Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 30349

 1                           Tuesday, 20 January 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.23 p.m.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  So good afternoon, Madam Registrar.

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

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

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Incidentally, I am on channel four, that I can see,

10     and I'm receiving interpretation in French.  Is it okay now?  Yes.

11             For the record, all the accused are present today.  Prosecution

12     is Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye.  Defence teams, I notice the absence

13     of Mr. Bourgon and Mr. Haynes.

14             General, good afternoon to you.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  And welcome back.  At least from the information I

17     have gathered, it doesn't seem likely that we will finish with you today,

18     but we will still do our utmost.

19             Mr. Vanderpuye, I take it that there are no preliminaries,

20     correct?  We hear none.

21             Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you Mr. --

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  And before you continue, this is the schedule that

24     I am suggesting.  We'll have the break at 3.45 as usual, up to 4.10, that

25     means 25 minutes.  And then the second break, instead of at 5.45 as usual

Page 30350

 1     will be at 5.55, and we will resume at 6.25.

 2             Mr. Vanderpuye.

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And good afternoon to

 4     you, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good afternoon.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Good afternoon to my learned friends.

 7                           WITNESS: SLOBODAN KOSOVAC [Resumed]

 8                           [Witness answered through interpretation]

 9                           Cross-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]

10        Q.   And good afternoon to you, General.

11        A.   Good afternoon.

12        Q.   I just wanted to clarify something that I noticed on the record

13     yesterday.  In response to a question I put to you concerning your report

14     where I asked you if you had prepared any report at least for the

15     purposes of court, the record indicates that you said -- when I asked you

16     if you had prepared any other report, in response to whether or not this

17     was your first report you said:

18             "Yes, this is my first encounter with any court or the judiciary

19     system as such."

20             And I just wanted to first confirm if that is accurate or there

21     was an error in the transcription?

22        A.   I should just add from the point of view of drafting the report,

23     because I appeared before this court, I was called as an expert witness

24     in the Milovanovic et al case.  I think that's what it's called or the

25     so-called Kosovo group.

Page 30351

 1        Q.   Okay.  Thank you for that clarification.

 2             Now, when we left off yesterday I asked you how long you had met

 3     with the Gvero team and you indicated that you had met with him for about

 4     an hour or two; is that right?

 5        A.   That's my estimate, yes.

 6        Q.   All right.  And I take it that you met with the Miletic team

 7     prior to the preparation of your testimony here last week?

 8        A.   Yes.  I met with General Miletic's team when I arrived here in

 9     The Hague.  I came with an associate from the team from Belgrade and

10     cooperation went quite smoothly.

11        Q.   All right.  And in advance of your testimony, how long did you

12     meet with the Miletic Defence team, that is, when you came to The Hague?

13        A.   When I came to The Hague, we met on Saturday afternoon and Sunday

14     afternoon.  I can't remember the exact time.

15        Q.   And for how long, approximately, did you meet with them?

16        A.   If I remember this correctly, on Saturday we spoke for about two

17     or three hours, and a little less on Sunday, perhaps not even two hours.

18        Q.   And from the time that you prepared the report until your

19     testimony here in The Hague, did you ever inform the Miletic Defence team

20     that you had consulted with various professionals concerning your

21     conclusions or concerning the issues that are covered by your report?

22        A.   What I said yesterday is something that the Miletic Defence team

23     knows.  I was very precise when it came to my work.  When I started

24     drafting my report, when I submitted my report, well, in the course of

25     the work on the report itself, I didn't meet any experts nor did I speak

Page 30352

 1     to them.  So I didn't provide any explanations with this regard because I

 2     wanted the report to be based on a precise method, and it can be precise

 3     only if there is one author, if only one person works on it.

 4             My colleague General Djokic, who has appeared before this Court,

 5     is a neighbour of mine.  We live very close to each other and we go to

 6     work together every day.  I didn't give him the report either, and I

 7     didn't consult him with regard to drafting this report because I didn't

 8     want him to tamper with the methodology I was applying, and I think that

 9     I said something to that effect yesterday.

10        Q.   All I can tell as a man who appreciates precision in the way he

11     speaks, your testimony repeatedly refer to interviews that you conducted,

12     and I'm wondering whether or not we are talking about interviews in the

13     sense of a purposeful or a guided inquiry, or we are talking about a chat

14     over some coffee.  So if you would, could you please tell us what it is

15     you meant when you said that you met with or interviewed people in

16     respect of the conclusions that you reached in this case?

17        A.   The subject I was to deal with as an expert is very precise, very

18     well defined.  And with regard to that well-defined subject, and -- well,

19     I spoke to no one about this matter.  However, this subject involves a

20     very precise military position, scientific positions.  It involves

21     various relevant experiences, and these are matters that we always

22     discuss.  It's a matter of the general culture of people who have the

23     same or similar ranks.

24             The report submitted was never the matter of investigation

25     because I was never involved in investigative work.  I was involved in

Page 30353

 1     drafting expert reports, and the report is an analytic one and contains

 2     all the other relevant elements.

 3        Q.   So when you say you checked this figure, as we spoke about

 4     yesterday, with a large number of officers, that really had nothing to do

 5     with your report and it's not in reference to anything that was prepared

 6     in connection with your report; right?

 7        A.   I don't think I have understood you correctly.  Which numbers are

 8     you referring to?

 9        Q.   I'm referring to page 88 of your report, and I'm referring to

10     page 29992 of your testimony upon questioning by my learned friend.  We

11     spoke about this briefly yesterday, and there was some confusion as to

12     whether or not I was referring to the term "diagram," as is written in

13     the transcript, or whether or not we were referring to a figure.  In

14     either event, in the context of your testimony, you said that you had

15     checked this with a large number of officers engaged in organisational

16     work.

17             And my inquiry, my question is, if you didn't speak to anybody in

18     connection with the preparation of your report or about your report, then

19     what -- what figure is it that you are saying that you checked with all

20     these people about?

21        A.   First, you mentioned the number 88.  My report consists of

22     72 pages, the report that was printed out, and the part that was

23     submitted here, because some of it was abbreviated, that version consists

24     of 70 pages.  Later on I understood that you were probably referring to

25     figure 14, and that -- that's what you were asking me about.  This is a

Page 30354

 1     figure that relates to rank and order.

 2             The figure on rank and order or on this method wasn't created and

 3     analysed with anyone else or by working with the other people.  I told

 4     you about that, that the methodology for drawing conclusions on rank and

 5     order was the subject of discussion.  And we discussed the matter, among

 6     other things, when the Serbian Atlantic Council -- or, rather, when the

 7     war school, the military school from the USA came to visit, we spoke

 8     about the subject of rank in order to put these people up in an

 9     appropriate way.  So methodology is in a certain sense always the subject

10     of discussion.

11        Q.   Sir, I don't want to belabour the point, but I think my question

12     is pretty straightforward.  On page 29992 of your testimony on

13     12 January, you say:

14             "I contacted additional interviews" -- this is starting on 29991,

15     line 17.

16             "I contacted additional interviews with those officers who dealt

17     with the organisation of the Army of Republika Srpska and established on

18     the basis of all this the precise rank and order in the Army of

19     Republika Srpska."

20             Then you go on and you say at 2992:

21             "Based on all this" -- this is at line two.

22             "Based on all this I reached the conclusion presented here,"

23     which is presented in your report.  "I have checked this diagram with a

24     large number of officers," and it says "diagram" in the record just so

25     you are clear.  "I have checked this diagram with a large number of

Page 30355

 1     officers engaged in organisational work and they all agreed with every

 2     detail of this diagram."

 3             My question to you, sir, is:  Having said that and now

 4     represented before this Tribunal that you never showed this to anybody,

 5     how can you reconcile those two statements?

 6        A.   Well, it's very easy.  It's very clear.  You've omitted to refer

 7     to something from the very beginning.  I don't know why you are doing

 8     this.  I've told you about the methodology, the criteria used.  I spoke

 9     to everyone about these matters who was competent in the field.  I've

10     also said that I spoke to certain military representatives to see how

11     they dealt with those ranks.  So that had to do with the methodology I

12     followed.  I checked the methodology, but no one was presented with this

13     figure.  If it had been prepared, perhaps I would have presented it, but

14     I kept introducing variations when it came to methodology so as to have a

15     consistent expert report and so as not to deviate from the line that I

16     was pursuing.

17        Q.   Thank you for that.  Now, as I understand it, and as is indicated

18     in your report, the object of this report was to evaluate the role of

19     General Miletic as he served in 1995 as the Chief of the Administration

20     for Training and Operations in the VRS; is that right?

21        A.   You read out the introductory part in my report, and there you

22     have the subject of the report.  So it's on page 5 and it starts with

23     item 1, subject of the investigation, time, context, location, and it

24     ends with the events at the time.  So that's from the introduction.  That

25     was the purpose of my work and the subject is defined under item 1.

Page 30356

 1        Q.   Is that a yes?

 2        A.   If you're referring to the subject, no.  If you have the

 3     objective in mind, yes.  The subject is defined in a particular way, in a

 4     separate way.

 5        Q.   So it was not your intention to evaluate the role that

 6     General Miletic played in his function as the Chief of Administration for

 7     Training and Operations in 1995.  That wasn't the object of your report.

 8        A.   I never said that.  I even wrote that down.  That was the task

 9     and the objective, but the subject of my report is precisely defined

10     under item 1, and it's called the subject -- or the conclusions, the

11     findings.  If you're referring to my objective, yes, that was my

12     objective, and it was a task that I approached very seriously.

13        Q.   You also attempted to evaluate his other duties that were beyond

14     his post; is that right?

15        A.   Yes.  I tried to find out whether he had any other duties that

16     didn't fall under his work description.

17        Q.   In respect of evaluating these duties and his function as they

18     actually occurred in 1995, did you speak to General Miletic at all

19     concerning those matters?

20        A.   Yes.  General Miletic expressed the desire to have me as an

21     expert, and we then spoke about me accepting the task for drafting this

22     expert report.

23        Q.   Did you speak to him about his function as it was in 1995 while

24     he was in the VRS?

25        A.   We spoke about -- about the entire time-period that he spent in

Page 30357

 1     that position in the Army of Republika Srpska.

 2        Q.   I understand that you may have spoken to him about the

 3     time-period.  I want to know whether or not you spoke to him about his

 4     function during that time-period.

 5        A.   Yes.  We spoke about all the duties that he performed in the VRS,

 6     in the Republika Srpska Army.

 7        Q.   When did you speak to him about that?

 8        A.   I can't say for certain, but it was about ten or 20 days before a

 9     proposal was made to have me engaged as a military expert.

10        Q.   And how long would you say you spoke to him for about this

11     particular subject matter?

12        A.   I can't remember.  I wouldn't like to give you an estimate.

13        Q.   Can you approximate?  Was it 15 minutes or was it 5 hours?

14        A.   We would see each other for other reasons, too.  I was also

15     invited to the General's daughter's wedding.  We would also meet each

16     other together with other friends.  He's the friend of some of my

17     friends.  If I gave you such an estimate, well, that wouldn't be serious.

18     So I stand by what I said.  I can't say how much time the two of us

19     allocated to the subject.

20        Q.   You mentioned that you were invited to his daughter's wedding;

21     right?  I just want to make sure the transcript is right.

22        A.   That's correct.

23        Q.   And do you have any personal friendship with General Miletic or

24     his family?

25        A.   Well, the term "friendship" means different things in different

Page 30358

 1     cultures.  However, if you have had a look at my CV, and I believe you

 2     have done so, you will have noticed that General Miletic and myself are

 3     of more or less -- come from more or less the same generation.  We are

 4     both officers from the anti-aircraft missile units.  We were both very

 5     successful officers.  We knew each other, and I believe that we knew each

 6     other professionally and we were also on friendly terms.  And our

 7     families didn't know each other, and the invitation to his daughter's

 8     wedding was a particular honour for me.  It's not just an invitation that

 9     is extended to special friends.  Such invitations also extended to

10     acquaintances.

11        Q.   All right.  General --

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:

14        Q.   How did it come to be that you were invited to General Miletic's

15     daughter's wedding?

16        A.   As for the reasons for which I was invited, well, you would have

17     to ask General Miletic.  I was very happy to receive that invitation and

18     it was an honour for me to receive it.

