090217ED

Page 31571

1 Tuesday, 17 February 2009

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, good afternoon. Madam Registrar, could you

6 call the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours, this is case number

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

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, ma'am. All the accused are here and we

10 are full house as far as representation is concerned. Good afternoon,

11 Mr. Pandurevic, and good afternoon to you, Mr. Bourgon. Could we

12 proceed, please.

13 WITNESS: VINKO PANDUREVIC [Resumed]

14 [The witness answered through interpreter]

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.

16 MR. BOURGON: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon,

17 Judges. Good afternoon to all my colleagues in the courtroom.

18 Mr. President, just for planning purposes, I will definitely end

19 my cross-examination today, and hopefully before the end of the day so

20 that my colleague Zivanovic can take over for me before the end of the

21 day. I'll do my best to do so.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon. Be prepared,

23 Mr. Zivanovic.

24 Cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon: [Continued]

25 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Pandurevic.

Page 31572

1 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Bourgon.

2 Q. When we left off yesterday, we were discussing what action you

3 took after learning from Mr. Grujic that prisoners were detained in

4 schools in Pilica and Petkovci. Just before I ask my few questions, I

5 just want to go back and review a few of your answers very quickly. At

6 page 31566, lines 8 to 15, I was asking you whether you would agree that

7 the transfer of a large number of prisoners of war placed in schools

8 which are located close to the potential combat area and within villages

9 where members of the brigade and their families live, that this was a

10 factor which you had to consider. Your answer was:

11 "That's why I included the words 'additional burden' in my

12 interim report."

13 And at line 25 on the same page, the question was:

14 "And that was important for you as a brigade commander because

15 you don't want the soldier to desert the trenches to go and protect their

16 families."

17 Your answer on that occasion was:

18 "Yes, that's very important."

19 The last thing I want to cover before moving on is at page 31567.

20 You confirmed that before Bojanovic arrived at the IKM, the brigade

21 forward command post on the 16th July you did not inquire to any of the

22 other persons present about the prisoners.

23 And one last detail you confirmed which was at page 31569 to

24 31570 that on 15 July, after having learned from Grujic about the

25 prisoners, you did not call the brigade operations duty officer to obtain

Page 31573

1 further information.

2 So my first question sir, today is the following: In light of

3 this information, I put it to you that if you did not call the brigade

4 duty operations officer, it is because it wasn't necessary to do so for

5 one of two things. Either you had already ordered Dragan Obrenovic to

6 report to the IKM to provide you with a full briefing on the status of

7 the brigade, or you did call him as soon as Grujic gave you the

8 information about the prisoners.

9 Do you agree with this statement, one or the other?

10 A. I don't agree with any of them.

11 Q. But you don't deny, sir, that you could contact Obrenovic; is

12 that correct?

13 A. I'm not denying that.

14 MR. BOURGON: If I can have in e-court, please, P377, and I'd

15 like to have page 141 in English and the same page in B/C/S.

16 If Mr. Pandurevic can be given the original, this is the

17 Zvornik Brigade operation duty officer notebook.

18 Q. Sir, I would like you to look at page 5759. Sir, is it your

19 testimony that you did not discuss with the brigade duty operations

20 officer the issue of prisoners throughout the night of 15 July? Did you

21 understand my question, sir?

22 A. No, I did not discuss the issue of prisoners.

23 Q. Now, before we look at the operations duty officer notebook, do

24 you recall what General Kosovac said in his testimony, and that was at

25 page 30236 that General Kosovac, that he said that the duty operations

Page 31574

1 officer is most useful to determine what happened in the last 24 hours.

2 So my question is if you did not call the brigade duty operations

3 officer, did you consider calling him?

4 A. I did not consider calling him. The duty operations officer of

5 the brigade receives information from the different units within the

6 brigade, passes on orders, makes sure that the orders that have been

7 issued are carried out in time. If he cannot resolve a situation on his

8 own, he then addresses the commander of the Chief of Staff. In this

9 situation was to be expected that the then-duty operations officers if he

10 encountered a problem which he didn't know how to deal with that he would

11 call the commander, i.e., it would be me at the IKM because he knew where

12 I was.

13 Since I did not receive any urgent information from the duty

14 operations officer, nothing to the effect that I should use my authority

15 to deal with the problem, I did not call the duty operations officer to

16 call him -- to ask him whether there was a problem to deal with.

17 Q. So your testimony is because you did speak to the brigade duty

18 operations officer on that day because he didn't mention to you the issue

19 of prisoners, you said, Why should I bother asking him? Is that your

20 testimony?

21 A. That's not what I'm saying. I am saying, and I repeat, there was

22 an exchange of information between the duty operations officer and the

23 IKM. As far as I can remember, I did not have any personal contacts or

24 conversations with the duty operations officer at the time and that was

25 Drago Nikolic, I can tell from the handwriting in the log book that it

Page 31575

1 was him.

2 Q. Well, sir, let's look at a few of these entries in the log book.

3 I look at where it says, I take you to the entry of 1550 hours, 1550

4 where it says:

5 "Commander ordered the tank company to go via Snagovo to Caparde

6 and to establish contact with the 7th Battalion."

7 Did you pass on this information to Drago Nikolic or did you give

8 it to your signalsman, and he was the one to pass it on to Drago Nikolic?

9 A. The latter would probably be the case because at the time, I had

10 more pressing tasks and communication with the other participants in the

11 theatre of war. From my observation post where I had an induction

12 telephone line and from where I could establish radio communication with

13 the other units in the general area of Baljkovica, I spoke to the IKM

14 switchboard telling them what to convey to whom, and it was the

15 switchboard that conveyed this task, I'm sure, to the duty operations

16 officer.

