Page 30271

 1                           Monday, 19 January 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The accused Borovcanin not present]

 5                           [The witness entered court]

 6                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  So, good morning.  Madam Registrar, could you call

 8     the case, please.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case

10     IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Madam.  And good morning, everyone.  For

12     the record, all the accused except Borovcanin are present this morning.

13     I take it, Mr. Lazarevic, that your client is unwell today and that

14     waiver is on its way?

15             MR. LAZAREVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning,

16     everyone.

17             Yes, Your Honour is right.  I spoke to Mr. Borovcanin earlier

18     this morning.  He informed me that he is not feeling well and he won't be

19     able to attend this session.  His waiver is on his way.  He already

20     signed it earlier this morning.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  All right.  Thank you.  Representation, I

22     see that for once all Defence teams -- no, there is Mr. Bourgon missing.

23     There is Mr. Bourgon missing.  The rest are present, Prosecution's

24     Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye.

25             Good morning, General, I hope you had a good rest.

Page 30272

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, we are going to continue this morning with the

 3     Gvero cross-examination and then we see who else and certainly with the

 4     Prosecution cross-examination.  I estimate that you will be here for sure

 5     today and tomorrow with us, possibly, if not probably, also Wednesday.

 6             So, Mr. Josse -- or Mr. Krgovic, sorry.

 7             MR. KRGOVIC:  Your Honours, good morning.

 8                           WITNESS: SLOBODAN KOSOVAC [Resumed]

 9                           [Witness answered through interpretation]

10                           Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:  [Continued]

11        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, General.

12        A.   Good morning.

13        Q.   Before we adjourned, we spoke about methods used to draft a

14     directive.  And let me ask you this:  When it comes to the drafting of

15     military documents, whether it's a complete or full method or a shortened

16     method, as far as I can understand your testimony the role of operative

17     organ is the same in both cases, is it not?

18        A.   Irrespective of the chosen method of work, the role of all the

19     organs of the command is the same in all the cases, not only of the

20     operative organ.  The role of all the organs is the same in all cases.

21        Q.   When you passed your conclusions on the methods to be used in

22     drafting the specific directive, you started from the assumption that the

23     relationship in the command and the relationship between the military and

24     political structures were harmonious, that there were no discords or

25     discrepancies in opinion among the members of command.  Wouldn't that be

Page 30273

 1     correct?

 2        A.   When I drafted my conclusions on the way the directive was

 3     drafted, I was governed primarily by the elements that impact the choice

 4     of the method for drafting a directive.  These elements concerned the

 5     documents that is being drafted, which in this case is a directive, its

 6     strategic significance, its general implications for future periods, the

 7     available time that the command had at its disposal, i.e., the Main Staff

 8     of the Army Republika Srpska, and only later on I also looked at some

 9     mutual relationships and some possible ties between the relationships and

10     their impact on the chosen method of work.  And since in my expert report

11     I did not mention this, it is my estimate that the relationships that

12     prevailed and that fluctuated from good to bad did not have a significant

13     impact on the choice of the method of work.

14        Q.   From the Miletic Defence, did you receive a document pointing to

15     the fact that there were discords between General Milovanovic and the

16     commander of the Main Staff, General Mladic, in the course of 1995?

17        A.   I received a number of documents, and primarily I mean that I got

18     all the statements provided by General Milovanovic.  I read all of them.

19     I also read his publications, his views of the whole situation.  I also

20     had an occasion to see the transcript of his testimony provided here

21     before the Tribunal.  This had been translated for me.  And I can say

22     that the way I perceived the fluctuations and the relationships did not

23     represent the problem that I was supposed to analyse in my expert report

24     because I had never seen a -- too big a reflection on the process and

25     methods of work.  I saw particular aberrations of which I spoke in my

Page 30274

 1     testimony last week.  I also saw some procedural discrepancies which I

 2     don't think had a major impact on the quality of the document.

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] May the witness please be shown

 4     6D330.

 5        Q.   General, sir, this is a document -- this is a note by the

 6     security service, an official note.  Look at the second paragraph.  I am

 7     not interested in the part where it says that:  "Only General Gvero was a

 8     good man in the General Staff," but the second part "... that

 9     General Milovanovic would be kicked out of the Main Staff."

10             Were you privy to such information when drafting your expert

11     report?

12        A.   This information --

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Ms. Fauveau.

14             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Can I maybe ask that the witness

15     read the whole sentence to the very end until -- up until the mention of

16     General Mladic?

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't have a problem with the

19     witness reading the whole document.  This is particularly why I told him

20     that I was interested only in the -- in one part.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  But we are talking of seven lines, so

22     let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, no problem.  I've read

24     the whole document.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.

Page 30275

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I had been privy to this

 2     document, which I wasn't, my opinion based on this document would have

 3     been something that is notorious, that is known.  In strong hierarchical

 4     environments such as a military, it is generally known that there are

 5     several staffing policies or several ways to talk about the staff.  One

 6     way is used by the subordinates, one way is used by the colleagues, and

 7     yet another way is used by the superior officers.

 8             One might say that this is a desirable outcome on the part of

 9     this major.  This is what this major would like to see happen.

10             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown

11     6D312.

12        Q.   General, sir, this is another document issued by the security

13     department.  I am interested specifically in the third paragraph starting

14     with the following words:

15             "During the general conversation between our source and

16     Vice-President Koljevic ..."

17             Could you please read the paragraph very carefully.  As you've

18     just told us that there is a way that Mr. Koljevic, a member of the

19     superior command, perceives relationships in the Main Staff where there

20     are three streams:  Hard-liner warriors with General Milovanovic; those

21     who were willing to compromise, including General Gvero; and the third

22     one that prefers Yugoslavia, including General Mladic.

23              This document says that the relationships in the Supreme Command

24     were not harmonious, at least from this angle.  Would you agree with me

25     when I say that?

Page 30276

 1        A.   I absolutely agree with you.  We have already discussed that when

 2     we were talking about the commence of orders.  We said that there were

 3     problems, and this document dates from February 1995.  We know that the

 4     political, military, and any other environment in the security sector was

 5     very volatile, that this was the year that was decisive, and we know that

 6     in any such situation there is a power struggle and the Army Republika

 7     Srpska was no exception to that.

 8        Q.   Just one more question about the directive.  Did you have an

 9     occasion to read the part of the statement talking about the drafting of

10     Directive 7 offered by General Milovanovic and General Skrbic who

11     testified before this Tribunal?

12        A.   It is very important to repeat what I already said before this

13     Trial Chamber last week.  Before I got hold of some documents, I had

14     already carried out a lot of research into the variations when it comes

15     to the methods of work.  And the method of work on the directive was

16     something that General Milovanovic spoke about, and I was very confused

17     when he said that there was an accompanying document signed.

18             However, when all the pieces of the puzzle were revealed to me,

19     and a very important piece of that puzzle in that process is Spreca from

20     January to March and the command over the Spreca operation, and in the

21     meantime, I received very good information about the dynamics of meetings

22     with the president of Republika Srpska, then this confirmed that my

23     conclusions about the methods of work were very probable, unlike any

24     other methods on the methods of work used.

25        Q.   Did General Miletic's Defence show you General Djukic's statement

Page 30277

 1     about the method used to draft directives in the Main Staff?

 2        A.   I believe so, but I would like my memory to be jogged on the

 3     document.

 4        Q.   I don't have intention to show you the document, I just wanted to

 5     ask you whether you have had an occasion to see this statement?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   General, I am going to move on to another topic.  When testifying

 8     before this Tribunal, you spoke about the establishment of the

 9     Main Staff, and I am going to ask you about the so-called personal

10     establishment which was shown to you here.  In 1992 when this personal

11     establishment was determined, the same forms were used as in the

12     Yugoslav Peoples' Army; is that correct?  The same forms were used?

13        A.   Yes.  Throughout the whole war -- or, rather, throughout the

14     whole analysed period the same forms were used.  Not only the same forms

15     but also the same documents that define the organisation of the Army of

16     Republika Srpska.

17        Q.   As far as I can understand your testimony before this

18     Trial Chamber, the place in the establishment I -- determines the rank;

19     am I correct when I think that?  When you were talking about the columns?

20        A.   Yes, yes, I'm with you.  Maybe this is a good moment for me to

21     explain the meaning of the term "personal establishment," the meaning of

22     "personal elements," and the meaning of "establishment elements" because

23     this is a source of confusion very often.

24             These terms are used in the professional part of the military and

25     they are very often used in broader military circles, and then sometimes

Page 30278

 1     people are not familiar with the professional part and they are confused.

 2     The so-called personal establishment -- personnel establishment that was

 3     shown here and that I explained on the RF3 form implies part of the book

 4     that regulates the organisation and composition of manpower, because

 5     every establishment has a personnel part and the material part, and

 6     personnel part regulates what that person and that unit is entitled to

 7     with respect to materiel.  As for the personal elements, those are the

 8     element that is every singular person has according to their rank.

 9             When the chief of operations and training at the beginning of his

10     duty, General Miletic was colonel.  That was his personal element.

11     Establishment elements are the elements that the book envisages for the

12     person with that rank.  If the establishment elements are higher, then

13     that person can be promoted in service; and if the establishment elements

14     are the same, then there is no promotion.  If the establishment elements

15     are lower, this means that the posting is exceptional, but he will not be

16     downgraded and the ranks will not be lowered.

17        Q.   And if you have a look in the case of a particular place or

18     position, and we have a look at the establishment for that position, you

19     can see the rank concerned, the duties that are performed, the position

20     group, tasks -- or, rather, weapons issued, and the transport means used.

21     That's what you have under establishment?

22        A.   Yes.  What's missing, though, is the abbreviation VES, military

23     specialty, which is what a person has to have in order to perform such

24     duties.  This is very important within military structures.  It's

25     decisive when it comes to appointing someone to a certain position.

Page 30279

 1        Q.   And the VES, the position -- or, rather, the position group,

 2     well, as far as I have understood your testimony, this determines one's

 3     salary; is that correct?

 4        A.   The position group, as I have said in my testimony -- or, rather,

 5     the rank group, influence all these matters.  When we spoke about those

 6     who were seniors or juniors in the military, well, if you have two

 7     officers who have the same rank then the rank grouping defines who is

 8     senior, hence, the one who has a higher rank or higher rank grouping.

 9     This reflects the work that is performed, the value attributed to the

10     work within that system.

11        Q.   You also said, 29978 of the transcript, that you didn't find any

12     defined criteria according to which this rank grouping was done, if I

13     have understood your testimony correctly.

14        A.   You have understood my testimony correctly, but I was a little

15     more precise.  I said that unfortunately I didn't find any relevant

16     documents such as a document that I often mention on organisational

17     development.  I didn't find those criteria, but I performed a detailed

18     analysis of the establishments I came across, and I spoke to various

19     individuals who worked on establishment issues in the army of the

20     Republika Srpska, and I came to the conclusion that criteria were used

21     for defining establishment elements, criterion that were in accordance

22     with those used by the Army of Yugoslavia.

23        Q.   To be specific, with regard to rank groupings, if a -- if an

24     officer in accordance with JNA rules receives the grade twice, that he

25     excels, he has a rank grouping that is one level higher regardless of his

Page 30280

 1     position and his rank; isn't that correct?

 2        A.   To be precise, you are right.  If an officer has a rank grouping

 3     that is identical to the establishment group, and if he then twice gets

 4     the grade excels, then he has a rank grouping that is one level higher or

 5     one level higher than the establishment group.  That's correct.

 6        Q.   So is it possible for a corps officer to have the same rank

 7     grouping as an officer in the Main Staff, for example, group 3?

 8        A.   If you analyse the criterion in a little more detail, the

 9     criteria according to which I identified rank, and these are documents

10     that every army in the world has, these are important documents because

11     they form the basis for structuring protocol and other such matters, in

12     that case you must have noticed that in the Republika Srpska Army, the

13     corps commanders were very high-ranking.  Or, rather, I pointed this out

14     because corps commanders and corps officers frequently had higher rank

15     groupings than officers in the Main Staff because their position and

16     their importance was evaluated to be of much importance for the system.