19        Q.   When did you receive it?

20        A.   Your question is when I received the invitation?

21        Q.   Yes, sir.

22        A.   I can't remember the date.  It was certainly before the wedding.

23        Q.   I would imagine so.  What year?

24        A.   The years fly by, but I believe that General Miletic's daughter

25     got married in 2006.  I believe that that is what she herself told you

Page 30359

 1     here before the Tribunal.  I'm not sure whether you're trying to check my

 2     recollection, but, yes, I was at the wedding.

 3        Q.   And you have you maintained contact with the Miletic family since

 4     then, between then and now?

 5        A.   I don't know what you mean by "contact."  I know, for example,

 6     that his daughter had professional contact with my wife.  They worked for

 7     the same institution, and I went to express my condolences.

 8     Unfortunately, while General Miletic was detained here, a lot of

 9     unfortunate events that concerned his family.  If this is the kind of

10     contact that you are interested in, yes, I did have such contact.

11        Q.   And did you maintain any contact with General Miletic himself

12     during this period?

13        A.   I think my visit to General Miletic in the Detention Unit is on

14     record, and I am not sure if he ever came over, but if I had the

15     opportunity to do so I am quite sure that I greeted him and welcomed him.

16        Q.   Well, I'm sure your visits are on record but I'm sure you

17     wouldn't want the Trial Chamber and the Judges to go and have to look it

18     up.  So the reason why I am asking the question is so that you can put it

19     on the record before these Judges so that they can evaluate what you have

20     to say.  Now, can you tell us how many times, for example, you visited

21     General Miletic while he was here in custody?

22        A.   I had the opportunity of visiting him twice, but given the

23     bureaucracy in place, I visited him only once last January.

24        Q.   Last January, January of 2008; correct?

25        A.   Absolutely, January of last year.

Page 30360

 1        Q.   And was that in connection with the preparation of your report?

 2        A.   That was a visit to a colleague.  There's something I didn't want

 3     to comment on at all because I was present here when your expert

 4     presented the conclusions he arrived at in the report, and I didn't want

 5     to influence anyone as a result of my positions.

 6        Q.   Is that a no?

 7        A.   If you are asking me about the report, the answer is no.

 8     Although I knew that very soon thereafter I would be writing it.

 9        Q.   And when you spoke to General Miletic about his service during

10     the war, I take it you spoke to him within the framework of the topics

11     that are covered by your report?

12        A.   We did not discuss the framework or the phases of my expert

13     report.  I said that I would define the topic of the expert report

14     myself, and based on that I would draft my expert report.  I did not want

15     anybody influencing me in that respect.  I did not want anybody to tamper

16     with the definition of the subject of my expert report because I would

17     not be able to proceed from such a definition.  I would not be able to do

18     my work.

19        Q.   Well, your report doesn't mention anything about having spoken to

20     General Miletic about his duties at all, does it?

21        A.   I believe that yesterday I said that no single conversation with

22     anybody is mentioned because no conversation makes part of this expert

23     report, and since no conversations make part of this expert report, then

24     I don't have the right to refer to any such conversations.  If I had

25     quoted any of the conversations, then I would incorporate that into my

Page 30361

 1     methodology.  I would do it in the way one does when writing an expert

 2     report.

 3        Q.   Page 29954 of the transcript, my colleague Ms. Fauveau put the

 4     following question to you:

 5             "Q.  Could you tell us the sources you used to draft this

 6     report?"

 7             "A.  I've used a number of sources.  My main source was the

 8     source that I received from you, from the Defence.  I also used materials

 9     that determined the position and the role of the organ that

10     General Miletic worked for.  I also used documents of the Yugoslavia

11     People's Army, as well as the documents of the Army of Yugoslavia.  I

12     also used the search engines on the internet, and I compared the army

13     with other modern armies such as NATO.  I also used interviews with my

14     colleagues because my colleagues, be it from the Army of Yugoslavia or

15     the Army of Republika Srpska or even the militaries of the former

16     Yugoslavia People's Army, I interviewed high-ranking officers from all

17     these militaries."

18             You identified that as the source of information that you used to

19     draft your report.  Did you use information that you derived from your

20     conversations with General Miletic to draft your report?

21        A.   We have to make a distinction between two things here.  I believe

22     that we have been running in circles for too long now.  However, this is

23     your cross-examination so I don't mind repeating things for you.

24             When you talk to anybody, when you have conversations with

25     anybody, two processes are involved.  One is the coordination of

Page 30362

 1     viewpoints, methodologies, the available knowledge, and other things; and

 2     the second process is the one aimed at establishing facts which will then

 3     be incorporated into your report.

 4             When it comes to establishing facts and the procedure that leads

 5     to it during conversations is very precise and very clear.  This is

 6     called an interview.  You define questions, you define answers you are

 7     aiming for, and then you state in the footnotes who you talked to and

 8     what the conversation was about.  I did not use the second method, the

 9     latter method.  I used the former method.  However, I used it to a

10     maximum potential and as much as I could.

11        Q.   General, is that a yes or a no to my question?

12        A.   Your question is part of a statement, and I can't say either yes

13     or no.  There are parts of your questions to which I can say yes and some

14     other parts to which I could also say no.  I believe that I have provided

15     a very clear and precise answer to your question.

16        Q.   My question, General, and I'll repeat it, did you use information

17     that you derived from your conversations with General Miletic to draft

18     your report, yes or no?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And the information that you used from General Miletic to draft

21     your report, did you make counsel for the Defence, that is his Defence

22     lawyers, aware of that information?

23        A.   Whatever I asked General Miletic and whatever he told me in

24     answer to my questions, I subsequently received in the form of material

25     that the Defence Counsel had available to them, and that's why the

Page 30363

 1     questions and answers did not mean much to me after that.  Amongst other

 2     things, I asked him about his former duties.  I didn't know that I would

 3     receive the complete personal history listing every position and the

 4     period of time.  I was surprised to see such a precision and detail in

 5     all that.

 6             As for any other information that was not submitted to me by the

 7     Defence Counsel or that I got hold of -- hold of by reading books, for

 8     example, books that had been published, victors [as interpreted], as it

 9     were, no other piece of information provided to me verbally was used by

10     myself in drafting my report.

11        Q.   In terms of the information that you did use, as you've indicated

12     you have, you didn't cite that in your report; right?

13        A.   No, not everything.  I read hundreds of reports.  To be modest, I

14     read hundreds of expert reports, conversations, interviews, books which

15     are in the Prosecutor's collection, and similar things.  In my report I

16     was very precise.  If I provided a statement, I tied that statement to a

17     source, and in my expert report you have 142 footnotes which describe the

18     sources that I used.  And out of the 142 footnotes, some 17 per cent are

19     relative to the BiH army; 69 per cent of the footnotes are relative to

20     the documents originating from the Army of Republika Srpska -- I

21     apologise, 48 per cent.  26 per cent is other types of literature and so

22     on and so forth.  This is only one part of the documents that I used.  I

23     did not incorporate everything because it would have been an impossible

24     thing to do.

25        Q.   Well, don't you think that in preparing an analytical technical

Page 30364

 1     report such as this, even though it's your first one, that it would be

 2     appropriate to mention in the report itself that you spoke to the person

 3     who is the subject of the report and used information from that person in

 4     drafting it?  Don't you think that would be an appropriate thing to do as

 5     a professional, as an expert such as yourself?

 6        A.   I don't think this would be necessary.  What matters is that all

 7     the statements that I put in my report have been tied to the source, and

 8     this all has to do with a professional basis that I used in my capacity

 9     as an expert.

10        Q.   Did you speak to General Miletic about the nature of his defence

11     to the charges in this case?

12        A.   The nature of General Miletic's Defence in respect of the charges

13     is a matter for the Defence team.  I did not want to discuss that with

14     him.  I only indicated to the team what road I would take as an expert.

15     I already said at the outset that I am not an expert for the Defence.  I

16     am a military expert that was engaged by the Defence team to provide some

17     facts.  A military expert does not get involved in the nature of defence.

18     A military expert deals with the essence of the matter.

19        Q.   With all due respect, General, you are also a military expert who

20     happens to be a friend of an accused charged with a very serious crime

21     and who happened to be invited to and, in fact, attended the wedding of

22     the same accused.

23             So my question to you is:  Did you speak to General Miletic about

24     his defence?

25        A.   I was absolutely precise, exceptionally precise, and there is no

Page 30365

 1     need for me to repeat.  If there is need to do so, however, I can repeat

 2     whatever I have said so far.  Friendship is no hindrance to an expert

 3     report.  In my view, a hindrance to an expert report would be if you were

 4     a participant in the events that the accused has been charged with, and I

 5     can see that very often both direct and indirect participants in the

 6     events have been given a task to draft an expert report.  I was not

 7     involved.  I have all the competencies to draft such an expert report,

 8     and my personal friendships with people don't really play a role in this

 9     case.  Not at all.

10        Q.   All right.  Well, I'll let the Trial Chamber worry about that.

11             Now, you were asked some very specific questions concerning

12     Directive number 7.

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And that's 65 ter P5.  If I could have that in

14     e-court, please.  If we could go to page 10 in the English or -- in the

15     English, I believe.  I am mistaken.  It's page 10 in the B/C/S, and I

16     believe it's page 14 in the English.  And we should be looking at 6.1.

17             Thank you.  I'm sorry.

18        Q.   Just before I get to this, I just want to ask you:  When you

19     spoke to General Miletic, did you take notes, perhaps, of your

20     conversations that you had concerning what you ultimately used to draft

21     your report?

22        A.   I've already told you that I did not use anything in drafting my

23     report.  I did not use this method.  I did not make any notes for that

24     reason, and here I have some notes that I made in January last year

25     during your expert's report or during your expert's testimony.

Page 30366

 1        Q.   I know we have gone over this a hundred times, but I asked you

 2     specifically whether you used information that was provided to you by

 3     General Miletic in your report, and the transcript says that you said

 4     yes.  And now you seem to be saying the exact opposite again.

 5        A.   I think when I was examined by the Defence one of the first

 6     questions they put to me was about the sources, and when I listed my

 7     sources, I never said that -- the thing that you have just put to me.  If

 8     you read my words carefully about the method of my work, I never

 9     mentioned and you will never find anywhere that I used as part of my

10     method something that General Miletic provided to me.

11        Q.   Well, maybe I can help you find it, and you will find it on page

12     15 of today's transcript, lines -- page 14 of today's transcript, lines

13     11 through 14:

14             "Q. My question, General, and I'll repeat it, did you use

15     information that you derived from your conversations with General Miletic

16     to draft your report, yes or no?"

17             "A. Yes."

18             There is no confusion about that, is there, sir?

19        A.   Your Honours, I will have to provide a somewhat lengthier answer

20     here at this point because this statement and this play-on words

21     represents -- this game on words is quite a strong attack on my

22     integrity, and I will be very precise here.

23             I have been trying very hard at every moment to provide very

24     correct, precise and concise answers in keeping with your request.  So

25     far for the gentleman, I made a distinction between the drafting of the

Page 30367

 1     report and consultations.  One has to do with establishing facts,

 2     situations and methodologies or any such thing; and the second one is

 3     information.

 4             If you are trying to play games with these words when you put all

 5     that in the context of the question whether I informed the Defence

 6     Counsel for General Miletic about all that, I said that I checked all the

 7     information that I had received, that I was surprised when I saw how

 8     precise the material was and that I used the written material from the

 9     personnel file number 2.

10             Any other attempt to take words out of the context is the

11     reversal of the things that I said.  I never used any facts or

12     information that was provided to me verbally because if I had I would

13     have used the methodology appropriate for entering such facts into a

14     report.

15        Q.   All right.  You didn't take any notes.  You didn't use any notes

16     of any information that was provided by you -- provided to you by

17     General Miletic; right?

18        A.   I did not use any notes that I might have made in my conversation

19     with General Miletic, and General Miletic did not provide me with any of

20     his notes, either.  No notes involved.

21        Q.   I'm curious because I've noticed that throughout your entire

22     testimony you've been taking notes even though there is a reporter here

23     and a transcript in front of you.  Did you take any notes with respect to

24     any of these interviews or any other information that you used in

25     preparing your report?