17 MR. BOURGON: If I can have in e-court the next page, 142 in both

18 B/C/S and English.

19 For you sir would be page 5760.

20 Q. Sir I'd like you to look at the entry beginning with:

21 "A large group of armed and unarmed Turks is blocked in the area

22 of Potocani."

23 And we don't need to read this paragraph over again, it was read

24 during your examination-in-chief. In fact, you testified at page 30970

25 that you dictated this to the brigade duty officer and that was on page

Page 31576

1 30969, 30970. Now given that you dictated this to the brigade duty

2 operations officer and you recognise the writing of Drago Nikolic and you

3 said in your testimony in chief that it was Drago Nikolic who was the

4 brigade duty operations officer, why, on this occasion, didn't you ask

5 him about the prisoners, if he knew anything about the prisoners?

6 A. Correct. This information could have been drafted by me, judging

7 by its contents and form. I'm not denying that. And since Drago Nikolic

8 was on duty at that time, I didn't know what he knew about prisoners of

9 war, and when I learned the following day what he knew, I'm wondering now

10 why he as the duty operations officer and my assistant for security did

11 not inform me although it was duty-bound to do that even without my

12 express request. There was no way for me to assume that he knew those

13 things that he obviously knew.

14 Q. Sir, what I fail to understand is that when you had a

15 conversation with your superior, General Krstic, on 17 July, you

16 testified that, I did not tell him anything about the prisoners because

17 he did not tell me anything. And that's your superior.

18 Now, on the 15th of July you have your subordinate on the phone

19 and you say, Well I did not mention him the issue of the prisoners

20 because he's my subordinate and it's his job to let me know. So it's

21 always the job of others to let you know about prisoners, and it's not

22 you, it's not your job to inquire about this?

23 A. It's not exactly like you are saying. I just deferred the time

24 when I would report to Mr. Krstic about the events. I reported it to him

25 on three occasions. I sent him two interim combat reports and I had an

Page 31577

1 immediate contact with him as his subordinate whereas my subordinate,

2 Drago Nikolic, never reported back to me.

3 What you have to understand and you say you don't, is that we are

4 talking about two separate operations that were taking place in the area

5 of Zvornik.

6 One operation or one task, rather, was the one under my direct

7 authority for which I had been sent back to Zvornik and this was fighting

8 the 28th Division, and that was the main task of the Zvornik Brigade.

9 The second activity or operation that could have been taking

10 place in any other place without me knowing anything about it beyond my

11 influence was the operation to bring in, incarcerate, and kill prisoners

12 of war. The fact that the area where those people were brought to and

13 killed was close to the area of responsibility of the Zvornik Brigade

14 does not impose my obligation or responsibility to take care of that.

15 That's why it was not my concern because I had other priorities. I had

16 my priority task for which I had been brought back.

17 I'm sure that those who had planned all that and who had done all

18 that would have been better suited and would still be better suited to

19 explain why they did what they did, to make you understand the whole

20 situation better.

21 Q. Well, sir, you say that this was -- it was not my concern. Of

22 course I disagree with you on the basis of your own answers earlier; but

23 in light of both of these answers put together, I suggest to you that

24 you're not telling the truth because an officer of your calibre, as we

25 established before, having received information as that which was

Page 31578

1 provided to you by Grujic, would never sit on such information without

2 taking action and, in fact, sir you did take action, didn't you?

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes.

4 MR. HAYNES: I think there are at least five questions in there

5 I'm not even sure it's a question at all, it's a speech and I wonder if

6 my learned friend could point out where he says the word "dictated" was

7 used on pages 3679 to 3670.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon, you can definitely split the questions

9 into various parts and then I would like to address the question raised

10 by Mr. Haynes.

11 MR. BOURGON: I first asked for question the, Mr. President, and

12 the question that was put to the witness is very simple. It's as

13 follows -- I'm putting to you him that it was established before that he

14 is a high-calibre officer.

15 Q. Do you agree with that, sir?

16 A. My superiors judged me as an officer. If the evaluation was not

17 to my liking, I could have complained. I never did. And the evaluation

18 was what it is. Because of the fact as you put it that I was a good

19 officer, I knew what to do at what time, when things were efficient, when

20 they were not, and that's why my actions were what they were.

21 Q. The second part of the question which again is something that was

22 established earlier, is what I mentioned I began the day with where the

23 question was, was that important for you as a brigade commander because

24 you don't want the soldiers to desert the trenches to go and protect

25 their families and his answer was: "Yes, that's very important, but I

Page 31579

1 said that at the beginning."

2 So that was my second part. Do you want to change this answer,

3 sir, that -- I can repeat the question I you confirm already but we can

4 go back again?

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.

6 MR. HAYNES: Well I think we've got a confession from Mr. Bourgon

7 that this question is asked and answered.

8 MR. BOURGON: Absolutely, that's why I don't understand the

9 objections of my colleagues, I can understand he's excited; but I can't

10 understand the objection.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't expect the Chamber to get excited. So let's

12 move to your next question.

13 MR. BOURGON:

14 Q. Now that we know that the question was asked and answered that

15 you said it was very important, the next issue is I put the two together

16 and I propose to you that an officer of high-calibre like you getting

17 this information, believing it was important to take action, I'm telling

18 you, you did take action. You did do something with that information,

19 didn't you, sir.

20 A. I told you what steps I took on chief and on cross. As to the

21 problems of desertion or problems of that nature, if there were such

22 problems, he would have -- this would have been reported to the duty

23 operations officer who would have then told about them to me, but there

24 was no such thing. But I'm suggesting you should look at the log book of

25 the duty operations officer which is sworn in by the names of security

Page 31580

1 officers, messages for them, telephone numbers, requests concerning

2 prisoners of war. Are they to find a single note mentioning my name with

3 regard to prisoners of war? Try and find an intercept which mentions my

4 name in relation to the prisoners of war.

5 Q. That's absolutely not my purpose but as you confess, sir, you

6 never read that book in 1995, did you? The operations duty officer

7 notebook, did you read that book in 1995?