17             So it's not just because of the grade excellent or excels, but

18     the system is such that some corps officers have higher positions that

19     many -- than many officers in the Main Staff of the Republika Srpska

20     Army, and this is the case worldwide not just in the Army of

21     Republika Srpska.

22        Q.   So what is the importance of the rank group then if an officer in

23     the corps has group 3 and an officer in the main corps has a rank

24     grouping 3?  What is the relationship when it comes to rank?

25        A.   Well, this is the answer to what I said with regard to rank and

Page 30281

 1     order.  First you establish the rank, it's clearly defined, and you can

 2     see this from the definition that I have provided.  And when you deal

 3     with rank -- well, rank groups are important only within that rank.  It's

 4     just a matter of whether he's the first, second, third, or fourth.

 5     Perhaps an officer who has a third rank has a higher rank grouping than

 6     someone in the second rank, but he can't be senior to him because he's

 7     not of that rank.  So it's not said in vain when you say that there is a

 8     rank and order within a given rank.

 9        Q.   When you mentioned criteria that defined rank groupings, General,

10     I had a detailed look at what you called the working map of the personnel

11     development, and I saw rank grouping 3.  Within that group, apart from

12     Commander Mladic, all generals -- all those who had the rank of General

13     in the JNA had that rank grouping, those who became members of the Army

14     Republika Srpska.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment.

16             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Would my colleague please submit

17     the document to the witness.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Krgovic.

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's for me to decide

20     on the order of my questions and when I will show the witness documents.

21     I am laying the basis for my question, and I will choose the appropriate

22     time to show the document.

23             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...

24     understand but I am not absolutely certain that Commander Mladic was in

25     fact part of group 3.

Page 30282

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  We will need to see the document in any case, so

 2     let's bring out this document and put it on the ELMO or on e-court if it

 3     is available on e-court.

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   General, do you have a detailed look at this excerpt from the

 6     establishment of the Army of Republika Srpska, this working map that

 7     contains names, that lists certain names?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown the

10     following document, P3178.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  The witness is kindly asked to speak into the

12     microphone or speak a little more loudly.

13             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   General --

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, who exactly needs to speak --

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Counsel for the Defence is kindly asked to

17     speak a little more loudly.  Thank you.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Krgovic, the interpreters are having a little

19     bit of a problem because they think you are not speaking near enough --

20     near your microphone.

21             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   General, have a look at the first page of this establishment

23     document.  We have General Mladic's name as commander.  He has been

24     assigned rank grouping 2.  Could we have a look at the first paragraph.

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we enlarge first paragraph,

Page 30283

 1     first part of the front page, in fact.

 2        Q.   You can see that the rank he is assigned is 02.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's have a look at the following

 5     page of the document, please.  Could we have a look at the bottom of the

 6     document.

 7        Q.   And here you can see that in the case of General Milovanovic --

 8     well, the General has a rank grouping 3.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And now -- just a minute please.

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 05057629 is the ERN number.  I

12     apologise, 35, it's 35.  You can't see the ERN number very clearly in my

13     copy.  7635.  Could you scroll down a bit, please.  That's not the page.

14     The following page, please.  It's page 11 in the e-court system.  Just a

15     little lower down, please.

16        Q.   That's the rank grouping of General Gvero, number 3.

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, let's have a look at page that

18     deals with the logistics sector.  I have a different copy here, 7637.

19     Page 13 in the e-court system.  Could you scroll down a bit, please.

20     Scroll down a little more, please.

21        Q.   This is General Djukic, and can you see that his rank grouping is

22     3?

23             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And now let's have a look at page

24     7658.  The ERN number is 7658.

25        Q.   The 1st Krajina Corps rank grouping for General Talic is 3.

Page 30284

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Madam Fauveau.

 2             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Excuse me, I am not absolutely

 3     certain where my colleague sees "3," I can read "4" here.

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] It's the column under

 5     lieutenant-colonel's VES 3109903.  It's below that.  It's the third

 6     column from the left.

 7        Q.   General, apart from General Mladic who was a General in the JNA

 8     army --

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Are you happy with that now, Ms. Fauveau?

10             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand.  It's just that

11     I was slightly confused because there was a position group also that

12     indicates 04, so maybe the witness could tell us a little more about

13     that.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you.  Yes, Mr. Krgovic and

15     General.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   General, apart from General Mladic, as far as I know according to

18     the first-hand information I received, only four other officers had the

19     rank of General in the JNA, and they were Milovanovic, Djukic, Gvero, and

20     Talic.  That was in 1992.  And they had rank groupings in accordance with

21     this fact.  Would you agree with my assessment?

22        A.   If I understood the question, and the question was whether I

23     agree that the establishment in the Army of Republika Srpska was done in

24     accordance with the rank that the persons that you just mentioned had in

25     the JNA?

Page 30285

 1        Q.   And that was the criterion when their rank grouping was

 2     determined, i.e., that the establishment was actually drafted to

 3     accommodate the persons.

 4        A.   Unfortunately, I can't agree with you.  The establishment that

 5     was drafted and that was carried out here, and I had an occasion to talk

 6     to the people who were very important professional consultants, and they

 7     were consulted when this establishment was done, it is a very

 8     hierarchical establishment that provided for subordination, and it was

 9     developmental because it provided for the people who were brought to

10     these establishment positions as officers to be promoted in their rank.

11             Judging by the example that we just saw, and we saw two group --

12     four -- five ranking groups, we saw that four officers, Milovanovic,

13     Djukic, Gvero, and Mladic had the same personal establishment elements

14     and personnel elements.  And this is not a surprise.  These are the

15     highest ranking officers.  And we saw that a commander of the 1st Krajina

16     Corps had the personnel establishment 3 -- 4, and the rank grouping 3,

17     which means that he was able to promote and that the elements could be

18     raised after he had spent some time in that position and when his

19     assessment was good.

20        Q.   General Talic was standing in for General Mladic that position

21     after all; isn't that correct?  The Chief of the Main Staff, that is?

22        A.   This is a very important element in the rank and ranking that I

23     spoke about.  I did not emphasize this in the organisation and

24     establishment.  When I said that standing in is a temporary situation,

25     that it isn't necessarily evil for a short period of time, without much

Page 30286

 1     authority and powers, and lasts only until the moment a decision is

 2     brought about acting on behalf of somebody.  When we were talking about

 3     different variants and when we were talking about on who would be

 4     representing the commander or the Chief of Staff who are not there, they

 5     were preventing for performing their duties, what you just told is an

 6     essential issue.  If the commander and the Chief of Staff had been

 7     prevented in performing their duties, it would probably be the president

 8     of the republic who would issue a decision for them to be represented by

 9     one of the corps commanders, and it would probably be the commander of

10     the 1st Corps.  This is a very essential essence of the difference

11     between representing, standing in for, and acting, and what elements

12     arise from the representing.

13        Q.   Just a correction my question.  I asked you this, after all

14     General Talic replaced General Mladic in his position, he was his

15     successor?

16        A.   There is no succession in the army.  After all, at one point he

17     was appointed the commander of the Main Staff of the Army Republika

18     Srpska.  That is the fact.

19        Q.   General, one more question.  The authorities and powers of the

20     officers or military personnel are not determined by the establishment

21     but by the rules on authorities and powers.  Wouldn't that be correct?

22        A.   The establishment is a very important document that is involved

23     in determining the role and place of somebody in the system, together

24     with many other documents, and this also determines what he, that person,

25     could, should, and had to do.

Page 30287

 1        Q.   However, the powers and authorities are established by other

 2     documents, aren't they?

 3        A.   Yes.  They are established by the law and this order on the

 4     authorities of the organisational units.  These are the regulations that

 5     govern this matter.

 6        Q.   In this specific case, these are the rules of the JNA such as the

 7     rules of the authorities of the land army in peacetime and rules of the

 8     authorities on the military district in peacetime.  These are the

 9     regulations that regulate this matter.  Would I not be correct in saying

10     that?

11        A.   The rule on authorities and powers regulated was the governing

12     document until 1993.  After that, the rule was replaced by the order.

13     These two documents regulated the authorities and powers for the specific

14     organisational units.  The one that you mentioned was the rule of the

15     authorities of officers in the land army, that's one document, and the

16     other one on military districts is different, and they cannot be applied

17     to the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska because we are talking

18     about two different organisational units and all of their elements.

19        Q.   So what rules --

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment, one moment, because I get the feeling

21     from the interpreter's voice that we are going too fast.  We are going

22     too fast.  She is doing a tremendous job in trying to catch up with both

23     of you, but I don't think we will keep it that way.  So slow down,

24     please.

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well.

Page 30288

 1        Q.   Which rule would regulate this matter in the Army of Republika

 2     Srpska?

 3        A.   There should be or there should have been a rule on the

 4     authorities of the organisational units of the Main Staff of the Army

 5     Republika Srpska or an order on the authorities and powers of the

 6     organisational units of the Main Staff of the Army Republika Srpska; or

 7     if these two documents did not exist because of the analogy that they

 8     used, what must have been used was the order on the authorities of the

 9     General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia.  One of these documents must

10     have had a direct or indirect impact on looking at the authorities and

11     powers of all the organisational units.

12        Q.   However, did you not see these documents or -- and you did not

13     use them in the drafting of your expert report; right?

14        A.   The rule and order on authorities and powers of the

15     organisational units of the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia I did

16     use pertaining to that period, and I analysed some things that were done,

17     and I can conclude that either the experience of the officers who were

18     members of the Main Staff of the Army Republika Srpska or the rule in a

19     small number of copies was something that was directly or indirect used.

20             And as for the two documents that you have mentioned and that the

21     Main Staff of the Army Republika Srpska should have had, I did not see

22     them.

23        Q.   And very concretely now, as far as I can understand from your CV,

24     you were not a member of the Army Republika Srpska, and you do not have

25     personal first-hand knowledge on how the hierarchical relationship

Page 30289

 1     functioned in the Army Republika Srpska.  The officers of the Main Staff

 2     and people who were directly involved in the Army of Republika Srpska are

 3     better suited to tell us something about that; right?

 4        A.   It is true that I was never a member of the Army of Republika

 5     Srpska.  It is also true that I am not contesting the competencies and

 6     authorities of any of the officers of the Army of Republika Srpska.

 7     However, it is also true that I developed as an expert on the

 8     organisation and command and that I had contacts with my colleagues who

 9     were involved in that matters in the Army of Republika Srpska.  We

10     discussed the matters extensively.  I often proposed my own positions

11     with that regard, and as an expert I tried hard to study the matters as

12     best as I could.

13        Q.   General --

14             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown

15     Exhibit P410.  Could the Court please produce page 7, Article 10.

16     Article 10, please.  Page 8 in the English version, please.  In the

17     Serbian version, Article 10, page 7, please.  I apologise, it is page 10.

18     In my copy it is page 7 so could -- can we see the following page,

19     please, the one ending with ERN numbers 47065.

20        Q.   It says in Article 10 that:

21             "The Chief of Staff shall replace the commander when the latter

22     is absent and shall have all rights and duties.  If the commander and the

23     Chief of Staff are both absent at the same time, the commander shall be

24     replaced by the officer assigned on the order of the commander."

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown

Page 30290

 1     Exhibit 6D36 -- 336.  Unfortunately, Your Honours, we do not have the

 2     translation of this document.  I am going to ask the witness to read

 3     Article 10 of the document -- or the rules, rather.  Although it is the

 4     same as Article 10 in the previous rules.  6D336.  The last page.

 5        Q.   Do you have the document in front of you on the screen because I

 6     have something else?

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I am talking about Exhibit 6D336.

 8        Q.   General, do you agree with me that the contents of this article

 9     are the same as the contents of the same article in the previous

10     document?

11        A.   Since I can see only Article 10, I would suppose that this

12     document is the Rules on Responsibilities and Powers of a Military

13     District.

14        Q.   Yes.

15             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown

16     page 1 of the same document.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No need to do that because I

18     recognise the document anyway.

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   General, do you agree that the two documents treat representation

21     of a commander in an identical way?

22        A.   I absolutely agree with you in that.  However, I believe,

23     Your Honours, that we need some very important explanation here.

24        Q.   General, I will come to that.  I apologise.  I just want to ask

25     you something else, and I will go back to this topic later on.  I just

Page 30291

 1     wanted to establish that one fact.  I wanted to ask you whether the two

 2     documents treat the matter in the -- in an identical way.  That was my

 3     question.