Page 30368

 1        A.   I am forced to make notes for several reasons.  Unlike you, an

 2     expert has his hands and legs tied.  He does not have access to a

 3     database.  He can't use his computer.  He cannot go back to check.  The

 4     only thing I can consult is what you provide me with.  Very often the

 5     questions that are put here are too wide-ranging, they contain several

 6     sub-questions, and they use some methodologies that I am not familiar

 7     with, and in order to provide any answers I have to make notes.

 8             It is with great pleasure that I can provide my notebook to --

 9     both to you and the Trial Chamber and you can inspect my notes.  The

10     transcript in front of me is of no use to me because I don't read

11     English.  My knowledge of English is very passive, and I am using the

12     transcript in order to start my answer on time so as not to be admonished

13     by the Trial Chamber that I am too fast in providing my answers.  This is

14     about the transcript.

15             When it comes to the drafting of my expert report, I drafted one

16     variation with over 300 pages.  I have hundreds of notes on the computer.

17     I am very good at using the computer.  I have tables in Excel and some

18     other documents which I can search, and this is what I do.  And this is

19     an integral part of a serious work, and I must tell you that I have been

20     involved in a lot of serious work of this kind so far.

21        Q.   Were you asked for any of these things by the Defence for

22     General Miletic, any of your notes or interviews or notes of interviews?

23        A.   It never occurred to them or at least they did not tell me that.

24     The General Miletic Defence did consult me on some professional issues.

25     They wanted to hear my opinion.

Page 30369

 1        Q.   So you have those notes then?

 2        A.   No, not at this moment.  The notes are on my computer in my

 3     apartment, and they were the basis of my expert report.

 4        Q.   All right.  What I mean is that you've retained them.  That is,

 5     any notes that you've had, any interviews that you have conducted in

 6     preparing your report, you've retained; right?

 7        A.   Yes.  It's a vast database which contains some book which I found

 8     in an electronic form.  So this is a huge database that I can search.  It

 9     is fully searchable, because that's how it was compiled.  And anybody who

10     needs anything from that database from me, I can certainly provide them

11     with that.

12        Q.   Aside from the database, I am talking about notes now.  Did you

13     retain those?

14        A.   When I say "database" I imply documents that I have been provided

15     with in any form, notes that I have made, books that I downloaded, and

16     all the things that I have used in my work.

17        Q.   All right.  Thank you for clarifying that, General.

18             We were looking at 65 ter P5, 6.1.  Now, you were asked a series

19     of questions concerning that.  In particular, on paragraph -- I should

20     say, rather, paragraph 122 of your expert you stated that:

21             "This language does not fall within the scope of work of the

22     operations and training organ with regard to formulating certain items of

23     the directive."

24             You also said that:

25             "Neither the Operations and Training Administration nor its

Page 30370

 1     chief, General Radivoje Miletic, could have drawn up or modified item 6.1

 2     of the directive."

 3             That's correct, isn't it?  Let me just qualify that that's your

 4     conclusion; right?

 5        A.   Yes.  There was something else about this conclusion.  There is

 6     another very important statement there.  When Mr. Gvero's Defence asked

 7     me questions about this point, we agreed on the fact that the support to

 8     combat activities in 6.1 and then morale and psychological support, and

 9     there is no 6.2 or 6.3 or any similar thing, that that very fact points

10     to the lack of professionalism in the drafting -- or, rather,

11     non-military way of drafting this directive.

12             So the first part is not an activity that the Administration for

13     Operations and Training would be involved in, although they were the ones

14     charged with the drafting of this document.  It seems to me that the

15     methodology that was used in this point is not something that would have

16     originated from the Administration for Operations and Training.

17        Q.   Now, what you've said in regard to the quality of the language

18     that is used, the methodology, that you said it's not military or I think

19     you used the term "unsoldierly" previously, that's not something that is

20     actually contained in your report, is it?

21        A.   Correct.  This has not been provided in detail in my report

22     because I did not deal with anything that was not part of the duties of

23     the Administration for Operations and Training.  As far as the sentence

24     is concerned, yes, I did say that this was structured in a non-military

25     or unsoldierly way.

Page 30371

 1        Q.   All right.  Well, you know that the directive itself indicates

 2     that General Miletic was its drafter; right?

 3        A.   Not correct.  I've already said several times that the Main Staff

 4     of the Army Republika Srpska proposed an outline of the directive, not

 5     the directive itself, and that proposal went to there, and in that part

 6     of the work of the General Staff the job of General Miletic is not in

 7     dispute at all.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we could just go to page 15 of the English

 9     and page 21 of the B/C/S.

10        Q.   Now, all I'm referring to is what it says where it indicates

11     "drafted by," and it says "Colonel Radivoje Miletic."

12             You see that, don't you?

13        A.   What point of my expert report is that?  I can't go by pages.

14     Can you direct me to the point in my expert report?

15        Q.   I am asking you only this, only this:  The document that's before

16     you indicates that it is drafted by Colonel Radivoje Miletic.  You see

17     that?

18        A.   Yes.  In this document, yes.  What it says here shows that the

19     proposal made in the document was made by Colonel Radivoje Miletic.  The

20     draft proposal was made by him.  You have to make a distinction between

21     the draft document and the document itself.

22        Q.   You refer in your report to a Directive number 7.  That's

23     correct, isn't it?

24        A.   Yes, absolutely.

25        Q.   And the documents you referred to in conducting your analysis is

Page 30372

 1     this document that's now before you; isn't it?

 2        A.   Yes, correct.

 3        Q.   And so when I say to you that this document indicates that it's

 4     drafted by General Miletic, do you take issue with that as a matter of

 5     fact?

 6        A.   It's absolutely problematic, and I think you understand what I am

 7     talking about here, but you're trying to confuse two issues, two theses

 8     here.  The document drafted by Colonel Radivoje Miletic as a proposal was

 9     forwarded to the president of Republika Srpska, to the supreme commander,

10     in other words.  When this document was forwarded -- after it had been

11     forwarded, I don't know what was done with it, but this is the final

12     document that was created over there.

13             On the basis of everything that has been analysed, I presented

14     you with arguments and conclusions according to which it was highly

15     probable that this document isn't identical with the draft document or,

16     rather, the proposal that was sent to the president.  I was quite precise

17     about that both in my report and in the testimony that I gave last week.

18        Q.   All right.  When you were determining whether or not the language

19     that's contained in point 6.1 could be attributed to General Miletic, you

20     did not put in your report the fact that it may be unsoldierly or

21     unprofessional or sloppy as a possible basis; right?

22        A.   Yes, for a very precise reason.  Point 6.1 is not a field of

23     activity that the chief of the Administration for Operations and Training

24     deals with, and I was quite precise about this.  This document here was

25     collectively drafted, and point 6.1 was not the subject of my expert

Page 30373

 1     report.  Together with colleagues here we came to the conclusion that you

 2     yourself stated.  The fact that it wasn't a subject of the report doesn't

 3     reduce the importance of the expert report which focused on other

 4     aspects.

 5        Q.   All right.  So the conclusion that you drew that it is

 6     unsoldierly and unprofessional was something that you drew during the

 7     course of your testimony.  It wasn't some conclusion that you drew

 8     beforehand; right?

 9        A.   And I had already reached that conclusion, but not on the basis

10     of point 6.1 but on the basis of other points.

11        Q.   All right.  So you reached the conclusion in advance of drafting

12     the report, but you never put it in the report per se; right?

13        A.   Among other things in point 3.34, I dealt with the distinction

14     between the draft directive and the final directive.  I dealt with the

15     matter in detail, and I addressed the matter that you have asked me

16     about.  On that occasion and with regard to what you have referred to,

17     well, it's an issue I addressed in one of the points that the Defence

18     team for General Gvero also asked me about.  For example, point 1.39, we

19     talked about an illogical task.  In 1.40 we talked about the fact that it

20     wasn't possible to have such task, and I think there is one point where I

21     said that it -- I said quite precisely that, among other things, this

22     wasn't a military task.  It appeared to be an illogical task and it was

23     for another organ to deal with.

24             As for the shortcomings of the directive in relation to the

25     Operations and Training Administrative Unit, well, I was quite precise.

Page 30374

 1     I didn't analyse all the details, but I think that on the whole I have

 2     rounded things off quite well.

 3        Q.   Thank you for that, General.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we could go back to 10 -- page 10, I'm sorry,

 5     in the English, and page 14 in the B/C/S.  Sorry, it's 10 in the B/C/S --

 6     nope, 19 in the B/C/S, I think is what it was, and I think it was 14 in

 7     the English.

 8        Q.   Okay.  General, with respect to this particular section, 6.1, you

 9     indicated when you were examined by Mr. Krgovic that -- well, he put the

10     question to you, and this is at page 30244, lines 13 through 22 of the

11     transcript:

12             "Q.  If you analyse the portion right here, you can see these

13     elements being introduced, such as logistics, PVO support, things to do

14     with mobilisation.  This entire paragraph does not contain anything, at

15     least in my view, that corresponds with morale and psychological support.

16     Not something that would seem to be in keeping with the rules of the

17     military profession; right?"

18             And your answer was:  "Not only does it not correspond with this

19     element of support for combat operation, this entire paragraph is not in

20     keeping with its purpose.  This entire paragraph that relates to support

21     for combat operations and then with a specific emphasis on 6.1."

22             You remember giving that testimony, giving that answer to that

23     question?

24        A.   Yes, I do.

25        Q.   Now, if you look at the next-to-last paragraph in the English --

Page 30375

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  -- and I think we have to go to next page for

 2     the B/C/S.

 3        Q.   You can see -- let me know if you can't, but I'll read it in

 4     English anyway.  The next-to-last paragraph on the page in front of you

 5     says:  "In the implementation" --

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  It should be page 21 of the B/C/S.  I can't tell

 7     if that's what's in front of us.  All right.  I think it is the

 8     next-to-last paragraph before number 7.

 9        Q.   "In the implementation of other forms of support for combat

10     operations, all measures are to be taken according to Directive number 6.

11     The focus of logistic support in 1995 shall be on units envisaged for the

12     execution of strategic level operations."

13             You see that; right?

14        A.   Yes, I do.

15        Q.   And you know that Directive number 6 provides for combat support

16     in terms of morale and psychological support, intelligence support,

17     security support, engineering support, anti-nuclear chemical and

18     biological support, counter-electronic support, and logistics support.

19     You know that; right?

20        A.   I am fully aware of that.

21        Q.   So it's not anomalous or unusual that those particular categories

22     are not listed under this section individually since it's referred to or

23     incorporated by reference?

24        A.   It is unusual and methodologically unjustified.  Directive number

25     6 has quite opposite purposes.  It was issued about 15 or 16 months prior

Page 30376

 1     to this one.  If I am not mistaken, Directive number 6 dates back to

 2     November 1993; whereas, this directive dates back to March 1995.  Not a

 3     single soldier would rely on that directive because I see here that an

 4     attempt is being made to accept item 6.

 5             I'd like to emphasize a fact that is quite noticeable at this

 6     point in time and that is that the paragraph between the one that you

 7     read out and the previous one, well, these paragraphs are far removed

 8     from other paragraphs.  It shows that someone tampered with the digital

 9     text.  One can't refer to support for combat operations from the previous

10     period, and it's also not justified in methodological terms.  You can see

11     that something very unusual has been done here.

12        Q.   You don't have any personal information that anybody tampered

13     with the electronic version of this instrument, do you?

14        A.   That would mean that I was a participant in the event.

15        Q.   I don't know if there is a translation error, but it might

16     mean -- well, let me re-ask the question.  You don't have any information

17     that this particular document in its electronic form was tampered with in

18     any way; right?

19        A.   I have no such information, but on the basis of the facts I can

20     reach a given conclusion.  To help you understand the matter, I would

21     like to point something else out.  When you try -- when we try to move

22     support for combat operations under 6 to support for combat operations

23     under 7, if you bear in mind the characteristics of what is written under

24     6 and the Directive 7, it says that the matters are defensive, well,

25     things are quite clear because support for combat operations at the time

Page 30377

 1     cannot be taken -- or, rather, adopted from that directive.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Shall we have the break now?

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  We will resume at 10 minutes past 4.00

 5     exactly.

 6                           --- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 4.14 p.m.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

10        Q.   Good afternoon to you, General.

11        A.   [No interpretation]

12        Q.   When we left off, I asked you if you had any personal information

13     that anybody had tampered with the electronic version of this

14     Directive 7, and you indicated that you had no such information.  Did you

15     ask General Miletic about that?