8 A. No, but this was recorded on 1995 and 2005, actually, the paper

9 trail is still the same, and I'm grateful to the person who has saved it.

10 Q. And my purpose today, sir, is that if you had asked the brigade

11 duty operations officer that night for information and that was

12 Drago Nikolic who was there, that was your chief of security, I'm telling

13 you that he could have provided you information which would have allowed

14 you to act; do you agree with this statement?

15 A. I agree, so why are you contesting that he didn't know things

16 about the whole situation and now you're saying that he could have

17 provided me with information about prisoners of war.

18 Q. That was never mentioned. That's for the Judges of this Tribunal

19 to decide. But I'm telling you that he has information in the notebook,

20 you say there are names in the notebook. What I'm saying to you is that

21 if you had asked him whatever is in the notebook, whatever information he

22 had at the time, he could have provided to you; is that correct?

23 A. Well, this is in the realm of fantasy for me to assume what Drago

24 knew, to assume what is in the log book, and to ask him to report about

25 that to me. If I had had any idea that some evil was going on or that

Page 31581

1 evil was being prepared then I might have been able to ask; but I didn't

2 know about any such thing. It never occurred to me to ask Drago about

3 it, actually to ask the duty operations officer about any such thing and

4 that was Drago.

5 Q. Well I agree with you, sir. So far your testimony as of 15 July,

6 you had heard no evil, but let's take a look at that together. You

7 confirm in your testimony, and I'll move on to another issue, you confirm

8 in your testimony that the interim combat report you sent that night was

9 dictated to Ljubo Bojanovic; is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 MR. BOURGON: My question is the interim combat report he

12 dictated to Ljubo Bojanovic on 15 July that evening at the IKM.

13 MR. HAYNES: And I'm still looking for an answer as to where I

14 can find it said in the previous testimony that he dictated the entry in

15 the duty operations officer log book.

16 MR. BOURGON: I would be glad to provide answer to my colleague

17 at the break, but for now I'd like to proceed with my cross-examination.

18 Q. Sir, my question was, and I say again, did you dictate --

19 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment because I need to consult with my

20 colleagues on this.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE AGIUS: We needed to consult or I needed to consult with my

23 colleagues because basically you took the decision which belonged to us.

24 MR. BOURGON: I apologise, Mr. President, and if I can help you,

25 I can give the reference now.

Page 31582

1 JUDGE AGIUS: You can proceed with our indulgence and then you

2 provide Mr. Haynes with the relevant information.

3 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.

4 Q. Sir, did you dictate the interim combat report at the IKM on the

5 15th of July to Ljubo Bojanovic, that was your testimony at 30984, lines

6 7 to 8.

7 A. Yes, I did. But no dictatorship was involved, to be sure.

8 Q. I'm going to go on. There was no -- never any intention or any

9 mention of the word "dictatorship."

10 Ljubo Bojanovic, you testified also on the same page, 30984 that

11 he was one of the officers working in the operations department with

12 Dragan Obrenovic; is that correct?

13 A. He was in the operative department in the staff and

14 Dragan Obrenovic was not his immediate superior.

15 Q. But the operations department really was under the guidance of

16 the Chief of Staff; is that correct?

17 A. The staff, yes, under the guidance of the assistant chief for

18 operations and training.

19 Q. And Ljubo Bojanovic joined the Zvornik Brigade in mid-1992, so he

20 was a member of the Zvornik Brigade even before he became its commander;

21 is that correct?

22 A. He was never its commander, but he was a member of the

23 Zvornik Brigade from the beginning, that much is true.

24 Q. I apologise. There was maybe my question was not precise or its

25 translation. I meant that before you became -- when you became the

Page 31583

1 commander of the Zvornik Brigade, Ljubo Bojanovic was already in the

2 Zvornik Brigade; is that correct?

3 A. Yes, yes.

4 Q. And according to your testimony, Ljubo Bojanovic arrived at the

5 IKM about one hour before you started drafting your interim combat

6 report; is that correct?

7 A. Well, it's difficult to be specific about hours, but he had

8 arrived before I dictated the report, perhaps even over an hour.

9 Q. I was just quoting from page 30985 which was your answer. Now,

10 you also confirm in your testimony, that was at page 31161, lines 5 to 6

11 that you listened to the testimony of Bojanovic, who testified under oath

12 in the Blagojevic and Jokic trial on 8 and 9 July 2004; is that correct,

13 sir?

14 A. I know that he testified, but I don't know the exact date.

15 Q. But you did listen to his testimony in that trial, that's what

16 you said.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Now, in his testimony in that case, and that was in public

19 session, he testified that he arrived at the forward command post - well

20 he used the word IKM - around 1700 to 1730 hours, so between 5.00 and

21 5.30 or a bit later. Does that correspond to what you know about his

22 arrival at the IKM?

23 A. Roughly speaking, yes.

24 Q. And you testified, and I asked that question before so we

25 established that you dictated the report, the interim combat report to

Page 31584

1 him. Now, you also testified, and after dictating the interim combat

2 report to him, and I quote from 30986:

3 "He, Bojanovic, did not read it back. I, Pandurevic, did not

4 read it. I just initialled the report, and it was sent to the Zvornik at

5 the communications centre there where it would be encrypted and sent to

6 the corps command."

7 So, sir, on that basis, it's my understanding that you trusted

8 Bojanovic in writing down this report for you and sending it without you

9 even reviewing the contents of the report; is that correct?

10 A. I dictated the report, and I was sitting right next to him. It

11 wasn't like I was making a statement to a magistrate or anything like

12 that, so it would have been required for me to read and sign each of the

13 pages that I dictated. I believe that I could trust the man as much.

14 MR. BOURGON: If I can have in e-court, please, P329 which is the

15 report. I just want to know two things.