 4        A.   The text is identical, however, we are talking about different

 5     levels and we will be discussing the two levels later, I believe.

 6        Q.   On the 13th of January you testified on page 3022 on line 8,

 7     and -- I apologise, 30022, 30022 is the page number, and you spoke about

 8     command posts.  You said then that there is just one command post which

 9     consists of several elements, and then you said that one of the elements

10     is the basic command post.  The second element is a forward command post,

11     and you also spoke about the system of command posts.

12             You spoke about that based on a rule.  What rule is it that

13     determines the elements of a command post?

14        A.   I retain the right, Your Honours, to say something about the

15     previous thing in detail because the definition that this is identical is

16     not acceptable.  And when I spoke about command posts, I was answering a

17     question, and the question was whether somebody was something this or the

18     other in a command post, and then I said that a command post per se does

19     not mean a thing, that there is a system of command posts and that there

20     are several command posts; the basic command posts, the forward command

21     post, the force command post, a reserve command post, and so on and so

22     forth.

23             In general terms when we are talking about command posts and the

24     system of command posts, we have to consult rules of combat, we have to

25     consult professional literature, military lexicon, military

Page 30292

 1     encyclopedias, and in principles these are all guiding documents.  They

 2     are mostly never conflicting, and I adhere to that fact.  And I repeat

 3     that if you take the most applicable rule about the work of the commands,

 4     I would like to repeat that this is a system of command posts because

 5     under chapter Command Posts there is an explanation of all these command

 6     posts that may be found.

 7             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown P699.

 8     Page -- these are instructions for the work and operations staff, page 31

 9     in the Serbian and Croatian language, or, rather, in the Serbian

10     language, and page 27 -- or, rather, I apologise.  In the English version

11     it's page 31.  It's page 31 in both the Serbian and English version --

12     or, rather, in the e-court system it's page 33.  I apologise.  The page I

13     have in the B/C/S version doesn't correspond to the one in the e-court

14     system.

15        Q.   What confuses me is that you mentioned the elements of command

16     post whereas here the elements explains in a somewhat different manner.

17     Here it says that the main elements are the command group, the auxiliary

18     group, and the communications centre.

19        A.   Under 51 you can see exactly what I said.  The main command post,

20     not the command post, but the main command posts consists of a command

21     group, an auxiliary group, and a communications centre, and that's what I

22     was saying about the system of command posts.  The forward command post

23     is different way -- is organised in a different way, rear command post is

24     organised in a different way, but all together they constitute a system,

25     the purpose of which is to exercise command pursuant to the authority of

Page 30293

 1     the organisational unit in question.

 2             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

 3     the following document, chapter 3 on command posts.  The ERN number is

 4     239389, and in the English version it's page 27.  It's page 27 in the

 5     e-court system in the B/C/S version.  29 in the e-court system, I

 6     apologise.  The ERN number in the English version is 11626.

 7        Q.   I assume you've seen this document on numerous occasions.  What I

 8     am interested in is the following, the part that deals with rear command

 9     posts or logistics command posts which says that rear command posts can

10     take over the role of main command posts if it's impossible to command

11     from the command post.  To control, to exercise command and control from

12     the command post.

13             Do you agree with me that that's what it says in these

14     instructions?

15        A.   Yes, that's what it says in these instructions.

16        Q.   In the course of your testimony before this Court, you said that

17     if the Commander-in-Chief were not at the command post, in that case the

18     most senior officer would be the assistant for morale and religious

19     issues.  That's what you said.  And you said that that is what arises

20     from the establishment structure; isn't that the case?

21        A.   I think that that was the context, but I wasn't that precise.  I

22     probably said who was the most senior person at the command post.  I

23     probably mentioned the matter of seniority.  It's important to point out

24     that if the commander isn't at the command post, he's still in command of

25     the unit.  That's something that's very important, in my opinion.  But

Page 30294

 1     what is very important in this case, in the case of the command post, and

 2     you can see this in -- or under item 43 that's on the screen and also

 3     under item 44.  My explanation was based on everything I have said, but

 4     what is important is something that we really must bear in mind.

 5             What are the purposes of the instructions?  Let me just emphasize

 6     one issue.  These instructions were drafted when the information organ

 7     was in the staff, the intelligence organ was in the staff, and then the

 8     command -- the command's work or the staff's work was organised in a

 9     certain manner.  The Army of Republika Srpska had an intelligence and

10     security sector that had been organised in a particular manner, and with

11     regard to that aspect, these instructions can't be applied literally when

12     analysing the Army of Republika Srpska.  You have to analyse them in a

13     creative manner.  It's not just enough to have a look at what is written

14     here.  Since the Main Staff of the Army Republika Srpska wasn't well

15     manned, wasn't fully manned, the way it was organised and the way it

16     worked was very specific as a result of this lack of personnel.

17        Q.   This is something I wanted to ask you about.  You expressed your

18     opinion on who the most senior officer was when the commander was not

19     present or when the deputy commander wasn't present, but did you consult

20     any officers from Republika Srpska?  Didn't the Miletic Defence provide

21     you with testimony of some officers from the Main Staff who addressed

22     this matter, because, General, the rules are one thing and the situation

23     on the ground, real life, wartime situations, that's another thing; isn't

24     that correct?

25        A.   We fully agree on that.  However, the question you have put is

Page 30295

 1     very problematic.  If the commander and the Chief of Staff are not in the

 2     staff, well, who replaces the commander?  If the commander and Chief of

 3     Staff are not at the basic command post, who replaces the commander?

 4     Very often you don't have a sign of identity between two solutions.

 5     Perhaps I provided certain models as an answer.  This was then a very

 6     precise solution, a precise model, and then on the basis of that model I

 7     said who should replace such a commander, but in practice things can be

 8     different.  I didn't deal with this matter because I had no way in which

 9     to come to such conclusions.

10        Q.   Did the Miletic Defence, when proofing you, show you

11     Milomir Savcic's.  He's testified before this Court and he in fact

12     addressed the question of how things weren't in practice.  General Savcic

13     is an officer -- or was an officer from the Main Staff.  He later became

14     the chief of the intelligence department and had a high rank in the Main

15     Staff.  Have you had the opportunity of examining his testimony with

16     regard to this matter?

17        A.   I think I had the opportunity of reading through his statement.

18     I have been through almost all the testimonies, and on the whole I

19     focused on testimony that specifically related to the issues I was to

20     deal with.  If there is anything specific or concrete I would like to see

21     it, and I would be glad to make a professional contribution to the

22     matter, if possible.

23        Q.   General, I'll read out General Savcic's testimony.  He testified

24     before the Court, page 15322 and it ends at 15323.  The Miletic Defence

25     examined General Savcic about the matter we are dealing with -- well, I

Page 30296

 1     will tell you what he said:

 2             "[In English] Yes, that's the general rule.  If a commander or

 3     some other senior officer is unable to discharge his duty, then another

 4     person will replace him as is provided by the establishment rules."

 5             [Interpretation] And then the Miletic Defence continues to

 6     examine the witness:

 7             "[In English] In principle ..."

 8             [Interpretation] This was the answer to the question as to

 9     whether it was the general rule.  And then General Savcic continues, and

10     I'll read it out in English:

11             "[In English] In principle this can be regulated in two ways.

12     One way is for the commander to decide a senior officer who would replace

13     him while he's absent if we are dealing with a shorter period of time.

14     And then there is an unwritten rule, especially during war, that when the

15     commander is absent, and when his deputy is absent, the assistant

16     commander for logistics serves as the most senior officer.  This is done

17     for a very practical reason.  When the command post is developed within

18     the combat order, it has at least two elements:  It serves as the basic

19     command post where the command group is located headed by the commander,

20     Chief of Staff and the entire staff.  And then, in the logistic command

21     post, which is separated, it's detached, they are not next to each other,

22     there is the assistant commander for logistic together with his logistic

23     organ and chief of various organ -- together with his logistic organ and

24     chief of various services -- together with his logistic organ and chiefs

25     of various services.

Page 30297

 1             "The security organ and the organ for moral guidance, religious

 2     and legal affairs, can be located either -- in either of two command

 3     posts since combat operation inevitably incur losses should the command

 4     post is destroyed, should the command group be neutralised, this is the

 5     mechanism that was developed mainly for the assistant commander for

 6     logistic to take over as the most senior officer."

 7             [Interpretation] General, are there any reasons for which you

 8     would doubt that General Savcic did not tell the truth when he testified

 9     about this subject before the Court?

10        A.   Well, if I said I had any doubts it would be a catastrophe in

11     terms of military culture if someone had not spoken the truth.  So what I

12     have said, well, now is the best time to be more precise.  At one point

13     in time I said that I agreed with something that General Savcic said.  He

14     mentioned the system of standing in for someone else.  He was very

15     precise.  He mentioned a method that consists of the following:  When a

16     commander designates who will stand in for him, but he is not present and

17     nor is the Chief of Staff.  In my work I analysed two methods.  The first

18     one is the method that is implemented automatically.  If the commander

19     and the Chief of Staff leave, then in certain situations the person that

20     will stand in for the commander is dealt with automatically.  This is the

21     most senior person as stated in the Rules of Service, and this was also

22     the case in the rules on the Army of Republika Srpska later on.

23             At this point in time, as I have said, the practice in certain

24     situations that General Savcic has addressed was as follows.  The

25     practice was based on all of the rules that were in force.  The

Page 30298

 1     commander, when absent, could designate someone to stand in for him.  He

 2     could designate any of his assistants.  They were on an absolutely equal

 3     footing, and the reason for which he opted for the assistant commander

 4     for logistics was quite logical.  General Savcic was quite right with

 5     regard to this model.  I spoke about the automatic process in the case of

 6     another model, and we were both compatible with each other, and this is

 7     great for this Court and for the profession that we are both involved in.

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will have another

 9     half-hour, but if we can take our break now because I am going to move on

10     to another topic, and I would like to structure my questioning for after

11     the break, with your leave.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  By all means, Mr. Krgovic.  We will have a

13     25-minute break now.  Thank you.

14                           --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.

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

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   General, I interrupted you as you were explaining the difference

19     between the corps and the military district.  So would you please tell us

20     what it was that you intended to explain.

21        A.   Yes, thank you.  Basically, these two rules are almost identical

22     as far as these points are concerned, but they actually are different

23     because they treat two different commands of a different level, a

24     different structure, and having different tasks.  However, these two

25     articles are almost identically worded because both refer to the rule of

Page 30299

 1     standing in and the appointment of a stand-in officer.  However, both the

 2     documents when they refer to standing-in representation actually do not

 3     say that Article 10 is sufficient for such standing in to indeed

 4     examination.  Both articles are based on the law and it accentuates that

 5     this actually -- this appointment, stand-in appointment begins under an

 6     order on standing in and starts running as of that -- the issuance of

 7     such an order.  So this is not an automatic process.  Both these rules,

 8     however, are of course in compliance with the law.  Thank you.

 9        Q.   On the first day of your testimony you said -- actually, you

10     discussed rank and sequence, and you gave us a diagram, a map, rather,

11     which you drew as a supplement to your expert work in which you sequence

12     these posts or put them in a specific order.

13             On the 12th of January, on page 29991:

14             "[In English] The document concerning the rank ..."

15             [Interpretation] It is page 29991.

16             "[In English] The document concerning the rank and the order of

17     commanding officers in an army is something that almost every army in the

18     world should have."

19             [Interpretation] And as far as I could gather, as far as I could

20     understand this diagram or whatever we shall call it, this sequence that

21     you gave, this is not contained in any rule or any document but it was

22     you, yourself, who made it on the basis of your perception of the

23     establishment structure; right?

24        A.   It does not exist as a model, rank and order, not as a model

25     defined under any specific rule.  However, the rules of service and the

Page 30300

 1     laws which deal with the levels of subordination and superiority, of

 2     seniority and junior positions, those which refer to subordination and to

 3     hierarchy as well as protocols which are of the essence for the unfolding

 4     of specific activities of almost -- require of almost all commands to

 5     have this document in one way or another.  I use that methodology in

 6     order to send a message regarding appointment, substitution, standing in,

 7     et cetera, in order to show this perception of a military organisation

 8     and military hierarchy so that this document was produced -- or, rather,

 9     this drawing number 14, figure number 14 in my expert work, in my expert

10     report, was made inter alia on the basis of the establishment structure,

11     the establishment structure of subordinated units.  And as there is no

12     document found which is called the Organisational Development so as to

13     explain what this looks like an importance source for this are directives

14     from which the order of the units was extracted as given in those

15     directives.