16        A.   No.

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we could take a look at 6.1 again.

18        Q.   Now, in the middle of the second paragraph -- or third paragraph,

19     I'm sorry, it reads -- well, let me read the whole paragraph or a part of

20     the beginning:

21             "Externally, a more aggressive propaganda and information

22     presence should be maintained aimed at gaining allies, deepening discord

23     in the coalition, unmasking the biased and hostile activities of certain

24     individuals and parts of UNPROFOR and some humanitarian organisations and

25     undermining the enemy's fighting morale.  This is to be achieved through

Page 30378

 1     planned and organised information and propaganda activities coordinated

 2     from state level."

 3             Now, having read that and having reviewed that, this is clearly

 4     something that would be attributed to the administration for legal --

 5     well, morale, legal, and religious affairs; is that right?

 6        A.   No.  And this is what I said last time.  First of all, we have to

 7     bear in mind the fact that Directive number 7 was issued at the state

 8     level or the national level, as you can see in the figure, and this text

 9     is intended for someone who works with the government.  It's intended for

10     ministries and other organisations.  The administration for morale,

11     religious, and legal affairs doesn't deal with such organisations.  And

12     although I am not an expert on morale, they would never apply such a

13     text, use such a text, because these groups are not their target groups.

14        Q.   Let's continue.

15             It further reads that this is to be achieved through the planned

16     and organised information and propaganda activities coordinated from the

17     state level and says:

18             "Internally, raise the awareness of people and soldiers of the

19     necessity and possibility of waging an armed struggle and militarily

20     defeating the enemy.  Make them so aware of the need -- make them also

21     aware of the need to put all available human and material resources at

22     the disposal of the liberation struggle in order to create a free and

23     unified Serbian state in the former Yugoslavia."

24             Now, in your view, is this language consistent with the function

25     of the Administration for Morale, Religious, and Legal Affairs?

Page 30379

 1        A.   Something has been mixed up here.  There are some sentences that

 2     might be sentences used by this department, but most of the sentences are

 3     sentences that would be attributed to the commander and government or the

 4     government of Republika Srpska.  It's language that would be used by

 5     those bodies.

 6             I'd emphasize the items that have to do with raising the level of

 7     awareness of the people.  This is the state's responsibility.  Then it

 8     says, Place all personnel and material resources at the disposal of the

 9     liberation fight, and the Supreme Command and the president deal with

10     such matters.  Together with the Supreme Command, these elements that

11     have to be used in combat.  So it's not something that falls under the

12     competence of this department, and you can see that this language is

13     intended for elements from that system.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Could I have 65 ter 3029, please, in e-court.

15        Q.   Now, General, I take it you've seen this document before; right?

16        A.   Perhaps.  I am not sure, but perhaps.

17        Q.   This is a decision for further operations.  It is dated

18     24th November 1992.  It was issued on the heels of Directive 4 of

19     19 November 1992, and it's signed by Commander Colonel Milenko Zivanovic.

20     Paragraph 1 of this document, you can see that it refers essentially to

21     Directive number 4.  It's 023 of 19 November 1992, and it reads:

22             "I have decided launch an attack using the main body of troops

23     and major equipment to inflict on the enemy the highest possible losses,

24     exhaust them, break them up or force them to surrender, and force the

25     Muslim local population to abandon the area of Cerska, Zepa, Srebrenica,

Page 30380

 1     and Gorazde."

 2             You see that; right?

 3             What I am interested at this point is, rather, section 2.3(c)

 4     which will be on page 2 in English.

 5        A.   I can see it.  It's item 1 in the decision, as far as I can see.

 6        Q.   That's right.  Now, I am going to refer you to item 2.3(c) which

 7     is page 2 in the English and it's page -- should be page 3 in B/C/S.

 8             Now, I am only going to refer you to the section that concerns

 9     moral, psychological preparations, and the language of that section reads

10     as follows:

11             "Before initiating any kind of operation, inform the unit members

12     about the important aim of that operation and underline that the outcome

13     of minor actions and of the whole operation is of crucial importance to

14     the realisation of the aim of the Serbian people, namely, the creation

15     and establishment of a Serbian state in these areas."

16             Now, that language is consistent with the language that you see

17     in Directive 7, 6.1, particularly concerning informing soldiers of the

18     liberation struggle in order to create a free and unified Serbian state;

19     isn't it?

20        A.   I have to provide you with a detailed explanation.  You know as

21     well as I do that I am a military expert whose field relates to

22     organisation, management, and command.  If we are now dealing with morale

23     and psychological preparations and security, well, I am not specifically

24     competent for that.  I can talk about it in technical terms, but in terms

25     of methodology it wouldn't be appropriate or it's highly inappropriate

Page 30381

 1     for you to put questions to me that are based on an order that relies on

 2     Directive 6, and you are asking me to compare it to Directive 7.  In

 3     methodological terms this is quite inappropriate, but if you are trying

 4     to establish some kind of a link, it is necessary to do so by referring

 5     to this point -- or, rather, the entire point.

 6             This order is based on Directive 6, and then you might try to see

 7     whether morale and psychological preparations correspond to Directive 6,

 8     or perhaps 4.  If it's November 1993, I think the directive concerned is

 9     Directive 4.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  I don't know if I have understood the answer,

11     actually.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I haven't understood it.  If I could --

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  If you could clarify it with the witness, please.

14     Thank you.  Yes.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:

16        Q.   This document, sir, is a decision for further operations issued

17     by the Drina Corps command.  It is signed by Milenko Zivanovic as

18     commander.  It is a military document, and it indicates in its header --

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   -- that it refers to -- it refers to a directive of the

21     Main Staff of the Army Republika Srpska, strictly confidential, number 02

22     /3 of 19 November 1992.  And paragraph 1 or item 1 refers to a decision

23     of the commander, as you have been talking about.  It is dated 24

24     November 1992.  I think I may have mentioned.  And let me point out that

25     the section that I am referring to in particular, I do realise I did make

Page 30382

 1     an error.  It is actually number 3(c).  The indentation is kind of hard

 2     to see, but it's number 3, item 3.  And item 3 reads:

 3             "Support" --

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  So I think we have to go to the next page in

 5     English.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Ah, yes, next page in the English.  I'm sorry, I

 7     didn't realise that we had moved.  Okay.  And if you could look at the

 8     top, maybe, of the B/C/S version, I think we might be able to see the

 9     title.  No?  It's on the previous page.  Okay.

10        Q.   In any event, number 3, item 3 refers to support for -- support

11     to combat operations, and item (c) is morale and psychological

12     preparations.

13             So my question is:  In light of those facts, it is true, is it

14     not, that the language that is used concerning morale and psychological

15     preparations is consistent with the language that is used in Directive 7,

16     item 6.1?

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Josse.

18             MR. JOSSE:  Could the witness remove his headphones, assuming, as

19     he's already said, he doesn't answer any English.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  There was a moment where I thought he did

21     understand and he could follow, but if anyone so wishes we can ask him to

22     leave the courtroom right away.

23             MR. JOSSE:  I don't -- Your Honour, whilst the answer to the

24     question as first asked was, I would concede, not clear, the witness has

25     said:

Page 30383

 1             "If we are now dealing with morale and psychological preparations

 2     and security, well, I am not specifically competent for that."

 3             The question he has just been asked clearly relates to something

 4     which he has conceded he is not an expert to deal with and answer.  He

 5     said that; he shouldn't be asked about it again, in our submission.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  But the -- do you wish to comment, Mr. Vanderpuye?

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  No, Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  I think the question is a very simple one.  I mean,

 9     the question basically is look at the two texts, do they tally, do they

10     say the same thing.  You don't need to be an expert to answer that.

11             MR. JOSSE:  Well, in which case he doesn't really need to ask the

12     question.  It's rhetorical in many ways.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  No, no, because he could -- he could actually say,

14     No, they are not the same thing.

15             MR. JOSSE:  So be it, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  General, what you are being asked is a very simple

17     question.  You are being asked to look at the two texts and tell us

18     whether, to you, they practically or essentially mean the same thing or

19     they say the same thing or whether you think that they differ, the one

20     from the other.

21             First of all, do you have the two texts in front of you?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have both.  I just have the

23     order of the Drina Corps, point 3(c), as far as I can tell.  And the

24     other text from the Directive 7, I believe that I remember it well.  I

25     don't have to have it in front of me to compare it.

Page 30384

 1             What matters here is a statement of some essence, and that is the

 2     language extended to the brigade and the language extended to the state

 3     cannot be similar, let alone the same.  And the spirit of that language

 4     can be recognized by the expert.  In point (c), this language is of the

 5     kind that would be used to send a letter to a much lower level.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:

 8        Q.   The idea of motivating one's own's soldiers, troops to armed

 9     struggle on the basis of securing freedom and state sovereignty, as it

10     were, is not an unheard of concept in relation to the function of the

11     Administration for Morale, is it?

12        A.   Your first question which contains a statement in it is something

13     that I would like to refer to and say that the statement is not correct.

14     Moral guidance is the duty of all the officers across the army and not

15     only of one administration.  The administration is only the professional

16     body in that respect, a professional organ.  So that idea, that concept

17     is based primarily on the goals and the Administration for Moral Guidance

18     is the one that operationalises the elements in a professional way.

19             As for the credibility of that work and the competence of the

20     Administration for Moral Guidance, I am really not the best suited person

21     to talk about that.

22        Q.   Well, under who's competence would morale and psychological

23     support or preparations be, given this full method of work that you have

24     indicated was employed in drafting directives and, indeed, some orders?

25     Who would contribute to that?

Page 30385

 1        A.   The organs in charge of that.

 2        Q.   What organ would that be?  What organ is in charge of developing

 3     or making submissions concerning morale and psychological support or

 4     preparations?

 5        A.   At the level of the Main Staff it would be the sector for moral

 6     guidance, psychological, legal, and religious affairs.  At the corps

 7     level, I believe it would be departments.  And at the department level it

 8     would -- I apologise, at the division level it would be departments and

 9     sections.  In the brigades I believe it would be departments and sections

10     as well.  I am not sure.  I did not analyse that in detail, in depth.

11     However, the professional and functional authority is established along

12     the vertical line.

13        Q.   What organ would be responsible for making submissions concerning

14     planned and organised information or propaganda within the Main Staff?

15        A.   The Army Republika Srpska and almost all the militaries from the

16     region did not have organs for information and propaganda, and especially

17     not in peacetime.  And this derived from the character of -- or the

18     nature of the war from which they were being prepared.  One could draw an

19     analogy and say that something of that sort was needed.  It would be the

20     commanders who would give it to that organ to do that.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we could have 5D759, please, in e-court.  And

22     I believe I need page 18 in the English.

23        Q.   And for your reference, since you have it in front of you,

24     General, I am referring to figure 3 of your report.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Maybe we could blow that up just a little bit.

Page 30386

 1     It might be of some assistance.

 2        Q.   And what we have in e-court now is a diagram -- or I should say a

 3     figure showing the organisational chart.  On the far left --

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I understand it's page 15 in B/C/S.  In any

 5     event, the figure is in B/C/S as it's written.

 6        Q.   On the far left we have the staff.  That's right, isn't it?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And next to that we have the sector for moral guidance,

 9     religious, and legal affairs; right?

10        A.   Moral guidance, religious, and legal affairs.

11        Q.   And if we go down that organisational chart we will see that

12     immediately beneath where you have indicated "sector," it says,

13     "Department for moral guidance and religious affairs"; right?

14        A.   Department for moral guidance and religious affairs.

15        Q.   And beneath that you can see it says:  "Information and PPD,

16     political and propaganda activities department"; right?

17        A.   Psychological -- yes.

18        Q.   And beneath that you have the civilian affairs department and

19     then the legal affairs department?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And it is a fact, sir, that the moral guidance, religious, and

22     legal affairs sector oversaw or -- rather, I should say, the information

23     and political propaganda activities department fell underneath the sector

24     for moral guidance and religious affairs -- religious and legal affairs;

25     right?