16 Q. You just mentioned that you trusted -- I'm just reading again:

17 "I believe that I could trust the man as much."

18 Now, during your examination-in-chief, we covered and you were

19 asked lots of questions about the contents of the report. My question is

20 the following: Whatever Bojanovic wrote down comes from you; that's

21 correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. If we look at page 2 of the report, if I can have the next page,

24 please. We see on this page that the report was sent from the

25 Zvornik Brigade command at 1925 hours on 15 July; is that correct?

Page 31585

1 A. That's what it says.

2 Q. And you also testified at page 30986 that the report was sent to

3 the brigade command by courier. My question is: Once your interim

4 combat report was delivered at the Zvornik Brigade command communications

5 centre there, would you agree that it had to be typed and encrypted

6 before being sent; is that correct?

7 A. Yes, it was supposed to be typewritten and dispatched. I believe

8 a version like that of this report actually exists.

9 Q. And that takes some time to type the report and to encrypt the

10 report. In your experience, how long does that take?

11 A. Well, the best way to look at this is to look at the stamps

12 received and dispatched, the timeline is right there. The discrepancy

13 between the two times given there provides an answer to that, how long it

14 took to typewrite it and dispatch it. One can't actually see it here,

15 but if you look at the extent of the report, it would have taken about

16 five to six minutes to get it typewritten. All of those teleprinters

17 have class A, because that's all they did while serving in the army and

18 throughout the war.

19 Q. Sir, in this case, you will agree with me that your report did

20 not transit through the brigade operations duty officer who, as you

21 confirmed, was Drago Nikolic; is that correct?

22 A. No, it wasn't supposed to be like that at all. It was supposed

23 to be submitted directly for encoding.

24 Q. And if Drago Nikolic had been involved in the process, is it

25 possible that we would see his initials on the second page?

Page 31586

1 A. Well, he can't be involved in the process. If he had been the

2 author of this report, we would now be able to see his initials.

3 Q. Thank you. That's what I was looking for. Now, as you know,

4 during his testimony, Bojanovic said the following and I quote from page

5 11724 of his testimony on 8 July 2004:

6 "Q. Do you remember that afternoon of the 15th anything

7 particular about your activities?

8 The answer was: "I remember seeing Commander Pandurevic then,

9 Chief of Staff appeared later. They talked in the weekend house. I

10 wasn't present there. They talked for 30 minutes to 45 minutes. What

11 was important for me was that after their conversation, I was asked to

12 come to the weekend house, the command post. I was asked to come in and

13 he dictated an interim combat report to me which was to be sent to the

14 corps."

15 Sir, on this basis, I put it to you that you did not tell the

16 truth when you said that the first time you spoke with Obrenovic about

17 the prisoners is on the 16th of July because your first conversation took

18 place at the IKM as testified under oath by Bojanovic on the 15th of

19 July. Is that the truth, sir?

20 A. It is not true that I am lying, when one speaks under oath, that

21 doesn't mean that one necessarily tells the truth, one can also

22 misremember something or something was misconveyed to them.

23 Ljubo Bojanovic while giving evidence said he knew nothing about the

24 prisoners of war at the time. He said he'd only learned later about that

25 yet he talked to me about that on the 15th, meaning he knew about it

Page 31587

1 after all.

2 Secondly, Obrenovic and I met at the IKM on the 16th.

3 Ljubo Bojanovic was also at the IKM on the 16th although he said at the

4 time that he was not there on the 16th. If you look at the log book, the

5 entries in relation to the 16th, they read that afternoon,

6 Ljubo Bojanovic reported something about the 16th Krajina company station

7 yet he claimed that he had been at the command. If he had been at the

8 command, he would have been in no position to communicate this to anyone

9 via a link he would have spoken directly to a duty operations officer

10 instead.

11 I know Ljubo Bojanovic personally or rather I knew him because he

12 is no longer among us. I was the one who principally protected him from

13 everything else back at the command. He was an elderly person. He liked

14 to have the occasional drink. It is for that purpose that I kept a glass

15 in my office, whenever he so desired, he would come to my office, have a

16 drink under my protection and just leave. I cannot speak ill of the man,

17 and I have nothing to say against him whatsoever; but I do have one thing

18 to say, this particular date, he got it wrong.

19 Q. Well, sir, are you saying that he lied under oath when he said

20 that the Chief of Staff and you had a conversation that lasted 30 to 45

21 minutes in the weekend house?

22 A. I'm not saying he was lying. We did meet at the IKM but on the

23 16th and he could actually see our conversation. The only thing that

24 could possibly have happened is he got the dates mixed up, that's it. He

25 could have got the date wrong without necessarily attempting to lie, not

Page 31588

1 quite the same thing, is it.

2 MR. BOURGON: If I could have in e-court please 7D700.

3 Q. Sir, this is the interview of Major Bojanovic on 18 September

4 2001, some three years before he testified in the Blagojevic case. I

5 refer to you the page 21 of this interview and at page 21, I read from

6 lines 9, and I prefer to just ask you to read this first page and then I

7 will put it to you that on this basis, Ljubo Bojanovic remembers very

8 correctly what happened on the 14th and the 15th of July and that he did

9 see you at the IKM on the 15th with the Chief of Staff.

10 MR. HAYNES: Firstly, can we have a B/C/S page reference, please?

11 MR. BOURGON: Yes, the B/C/S page reference is -- the B/C/S page

12 reference is T000-1059 and that's of course in 7D700.

13 MR. HAYNES: And secondly, so that it's fair to the witness and

14 not misleading to the Court, could we read over to the following page,

15 please.

16 MR. BOURGON: Indeed. I will start reading from line 10 or

17 line 9. "DM," which I believe we all know is Dean Manning:

18 "Okay I'm just trying to establish where people were. So similar

19 question referring to this roster, did you see Vinko Pandurevic from say

20 the 11th through the 15th when you told me you saw him before.