16        Q.   When you were drawing this other figure where you were marking

17     the order of the different organs, you started with the staff and the

18     Chief of Staff, you marked General Jovanovic [as interpreted] with a

19     number 1.  If we are talking about the level of the Army of Republika

20     Srpska -- excuse me, it is Milovanovic.  It is misspelled in the

21     transcript.

22             So Milovanovic is marked by you with number 1 as, actually, the

23     commander is the one who should be marked by number 1.  What do you have

24     to say to that?  I can show it to you.

25        A.   No problem.  I have understood your question perfectly.  I know

Page 30301

 1     what you are talking about.  Here I was shown the organisational chart of

 2     the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska, although I had had

 3     occasion to see it in the expert report of the expert Mr. Butler, and to

 4     which I raised a number of objections and I stated my argumentation

 5     substantiating my objections.  The order or the sequence in this chart

 6     which I showed does not refer to persons, not to Milovanovic.  It is the

 7     order of organisational units of the Main Staff of the Army of Republika

 8     Srpska, the first organisational level, and that is the order which is

 9     extracted from the establishment structure book.  And the establishment

10     book has to be made in keeping with the organisational development or

11     structure of the Army of Republika Srpska.  So this is the order given at

12     that level.  It is not at that level that we have the commander, and the

13     end of that process is the planning of development and finance.

14        Q.   And further in your work you explained the levels of command.  I

15     have to admit that bearing in mind what you stated before in terms of the

16     unity of command where the right of command is exclusively in the

17     competence of the commander and the part where you refer to strategic and

18     operational levels of command, I must admit that that level of command in

19     the Main Staff is something that I don't exactly understand.  These can

20     be levels of hierarchy or of subordination, but the right of command is

21     vested in the commander solely; right?

22        A.   That is correct.  The right of commanding with the Army of

23     Republika Srpska is the right of the commander, but the entire structure,

24     the entire -- an entire cluster of other participants also are vested

25     with the right of command within their respective spheres of competence.

Page 30302

 1     When we are talking about the strategic, operational, and tactical levels

 2     of command, I was referring to the Army of Republika Srpska, and there

 3     are no dilemmas whatsoever and there we completely agree.

 4             When we talk about the Main Staff and in the Main Staff it's --

 5     and in the Main Staff itself, as a sub-system of this large system, you

 6     have different levels of command.  You have the first level of command

 7     where we have organisational units of sector rank, and they are ordered

 8     in one colour and the one order of magnitude.

 9             Then you have the second level where we have organisational units

10     of administration levels, and the certain departments they have a

11     different colour.  Then there is the third level of command with

12     organisational units where the organisational units are of the rank of

13     sections, mainly.  So I was very precise when I said what levels of

14     command I was referring to.  The first -- the one level was in the

15     command level, Main Staff level, and the others in the other two which

16     I -- three which I described.

17        Q.   So this is a work of authorship by you.  This is not something

18     which is envisaged in any rules of command ordered or described, laid out

19     the way you did it?  At least I haven't found it.

20        A.   No, no, this is not a work of authorship or sensibility or

21     perception on the part of the author himself as such.  This is a

22     methodolgy which deals with organisation.  In each organisation a

23     structure can be ordered by levels on the basis of certain specific

24     rules; hence, this methodolgy which is shown here has been processed in

25     both specialised papers, in rules, and in books, and in some specialised

Page 30303

 1     papers the authors have actually cited a number of experts who have used

 2     these papers and these levels as I have put them.

 3        Q.   In addition to these documents, in regard of establishment,

 4     another order has been shown or a sequence, arrangement of organs in the

 5     Main Staff, how they were ordered according to rank and order.

 6             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] So can Exhibit 6D333  please be

 7     uploaded and shown to the witness.

 8        Q.   General, we have this document only in the Serbian language, but

 9     I am not interested in its content.  Please look at this number, the

10     reference number which is 01.

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the last page of this

12     document, please.

13        Q.   01.  That is General Ratko Mladic's number as the commander of

14     the Main Staff.  His number was 1, 01.  Although he could sign documents

15     also produced by other organs so that you will see his signature in other

16     documents also.

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see Exhibit 5D975,

18     please.

19        Q.   Please look at the reference number on top, which is 02.

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And can we see the last page,

21     please.

22        Q.   You see it is General Manojlo Milovanovic.  We will see his

23     signature on other documents as well, but these are documents from the

24     Chief of Staff.

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see Exhibit 5D1016,

Page 30304

 1     please.  Can we go to the right-hand side, please.

 2        Q.   I think it is already indisputable that number 03, which we see

 3     in the reference number, is the number of the operations organ --

 4     operations and training.

 5             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see Exhibit 5 -- P,

 6     sorry, P2516.  P2516.

 7        Q.   This is 07.  That is the reference number of the sector for

 8     morale, religious and legal affairs.

 9             General, is it not possible that the rank and the order of the

10     organs in the Main Staff was somewhat different than what is given in

11     your own schedule?  Is it not that Mladic is number 1 in the Main Staff

12     of the VRS, Milovanovic 02, and General Miletic 03, namely third in rank

13     or literally the third man in the Army of the Republika Srpska?

14        A.   Not only is this not possible but this is a general confusion of

15     the issue.  The reference number in the reference book in the registry

16     book does not define by any document whatsoever what 01, 02, or 03 refers

17     to.  This is most often defined by the office administrator, by the chief

18     of the office either according to his own design and assignment of

19     numbers or according to the receipt of documents.  Mainly, and as a rule,

20     the chiefs do not interfere with that office and with the assignment of

21     reference numbers as such.

22             Their reference numbers often refer to the frequency of the

23     incoming and outgoing documents.  From the aspect of organisation and the

24     organising of that process, the reference number has nothing whatsoever

25     to do in terms of cause or effect with rank and order.  The reference

Page 30305

 1     number's sole purpose is to -- for you to be able to locate a document in

 2     that book.  It is an arbitrary number.  It is assigned by the acting

 3     chief who actually is not in charge or versed in the organisation of the

 4     system.  He's only versed with his only organisation of that office.

 5        Q.   So 01, 02, 03, does that refer to the organisational units in the

 6     Main Staff?

 7        A.   No.

 8        Q.   Because this reference number follows.

 9        A.   I repeat.  The reference number is an arbitrarily assigned number

10     assigned to a unit under which it will be able to identify its document.

11     Responsible for the assignment of the reference number is the head of the

12     office.  The criterion applied by the head of the office is something

13     that only he may be able aware of.  It can refer to the frequency of

14     correspondence.  It can be based on anything else.

15             The rank and order are kept in the sector for organisational,

16     communicational, and personnel affairs.  These are documents which define

17     rank and order from strictly confidential to state secret, and documents

18     as such are not actually passed to the office for them to define what

19     number to assign it because this is office work and that is quite

20     something else.

21        Q.   General, in determining rank and order did you have an occasion

22     to talk to the officer of the Republika Srpska, did you talk to Colonel

23     Dragoljub Keserovic [as interpreted] as well?  He was an officer in the

24     Main Staff, an officer in charge of security there.

25        A.   I didn't talk to Keserovic, but I did talk to the competent

Page 30306

 1     Colonel, Colonel Kovacevic.

 2        Q.   Did the Miletic Defence show you the testimony provided by a

 3     Colonel Keserovic in the Blagojevic case?  He spoke precisely on the same

 4     topic on which you provided your expert opinion.

 5        A.   No, they didn't show me that.

 6        Q.   I am going to read one part of the transcript, and then I will

 7     ask for your comment on that part.  This is on page 1071 on 10 June,

 8     2004.  My learned friend Mr. McCloskey questioned Colonel Blagojevic [as

 9     interpreted], and he asked him the following -- Colonel Keserovic.  And

10     the page number 10701.

11             My learned colleague McCloskey asked Colonel Keserovic as

12     follows:

13             "[In English] [Previous translation continues] ... 17th, 18th,

14     who was basically in charge over there when Mladic wasn't around?"

15             [Interpretation] The answer is this:

16             "[In English] I really don't know who was the most senior ranking

17     officer as the operation officer.  He would be the number three man on

18     the staff."

19             [Interpretation] And now I have to read once again since --

20             "Q. [In English] 16, 17, 8 -- 18th, who was basically in charge

21     over there when Mladic wasn't around?

22             "A. I really don't know.  Miletic -- Miletic was the most senior

23     ranking" --

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment.  Two things.  I want to know if

25     interpretation in B/C/S is being received.  That's number one.  And

Page 30307

 1     secondly the transcript stopped -- but it's not on mine.  Yes, yes, okay.

 2     It seems to be okay on one monitor but not on the -- not on the other

 3     one.

 4             We are not receiving transcript, in other words, on the LiveNote.

 5             Well, that would be my preference but I have to see whether

 6     everyone is in agreement.

 7             Position is as follows:  The transcript is rolling on the

 8     monitor, on the monitor, but it's not on the LiveNote.  Options are we

 9     stop until we fix this or if there is agreement we can proceed and then

10     the missing ...

11             As far as I am concerned we could proceed, but I want to make

12     sure everyone else agrees.  And on previous occasions we have had

13     requests from some Defence teams insisting that they needed the LiveNote

14     to be functioning, too, before we could proceed.  So that's what I want

15     to make sure of.

16             All right.  I see no objections.  Basically, then, let's proceed.

17     I just want to make sure that whatever you have read in English has been

18     translated into B/C/S.  Okay --

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it has been.

20             JUDGE AGIUS: -- then let's proceed, and in the meantime we try to

21     fix this technical hitch.

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I am going to repeat the answer:

23             "[In English] I really don't know.  Miletic was the most

24     senior-ranking officer as the operations officer -- as the operations

25     officer.  He would be the number three man on the staff."

Page 30308

 1             [Interpretation] And further on, page 10707, it says --

 2     Judge Argibay asks Colonel Keserovic about the same topic the following.

 3     Keserovic.

 4             The question was as follows:

 5             "[In English] You told us that General Tolimir was the number 4

 6     in the Main Staff, that General Miletic was number 3, and we all know

 7     that General Mladic was number 1.  But I am not sure from the transcript

 8     this morning, or yesterday, when you were talking about General

 9     Milovanovic, was he number 2 in the Main Staff?

10             [Interpretation] And the answer:

11             "[In English] Your Honour, General Milovanovic was the number 2.

12     Milovanovic, but General Tolimir was not number 4."

13             [Interpretation] And further on, a bit later, Judge Argibay asks:

14             "[In English] Could you give me more or less the order, then.

15     More or less."

16             [Interpretation] The answer:

17             "[In English] For the first three, what you said is quite right.

18     Mladic, Milovanovic, and then Miletic.  And then the assistants,

19     according to their departments, come in the following:  Tolimir, Gvero,

20     Djukic, Tomic.  I think those were the sectors represented at the time."

21             [Interpretation] And then I will take you back to the previous

22     answer which concerns Tolimir.

23             "[In English][Previous translation continues] ... Tolimir was

24     probably number 4 -- was number 4."

25             "I really don't remember saying that.  I think I didn't give a

Page 30309

 1     number.  He is one of the assistant commanders of the Main Staff, and

 2     there were five or six then at the same level -- on the same level in the

 3     hierarchy."

 4             General, do you have any reason to doubt Colonel Keserovic's

 5     words?  Do you think that he was not telling the truth when he was

 6     talking about his specific knowledge as an officer of the Main Staff and

 7     he was talking about the rank and order of the Main Staff?

 8        A.   What I am interested in is what duties did Colonel Keserovic

 9     discharge.

10        Q.   He was the security officer in the Main Staff, later on in the

11     General Staff and a full-time professor at the security academy.

12        A.   Thank you.

13        Q.   I am talking about factual things here, not about --

14        A.   It arises from everything I've been interpreted from the

15     transcript, and from my point of view it -- being an expert for

16     organisation, and based on that I enjoy my status and rank,

17     Colonel Keserovic should have put a full stop after the first sentence,

18     which was "I don't know ..."  Everything he said after that just

19     confirmed his first sentence, "I don't know."

