
7 start now or do you prefer to start tomorrow?
8 MR. LAZAREVIC: I would really like if we can start tomorrow,
9 that would give me the opportunity to go through this, maybe I can even
10 streamline my cross-examination once I go through today's transcript.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Yes. That's why I have asked you, because I
12 am hopeful that you will.
13 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I see. We are sitting in the afternoon
15 tomorrow. What time is his flight?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Half past 5.00.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Half past 5.00. He should make it. If we start at
18 2.15 and finish in 30 minutes, then he should make it. All right. We'll
19 give you 30 minutes, not a minute more unless you find -- you show us
20 good cause, Mr. Lazarevic.
21 Have your things prepared, packed, and ready, so that you will
22 leave straight from the airport from here as soon as you finish your
23 testimony. Thank you.
24 We stand adjourned.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
1 6.54 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the
2 13th day of November, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.