21 "A. I saw him only on the 15th. Since he left on the 4th, I

22 didn't see him until I saw him in the afternoon on the 15th at the

23 forward command post."

24 JUDGE KWON: Are we following the correct B/C/S pages?

25 MR. BOURGON: In the B/C/S page for the same.

Page 31589

1 MR. HAYNES: It's 27 and 28.

2 MR. BOURGON: Twenty seven. I got at the bottom here but it

3 was -- the number I mentioned earlier, T000-1059, page 27 and 28.

4 Dean Manning: "In that period, did you hear of or were you told

5 of where he actually was?

6 "A. I knew he went to Srebrenica but I didn't know where

7 exactly, which location.

8 Dean Manning: "On the 14th of July, do you recall what your

9 duties were and where you were?

10 "A. I was in the barracks. I didn't feel quite well and I

11 remember that around 2100 hours, 2200 hours, I went to see our doctor.

12 He measured my blood pressure. It was very high, 170 by 110. I know

13 that I was sweating a lot but I didn't prevent," to quote the exact

14 words, "Major Obrenovic to issue me a task at 2.00 in the morning.

15 "Q. On the 14th, did you see Major Obrenovic?"

16 JUDGE KWON: Could you check to see whether the B/C/S page is

17 following? No, the next page.

18 MR. BOURGON: I apologise, I think I do have the right page.

19 JUDGE KWON: Give him the hard copy.

20 MR. BOURGON: So maybe I can give him the hard copy. I don't

21 think there is any note other than page numbers. If my colleague wants

22 to take a look at it and there's a whole bunch of -- if you can show it

23 to my colleague, please.

24 Q. Sir I draw your attention to the line where it says

25 Ljubo Bojanovic: "I was in the barracks." That should be the exact

Page 31590

1 first page you have in your hands. Do you see this, sir?

2 A. Yes, I do.

3 MR. BOURGON: Thank you very much, Judge, I will continue

4 reading:

5 "A. I was in the barracks. I didn't feel quite well and I

6 remember that around 2100 hours, 2200 hours, I went to see our doctor.

7 He measured my blood pressure, it was very high, 170 by 110. I know that

8 I was sweating a lot, but I didn't prevent Major Obrenovic to issue me a

9 task at 2.00 in the morning."

10 Dean Manning: "Okay on the 14th, did you see Major Obrenovic?"

11 Bojanovic: "Yes, I told you, we were together in the duty

12 officer's room, and we sent that dispatch to the headquarters, the corps

13 headquarters.

14 "Yes, thank you. Just to indicate, there was a knock at the

15 door.

16 "I don't mind."

17 Let's move on to page 3 on the next page where it says "On the

18 15th." Are you following, Mr. Pandurevic?

19 Dean Manning: "On the 15th, in the very early hours, you were

20 given a task and you told me that you left earlier.

21 Bojanovic: "Yes.

22 "After you left on the morning of the 15th, when did you next see

23 Major Obrenovic?"

24 Line 8, "I think on 15 in the evening, I think he was also at the

25 forward command post but I think" --

Page 31591

1 JUDGE KWON: Check whether we are following.

2 MR. BOURGON: Do you have the right page, Judge?

3 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think so.

4 MR. BOURGON: Sorry, Judge, is it in English or is it in B/C/S

5 that the problem is?

6 JUDGE AGIUS: English version.

7 MR. BOURGON: The page I have here in front of me is --

8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Bourgon, please.

9 MR. BOURGON: The page I have in my hands is L006-5767. To me it

10 says, e-court page 22.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

12 MR. BOURGON: I was reading starting at line 3 where it says:

13 "Q. Okay, on the 15th, in the very early hours, you were given a

14 task and you told me that you left earlier?"

15 Ljubo Bojanovic: "Yes."

16 "Q. After you left on the morning of the 15th, where did you

17 next see Major Obrenovic?

18 "A. I think on the 15th in the evening. I think he was also at

19 the forward command post, but I think, I'm not sure. I think it was 15th

20 in the evening when I came over to the command post, when he was talking

21 about that he was almost captured by the Muslims in the area of the 4th

22 Battalion.

23 "Q. Explain to me if you would. When did it happen?"

24 Bojanovic: "On the 15th, when I left over there, he was

25 probably, I'm not sure what happened. He was on that most endangered

Page 31592

1 part. And I, myself, Major Maric and the others, whoever was tasked with

2 it, we were protecting that line, preventing that from Zvornik. He was

3 in the radio communications with me. He had RUP set 12. We spoke when

4 he told me to be aware of that area of Zuta Zemlja. He was in the

5 command of the 4th Battalion where the most dangerous was at the time.

6 After that, he came to the forward command post. It showed on him, how

7 people would say, that he was scared. He saw for the first time, at that

8 time, Commander Pandurevic at the forward command post.

9 "Q. At what time was that?

10 "A. From 1700, I mean it was summertime, no one was checking;

11 1800, 1900, it was still daylight. It was like an hour like before it

12 gets dark.

13 "Q. And when Obrenovic saw Pandurevic for the first time, did

14 he brief him on what had been happening over the days of his absence?"

15 I move to the next page, 23, English e-court; 5768 and next page

16 in B/C/S.

17 "A. Of course that he reported him what were the casualties,

18 what happened. We were there in a little small summer house. I was not

19 present during that conversation.

20 "Q. Who was present that you know?

21 "A. I think there were only the two of them, because after 10

22 or 11 days, the Chief of Staff's duty was to report what was happening

23 during his absence."

24 Dean Manning: "And did he speak to him for some lengthy period

25 or was it shortly?"