20             I would really love to see anybody in the world show me a single

21     military where an officer, a colonel or a major-general comes before a

22     commander [as interpreted] with a lieutenant-general or similar rank.

23     The fact that in accordance with what you read out to me, he forgot very

24     important assistant commander, the assistant for organisation,

25     mobilization, and personnel matters, and that he was talking about

Page 30310

 1     military and forgot corps commanders, that he did not give you the basis

 2     for his ranking and order, then I can only assume that he believes that

 3     the Army of Republika Srpska was an -- anarchic, lacked organisation, and

 4     that there was a grab for ranks and other things.

 5             Based on all the documents that I studied, there was no anarchy,

 6     there was no grab for ranks, and the order was well known.  This is based

 7     on nothing, and especially not on the principles of organisation,

 8     hierarchy, and subordination.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Ms. Fauveau.

10             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   General, sir?

12             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just a quick

13     correction of the transcript at line 13 on page 39.  It should be before

14     the assistant commander, "assistant commander" is missing.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  So it would read:

16             "I would really love to see anybody in the world show me a single

17     military where an officer, Colonel or Major-General comes before the

18     assistant commander," is that correct, "with a lieutenant-general of

19     similar rank."  Is this what you mean?

20             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It is indeed, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Let's continue.

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   In your testimony on page 29984, to General Miletic's Defence

24     question you said that such a possibility does exist, but within your

25     view it is not likely.  If you wish me I can read back to what you said.

Page 30311

 1     You said that it was a likely possibility.

 2        A.   Yes.  Could you please read it back to me.  I never had such a

 3     view of the Army of Republika Srpska, especially after having studied so

 4     many documents.

 5        Q.   This is your testimony on 12th January, 2009, page number 29984,

 6     line 6.  And the question is this:

 7             "[In English] Could General Miletic have been the senior officer

 8     in the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska in a given

 9     circumstance?"

10             "There is a possibility and there is a model that he could have

11     been seen as the most senior officer in the Main Staff of the Army of

12     Republika Srpska."

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.

14             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could the -- my learned colleague

15     read the answer to the very end, please.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] My learned friend can do it in her

17     additional examination.

18             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I couldn't indeed because that

19     would completely alter the meaning of the answer.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Is the rest of the paragraph relevant to what was

23     asked to the witness in the first place or not?  I think you need to

24     explain this first.

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I told the witness that he

Page 30312

 1     confirmed the whole thing, but he said that it was not very likely.

 2     That's why I did not want to read the rest of this answer because in my

 3     question I already addressed the possibility.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  But let's take it in a logical

 5     sequence.  If you look at page 40, line 14, when you were putting the

 6     question to the witness you asked him as follows:  "In your testimony on

 7     page 28894 to General Miletic's Defence question, you said that, 'Such a

 8     possibility does exist, but within your view it is not likely.'  If you

 9     wish me I can read what you -- read to what you said."

10             "'You said that it was a likely possibility?'"

11             And then the witness told you:

12             "Yes, please read it out to me.  I never had such a view of the

13     Army of Republika Srpska, especially after having studied so many

14     documents."

15             And then you started reading.  The second paragraph, which we

16     have here, says:

17             "There is a possibility and there is a model that he could have

18     seen as the most senior officer in the Main Staff of the Army of

19     Republika Srpska."

20             To me it is obvious that this is not complete.  In other words,

21     he must have followed up with something to explain his position so that

22     we can understand what he said then and now better.  So I suggest that

23     you read out the next part that there is, provided it is relevant to what

24     we have here.

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

Page 30313

 1        Q.   So your answer:

 2             "[In English] There is a possibility and there is a model that he

 3     could have been seen as the most senior officer in the Main Staff of the

 4     Army of Republika Srpska, General Miletic or the Head of Administration

 5     for Teaching and Operation, but this would be, as it were, a headless

 6     model or a pointless model."

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  And your question?

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Was it possible that General Miletic was the most senior officer

10     as General Keserovic said in his testimony before this Court?  Colonel

11     Keserovic was in the Main Staff.  You weren't.

12        A.   I did not receive a mandate from this Court to be an expert with

13     regard to whether I was in the Main Staff or not.  My assignment as an

14     expert was to address certain issues on the basis of documents.  And on

15     the basis of my experience and my education and on the basis of the

16     duties that I performed.  This was the task that I had to perform.

17             So I have stated and I have provided all the arguments that

18     nothing said apart from the first sentence is correct, as far as

19     organisation is concerned, that refers to Colonel Keserovic's statement.

20     He certainly is a great security officer, but as far as organisational

21     matters are concerned, I categorically claimed he doesn't know anything

22     about them.

23             What I said on the first day is something that I stand by today,

24     too.  That would have meant that the RS army didn't have a commander,

25     didn't have a single assistant commander, didn't have a single corps

Page 30314

 1     commander, a single Chief of Staff in the corps, and then

 2     General Miletic, given his rank and educational level, would have been

 3     the first man.  But in such an organisational structure -- well, an army

 4     without such a system is senseless.  It's not just a matter of saying

 5     that it would act in a senseless manner.

 6        Q.   Do you have any reason to doubt that Colonel Keserovic committed

 7     perjury when testifying here.  He was expressing his own impression.  He

 8     expressed his opinion.  He wasn't testifying in his capacity as an

 9     expert.  That's what he thought about the way the Main Staff of the

10     Republika Srpska Army functioned.

11        A.   I think I was very precise.  At no time did it occur to me to say

12     that a witness to whom I had no spoken was lying or not lying, but I was

13     very precise when I said that what he explained was something he didn't

14     know anything about.  And he himself said he didn't know that.

15        Q.   General, do you know that Mr. Keserovic was on the list of

16     witnesses for the Miletic Defence and he was supposed to testify

17     immediately after you, and then he was suddenly withdrawn so as to not

18     testify in this case.  Are you familiar with that fact?

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, before you answer, Madam Fauveau.

20             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what my learned

21     colleague is saying is not exactly right.  I think we all know why

22     Mr. Koserovic could not come and give his testimony, quite simply because

23     he did not get his visa, and my learned colleague could always call him

24     as a witness.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  In any case, what's the relevance of the question,

Page 30315

 1     Mr. Krgovic?  Let's move to your next question.

 2             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions,

 3     Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

 5             Mr. Haynes, do you still require about 20 minutes?

 6             MR. HAYNES:  Yes, I should think so.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Go ahead.

 8             MR. HAYNES:  I would be obliged if Mr. Krgovic could just hand me

 9     the lectern.

10                           Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes:

11        Q.   Well, good morning, General Kosovac.

12        A.   Good day.

13        Q.   I represent Vinko Pandurevic who, in July of 1995, was the

14     commander of the Zvornik Brigade.  Were you aware of that fact?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And just a couple of preliminary questions to get us down from

17     Main Staff levels of command.  He was at that time a lieutenant-colonel.

18     Can you confirm that that is an inferior rank to a colonel?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And just to follow the logic down of figure 14 to your report,

21     if, as you opined, the operations officer at the Main Staff level was at

22     rank level 6, it would follow, wouldn't it, that a brigade commander was

23     at rank level 10?

24        A.   That kind of rank and order is not drawn up for the whole army

25     because there is no relation of cause and effect.  With the rank of

Page 30316

 1     operations officer, well, he would be at the first or second

 2     organisational level.

 3        Q.   Well, we will move on.  I am not going to waste time going

 4     through, as it were, how we go down from the bottom of your existing

 5     figure.

 6             I take it you would agree with me that in relation to the

 7     Yugoslav National Army, a vast number of documents were produced to

 8     regulate the way in which it operated?

 9        A.   Yes.  Since the -- a lot of documents that refer to organisation

10     defined how things were to be organised, some of those documents were

11     adopted by the Army of Yugoslavia.  They weren't redrafted.  I'm talking

12     about these specific documents that pertain to organisation.

13             Part of the documents were supplemented, and the Army of

14     Republika Srpska took over most of the documents that the Army of

15     Yugoslavia was already using, at the least the documents that had to do

16     with the subject of organisation.

17        Q.   Thank you.  And those documents had varying degrees of legal

18     status.  Some of the them, for example, had the force of law.  Some of

19     them were regulatory.  Some of them were merely for guidance.  Would you

20     agree with that?

21        A.   Absolutely.  I agree with that absolutely.

22        Q.   Thank you very much.  I would like us to look now at one such

23     document, and I know straight away it's not a document that you look at

24     in preparation of your report, but I hope that doesn't disadvantage you.

25             MR. HAYNES:  It's firstly P408.  And it would be helpful if we

Page 30317

 1     could have in e-court page 1 in B/C/S for the witness and the Serb

 2     speakers and page 2 in English.

 3        Q.   General Kosovac, is that big enough for you to read on the

 4     screen?

 5        A.   Absolutely.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  I just want to focus your attention on the very top

 7     of the document.  You can read it in your own language, but it is headed

 8     "Federal Secretariat for National Defence, JNA General Staff, Infantry

 9     Administration."

10             Are you familiar with that body, the Infantry Administration of

11     the Federal Secretariat for National Defence?

12        A.   Yes.  The Infantry of the Main Staff of the Yugoslav Peoples'

13     Army, I am familiar with that.

14        Q.   And just in a sentence or two, what was it?

15        A.   In the General Staff of the JNA, the administrations for services

16     and departments were organised in different ways and these

17     administrations for services and departments are either grouped as

18     sectors or they were independent, but their main task was to develop

19     their services and arms and this included the field of drafting rules for

20     the units of specific services and combat arms.

21             For a while I was a junior officer in the airforce and

22     anti-aircraft defence sector and I was responsible for dealing with

23     anti-aircraft defence, so I was very familiar with this area.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Can we go down now a little bit on the front page.

25     We see that this document is dated the 20th of July, 1984, and then the

Page 30318

 1     authority of the document is set out.  It says:

 2             "Pursuant to item 34c of the instructions on the preparation and

 3     use of professional military literature, I hereby proscribe the

 4     following ..."

 5             In terms of legal force, what legal force does an instruction

 6     have?

 7        A.   These rules and instructions were guiding.  They are not binding.

 8     They are guide-lines and they serve as a basis so the individuals can

 9     attain the objectives assigned to them in the best possible way.

10        Q.   Thank you.  That is very helpful.  Now, I want to move on please

11     to another version of the same document which is more fully translated.

12             MR. HAYNES:  I'd like to look, please, at P694.  In the English

13     we will need to see page 3, and in the B/C/S for the witness we will have

14     to look at pages 12 and 13, I'm afraid.

15        Q.   Now, General Kosovac, as I've said, I know you didn't study this

16     document in preparation of your report because you weren't talking about

17     brigades in your report.  So please take your time to read that page and

18     then the next page of the document in your language and let us know when

19     you have finished.

20        A.   We can go on to the following page.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22        A.   I've read it.

23        Q.   Thanks very much.  What we looked at previously was, as it were,

24     the legal basis of the brigade rules of 1984.  This introduction sets out

25     the basis for their creation and their purpose.  Would you agree with

Page 30319

 1     that?

 2        A.   Certainly.

 3        Q.   And we can see in the first couple of paragraphs, it says they

 4     are based on the concept of the All People's Defence; the strategy of

 5     arms struggle; the NOR experiences; experiences drawn from exercises of

 6     units, commands and staff, so on and so forth.

 7             And then in the second paragraph it says:

 8             "Considering differences in terms of organisation and

 9     establishment structure and the purpose and possibility of various types

10     of brigade in the infantry, it is necessary to apply the provisions of

11     these rules creatively and according to the concrete conditions for the

12     preparation, organisation, and conduct of combat operations and the

13     actual combat capability of each individual brigade."

14             And then going, you can't see this because I think it's on your

15     next page, but going down one, two, three, four -- five paragraphs, it

16     says:

17             "The aim of the rules is to ensure that each separate brigade

18     according to its purpose and capabilities adopt and apply unified views,

19     attitudes, and tactical moves in the preparation, organisation, and

20     execution of combat operations in All People's Defence war.  It is a duty

21     of all senior staff and commands to study the provisions of these rules

22     in detail and to test and evaluate them during training for all types of

23     brigades and for the conditions for which they operate.  The rules are

24     intended for the training of commands, staffs, units, institutions, army

25     cadets, and students at the military schools, as well as the reserve

Page 30320

 1     senior staff."