Page 30387

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And you know, having reviewed the documents in this case or of

 3     many of the documents you were provided, that General Gvero was the head

 4     of the sector for moral guidance and religious affairs.  He was the

 5     assistant commander for that organ in the Main Staff; right?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Okay.  And in 1995 you know that Savo Sokanovic was the chief of

 8     the department for moral guidance and religious affairs; right?

 9        A.   No, I didn't know that.

10        Q.   Did you know that Milovan Milutinovic was the head of the

11     information, political and propaganda activities department?

12        A.   I don't know these officers.  I didn't know -- I did not research

13     that.

14        Q.   All right.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If I could may have 65 ter 6D284 in e-court,

16     please.  All right.  If we could just go to the very last page of this

17     document, it's ERN ending 76 in the B/C/S version so it should be the

18     next page.  And that would be page 4 in English.

19             If I could, I just want to focus in on that stamp.

20        Q.   I have the original over here if you have trouble reading it,

21     General.  Are you able to make out what that stamp reads?

22        A.   It says "Information Centre," I believe, if that is correct.

23        Q.   All right.  Are you able to read the circular part of the stamp?

24        A.   Yes, well, "Main Staff of the Army Republika Srpska," that's the

25     first circle.  "Sector for moral guidance, religious and legal affairs,"

Page 30388

 1     is the second circle.  In the inner most circle I believe it says

 2     "Centre," but it's not very legible, I'm afraid.  If I were provided with

 3     the original, I might be able to do it a little better.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Perhaps if we zoom out a little bit rather than

 5     zoom in.  Not that much.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I do happen to have the original if that will

 7     assist --

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  If you have the original that's easier.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we could put that on the ELMO maybe.

10        Q.   Are you able to read that, General?

11        A.   "Information Centre," that's what it says.

12        Q.   Thank you for that, sir.  And that document is dated 8 -- 22 of

13     August, 1995; right?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And that would certainly indicate that that information,

16     dissemination of information and propaganda would have fallen under the

17     purview of the sector for moral guidance, religious and legal affairs.

18     Wouldn't that indicate that to you, sir?

19        A.   One might conclude that, yes.

20        Q.   Is that a yes?

21        A.   Probably.  Not yes, probably.  Let me explain why such answer.

22     Drawing conclusion on the activities of any single organisational units

23     anywhere in the world, including this army here, based on a structural

24     scheme where you can see a box and based on a stamp which shows that

25     there was an information centre would be pure speculation, beyond one's

Page 30389

 1     authority.  One would have to analyse all of their documents.

 2             I've already stated several times that the reconstruction of the

 3     organisational development of the armies on the territory of Bosnia and

 4     Herzegovina has never been carried out, and I could not derive any

 5     information about the existence of such a unit.  I can say based on this

 6     that it probably did exist, that it probably had its own activity.  So to

 7     be precise, the long and the short of it is probably that was the case,

 8     but I don't have any elements to draw a final conclusion on that.

 9        Q.   All right, General.  Let me take you to another document.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Can I have 65 ter 4148, please.

11        Q.   While that's loading up let me just ask you:  Was it your

12     understanding that one of the functions of the organ for moral guidance,

13     religious and legal affairs, the sector as it existed in the Main Staff,

14     one of its functions was actually to provide information and also

15     propaganda; true?

16        A.   To be precise, I can conclude that its activity was information,

17     provide information and propaganda activity.  When I say "information," I

18     mean internal information of the troops which is an important activity,

19     and I believe that propaganda activity also existed, but one would have

20     to analyse that based on the activities that were actually carried out

21     and on the powers that were regulated by a document.

22        Q.   Well, if you look at this document which is dated 13 April 1993,

23     this follows the activity surrounding Directive 4, the Cerska campaign,

24     Konjevic Polje, you can see that at the bottom, the last paragraph of

25     this document -- it's a Drina Corps document for the record.  It's

Page 30390

 1     directed to the Main Staff, moral, religious, and legal affairs section.

 2     In the last paragraph it reads:

 3             "In order to react in a correct and timely manner and take all

 4     the necessary measures, we ask for your engagement in this manner through

 5     the following:  To engage your bodies in the resolution of the problem of

 6     the population that wants to leave Srebrenica, that assistant commander

 7     for morale, General Gvero, and his bodies should engage themselves with

 8     projecting information to the Muslims of Srebrenica on the means of their

 9     safe evacuation from the combat zone."

10             That is precisely an appropriate application of the organ of

11     moral guidance, religious and legal affairs; is it not?

12        A.   Absolutely incorrect.  I am not an expert.  You have to ask

13     General Zivanovic that.  In all the schools where I worked, where I

14     studied this, and in practice wherever necessary, I requested assistance

15     from this organ to be extended to my units, to my troops, not to the

16     civilians.  And I really don't know where this request on behalf of

17     General Zivanovic came from.  What he wanted, how he wanted it done,

18     organs for moral guidance, religious, and legal affairs extend support to

19     commands when it comes to the information, motivation, and mobilization

20     of their own troops.

21             And here one could conclude that General Zivanovic is privy to

22     some information about the existence of some forces or means that may be

23     engaged for this task, but I believe you will have to look for an answer

24     to your question from him.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Josse.

Page 30391

 1             MR. JOSSE:  Your Honour, we wanted to let the witness finish, but

 2     again, now he has finished, perhaps he can take his headphones off.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, General, please, if you could remove your

 4     headphones.

 5             MR. JOSSE:  Now, as it happens, he's given a rather favourable

 6     answer from our point of view, but we weren't to know that in any way.

 7     That's not really the point of this objection.  Judging by the general

 8     tenor of the Prosecution cross-examination of this witness, they have

 9     approached him, at least to begin with, in the same way as the Gvero

10     Defence did, namely to seek to undermine him partly in relation to his

11     credibility and primarily so far as his expertise is concerned.

12             Our cross-examination was directed at two areas; namely,

13     Directive 7 and in particular his placement and ranking of our client

14     within the VRS, in effect figure 14 of his report.  Those assertions

15     which undermined our case in part were challenged and we cross-examined

16     him accordingly.  Beyond those two areas, we did not advance anything

17     with this witness.

18             The Trial Chamber has really been here before.  Our objection is

19     that yet again the Prosecution are using a Miletic witness as a vehicle

20     to further the case against our client.  And we go one stage further.

21     These questions are a calculated gamble on the part of Mr. McCloskey and

22     his team to ask questions which they would otherwise have put to our

23     expert.  They, gambling that we are not in fact going to call him.

24             Now, previously I have objected on the basis of saying where is

25     this going.  I think it was in relation to a cross-examination of

Page 30392

 1     Mr. Vanderpuye of another witness, and Mr. McCloskey got up, and I make

 2     no bones about that because no we -- no criticism of that, perhaps I

 3     should say, because Mr. Krgovic and I share matters in a similar way, and

 4     he said that he wasn't prepared for his advocates to reveal where they

 5     were going.  We didn't pursue that, but we do suggest that this is going

 6     in an inappropriate direction.  This is straying well beyond the subject

 7     matter, one, of the expertise of the witness; and two, of the matters in

 8     hand, but above all else, this is a clear attempt by the Prosecution to

 9     further the case against Gvero.

10             One only needs to look at the list of documents they have

11     supplied with a dozen new ERN numbers relating to Gvero to show and

12     illustrate that particular point, and the Trial Chamber should put a stop

13     to it now.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Do you wish to comment -- thank you, Mr. Josse.  Do

15     you wish to comment, Mr. Vanderpuye?

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Well, I think some comment is necessary,

17     Mr. President.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, then, go ahead.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  First of all, as I indicated and I prefaced this

20     entire line of cross-examination on reading back to the witness his

21     statements in connection to a question that was put to him by Mr. Krgovic

22     during his cross-examination, if you would like to call it that, of this

23     witness, considering the fact that they proofed him and met with him for

24     a substantial period of time prior to his testimony.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Still a cross-examination.

Page 30393

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I know.  In particular the question was, if you

 2     analyse this particular document, referring to Directive 7 and in

 3     specific reference to 6.1, Mr. Krgovic stated:

 4             "This entire paragraph does not contain anything, at least in my

 5     view, that corresponds with morale and psychological support."

 6             Which this witness has identified as falling relatively within

 7     the competence of the organ for which General Gvero was in charge in

 8     1995.

 9             The witness responded saying, "Not only does this correspond --

10     not only does this not correspond with this element for support," meaning

11     the element of psychological and morale support, "this entire paragraph

12     is not in keeping with its purpose."

13             This line of cross-examination continued for a substantial period

14     of time during the cross-examination of this witness.  Because the report

15     itself suggests that that language could not have been written by the

16     organ over which General Miletic was responsible, putting in parentheses

17     morale and psychological support, that is the basis upon which my learned

18     friends decided to cross-examine this witness because what's contained in

19     the expert report suggests that the organ for which General Gvero is

20     responsible may have contributed to the items that is being contested by

21     the Miletic Defence in Directive 7, 6.1 in particular.

22             We have introduced these documents to respond specifically to

23     that issue because that issue concerns the role and responsibilities of

24     General Gvero as the assistant commander for moral guidance, religious,

25     and legal affairs, which is the subject -- which was specifically the

Page 30394

 1     subject of the cross-examination and is a relevant part of the expert

 2     report insofar as it relates to the attribution of General Miletic as the

 3     drafter of the entirety of that directive.

 4             And so it seems abundantly clear that anything having to do with

 5     what General Gvero's role was in respect of discharging his duties as

 6     they are articulated in Directive 7, that is information and propaganda,

 7     are directly responsive to the arguments that are raised by the Defence

 8     and are directly relevant to the material that is proffered in the expert

 9     report itself.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Do you wish to comment further

11     Mr. Josse?

12             MR. JOSSE:  Yes, just this.  Mr. Vanderpuye, we submit is

13     conceding that he is opening up the ambit well beyond the scope of the

14     cross-examination; but secondly, and more importantly than that, the

15     cross-examination was responsive, as Mr. Vanderpuye has in effect just

16     conceded, to what the expert just said in his report.  In other words, a

17     certain amount of it we really had to cross-examine upon.  And in

18     particular, so far as this gentleman is concerned, for Mr. Vanderpuye to

19     throw in our face the fact that we had proofed him is rather unfair,

20     very -- well, yes.  I saw your reaction, Your Honour, because the witness

21     is a problem to us.  He doesn't help our case.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Well, you had every right to --

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, it is simply indefensible to say

24     that, Well, because we had to cross-examine him, we were put in a

25     position where we had to open the door to introduce evidence that you

Page 30395

 1     have a right to cross-examine on.  That's simply indefensible.  It's a

 2     non sequitur and it makes no sense whatsoever legally or in any other

 3     sense.

 4             My colleague has articulated a position which, number one, is

 5     completely incorrect.  I do not concede that they had to cross-examine

 6     this witness.  I've been a Defence attorney for 13 years before I came

 7     here, and no, you did not have to cross-examine this witness even if the

 8     witness presents evidence that is troublesome to you.  But the fact that

 9     you choose to cross-examine the witness -- and I have to admit I am

10     somewhat surprised that my colleague is making this argument because he

11     submitted a position with respect to the use of documents on this very

12     issue that was supportive of the fact that you cross-examine at your own

13     peril.  And in this particular instance, this was an issue that was

14     specifically targeted and raised by Mr. Krgovic.

15             The words, "This entire paragraph does not contain anything, at

16     least in my view, that would correspond with morale and psychological

17     support ..." did not come from the witness.  These were words that

18     Mr. Krgovic spoke in guiding the witness to the answer that he wanted to

19     get from him, and these documents, in our position, is directly and

20     specifically responsive to that.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  I think we have heard enough.

22             MR. JOSSE:  Just this, Your Honour.  Your Honours observed before

23     that as far as Mr. Vanderpuye and I are concerned, we used the same

24     language but with we come from different legal cultures.  Rule 92,

25     Rule 90(b) -- give me a moment.

Page 30396

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters kindly ask the counsel to slow

 2     down, please.

 3             MR. JOSSE:  I will do, I apologise.

 4             Your Honour, Rule 90(h)(2), we say we are under a duty to put our

 5     case.  I say it's a matter of legal culture because I know that American

 6     lawyers and English lawyers take a radically different approach to that

 7     particular issue.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  We are all agreed here.  We come to the conclusion,

11     Mr. Josse and Mr. Vanderpuye, that the line of questions that have been

12     put so far on this issue by Mr. Vanderpuye arise out of both the

13     witness's report and part of the cross-examination of the Gvero Defence

14     team of this witness.  So we authorise the continuation of this line of

15     questions --

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  -- until we decide otherwise.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  What happened?