Page 31593

1 Bojanovic: "I cannot tell the exact time, how long they were in

2 a conversation. I don't think that that conversation lasted longer than

3 half an hour, because both of them, just like any of us, they had a task

4 to consolidate the lines and to establish the new ones. Can I? There

5 was not much time for written reports, just briefly, orally, we informed

6 each other."

7 Sir I'd like to share with you just one more paragraph of the

8 interview conducted with Bojanovic. This is the last part -- that was

9 the part of the interview I wished to show you, sir, and as mentioned,

10 this interview took place three years or some three years before his

11 testimony in the Blagojevic case, and I suggest to you on the basis of

12 this interview and the first part of his testimony that I read out to

13 you, that Ljubo Bojanovic knows very well the events as they unfolded

14 during those days and that you were there with the Chief of Staff at the

15 IKM on 15 July; is that correct, sir?

16 A. I am not denying your claim that Ljubo Bojanovic knew very well

17 what the situation was. I can only say that from the 15th when I

18 arrived, I knew better about the situation in Baljkovica than him. When

19 it comes to these dates, as far as I can remember, his testimony and the

20 cross-examination in the Blagojevic case, when Ms. Issa asked him about

21 the dates and he corrected his own claim and said that he didn't go to

22 Maricici on the 14th but rather on the 13th; and furthermore, did you

23 look at page 28 in e-court in the Serbian version where he says that

24 Obrenovic told him that he was almost taken prisoner, you will remember

25 when he was under such a threat. It was on the 16th and when he arrived

Page 31594

1 at the IKM, he looked terrified, which you can find on page 29 in

2 e-court; and he told me then what had happened and this confirms that

3 everything happened on the 16th.

4 If we take into consideration the time considered by

5 Mr. Bojanovic between 1700 and 1900 hours, the half an hour or the

6 45-minute conversation that ensued then the writing of the report, we can

7 conclude that this report could not have arrived at the command of the

8 Zvornik Brigade before 2000 hours. I'm sure that the date is erroneous.

9 The meeting between me and Obrenovic was on the 16th approximately at the

10 time that he says. Finally you were looking for a passage that you did

11 not find, it is on page 31 in e-court in the Serbian version, Dean

12 Manning asked whether Pandurevic was calm or nervous and he said, Well,

13 he was angry, of course.

14 On the 15th, Obrenovic was under no threat to be taken prisoner

15 and everything points to the fact that on that date, on the 15th, the

16 situation was calm.

17 Q. Thank you, sir, and I intend to give you every opportunity during

18 my cross-examination to justify your denial, but I would like to move now

19 to -- back to his testimony and that was on page 11728, and I quote from

20 Bojanovic's testimony:

21 "Q. This information about the prisoners, did he write it down

22 before or after his conversation with Obrenovic?

23 "A. I told you, it was after their conversation which lasted 45

24 minutes to one hour. So after that, he called me in and dictated this to

25 me."

Page 31595

1 Sir, does that jog your memory about the presence of the Chief of

2 Staff immediately before you dictated the report at the IKM?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Sir, Bojanovic also said during his testimony at page 11723, and

5 I quote:

6 "Q. Thank you. Who did you find at the forward command post?

7 "A. There definitely was the commander there, Vinko Pandurevic

8 because it was evening already and he had returned from the forces from

9 the Srebrenica sector. I think I also saw assistant commander for

10 security there as well as assistant Chief of Staff for communications.

11 Also present was the officer for intelligence and reconnaissance,

12 information, Mica Petkovic. I'm not quite positive about him. That was

13 the first time that I saw Commander Pandurevic following his departure to

14 Srebrenica."

15 So does that refresh your memory and allow to remember that

16 Major Obrenovic was there along with these other people at the IKM with

17 you on 15 July?

18 A. No, Major Obrenovic and his men were not at the IKM at the time.

19 We saw it just a while ago in the statement that he arrived at the IKM a

20 bit later and joined me there. And it says here that he was there when

21 Ljubo arrived, if I'm not mistaken.

22 Q. Sir, according to the testimony of Ljubo Bojanovic, you dictated

23 that report to him immediately after that conversation. I'm suggesting

24 to you that those two events happened on the same day and that it is a

25 fabrication on your part that you did not speak to Major Obrenovic on

Page 31596

1 that day; is that correct, sir?

2 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Yes, Mr. Haynes.

3 MR. HAYNES: The question has been asked and answered at least

4 four times, and if this cross-examination is going to carry on, on the

5 basis that selections are made from the testimony of Ljubo Bojanovic, it

6 would only be fair that a full transcript of that testimony is given to

7 the witness so he can make his full comments on it.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon. Don't you agree that he's

9 abundantly already answered your question denying what you have -- what

10 you have been suggesting throughout?

11 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll move on and the

12 other sections I'll put in my final arguments.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

14 MR. BOURGON: Sir, you have already testified -- if I can have in

15 e-court, please, 7D1154, page 3.

16 If I can have in e-court, please, page 3?

17 Q. Sir, you remember this is the note which was compiled by

18 Eileen Gilleece when you met with her, and I draw your attention to the

19 paragraph where it says, second paragraph from the bottom:

20 "On the 15th of July, Pandurevic received information from the

21 Chief of Staff that a number of prisoners were put in Zvornik

22 municipality by the Supreme Command and the corps."

23 MR. HAYNES: B/C/S page reference?

24 MR. BOURGON: B/C/S page reference, also page 3.

25 THE REGISTRAR: It's page 4 in B/C/S, it's already on the screen.

Page 31597

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the page is correct.

2 MR. BOURGON: I apologise, that was on page 4. And where it

3 reads:

4 "On the 15th of July, Pandurevic received information from the

5 Chief of Staff that a number of prisoners of war were put in Zvornik

6 municipality by the Supreme Command and corps."