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Counsel please slow down.

 3             MR. HAYNES:  I am very sorry.

 4        Q.   Put in simple terms, this document created pursuant to an

 5     instruction is a training manual, isn't it?

 6        A.   No.  It has a slightly broader purpose than just a training

 7     manual.  As I said initially, it has a broader purpose somewhat because

 8     training involves a number of processes.  First you have the actual

 9     schooling process, then you have training which involves daily work and

10     education, then you have training in terms of applying experiences, as

11     also referred to by these rules.  These are rules which are intended for

12     training, but they are also intended to ensure the adherence of certain

13     principles and a creative endeavour in keeping with particular situations

14     and needs.  In that sense it is more broad than just training.

15        Q.   Would "guidance" be a better word?

16        A.   Yes, much better.

17        Q.   Thank you.  I want to move on now to another document.

18             MR. HAYNES:  And it's 7D717.  And I want to start, please --

19     well, I just want to look at B/C/S at page 6, and English, page 2.  It

20     might actually be helpful if in the B/C/S before we show the witness page

21     6, we show him the first page so he can see what the rules are, which

22     ironically is page -- yes, we've got it there.  Thank you.

23        Q.   General Kosovac, you were able to see what this set of rules were

24     by looking at the front page, were you?

25        A.   Yes, I was.

Page 30321

 1        Q.   And I want you now to look at clause 17 which is in precisely

 2     similar terms to another provision you looked at earlier this morning

 3     which you were being asked questions by Mr. Krgovic.  But Article 17

 4     says:

 5             "In the absence of the commander, the Chief of Staff or the

 6     deputy commander stand in for him with all the commander's rights and

 7     duties."

 8             Can you see that?

 9        A.   Yes, I can see Article 17.

10        Q.   And can you confirm that the word used in Serbian for "standing

11     in for" is "zastupa" [phoen] rather than anything else?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And is that your understanding of the legal position of the Chief

14     of Staff within a brigade of the Yugoslav National Army?

15        A.   It is.  In terms of its character, these rules are a binding

16     documents in contrast with the previous rules which had a quite different

17     purpose.  However, these rules are also binding upon the commander as

18     well as upon the Chief of Staff.

19             What does Article 17 say?  Article 17 has divested the commander

20     of the right to appoint anyone else from his -- from among his

21     subordinates to stand in for him, but it stipulates that it is

22     exclusively the Chief of Staff that can stand in for him.  However, it is

23     generally known that standing in here is also an obligation which also

24     needs to be regulated by an order to that effect.  Without such an order

25     there can be no standing in and there can be no rights or obligations

Page 30322

 1     stemming from such a position, a standing-in position, according to these

 2     rules.

 3        Q.   And can that be a permanent order?

 4        A.   No.  Both the Law on the Army and the Law on the Army of

 5     Republika Srpska were very precise to the effect that standing in is

 6     limited in terms of duration.  According to the law that substitution,

 7     that standing in can last for a maximum of six months.

 8        Q.   You've pre-empted my last question on this topic, which is to

 9     look at page 3 of that document which is not translated.  So you will

10     have to help us, General.  Above the title of the rules you can see the

11     authority, and as you've already told us, this is a document which has

12     the authority of law; is that right?

13        A.   It is a binding document.

14        Q.   Now, I want to move away from the Rules of the Army of Yugoslavia

15     and turn to the Army of Republika Srpska.  And I'd like you, please, to

16     consider P26.

17             To be quite frank, General, I can't recall whether you did

18     consider this document in preparation of your report.  Have you seen it

19     before?

20        A.   I don't think so.  No, no, I haven't.

21        Q.   Well, would you take a few moments just to read it through.

22        A.   Now having seen the content, I think -- no, I know that I have

23     seen this document before but I have not cited it in my expert report.

24        Q.   I thought you probably had.  This is effectively the document

25     that creates the structure of the Army of Republika Srpska; isn't it?

Page 30323

 1        A.   This is a document which requires of commanders their proposals

 2     for creating the structure of the Army of Republika Srpska.  So these

 3     are -- this is eliciting proposals for the creation of the structure of

 4     the Republika Srpska Army, and some parameters are given to the effect

 5     that the proponents giving such proposals must explain their proposals

 6     for the structure of the Army of Republika Srpska.

 7        Q.   And by the parameters do you mean the section in the document

 8     that says that:

 9             "The Army of Republika Srpska should be an army consisting of

10     quick, mobile and efficient units based on current establishment

11     formations, existing combat hardware, weapons, and other military

12     equipment, light infantry brigades are to be the preferred options ..."

13             And then:

14             "Existing divisions shall be abandoned as organisational units."

15             Are those the parameters that you have in mind?

16        A.   Yes, yes absolutely.  These are parameters which are of the

17     essence for making proposal -- for proposing a structure of the army.  As

18     well as this where it says that the army has to be capable of -- of

19     offensive defence and the use of other hardware.  This is the different

20     modules, capability, and things like that.

21        Q.   Thank you.  And do you agree that those parameters made the Army

22     of Republika Srpska, in structural terms, a rather different animal to

23     the Yugoslav National Army?

24        A.   I absolutely agree because one substantial parameter is

25     organisation, which is why specific organs are set up to deal with

Page 30324

 1     organisation, in order to avoid stereotype and in order to make the

 2     optimum organisational structure in keeping with the objectives, the

 3     available personnel, and the available hardware, in order to make an

 4     observation which will develop very quickly if you obtain different

 5     hardware and other means of combat, as well as different personnel.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  We are moving on very quickly.

 7             MR. HAYNES:  Can we now have P417 in e-court.

 8        Q.   And again, General Kosovac, I am just going to show you the first

 9     page of this document to see whether it is familiar to you, that you've

10     read it either in preparation of your report or in preparation for your

11     evidence or at any other time.  Do you recognise this document?

12        A.   Yes.  I cited some of his elements in my report.

13        Q.   Good.  And just to explain why I'm having to do this, you and I

14     haven't had the opportunity of discussing what evidence you are going to

15     give today, have we?

16        A.   You and me?

17        Q.   Yes, you and me.

18        A.   No, no, we haven't.

19             MR. HAYNES:  And can we now please go to page 10 of that document

20     in B/C/S and in English, please.  And I'm concerned with Articles 16 and

21     17.

22        Q.   And if you don't mind, I am going to deal with them in reverse

23     order.  We will start with Article 17, if we may.

24             Firstly, a general question about these provisional service

25     regulations for the Army of Republika Srpska.  They were written about

Page 30325

 1     three months after the document we've just been looking at, the

 2     invitation for proposals as to the structure of the army.  You agree with

 3     that?

 4        A.   Yes.  And the service regulations also have a different purpose,

 5     the interim one.  These provisional service rules on the Army of

 6     Republika Srpska define precisely the competencies and the relationships

 7     between the unit commands and the senior officers, the commanding

 8     officers, and this -- actually this chapter is called and deals with

 9     relations in the army.

10        Q.   Thank you.  And you are familiar with the whole document, I don't

11     want to take you through it, but they do not, do they, expressly

12     incorporate any rules from the Yugoslav National Army?

13        A.   They are self-sufficient, as it were, but it is obvious that it

14     was created on the basis of the Rules of Service.

15        Q.   Now, if we go to Article 17, that creates an obligation to carry

16     out the orders of a superior officer.  That's correct, isn't it?

17        A.   Article 17, yes, it speaks about the superior commander or the

18     superior commanding officer.

19        Q.   And --

20        A.   The most senior one and the superior one.

21        Q.   You've again answered my next question.  It's in two parts.  It

22     defines to an extent who the superior officer is if the obvious superior

23     is not present.  It's the most senior officer present; isn't it?

24        A.   I am afraid I did not quite understand your question.  Would you

25     be so kind as to repeat it.

Page 30326

 1        Q.   Yes.  I was just looking at the second paragraph of Article 17

 2     which reads:

 3             "Members of the army shall carry out the orders of the most

 4     senior officer present when the superior officer is absent."

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Now, I want to go back to Article 16, but first I want to see if

 7     you agree with this general proposition.  A commanding officer is not

 8     necessarily a commander, is he?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Does that mean that you agree with what I'm saying?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And that is particularly the case when we consider the giving of

13     orders in relation to a joint task, would you agree with that?

14        A.   Again, I'm afraid I did not understand your question, sir.

15        Q.   Well, that is my fault.  Let's consider a joint task which is

16     specifically legislated for in Article 16.  We have a classic example of

17     a joint task in this case.  Operation Krivaja 95 was a joint task, wasn't

18     it?

19        A.   I was precise.  Operation Krivaja 95 does not exist.  There were

20     active combat actions which were conducted under covert name or secret

21     name Krivaja 95.  An operation -- if you want to call this an operation,

22     that would mean that you are trying to put documents somewhere in

23     something that actually never took place.

24        Q.   Very well.  Let's try and take another example.  A joint task

25     could be ordered which involved a unit from one brigade, a unit from a

Page 30327

 1     second brigade, a unit from the corps, and a unit from the Main Staff.

 2     That would be a joint task, wouldn't it, where units from four other

 3     units combine together to perform a task?

 4        A.   I understand your question, and the question and answer to it has

 5     two tiers.  It is good that you took an order which regulates active

 6     combat and the example you provided is also good.  If a command unites

 7     the activities of several units, then that command is also in command of

 8     those units and the person that that command appoints, which we

 9     illustrated several times last week.  This Article 16 or bullet point 16

10     is something that happens in a different situation.

11             If for any reason a connection is interrupted with a command,

12     then these units that you listed will still be one whole and they will

13     act as one whole, and the senior officer assumes the role of the superior

14     commander and regulates all the activities for as long as they last.

15        Q.   I think you have answered my question.  The senior officer would

16     be in command of all those disparate units that were combined together

17     performing the same task, wouldn't he?

18        A.   Yes.  If they are on a joint task.

19        Q.   And the commanders of all the units from which those units

20     originally came would not be in command of them.  That's correct, isn't

21     it?

22        A.   The officer who would be in command of the task would be also in

23     command of that whole consisting of three or four units, and every

24     commander or senior officer leading their respective units would be

25     carrying out orders.  A system of hierarchy would soon be established in

Page 30328

 1     such a situation.

 2        Q.   Well, I am now confident that you have answered my question, and

 3     I'm content with that answer.  There is just one last matter I want to

 4     ask you about, and it involves a further document which is --

 5             MR. HAYNES:  P699.

 6        Q.   And I'd like you to look please at B/C/S page 36.

 7             MR. HAYNES:  And those of us who speak English can look at page

 8     34.

 9        Q.   And I'd like you just quickly to consider point 65 in relation to

10     some questions you answered from Mr. Bourgon the other day.  And do you

11     agree with the provision of Article 65 that the operational duty at the

12     command post is organised by the Chief of Staff of the unit?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   General Kosovac, thank you very much.  I have no further

15     questions for you.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Haynes.  That brings us to you,

17     Mr. Vanderpuye, but the break is with us.  Shall we have the break now?

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  As you wish, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Do you still estimate eight hours?

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  No, it's substantially reduced from that,

21     Mr. President.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you.  25 minutes.

23                           --- Recess taken at 12.27 p.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

Page 30329

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good afternoon to

 2     you --

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good afternoon.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  -- and Your Honours.  Good afternoon to my

 5     colleagues.

 6                           Cross-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:

 7        Q.   And good afternoon to you, General.  My name is Kweku Vanderpuye.

 8     On behalf of the Prosecution I am going to put some questions to you in

 9     relation to your direct examination and also your cross-examination, as

10     well as your expert report.

11             Since we don't speak the same language, I will try to go a little

12     bit slow, and I would appreciate it if you could also respond slowly so

13     that there is time for an adequate translation or accurate translation of

14     what we say to one another for the record.  If you have any questions

15     about what I ask you, please just let me know and I'll try to rephrase it

16     in a way that we can best understand one another more clearly.