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Nothing.  May I continue, Mr. President?

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  I think you have the transcript of what I

22     said that means that you are authorised to continue unless we stop you.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Headphones again.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.

Page 30397

 1        Q.   I think you just indicated that you didn't believe that this fell

 2     within the competence -- that what is being requested within this

 3     document, did not fall within the competence of the organ for morale,

 4     religious, and legal affairs; is that right?  That is, in your expert

 5     opinion.

 6        A.   Yes.  According to the information I had, that was the case

 7     because the activities of those bodies were mainly focused on the

 8     internal organisation of the Army of Republika Srpska and of the other

 9     armies that were created subsequent to the JNA.

10        Q.   And so it wouldn't be appropriate for someone like -- or someone

11     in General Gvero's position or General Gvero himself to have direct

12     contact, for example, with international organisations concerning the

13     Srebrenica situation in 1995, would it?

14        A.   As for whether it was appropriate for him to have contact with

15     international organisations, well, I can't link that up to these requests

16     because in the request mention is made to offensive and informative work

17     that is supposed to have other consequences.  So I can't establish a link

18     between the two.

19        Q.   Well, you know that this particular request followed the campaign

20     that occurred on the heels of Directive 4; right?  You can tell that just

21     by looking at the date, can't you?

22        A.   Yes.  According to the date it's the period after the

23     Directive number 4 and prior to Directive number 5.

24        Q.   Okay.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If I could have 65 ter 4201 in e-court, please.

Page 30398

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could I have it on the monitor,

 2     please?  Could the Registrar be of assistance?

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:

 4        Q.   As you can -- well, this document is not translated, but I will

 5     read to you what it says.  It's dated 23rd May 1993.  It's entitled

 6     "Conflict in the Balkans:  Exuding Confidence, Serbian Nationalists Act

 7     As if War for Bosnia is Won," and this is a New York Times article.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we turn to the last page of the article --

 9     it's 3 pages it should be page 3.  What's that?  One page.

10        Q.   All right.  Let me just put this to you and you can comment on

11     it.  The last paragraph of the document - we will find it and get it into

12     e-court - reads:

13             "Antipathy for Muslims" --

14             Well, it's the fourth from the bottom of that paragraph -- of the

15     end of the article.

16             "Antipathy for Muslims and hostility toward anybody suspected of

17     having sympathy for them is widespread.  Allied to the suspicion is a

18     conviction belied by every fact of the war that Serbs have been its

19     principle victims.  On Monday, nationalist officials organised a trip to

20     the village of Fakovici to what officials said had been a massacre of

21     Serbian civilians by Muslims fighters.  On arrival, reporters found

22     forensic experts from the military hospital in Belgrade, the Serbian

23     capital, at open air tables examining the remains of 20 Serbs said to

24     have been killed on June 21, 1992.  At least seven were males wearing

25     military uniforms.  Mosques reduced to rubble.

Page 30399

 1             "The event appeared to have been presented for political

 2     purposes.  Grieving relatives said the bodies had been buried soon after

 3     the villagers were killed and then exhumed, exhibited to reporters, and

 4     reburied.  The deputy commander of the Serbian nationalist forces,

 5     General Milan Gvero, presided.

 6             "Reporters driving to the event travelled 35 miles down the

 7     Drina Valley past houses that had been blasted by tank fire, mosques that

 8     had been reduced to rubble, and tractors blown up by the roadside.  At

 9     every stop there was nothing but silence.  But one point that Serbian

10     officials were keen to make seemed uncontrovertible:  That Serbs who

11     lived in the valley are implacably opposed to living with Muslims again,

12     much less to surrendering political control to Muslims as required by the

13     peace plan.  General Gvero put it bluntly.  'We say everybody has to live

14     on his own territory:  Muslims on Muslim territory, Serbs on Serbian,' he

15     said, 'This is pure Serbian territory and no power on earth can make it

16     surrender it.'"

17             In the context of what we have been discussing, is what

18     General Gvero is engaged in, that is meeting with reporters, making

19     statements concerning the objectives or the purposes of the Serbian

20     position, is that appropriate to his position as assistant commander for

21     moral guidance and religious, and legal affairs?

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes -- are you ready?  Yes, Mr. Josse.

23             MR. JOSSE:  I repeat my objection.  This is nothing but veiled --

24     or perhaps veiled is the wrong word.  This is nothing but prejudice.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Any remarks?

Page 30400

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  No, Mr. President.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes --

 5             THE ACCUSED GVERO: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do apologise

 6     for getting to the feet in the course of these proceedings, however,

 7     there is one thing that I was particularly affected by in addition to all

 8     the other fabrications.  There is a reporter here, but we don't have a

 9     text.  We don't have evidence according to which this was written

10     somewhere, but this text says that Gvero presided over a funeral.  I

11     don't know what that means in any civilized country.  General Gvero was

12     at the funeral of these people who had been killed, and as far as I can

13     remember, he said a few appropriate things.  Never would it be possible

14     for anyone to prove that Muslims had to live apart from the Serbs and on

15     different land.  That's a pure lie.  Is there a single piece of evidence

16     from the Prosecution according to which someone else said that when loads

17     of journalists were present?

18             This witness is a witness for organisation and establishment, an

19     expert for that subject, but the Prosecution has been insisting on having

20     the witness address subtle and professional issues of morale and

21     intelligence.  On five occasions he said that he competent for that

22     field.  With all due respect for the Tribunal, for the Prosecution, I

23     think that this idea that the witness isn't competent to address the

24     issue is something that should be taken into account because this is

25     something that he has stated.  And I say this with all due respect for

Page 30401

 1     the Tribunal.

 2             Once again, I am very sorry for having felt the need to get to my

 3     feet, but I was seriously affected by this fabrication of a journalist

 4     that hasn't been supported by any documents.  He has written about things

 5     that he probably hadn't experienced himself.  I thank you very much and I

 6     do apologise once again.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, General.  For the future I would suggest

 8     that when you have something like this on your mind, that you ask to

 9     contact your Defence team who are here precisely to represent you and

10     also your complaints when they exist, and I am sure that they are best

11     placed and qualified to present them to the Tribunal, perhaps, in a

12     better way than you can, and also decide what should be said and what

13     should better not be said at all.  So any time you need to consult with

14     your lawyers, please draw your attention and we will give you every

15     opportunity.

16             Yes, Mr. Josse.

17             MR. JOSSE:  Your Honour, there is a particular difficulty here

18     because I am told by Mr. Krgovic that we think that this document has

19     only just been released into e-court.  It's certainly in English, of

20     course.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes --

22             MR. JOSSE:  It's not been translated --

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes --

24             MR. JOSSE:  -- and indeed it wasn't on the screen.  I've managed

25     to get it up on my screen, but I have access to different material than

Page 30402

 1     my client.  And that's fully compounded the problem.  That was apparent

 2     to me in translation from what my client was saying.  I don't know

 3     whether he would like a few minutes with his Counsel, whether that would

 4     help matters or --

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  This is what I am suggesting.  I come from a

 6     jurisdiction when normally we would advise the accused to be parsimonious

 7     with his words and have consultation with Counsel, because we believe

 8     that Counsel can present the case better.

 9             MR. JOSSE:  I don't want to be -- upset General Gvero at all, but

10     that's certainly the view of Mr. Krgovic and I.  Although, to be fair to

11     General Gvero, I know that there is a prevailing view in some of the

12     Trial Chambers of this particular Tribunal that the accused should be

13     able to chip in every now and then as they please.  But if he'd like to

14     speak to us, we would be more than happy to have a moment with him.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  I think my colleagues would agree to allow

16     the possibility to consultation between General Gvero and his counsel and

17     that can take place, if you wish to speak to your lawyers, but I

18     understand even his lawyers wish to speak to him.  If I --

19             MR. JOSSE:  I'm sure Mr. Krgovic can go and speak to him there

20     for a moment.  Can I suggest that?

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Even if they want to speak in one of the rooms

22     outside, I mean, I have no objection to that.

23             THE ACCUSED GVERO: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. President,

24     thank you for the useful advice you have given me.  I have tried to

25     follow your advice at all times, but you yourselves have seen, and I

Page 30403

 1     don't know whose fault it is, but in this courtroom we have certain

 2     difficulties.  I am in one corner and my Counsel in another.  When I have

 3     the opportunity of consulting my counsel, well, it's already too late.

 4     So I would like you to bear this in mind.  It's not necessary now for us

 5     to speak.

 6             MR. JOSSE:  I understand -- thank you for that, and I understand

 7     we can now proceed.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Josse.  And, General Gvero, I do

 9     appreciate that there is a problem.  The way -- the layout of the

10     courtroom and the distance between accused and counsel is problematic,

11     and it is more problematic in a case like this where we have seven

12     accused and seven Defence teams.  However, all you have to do - and this

13     applies to each one of you - is to stand up and draw our attention, and

14     we will give you every opportunity to discuss or consult with your

15     Counsel.

16             THE ACCUSED GVERO: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  I

17     hope we are nearing the end and that it won't be necessary.  Thank you.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye, have we sorted out?  Because

19     we haven't sorted out the matter raised by Mr. Josse.  There were no

20     remarks, but I need to consult with my colleagues.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  As I understand it, the objection has to do with

24     the information or the reliability of the information that General Gvero

25     raised:  A, he hasn't had an opportunity to see the document; and B, he

Page 30404

 1     contests the veracity of the reporter.  That's what I understand the

 2     issue to be.  If it's a question of relevance, I think I can speak rather

 3     readily to that, clearly to it, but I don't think that's the issue that

 4     was raised by my colleague or by the General himself.

 5             MR. JOSSE:  I did raise the issue of relevance.  Really, what I

 6     was submitting - and I wanted to make it extremely short and it's now

 7     taken a long time - was that this was a step too far.  And I appreciate

 8     the Trial Chamber, again, to monitor this cross-examination, and in

 9     particular I appreciate the ruling has already been made, but this

10     document, if one compares it to what has been put hitherto, is, we

11     submit, far too far along the road, and my learned friend shouldn't be

12     allowed to put this sort of material to this witness in this context.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. --

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, as I've read Mr. Josse's previous

15     argument, he indicated that he felt that it was prejudicial which is a

16     different question --

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Actually --

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  -- a different question than whether it's

19     relevant.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  What he said is the following:

21             "I repeat my objection," and to me that means he's repeating all

22     the arguments brought forward before which we dealt with.  "This is

23     nothing but veiled, or perhaps veiled is the wrong word.  This is nothing

24     but prejudice."  This is all we have because then we had --

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  In terms of prejudice, I would only respond that

Page 30405

 1     it is clearly not unduly prejudicial.  Any evidence that the Prosecution

 2     puts in against an accused in a case is necessarily prejudicial because

 3     it proves a position contrary to the position of the Defence.  The issue

 4     in terms of its admissibility or the propriety we wish to regard the

 5     document is whether it's unduly prejudicial --

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  -- and I think in light of the circumstances

 8     that have been appraised, in light of the testimony of the expert

 9     witness, and the questions put to him by Mr. Krgovic concerning the role

10     of General Gvero, in terms of -- in terms of linking him or not linking

11     him with Directive 7 and the specific terms related to morale and

12     psychological support contained in that document, that this document

13     responds specifically to that issue insofar as it concerns the

14     presentation of information, information which undoubtedly will reach the

15     Muslim community --

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  -- to which it is targeted.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Because the witness is also following what

19     has been said.

20             Incidentally, on page 52, line 3, the transcript needs to show

21     that the speaker is accused Gvero, okay?  All right.  Let's me consult

22     with my colleagues, please.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  So our position isn't much changed from how we

25     explained it before in the sense that we consider the question --

Page 30406

 1     questions put as rising out of the previous questions and report of the

 2     witness and not being unduly prejudicial.  At the same time, we do feel

 3     duty-bound to point out that the nature of this document and suggest to

 4     you that you should be in a position to make an assessment how much

 5     weight or otherwise it can be given, being what it is, and proceed with

 6     your next questions.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I am not sure if I

 8     got an answer to the question I put to him last.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  I don't think you have.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:

11        Q.   If I may, General, the document that I -- well, that I read to

12     you, the New York Times article describing what General Gvero was doing

13     and saying, is that consistent with the role of an assistant commander

14     for religious -- morale, religious, and legal affairs as you understand

15     it?