7 Q. Now, sir, that paragraph was read to you already. I just want to

8 ask you one question in this regard. In its judgement, sir, in the

9 Krstic case, the Trial Chamber found, and that was at paragraph 423, and

10 I quote:

11 "On 15 July 1995, thousands of prisoners were still alive. Had

12 General Krstic intervened at even that late date, they might have been

13 saved."

14 Sir, in light of the information we have on the screen of what

15 you told to Eileen Gilleece, in light of the information or the testimony

16 of Bojanovic, and in light of the information that we have reviewed so

17 far --

18 MR. HAYNES: I think this is another one for the final brief.

19 There are so many objections to this form of question I don't even know

20 where to begin.

21 MR. BOURGON: Well he should begin and make it, and maybe I can

22 answer it.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's hear the whole question first, and then we'll

24 see what Mr. Haynes has to say.

25 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.

Page 31598

1 MR. BOURGON:

2 Q. Sir, the question is very easy. We've just covered a number of

3 material together including the testimony of Bojanovic, including what

4 you told Eileen Gilleece according to this report, and the previous

5 questions I put to you.

6 Maybe my colleague wants to get up, I see him move?

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Come on, I mean, please cool down. We don't need

8 to resort to this. We've been at this trial together for almost two and

9 a half years now plus, so let's keep --

10 MR. BOURGON: I'm telling you that the only reason that you

11 fabricated your evidence is because you want to delay your knowledge

12 until all the prisoners were executed and dead; is that correct, sir?

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.

14 MR. HAYNES: Well the first foundation to this question is that

15 he should ask him whether he actually said this to Eileen Gilleece

16 because he's put the document on the screen, he hasn't asked him whether

17 he confirms that that is what he said.

18 Secondly, "I'm telling you," is not a question this is just a

19 case theory being read out with a question mark at the end of it. And

20 quite what comment a witness in this trial is supposed to make of

21 findings made in another trial in which he neither appeared nor was

22 represented, I simply don't know.

23 So those are the first three objections. This isn't a question

24 at all, it's just a speech.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

Page 31599

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: This is a perfectly appropriate question on a key

2 issue.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

4 Do you wish to comment, Mr. Bourgon?

5 MR. BOURGON: Well, Mr. President, it's just trying -- it's just

6 called putting its case, my case to the witness, and that's what I'm

7 doing. I'm putting my case to him. I believe that he's trying to say

8 that he never had this conversation because he wanted to delay his

9 knowledge because that was a key issue in the Krstic trial. So I'm just

10 putting my case to him, and he can say yes or he can say no. It's very

11 easy. So it is a perfectly legitimate question.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, it's quite clear in our mind, if your final

15 question is predicated on the various facts that you allege including

16 what he is supposed to have stated to Eileen Gilleece, then in particular

17 to this part, you need to put to the witness first whether he agrees that

18 he did indeed speak in that manner or make that statement to

19 Eileen Gilleece.

20 Alternatively, if you are just putting a question and you put it

21 irrespective and independent of what was decided in Krstic, what he may

22 or may not have stated to Eileen Gilleece, et cetera, you need to be

23 clear about that. You proceed with the question and then the rest will

24 be struck off from our mind as if you had never mentioned it. So it's up

25 to you now.

Page 31600

1 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: And you are perfectly entitled to ask or to put to

3 the witness that he has been fabricating evidence and that there is a

4 reason for this. You are perfectly entitled to do that, so let's

5 proceed.

6 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. With respect to

7 Eileen Gilleece it's just because he has denied this on two occasions

8 already, during his examination-in-chief, and in answer to one question

9 that I put to him at the beginning of my cross-examination; so I did not

10 feel the need to get back to that.

11 Q. I will ignore the question about Eileen Gilleece, and I will

12 simply ask you, sir, that the reason that you are fabricating your

13 evidence as we've heard it in this case is because you want to delay your

14 knowledge of the execution of prisoners until they were all dead on

15 16 July; is that correct, sir?

16 A. It is not correct, Mr. Bourgon. I'm not fabricating anything.

17 I'm providing facts the way they were. But I have to go back to

18 Mrs. Gilleece's note. This is not the only mistake in this report, we

19 have seen that there are many and if I had done things the way you are

20 purporting, why would I have said to Mrs. Gilleece that it was on the

21 15th of July? She would have conveyed it that to Mr. McCloskey and that

22 would be the end of it.

23 If I had been thinking the way that you are purporting I was,

24 that would be it. I'm not fabricating anything, I'm just telling the

25 truth. I am talking about the facts and about the situation as it was at

Page 31601

1 the time.

2 Q. Thank you, sir, you did say during your examination-in-chief that

3 you met with Dragan Obrenovic; is that correct, sir? Before he was

4 arrested.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And you recall the question I put to you yesterday about the fact

7 that your theory of this meeting between you and Dragan Obrenovic is

8 something that is entirely new and that was ever put forward for the

9 first time during your examination-in-chief; is that correct, sir?

10 A. Yes, that's correct, and all of us in the courtroom heard that.

11 Q. And it's on this basis, sir, that I tell you that both you and

12 Dragan Obrenovic are two persons who met and who fabricated their own

13 evidence each in your own way, but you also talked about this together;

14 is that correct, sir?

15 JUDGE AGIUS: He can answer for himself, but he cannot answer for

16 Dragan Obrenovic, can he?

17 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, I'm saying that he discussed this,

18 discussed the fabrication with Obrenovic.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: The way you put it is that you are putting to the

20 witness that not only he fabricated evidence but also Obrenovic. Anyway

21 let's have the break now, and we will resume --

22 MR. BOURGON: That's my last question on this topic if he can

23 just deny or accept the fact that he and Obrenovic have fabricated their

24 stories together before Obrenovic was arrested.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Did you fabricate your stories

Page 31604

1 involved in blocking the 28th Division, I received this type of

2 information. I conveyed this information to the duty operations officer

3 for him to be able to report to all the other battalions in the entire

4 area of defence of the brigade."