17             Now, you were put some questions --

18        A.   Good afternoon.  Thank you very much, I understand perfectly.

19        Q.   Great.  You were put some questions -- some questions you put to

20     you, rather, by my colleague Mr. Krgovic with respect to the testimony of

21     Lieutenant-Colonel Dragomir Keserovic, and he asked you in particular

22     some questions regarding Mr. Keserovic's statements concerning

23     General Miletic on page 32 of the transcript.

24             What I wanted to do is read to you what he said before the

25     questions that were put to you by my colleague, and let me refer you --

Page 30330

 1     or from my colleagues, rather, to the trial transcript.  It's at

 2     page 31 and begins at line 22 and it reads as follows:

 3             "Q. Do you know was there an acting Chief of Staff, deputy

 4     commander, in Han Pijesak while Milovanovic was away?"

 5             "A. I don't know if there was one officially.  If you allow me,

 6     may I say that --"

 7             "Q. It's pretty simple, but go ahead, go ahead.  No, go ahead.

 8     If you need to explain, you can always explain."

 9             "A. I meant to say, that -- and you probably have this

10     information anyway, that the Main Staff involved such a small number of

11     people that quite literally everybody did everything.  So people could be

12     replaced all the time.  If one person was not there then somebody else

13     would -- somebody else could take over for him.  And people would have

14     several duties.  So it is possible that from that point of view somebody

15     did stand in for General Milovanovic, but I am not sure of whether

16     anybody was officially appointed."

17             He then goes on, as was brought out by my colleague, to say that

18     General Miletic would be the number 3 man on the staff.

19             So let me ask you this, General:  Is it possible, in your

20     estimation, your experience, that Lieutenant-Colonel Keserovic arrived at

21     the conclusion that General Miletic was number 3 in the staff because he

22     had the opportunity to see General Miletic's signature as standing in for

23     the Chief of Staff on a number of occasions, given his experience as a

24     member of the Main Staff?

25        A.   Yes.  It is possible that Lieutenant-Colonel Keserovic, who I

Page 30331

 1     don't want to deny any capabilities in his part of the profession, gained

 2     that impression for several reasons.  One of the reason may be that

 3     people often mistake the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska with

 4     the staff of Republika Srpska.  The second reason may be that the staff

 5     of the Army of Republika Srpska is often mistaken for a command post.

 6     And the third reason may be that very often, based on personal

 7     impression, one is tempted to give an evaluation.  And fourthly, it is

 8     generally known that most of the officers, not only in the Army of

 9     Republika Srpska but also the other militaries that I am aware of, the

10     problem of organisational establishment and personnel affairs is the

11     least known and no simple logic can be applied to it.  And this is also

12     indicated by the use of the word "standing in for," "VD," acting for,

13     which never existed in the army.  It does not exist in any military.

14     This "VD," acting on behalf.

15        Q.   Well, what he describes in his testimony --

16             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second, Mr. Vanderpuye.

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'm sorry, Judge.

18             JUDGE KWON:  The first reason given by the witness, I am not sure

19     whether it was correctly translated.  I will read it again and, General,

20     could you confirm whether it was what you said:

21             "One of the reason may be is that people often mistake the Main

22     Staff of the Army of the Republika Srpska with the staff of Republika

23     Srpska."

24             Is that what you said?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that people often mistook

Page 30332

 1     the staff of the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska for the

 2     Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Please proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.

 5        Q.   What Lieutenant-Colonel Keserovic describes appears to be regular

 6     regularity of unofficial assignments of duties and responsibilities

 7     within the Main Staff.  Do you accept that?

 8        A.   If you ask me, I believe that the prevailing fact here is the

 9     fact that he was often in contact with the basic command post, and the

10     person he often -- most often saw there was General Miletic.  And at one

11     point General Miletic represented a focal point for him and everything

12     resolved around him.  And the fact is that General Miletic was almost

13     exclusively at the command post.  He rarely toured the units, and when he

14     was absent it would be to visit his family.

15        Q.   All right.  Well, I think I will move ahead.  I will probably

16     come back to this in a little bit.  Let me ask you some more general

17     background questions.

18             First, can you tell us, do you have any practical experience in

19     terms of commanding combat operations, whether it be strategically

20     directed, operationally, or tactically?

21        A.   Absolutely.

22        Q.   All right.  And can you tell us when and where that was?

23        A.   When the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was bombarded, I

24     represented the chief of the third administration of the Main Staff of

25     the Army of Republika Srpska which organised work outside of the system

Page 30333

 1     of the command post because that administration was duty-bound to

 2     contact -- maintain contacts with the government, the ministries, and

 3     other organisations and the military.  Very often as the chief of that

 4     administration, I cooperated with the command posts, almost all of them,

 5     and I also toured my military territorial units which were deployed

 6     across the entire territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

 7        Q.   All right.  Thank you for that.  And I take it that you've had

 8     experience preparing technical reports of the type and nature that you've

 9     presented here?

10        A.   You could see in my CV the works that I authored and the expert

11     report of this nature is the only such report that I've prepared.

12     However, on the part of the Tribunal I was also engaged as a military

13     expert in the Perisic case.

14        Q.   All right.  So this is the first military or technical military

15     expert report you've prepared, at least for court.  That's fair to say,

16     right?

17        A.   Yes.  This is my first encounter with any court or the judiciary

18     system as such.

19        Q.   And have you produced a report or are you in the process of

20     producing the report with respect to your Perisic engagement?

21        A.   Yes.  It -- the preparations are underway.  Once I am done with

22     this, the Perisic case will become one of my focal tasks, in addition to

23     my everyday duties.

24        Q.   You recognise, of course, given your experience, that in

25     preparing a report, particularly a technical report such as this, you

Page 30334

 1     have to be analytical, right, in your review of both materials and the

 2     facts?

 3        A.   I am absolutely clear on that.  In the introductory part of my

 4     report I emphasized that and I also emphasized what methods I used, and I

 5     particularly explained how and why I used the method of modelling, or the

 6     modelling method.

 7        Q.   All right.  I asked you that because I believe it was on Friday

 8     you testified that you didn't try to put together all the pieces of the

 9     puzzle.  Do you remember that?

10        A.   I would like you to be more precise because in some instances

11     that sentence could be -- can be excellent and in some others it could be

12     disastrous.

13        Q.   Well, let me put the question, then, to you directly.  Is it the

14     case that you tried to put all the pieces of the puzzle together or not?

15        A.   From the point of view of my expert report I tried to complete

16     the mosaic, and that's why I searched for some comparisons where I did

17     not have any documents available to me.

18        Q.   All right.  In preparing your report you tried to be thorough.

19     That's fair to say, isn't it?

20        A.   I believe that anything else would be disastrous and would not

21     comply with the task and the topic.  An officer, an expert of my rank and

22     reputation would not embark on any task in any different way.  They

23     wouldn't be superficial.  They would not leave any stones unturned.

24        Q.   And so in preparing this report you tried to be neutral and

25     objective; right?

Page 30335

 1        A.   What you've just asked me, this is the starting point of my

 2     expert report.  I perceive myself as an expert, a military expert that

 3     was engaged by the Tribunal and the topic was given to me by the Miletic

 4     Defence.  In that sense, when it comes to the functioning of experts, at

 5     the end of my testimony I am going to provide some proposals to the

 6     Trial Chamber irrespective of the fact whether they will be inclined to

 7     adopt my proposals or not.

 8        Q.   I may have misunderstood you, but do you mean that in terms of

 9     your report or in terms of your testimony?

10        A.   Given the place and the role of an expert.

11        Q.   All right.  And in order to accomplish all these things, to be

12     analytical and thorough and neutral and objective in the course of

13     preparing this report, you, as an expert, know that among other things

14     you have to be critical or you have to critically at least evaluate the

15     nature and the applicability of the information that you consider in

16     preparing the report?

17        A.   Thank you.  This does ring a bell.  I am very familiar with all

18     these concepts.  That's why I can tell you that my effort has not been in

19     vain.  Unlike any other expert reports, I did not want to analyse one

20     military party to the conflict without obtaining a number of documents

21     originating from the other army in the conflict.  I even researched

22     documents that concerned other militaries outside of the former

23     Yugoslavia, and that's why whenever I say that other militaries used the

24     same thing, that means that I had direct access to the information

25     pertaining to such other militaries and I studied them as well.

Page 30336

 1        Q.   Thank you for that.  I asked the question in relation to some of

 2     the answers that you gave my colleagues when they questioned you as well,

 3     and in particular, in relation to your acknowledgment, upon questioning

 4     by my colleague Mr. Haynes, that there is a vast body of regulatory

 5     documents from the former Yugoslavia that may be applicable to any given

 6     circumstance concerning the VRS.  That's true, isn't it?

 7        A.   The answer is affirmative.  That is the case indeed.  However, I

 8     need to provide an adequate comment in respect of this answer.  All the

 9     militaries that originated from the former JNA, among their command cadre

10     or among the top management as it were had officers from the former JNA,

11     and it is only natural that all the command activities were taken over

12     from the JNA.

13             There was another comparative advantage which you yourself could

14     observe in the courtroom.  A large number of the documents issued by the

15     JNA were drafted in the languages of the various peoples, so none of them

16     had to be translated.  And the most important thing of all, the officers

17     in question had been trained to use the documents in question.

18             At the beginning, the laws were drafted by adopting the existing

19     laws with some minor changes.  As the time went on, the different

20     countries incorporated their own idiosyncrasies and their own features

21     into such laws.

22        Q.   So I take it you took into consideration the degree of binding

23     nature of any given law, regulation, instruction, in terms of arriving at

24     your conclusions when you were developing your report?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 30337

 1        Q.   And I take it you also considered the fact that many of these

 2     rules, regulations, and instructions were creatively applied, both in the

 3     former JNA -- or, rather, in the JNA and in the VRS?

 4        A.   I believe that I was very precise in my expert report as well as

 5     in my words uttered here before the Trial Chamber, and I was really very

 6     precise in defining the creative application, the binding application.

 7     And also when I explained the specific features of the two sets of

 8     documents I was very careful and I very often emphasized that, and I am

 9     always prepared to make a distinction between one and the other thing.

10        Q.   In your report you identify the information that you relied upon

11     in reaching your conclusions; is that right?

12        A.   Yes.  I referred to the information I used.  I didn't provide an

13     exhaustive list of the information because it never is final and

14     exhaustive.  So over the last few days I came across certain information

15     that I hadn't previously seen.  I was precise when I said that the expert

16     report is not final.  It can always be amended on the basis of new

17     information obtained, and I am quite prepared to engage in a professional

18     discussion with regard to this report.

19        Q.   All right.  The documents that you relied on in preparing this

20     report you received primarily from the Miletic Defence; is that right?

21        A.   Well, one could say so.  Because I can see that an expert in the

22     court doesn't have access to the database, I mostly used documents that

23     the Defence provided me with.  I used documents that I came across, too.

24     I read expert reports, other reports.  I read through transcripts of

25     conversations that were held, and I spoke to many people who were

Page 30338

 1     directly or indirectly involved in anything that was of interest to me.

 2        Q.   All right.  Well, that's what I want to get to, actually, because

 3     you mentioned on a number of occasions during your testimony that you

 4     spoke to very numerous high-ranking officials in various armed forces in

 5     respect of your engagement.  So could you please tell us who it is that

 6     you spoke to concerning the preparation of the report?

 7        A.   The information that I incorporated into the report does not only

 8     concern individuals or generals or people who were involved in this

 9     field, people that I spoke to directly with.  It also concerns people or

10     individuals whose documents I used.  And among other things, I most

11     frequently spoke to individuals involved in field of activity like my

12     own, that concerned the organisation and functioning of a system.  With

13     regard to certain elements of the organisation and function of a system,

14     I spoke about such elements to General Simic.  He has testified here, and

15     I spoke to him while he was still a Chief of the Main Staff of the VRS --

16     or, rather, while he was still in that position, I officially visited him

17     in Banja Luka, and I then I spoke with him because I was interested in

18     some of his experiences.

19             As for General Skrbic, I spoke to him when he came to visit the

20     Army of Yugoslavia.  When he did so, he worked in the sector where my

21     organisational unit was based.

22             I spoke to numerous colonels at various conferences and I

23     established contact with them.  There were a lot of people I spoke to

24     directly or indirectly.  I don't want to offend anyone by saying that I

25     didn't speak to such and such a person; however, when the decision was

Page 30339

 1     taken to draft this report -- or, as of that moment I didn't contact any

 2     of these individuals because I wanted to work on the basis of the

 3     information I had already obtained and I wanted this report to be an

 4     original work.