16        A.   Could the text be scrolled up a little on the screen?  Thank you.

17     I will provide a very precise answer as to how I see this article, and

18     I'm going to give my comments on it.  My position here is unfavourable

19     because I have just been read out an excerpt from the article which does

20     not lend itself to any deeper analysis, but I can provide comments

21     because I am familiar with the context.

22             Judging by the article, it was published on the 23rd of May,

23     1993, and it was downloaded from the internet.  23rd of May, 1993, is

24     characterized by the lies about the demilitarisation of Srebrenica, and I

25     perceive this article as an offensive and propaganda war against

Page 30407

 1     Republika Srpska because there is nothing else to it.  I don't know about

 2     the credibility of the article.  And as for what has been said about what

 3     General Gvero might have said, he may have, but as far as I could see

 4     from the document, I never saw or read such a position coming from him in

 5     any of the documents.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  May I have 65 ter 4154, please, in e-court.

 7        Q.   This is probably something you are more familiar with.  It is a

 8     document from the command of the Drina Corps.  It's dated 8 July 1995,

 9     and it's directed to the Main Staff to assistant commander for morale,

10     religious, and legal affairs.  It's entitled "Correctness of Informing

11     the Public About Carrying Out of Combat Operations," and it reads in the

12     middle [indiscernible] proposal.

13             And it says:

14             "General, sir, we are increasingly reaching the conclusion that

15     the events connected to Srebrenica and around Srebrenica deserve

16     propaganda coverage of the highest possible level.  So we suggest to you

17     to more immediately engage the press centre of the Main Staff of VRS, and

18     in particular the radio stations in Milici and Bratunac are supposed to

19     be under the jurisdiction of the Main Staff VRS press centre.

20             "The Muslim population in the Srebrenica enclave is attentively

21     following both of the above-mentioned radio stations, which is a good

22     opportunity to, from our side, work on this enclave by the media.

23             "We ask that this proposal begin to be realised as soon as

24     possible."

25             First, have you seen this document before, General?

Page 30408

 1        A.   No.

 2        Q.   Having read the document or having had it read to you, doesn't

 3     this describe an appropriate function of the organ over which

 4     General Gvero has, well, control?

 5        A.   When you read this document carefully, and I've just had the

 6     occasion to read it carefully, indeed, then you can see that this is an

 7     entirely different document.  This is a document in which General Milenko

 8     Zivanovic expresses his wish for the radio stations, both civilian and

 9     military, to be placed under military authorities.  They should have been

10     under the jurisdiction of the press centre of the Army of Republika

11     Srpska.

12             I find this document as unusual as the previous one, and that's

13     all I can say.  And also I can see that he wants the activities of the

14     army to extend beyond the scope of the authorities of the army.

15        Q.   Sir, are you aware of a statement that was made by General Gvero

16     on 10 July 1995, concerning the events surrounding Srebrenica?  It's a

17     statement that was admitted in evidence.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  It is P02753.

19        Q.   If you would like, I can put it on the screen and you can take a

20     look at the page --

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Why don't you show it to him straight away?

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Could I please have that in e-court?  Thanks.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I have the next one, please?

24             I am not sure that I have ever seen this statement or read it,

25     and now that I have, there is nothing in it that I should have

Page 30409

 1     incorporated into my expert report that I submitted in due time.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:

 3        Q.   Are you aware that this statement was picked up and broadcasted

 4     by SRT on 10 July?

 5        A.   No, I am not aware of that.

 6        Q.   Is the fact that the statement was made on 10 July and in fact

 7     broadcasted on 10 July consistent with what we saw on the document that I

 8     presented with you earlier, 65 ter 4154, pointing out that the Muslims

 9     were attentively paying -- attentively following the radio stations,

10     which would suggest they could be reached by other media?  Isn't that

11     consistent?

12             MR. JOSSE:  Comment, we would suggest.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  What do you mean?

14             MR. JOSSE:  It's a comment that could be made in due course by

15     the Prosecution.  The witness can't really answer that.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Let me -- do you wish to comment, Mr. Vanderpuye,

17     or shall we proceed?

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I think he's perfectly capable of responding to

19     that, Mr. President.  He is an expert in this field.  He's an expert in

20     the organisation, function of the Main Staff of the VRS, and this is the

21     conduct of one of the people who he necessarily had to evaluate in order

22     to prepare his report.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Have you understood the question, General, or not?

Page 30410

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did, yes.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  [Previous translation continues] ... answer it?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am in a position to answer, yes.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Go ahead.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the previous document, one could

 6     see that General Zivanovic proposed for the radio stations to become part

 7     of the military.  I don't have any proof that this proposal was ever

 8     accepted and that the radio station indeed became part of the army and

 9     were under its jurisdiction.  And now I've been faced with a text, and

10     the question is whether it is in agreement with the previous document.  I

11     can't say that it is, because the previous document was about the

12     proposal for the radio stations to be placed under the jurisdiction of

13     the army and to be a part of it.  These are two separate things.

14             I am an expert on organisation, indeed, and one part of the

15     organisation in the sphere that we are discussing at the moment stops

16     here.  This is now a professional and expert analysis of the activity

17     that is a consequence of the established organisation.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:

19        Q.   Perhaps my question was a little inartful, because what I am

20     referring to is the part in the document, the 8th July document, where

21     Zivanovic says, very clearly:

22             "This is a good opportunity to, from our side, work this enclave

23     by the media."

24             And what I am asking you about is in relation to the statement

25     that you just read, whether or not that statement is consistent with that

Page 30411

 1     request?

 2        A.   With all due respect, I can't establish that relationship.  In

 3     order for me to establish that relationship irrespective of your

 4     attempts, we would have to analyse more than just these two documents,

 5     and we would have to analyse the authorities of the two generals that are

 6     mentioned in the two documents.  On the one hand, we have the proposal by

 7     General Zivanovic, commander, and the second thing is the authorities of

 8     General Gvero which is defined by his position and role in the military.

 9        Q.   All right.  Let me just show you how this came out as it was

10     broadcasted, if I could.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's 65 ter 4155.

12             MR. JOSSE:  Why?  Where does this take matters?

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Do you wish to comment?

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I will if you would like me to.  The reason why

15     it is relevant is because it shows precisely what this statement is,

16     precisely how it was intended to be communicated to the Muslims side

17     which is an information aspect of the function of the administration or

18     the sector for morale, religious, and legal affairs.  That is entirely

19     within the purview of this witness's expertise, and it is, A, proof of

20     the statement itself, and it's also proof of the manner in which it was

21     intended to be communicated.

22             MR. JOSSE:  We say it's well outside his expertise.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Vanderpuye, we don't think it is necessary to

25     proceed with your question or with what you intended to do with showing

Page 30412

 1     us the video or showing it to the witness.  Let's proceed.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:

 3        Q.   General, as part of your testimony I believe you said, as far as

 4     you were aware, contact with international officials and UNPROFOR in

 5     particular was strictly regulated.  And in fact, you indicated at

 6     page 30, 032 -- 30032 of the transcript of your testimony, that only

 7     Mladic and Milovanovic had the competence and authorisation.  So only the

 8     two of them were authorised to deal with UNPROFOR.  Do you remember

 9     giving that statement?

10        A.   I absolutely remember, but this sentence has been taken out of

11     the context and my comment would be pointless.  Whatever was done with

12     UNPROFOR in the contacts that General Mladic and Milovanovic had along

13     the line of command would be handed down to the units, and then their own

14     respective levels, the units had their own contacts involving controls,

15     conversations, exchanges of information, and many other things.  Thus,

16     General Mladic and Milovanovic were at the top of the system which

17     regulated all the contacts with UNPROFOR and that was their exclusive

18     function.

19             And then along the line of command, they would pass down the

20     contacts, and these contacts would be inconsistent with the situation

21     that was on the ground.

22        Q.   Well, I am not going to read you back your testimony because it's

23     in the record.

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Could I have 65 ter 41 --

25             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

Page 30413

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  -- 52, please in e-court.  And I understand that

 2     we don't have a translation of this particular document.

 3        Q.   Could you please read this into the record.

 4        A.   [Interpretation] The document was issued by the Main Staff of the

 5     Army Republika Srpska.  It's number is 09/21-534.  The date is

 6     1 December 1994.  The addressee is the Drina Corps.  The document is in

 7     reference to the Main Staff document number 09/21-526.  The text of the

 8     document reads:

 9             "We hereby inform you that we have approved the passage of the

10     UNPROFOR convoy from the strength of the Dutch Battalion and to travel on

11     the 1st of December, 1994, from Srebrenica to B Koviljacu," which

12     probably stands for Banja Koviljacu.  "Please carry out the control and

13     enable unhindered movement."

14             And it says below that:

15             "The assistant commander, General Lieutenant --

16     Lieutenant-General Milan Gvero.

17        Q.   It is, in effect, a notification, as you call it, or an

18     instruction to the Drina Corps in respect of a convoy related to

19     UNPROFOR?

20        A.   Yes.  This document, unambiguously, says that the assistant

21     commander Lieutenant-General Milan Gvero informs the Drina Corps what to

22     do in respect of the fact that somebody authorised somebody with powers

23     to do so had issued a certain decision.

24        Q.   All right.  And is there anything in the document in and of

25     itself that suggests to you that the somebody who was authorised with

Page 30414

 1     respect to this convoy wasn't General Gvero?

 2        A.   Two important elements point to that fact.  First of all, you can

 3     see that the system is well established and it is well known who informs

 4     whom.  That's why you have this certain text "Hereby we inform you ..."

 5     and then the body of the text which contains instructions as to what to

 6     do.

 7             Second of all, it wouldn't be a common practice for General Gvero

 8     to address themselves by their second name in a polite way.  One can tell

 9     that he informs somebody else and conveys somebody else's message by

10     sheer form of address.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  We will have the break now, and we will

12     resume at 6.25.  Thank you.

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

14                           --- Recess taken at 5.54 p.m.

15                           --- On resuming at 6.29 p.m.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Josse.

17             MR. JOSSE:  Your Honours, Mr. McCloskey has understandably asked

18     that I provide some information about where we are up to and what

19     progress is being made.  The bad news is that the Gvero expert is still

20     in hospital in Belgrade.  We understand that he's going to be discharged

21     from there tomorrow, and were we to call him, we believe that he could be

22     ready to start on Monday morning.

23             So far as that decision is concerned, we are confident that we

24     will make it during the course of tomorrow and be able to relay it to the

25     Trial Chamber perhaps towards the end of tomorrow's sitting.

Page 30415

 1             The good news is - and this is really over to my learned friends

 2     from the Prosecution - is it seems to me that the Prosecution have some

 3     way to go with the present witness, and therefore, were we to call our

 4     expert, the time lost might be very small indeed.  I would have thought

 5     they were going to be most of tomorrow, perhaps even into Thursday.  Of

 6     course, we don't know how long the re-examination is going to take.  I

 7     simply make those observations for timetabling purposes.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Josse.  Mr. McCloskey.

 9             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, Mr. President.  I don't understand why we

10     can't have a decision on this.  Perhaps in the spirit of compromise we

11     can have a decision first thing in the morning.  I mean, whether you are

12     going to call an expert?  I mean, we have been doing this for a long

13     time.  You've heard a lot of this expert.  You've heard the guts of what

14     the Prosecution is going to say about him.

15             Can't we have this by tomorrow morning?

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  On the other hand, perhaps one should not

17     underestimate the difficulties one can encounter in trying to discuss

18     something with someone who is lying on a bed in a hospital.

19             MR. JOSSE:  That's not really the issue, Your Honour.  The

20     issue - although I'm grateful for that - is when the Prosecution have

21     finished asking this witness about our client, then we will be a position

22     to make a final decision.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  I was only trying to help, Mr. Josse.

24             MR. JOSSE:  I'm sorry.  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  And excuse me

25     for being so robust, and I hope -- I hope I wasn't impolite, but --

Page 30416

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Even if you were, I'm used to it.  So -- yes,

 2     Mr. McCloskey.

 3             MR. McCLOSKEY:  We are having these discussions and we know what

 4     they are doing, and they know what our concern is.  They have seen the

 5     rest of Mr. Vanderpuye's list.  We are almost out of gas on this subject.