 5        Q.   I'm sorry.  Are you saying that you -- excuse me, you didn't

 6     speak to either General Simic or Skrbic after you were engaged to prepare

 7     the report?  Because that's how it reads in the transcript.  I am

 8     wondering if whether there is an error?

 9        A.   If that's what it says, there is an error.  I didn't speak to

10     them about the report after I started working on the report.  I was very

11     precise.

12        Q.   All right.  Let me rephrase my question and maybe I can be a

13     little bit more precise.  Did you speak to them in relation to the

14     preparation of your report at any point during that process?

15        A.   You were very precise at the beginning and I answered that

16     precise question.  With regard to drafting the report, well, I didn't

17     speak to anyone about it because I wanted it to be my own original work,

18     but I spoke to a huge variety of individuals with regard to their

19     experiences.

20        Q.   All right.  Well, let's -- I suppose what's troubling me a little

21     bit, I would like to know if you could, more precisely, when you say

22     "huge numbers of individuals" who you are talking about, and you've

23     mentioned two people.  Could you be a little bit more precise about who

24     it is you spoke to and what you spoke to them about, because your report

25     covers a broad area of material.

Page 30340

 1        A.   In order to be more precise I'd -- well, I would have to remember

 2     the list of individuals about whom I spoke to about all these matters.

 3     Up until the end of 1995, I was the executive director of the Ministry of

 4     Defence of Serbia and Montenegro, or, rather, of Serbia.  Prior to that I

 5     was the assistant or, rather, deputy minister for human affairs,

 6     personnel affairs.  The subject of this work that was drafted was the

 7     subject of each and every conversation I had with each individual, each

 8     official who worked in the system.

 9             With regard to organisational matters, I spoke to a NATO officer

10     about this.  I also spoke about organisation to individuals in the

11     Pentagon, to people from the Ministry of Defence.  I spoke about this to

12     the G5 head.  As far as organisation is concerned, I spoke to officers

13     from the Slovenian army.  As far as organisation is concerned, I spoke to

14     officers from the Slovak army.  I also spoke to officers from the VRS

15     about organisational matters.  I spoke about organisational matters to

16     former JNA officers who were involved in this area.  I had presentations

17     at conferences.  I am a member of the Atlantic Council of Serbia.  I am a

18     member of the administration of the Atlantic counsel, and to this very

19     day I speak to these people about all aspects that concern organisation,

20     functioning, and command.

21             If you are interested in any specific names, well, I provided you

22     with two names that are fresh in your memory, but I can look into other

23     names.

24        Q.   I have had the opportunity to look at your report, and it is

25     really quite sophisticated so forgive me if I err with respect to some of

Page 30341

 1     its content, but I did not see in your report any mention of any

 2     interviews that you had with anybody concerning any of the conclusions

 3     that you've drawn.  I don't believe your report contains any footnotes

 4     with respect to individuals that you had these conversations with, and I

 5     am wondering why that is.

 6             So if you could tell us why is it that your report doesn't

 7     reflect the fact that you spoke to such a wide array of highly qualified

 8     individuals?

 9        A.   First of all, thank you for saying that the report is

10     sophisticated.  It's an honour for me to hear it described in this way.

11     I must say that when I started working on this report, a very limited

12     period of time was used to draft the report.  In fact, I relied on

13     material used by other investigators or drafted by other investigators

14     and I wanted to reconstruct the way in which the VRS was organised and

15     mobilized.  However, the working method itself requires a lot of time,

16     the use of a lot of associates, many things have to be verified, and it

17     wasn't possible for me to draft it in this way.  However, given that I

18     spoke to many individuals and worked in this manner, well, all these

19     factors were incorporated in my CV in the description of the duties that

20     I performed.  These are elements that I used for the report.  As I didn't

21     conduct any specific interviews when I started drafting the report, I

22     didn't contact anyone in particular, and as a result, I didn't want to

23     mention any names because there was no basis for referring to such names

24     at such a point in time.

25        Q.   Bear with me for a moment.  On the 12th of this month when you

Page 30342

 1     testified, and this is at page 2991, you were testifying in relation to a

 2     question that my colleague put to you concerning General Miletic's rank

 3     and order.  And on line 13, during the course of your answer you said:

 4             "Reading the documents linked to this case, I have seen that very

 5     often there was a lot of confusion about what commanding officer in the

 6     Army of Republika Srpska held what rank.  Bearing in mind that they had

 7     an order on the operation of the Army of Republika Srpska, that they also

 8     had the establishment, that I had a large number of orders, I contacted

 9     additional interviews with those officers who dealt with organisation

10     within the Army of Republika Srpska and established on the basis of all

11     this the precise rank and order in the Army of Republika Srpska."

12             Having read that to you, I put my question to you again as to

13     whom it is that you contacted after you were engaged to prepare this

14     report.  Did you contact anyone after you started this report or after

15     you were engaged by the Miletic Defence?

16        A.   Everything has fallen into place in your question, but confusion

17     doesn't make sense because it's not a word I use very often, but I think

18     I have understood your question and I'll try and be precise again.

19             When I was drafting this report, I did not speak to anyone for

20     the purposes of drafting the report, but when I did speak to people I

21     spoke to them to find out how they worked, what tasks they carried out,

22     and what sort of problems they encountered and that is why my intention

23     was to reconstruct the way in which matters were organised.  In my

24     opinion, someone else should have done this, not this expert, but time

25     did not allow for this.

Page 30343

 1             When there were certain problems that I encountered, when it was

 2     difficult to understand certain things, I would contact, for example,

 3     General Skrbic, and I would ask him about some elements of an order.  I

 4     would ask him, for example, whether an order on standing in for other

 5     officers was drafted.  He said that no such order at that highest level

 6     had been drafted.  I didn't tell Skrbic that I would use this in the

 7     report or not or anything of the kind.  I would ask about how many

 8     problems they had with establishment.  I asked about how establishment

 9     was dealt with.  I asked Colonel Kovacevic about this.  He said that they

10     followed the system they had and relied on the basis -- on the documents

11     that the army had.

12             I don't know if I can find a document about organisation or if I

13     didn't know how to find such a document -- well, he didn't know anything

14     about it, he said that he wasn't part of the system, he hadn't been for a

15     long time, and he said he knew nothing about it.  Perhaps the problem is

16     that you have something concealed within your question and, as a result,

17     I don't understand it, but I am being very precise and I have repeated it

18     a number of times.  As far as the report is concerned, not a single

19     sentence was added from someone's interview, for example, and therefore

20     no references were made.

21             Given the tasks that I had to perform and the context I

22     established, well, this was the base upon which I drafted this expert

23     report.

24        Q.   At page 29992 of the transcript, you go on to describe your

25     diagram, and you say:

Page 30344

 1             "Based on all this I reach the conclusion presented here.  I have

 2     checked this diagram with a large number of officers engaged in

 3     organisational work, and they all agreed with every detail of this

 4     diagram."

 5             Do you remember giving that testimony?

 6        A.   Which part?

 7        Q.   That you had checked the diagram that you developed in relation

 8     to representing the rank and order in the Republika Srpska with a number

 9     of individuals that were engaged in organisational work.  I am referring

10     just to the 12th of January during the course of your testimony.

11        A.   Does this mean that you are referring to figure number 14?

12        Q.   I believe I am, but you correct me if I am wrong.  I am only

13     referring to the subject of your testimony, in particular that you said

14     that you checked the diagram with a number of individuals.

15        A.   Perhaps there is an interpretation issue.  I went through my

16     report very rapidly, but there aren't any diagrams.  There are only

17     figures.  There are various figures, but if you're talking about rank and

18     order that would correspond to figure 14.  And it's correct that in

19     figure 14 -- or, rather, with regard -- I spoke to a number of people

20     about figure 14, but it's not as if I provided these people with figure

21     14 and then had them verify it, or I spoke to them about the working

22     method used.  And since this question was often put about this being my

23     own work, well, during the break it occurred to me that there is a

24     document in the army, it's a JNA document that's been adopted by the Army

25     of Yugoslavia, and I know that it was worked on by the VRS.  And I know

Page 30345

 1     that they established some kind of an organisation on the basis of that

 2     document in the army of Slovenia, but the document hasn't been referred

 3     to, but the document is called "Instructions for Drafting Mobilization

 4     Plan Documents."  I am convinced that this document also exists in the

 5     database you have here and that we could have a look at it and work with

 6     it, but it's one of the documents that also speaks about the issue of

 7     rank.  It's important because you can see that rank and order aren't

 8     concepts that I have invented here.  As to the method on how one obtained

 9     rank and order, well, about these methods I spoke to, for example,

10     military officials, former ones, present ones.  I asked them whether they

11     had any experience about rank and order in foreign armies --

12        Q.   [Previous translation continues]...  concerned about whether or

13     not you presented this figure or diagram to anybody after you had

14     prepared it.  And so I think you have probably answered my question just

15     fine.

16             If the Court would like, we could break, but I could continue

17     also for --

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  We have got two minutes left.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  -- the next two minutes if you like.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, of course.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.

22        Q.   Now, I take it that you have prepared quite extensively for your

23     testimony before coming here, right?  You could probably answer that yes

24     or no.

25        A.   Well, I can't seem to be someone who is not very serious to you.

Page 30346

 1     Yes, I prepared very thoroughly for this.

 2        Q.   And you met with both the Miletic Defence team and the

 3     Gvero Defence team; isn't that true?

 4        A.   I think that you failed to mention someone.  I also met or spoke

 5     to Ms. Nikolic, and that's been said in the courtroom.  We met and spoke

 6     for an hour or two about certain main issues, and I did not meet with

 7     anyone else nor did I speak to anyone else before my testimony here.

 8        Q.   How long did you meet with the Gvero team for, if you could tell

 9     us?

10        A.   I am afraid I couldn't really say, but if I said it was between

11     one and two hours, well, I think that that's probably a fairly precise

12     estimate.

13        Q.   All right.  Thank you for that.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  We will stop here.  We will continue

16     tomorrow.

17             Do you think you will finish tomorrow or not?

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I am hoping to.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  You are hoping to.

20             Mr. Haynes, please note.

21             MR. HAYNES:  Thank you, I will.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Obviously, I think there will be some kind

23     of redirect later on, but on the assumption that we might finish tomorrow

24     or latest Wednesday, be prepared.

25             Yes, yes.  Incidentally, Judge Prost is reminding me, you have to

Page 30347

 1     come back to us on Kovacevic and whether you have any other --

 2             MR. JOSSE:  We are aware that we need to make a final decision

 3     about that and to relay that to the Trial Chamber and also the parties,

 4     of course.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.

 6             MR. JOSSE:  And I am grateful to Judge Prost for mentioning that

 7     at this stage.  As well that, Your Honours, we do wish to make this

 8     opening statement as well which will take up a session, approximately.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you.

10             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Excuse me, Mr. President.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.

12             MR. McCLOSKEY:  We have -- Mr. Thayer is trying to determine

13     whether he needs to get ready for this witness, so if we could get that

14     information as soon as possible.  We also wonder if there is no evidence,

15     what kind of an opening statement that would be.  That would be a closing

16     statement.  So if there is no evidence, I don't see that an opening

17     statement, well, fits the system.

18             MR. JOSSE:  Could I deal with the first point.  I have repeatedly

19     told Mr. Thayer that he needs to be prepared to deal with our expert.  I

20     have said that to him ten times at least, and that is the answer to the

21     question that my learned friend Mr. McCloskey --

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  In the meantime the witness --

23             MR. JOSSE:  -- poses.  Mr. Thayer needs to be prepared for it.

24     Secondly, so far as the other issue is concerned, clearly that is

25     something if we call no evidence that my learned friend is entitled to

Page 30348

 1     address --

 2                           [The witness stands down]

 3             MR. JOSSE:  -- and you'll need to hear argument about and then

 4     resolve.  Now is not the time to do that, I would suggest.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  I agree.  I agree.  We will continue tomorrow at

 6     9.00 -- tomorrow in the afternoon at 2.15.  Thank you.

 7                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

 8                           1.48 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the

 9                           20th day of January, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25