 6     So I think it's fair to -- to have the decision now, frankly.  I think I

 7     may be time for a Court order.  But tomorrow at the very least, tomorrow

 8     morning, please.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Anything else?  Nothing.  Okay.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  So we understand you both, of course, and we do

12     appreciate your problems and concerns.  We don't want to sound Solomonic,

13     but I think we are going to impose splitting the difference, and

14     therefore we are calling upon you to come back with a definitive

15     position, an answer, Mr. Josse, before noon tomorrow.

16             MR. JOSSE:  Thank you.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Incidentally, before we bring in the witness, how

18     much longer do you think you have, Mr. Vanderpuye, so that we can

19     calculate better our scheduling.

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I -- certainly until

21     the end of today.  And to tomorrow I would say at least one session, and

22     I suspect it will be a second session.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  And you, Madam Fauveau, as things

24     stand, I take it you would have a re-direct?  What's your estimate?

25             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think not more than

Page 30417

 1     15 minutes for the moment, but I -- it might last up until an hour.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you.  Let's bring the witness in,

 3     continue and finish at 7.00.

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Sorry for keeping you waiting, General.

 6     Mr. Vanderpuye will continue with his cross-examination.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8             If we could have 65 ter 4153, please.

 9        Q.   This is another document, and I'm afraid that the translation is

10     not completed yet, but you can see from the top left-hand corner that

11     this is a Main Staff -- it says Main Staff Republika Srpska.  It has a

12     document number of 09/23-321, and is dated 8 December 1994.  And you can

13     see that it's addressed to the Drina Corps.

14             If you could just read the text of this document into the record,

15     please, General.

16        A.   "We hereby inform you that we agree to implement the

17     authorisation for the coordinating body for the HP," I assume it's

18     humanitarian assistance, that's my comment, "RS number 786-MSF-112, dated

19     the 6th of December 1994."

20             "On the 10th of December, 1994, the MSF team shall move along the

21     following axis:  Belgrade, Zvornik, Bratunac, Srebrenica, and back.

22     Individuals concerned:  Goran Bakic, identity card, Driver, Frederique

23     [phoen] C-h-a-p-u-i-s," if that's correct.  "Passport number such and

24     such, vehicle Toyota jeep, BG033 RP.  Carry out a check-up and ensure

25     that movement is unhindered.  Assistant commander, Lieutenant-Colonel --

Page 30418

 1     General Lieutenant-Colonel Milan Gvero."

 2        Q.   All right.  Thank you for that, General.  Now, this document

 3     similar to the last document shows an approval for an NGO, Medecins Sans

 4     Frontieres, that is being passed down to the Drina Corps through

 5     General Gvero.  Is that fair to say?  And it's approval for a convoy.

 6        A.   No.  This is not an approval for a convoy.  It's information, an

 7     information according to which the coordinating body from the Republika

 8     Srpska that is responsible for humanitarian aid probably sent a document

 9     to the relevant body in the Main Staff of the VRS, and that body in the

10     Main Staff of the VRS agreed to have this carried out and the axis was

11     established, et cetera.  So this is information according to which

12     authorisation has been provided for this act.

13        Q.   In respect of this act, as you call it, why would it be necessary

14     for the Main Staff to agree with a decision that's already been made?

15        A.   The entire system in Republika Srpska functioned in the following

16     way.  There was always the possibility for the Main Staff could make an

17     assessment in military terms to see whether there were any problems; and

18     if there were any problems, it would intervene with the coordinating

19     body.

20             In this specific case, the assessment was that there were no

21     problems, and as a result, this mission was authorised.  In fact, this

22     authorisation simply means that the army didn't see that there were any

23     obstacles to the implementation of this plan.

24        Q.   Well, why would that be necessary to communicate that to a

25     subordinate unit such as the Drina Corps?

Page 30419

 1        A.   It's not necessary, but it's correct to say that they are

 2     informing them that they agree with this.  It's not necessary, but it

 3     doesn't hurt.

 4        Q.   Aside from the fact that it doesn't hurt, can you explain

 5     militarily why it's there?

 6        A.   This information note exists because one can see that this

 7     assistant, this team, this vehicle have to pass through the positions of

 8     the VRS, and the VRS is responsible for anything that is located in their

 9     zone or anything passing through their zone.  They have to ensure that

10     everything runs smoothly.  This doesn't mean that if the Main Staff isn't

11     in agreement -- the Main Staff of the VRS isn't in agreement with

12     providing authorisation that this decision would be final.  That doesn't

13     follow.

14             They could say that they don't agree, but in that case the

15     supreme commander would probably issue an order according to which the

16     convoy should be allowed to pass through.

17        Q.   What I want to know, General, is why wouldn't it be simply

18     sufficient to advise the Drina Corps that the convoy is coming, has

19     already been approved and is coming?  Why wouldn't that be sufficient?

20     Why is it necessary to tell the Drina Corps that the Main Staff agrees,

21     from a military standpoint?

22        A.   I think we both agree that can be seen in the previous answer.

23     We would both regulate matters in the following way:  We would say we

24     agree that the convoy should pass through and that's it.  But matters

25     have been dealt with differently here and I don't think that that poses a

Page 30420

 1     particular problem, and I don't think that any problems were created.  It

 2     wasn't necessary to regulate matters in this way, but doing so does no

 3     harm either.

 4        Q.   As far as you're aware of the issuance of this kind of a

 5     notification, this statement of agreement, however you want to put it, is

 6     it appropriate for a person in General Gvero's position to be sending

 7     this type of information on to the Drina Corps?

 8        A.   As information for his subordinates, it's his duty to inform his

 9     subordinates as to what his superior has decided.  He relays -- he is

10     responsible for relaying this information.  He probably literally

11     transmitted this information.

12        Q.   Does that particular function fall within General Gvero's

13     position by establishment as the assistant commander for morale,

14     religious, and legal affairs?  Does the fact that he's sending apparent

15     approvals of convoys to the Drina Corps fall within the functions that

16     would normally be ascribed to him given his position?

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Josse.

18             MR. JOSSE:  I am being told by the gentleman to my left that the

19     document doesn't actually refer to a convoy.  Of course, I don't know

20     that because I don't understand it and there is no translation.  Perhaps

21     we could clarify that.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, thank you.  Perhaps you can do that,

23     Mr. Vanderpuye.  We are not in a position to know.

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Well --

25        Q.   How do you --

Page 30421

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Maybe I could clarify it through the witness,

 2     with the Court's permission.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:

 5        Q.   How do you understand this document, General?  What do you

 6     understand it to be?

 7        A.   I said this at the outset.  I'll repeat what I said.  This is a

 8     note informing the subordinate unit as to what has been decided.  As far

 9     as I could see what the responsibilities of the organisational units

10     were, as far as I could see what responsibilities they had with regard to

11     humanitarian organisations, well, I can't see that this is his

12     responsibility; but as for the duty to relay the order issued to him by

13     the commander, well, there is such a duty and it has to be fulfilled in

14     spite of the fact that this is not his sphere of activity.

15        Q.   Thank you, for that.  I hope that satisfies my colleague, but my

16     follow-up question is:  Understanding that it's a duty that has to be

17     fulfilled, why should it have been General Gvero to fulfill it, given

18     your understanding of the Main Staff and the way the Main Staff works?

19        A.   I can assume that this was so because that's what the commander

20     had decided, and this information could have been relayed by any

21     assistant commander if the commander so decided.

22        Q.   So an assistant commander can do pretty much anything as long as

23     he has the authorisation of his superior, the commander; isn't that

24     right?

25        A.   You're a lawyer, but no, far from it.  An assistant commander

Page 30422

 1     couldn't do whatever he wanted to do.  An assistant commander has clearly

 2     defined duties.  In the course of my testimony, I have mentioned where

 3     these duties set out and this is the field of activities that such a

 4     commander is involved in.

 5             In addition, an assistant commander can also deal with other

 6     tasks assigned to him by the commander if it's possible for him to carry

 7     out the task in question and if it's not necessary to be involved in

 8     other activities to carry out the task.  It's quite obvious that in order

 9     to inform troops all you need to know is whom you have to inform and you

10     have to know what they have to be informed of, and each and every

11     assistant commander has been trained to act in this manner and is

12     competent to do so if his commander issues him such an order.

13        Q.   Do you know, given your examination of many documents, whether or

14     not General Gvero was authorised to maintain contacts with international

15     organisations, NGOs, et cetera?

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Josse.

17             MR. JOSSE:  We have not objected hitherto, but this line

18     undoubtedly arises purely from the words that Mr. Vanderpuye quoted

19     earlier, which were really words that the witness mentioned in passing in

20     his examination-in-chief.  Significantly, this was not an area that we

21     dealt with at all in our cross-examination.  They were the words that --

22     if I could have a moment.  At 30032 -- and it might be worth the

23     Trial Chamber looking at them and deciding whether this line should be

24     permitted, but the essential difference is this was not cross-examined

25     upon at all.

Page 30423

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Do you wish to comment, Mr. Vanderpuye?

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I do, but regrettably I would like the witness

 3     to take his headphones off because I'm --

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, yes.  General, could you take your headphones

 5     off, please.

 6             Yes.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I -- this particular

 8     issue was specifically dealt with on cross-examination because it arises

 9     precisely out of the language of Directive 7 insofar as it concerns

10     morale and psychological support.  It arises directly out of that

11     language.  The -- under 6.1 it says:

12             "Externally, a more aggressive propaganda and information

13     presence should be maintained aimed at gaining allies, deepening discord

14     in the coalition, unmasking the biased and hostile activities of certain

15     individuals in parts of UNPROFOR, in some humanitarian organisations, and

16     undermining the enemies fighting morale.  This is to be achieved through

17     a planned and organised information and propaganda activities coordinated

18     from the state level."

19             This specific language was challenged by the Defence in order to

20     distance General Gvero from potentially attributing to its creation.

21     That was the whole purpose of Mr. Krgovic's cross-examination of this

22     witness.  When the witness responded he agreed, and he said that that

23     language was far removed from what would normally be expected in effect -

24     I'm paraphrasing at this point because I don't have it in front of me -

25     in effect was far removed from the responsibilities that General Gvero

Page 30424

 1     would have as the assistant of moral -- assistant commander for morale,

 2     legal -- morale affairs.

 3             What this is pointing at is what the extent is or the nature of

 4     General Gvero's responsibilities are insofar as they relate to the

 5     language in the document that the Defence specifically challenged.  They

 6     are saying he couldn't have contributed to it because it doesn't sound

 7     like it came from him and it's not within the scope of his authorities.

 8     And what I am demonstrating -- trying to demonstrate through my cross is

 9     that that's not the case, simple and plain.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.

12             General, the question that Mr. Vanderpuye put to you and which

13     was objected to and on which we have heard some submissions, was the

14     following:

15             "Do you know, given your examination of many documents, whether

16     or not General Gvero was authorised to maintain contacts with

17     international organisations, NGOs, et cetera?"

18             If you have come across documents or in the course of your

19     research obtained information which enables you to answer this question,

20     then please go ahead and answer it.  Otherwise, we will proceed to the

21     next question.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can provide you with the

23     following answer:  Cooperation with UNPROFOR hadn't been systematically

24     regulated.  It was an ongoing process when it came to organisation and

25     responsibilities.  Milovanovic, Manojlo's statement and other documents

Page 30425

 1     show that contact with UNPROFOR was dealt with at the highest level of

 2     the army and that meant through Generals Milovanovic and Mladic.  In

 3     certain documents I saw that on the basis of their decision they

 4     specifically authorised certain officers in the rear to have contact or

 5     to become involved in other activities.  Since I wasn't really involved

 6     in investigating the responsibilities and sphere of activities of

 7     General Gvero, as to whether he had an order to cooperate in specific

 8     cases, well, I could not say.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.  I am afraid we have to leave it

10     at that for today.  We will resume tomorrow at 2.15.  I am confident that

11     we will finish with your testimony tomorrow, hopefully.  So that's all.

12     Thank you all, and we stand adjourned.

13                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.59 p.m.,

14                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 21st day

15                           of January, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.