5 Those were the exact words of the witness.

6 Q. Sir, before I move on to complete --

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.

8 MR. BOURGON:

9 Q. Before I move on to a completely different area of my

10 cross-examination, I looked at the transcript of both your

11 examination-in-chief as well as your cross-examination and can you

12 confirm that this is the first time today that you say that Bojanovic

13 would have been at the forward command post on the 16th of July; is that

14 correct, sir?

15 A. I suppose that this is correct. I've been testifying for 13 days

16 now, and it's very difficult for me to repeat everything that I said

17 previously. I may be allowed to remember some other new things which

18 have no real significance in the whole mosaic. I concluded that

19 Ljubo Bojanovic was at the IKM based on some other documents that I

20 perused here and one of them is the log book of the duty operations

21 officer.

22 Q. Now, of course on the basis of these documents, you might have

23 concluded that he was at the IKM on the 16th of July. My next question

24 is: Did Bojanovic draft any report dictated by you on 16 July at the

25 IKM?

Page 31605

1 A. No, he didn't. He wanted to be as far away from me as possible,

2 in such situations to avoid receiving any orders. He was there, but he

3 made sure that he was not in my line of vision for that precise reason.

4 Q. And sir, I refer once again to the testimony of Bojanovic --

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.

6 MR. HAYNES: I am going to take objection to this, and it's a

7 technical objection which I raised with Mr. Bourgon during the break. As

8 Mr. McCloskey told you, the testimony of Ljubo Bojanovic is an exhibit in

9 this case. It is P3158A. It does not appear on any list that has been

10 served on us by the Nikolic team, and thus the use of that document

11 contravenes your rules. It is completely unfair that he is

12 cross-examined on a voluminous document or his recollection of what he

13 heard seven or eight years ago when under the rules this document should

14 have been disclosed, and should have been made available to

15 Mr. Pandurevic before he even took the oath. I've let it go far enough

16 but that's the objection, and I'm surprised frankly that I have to make

17 this objection about the behaviour of the Nikolic team who have been so

18 fastidious about observation of the rules concerning disclosure.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.

20 MR. BOURGON: P3135A has always been on our list. He has the

21 information in his hands right now.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes.

23 For the record, Mr. Haynes had mentioned P3158A and --

24 MR. BOURGON: That's not the right number.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon, according to the transcript mentioned

Page 31606

1 P3135A, so we need to correct that first. I think we are talking of

2 P3158, aren't we?

3 Mr. Haynes, the document number mentioned by Mr. Bourgon seems to

4 be the right one. You find it on the last page of his list of documents

5 being the second document listed on that page. And it is P03135A. If

6 you could check that.

7 MR. HAYNES: That document I'm wrong about, and I'm sorry.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's proceed, Mr. Bourgon.

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

10 Q. Sir, I will quote just one final paragraph from the testimony of

11 Bojanovic which you indicated during your examination-in-chief that you

12 had listened to and it's from page 11734 at line 6:

13 "Q. Do you remember what your duties were on that day on the

14 16th in the command of the Zvornik Brigade? What did you do?

15 "A. I cannot remember, but it was probably something to do with

16 my organ for morale, and I know that I received an oral order from the

17 commander for the next day, the 17th, since we didn't see each other, to

18 go to the IKM and to go and search the terrain in a certain sector."

19 Sir, on the basis of this information, does that refresh your

20 memory that Bojanovic was not at the IKM on the 16th of July?

21 A. Well, as far as I understand his reply, he received an oral order

22 from me in relation to the following day so he could have received it on

23 the 16th orally.

24 Q. Sir, when the evidence of Bojanovic was admitted in this case, it

25 was pursuant to a request from the Office of the Prosecution to have it

Page 31607

1 admitted pursuant to Rule 92 quater. Now leaving aside the legal

2 language, this was admitting the evidence of persons approximate who are

3 not available. I'm wondering why you did not even respond to the

4 Prosecution motion if you deny the information contained in this

5 testimony.

6 A. Well, you said it yourself, it's a legal issue. I understand

7 Rule 92 quater. I know what it's about. Why did my Defence not

8 challenge the admission of that document into evidence is not something

9 that I can comment on. If my Defence had even opposed this, it probably

10 would have still been admitted. After all, one can't say that everything

11 in that document is inaccurate, can one?

12 Q. I'll leave it at that. Some other people might take up the issue

13 later, and I move on to my -- the next area of my cross-examination which

14 deals with your testimony concerning the duties of Drago Nikolic as

15 assistant commander for security.

16 First, you testified at page 30769 that Drago Nikolic was your

17 subordinate; is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. This means that you could issue orders to him and that he would

20 obey these orders; is that correct?

21 A. I could issue orders to him, but not across his duties and jobs.

22 Q. My question is: When you issued orders to Drago Nikolic, did he

23 obey your orders?

24 A. He did for the most part. As for the quality of his work,

25 timeliness and so on and so forth, well that could be up for debate.

Page 31608

1 Q. Which is the part that he refused to obey orders?

2 A. I could not issue orders to him that pertain to about 80 percent

3 of his professional involvement. The only orders that I could issue to

4 him that amounted to about 20 percent of his remit. I was brigade

5 commander, and it appears that the commander is in charge of everything

6 which at the time included the security situation that prevailed in his

7 own brigade.

8 I could keep the security situation under control at the required

9 level through the assistant for security who was there. The rule also

10 implies, when the term security is used that certain measures are taken

11 by the command including self-protection, including various measures

12 concerning combat, technology, counter-intelligence, military and police

13 measures, information, exchange of information, and other such measures.

14 Some of these measures may have been taken by Drago Nikolic

15 pursuant to my orders.

16 MR. BOURGON: I want to let the witness speak all he wants but

17 that's not my question, Mr. President. And if we want to finish today,

18 at least I would like the witness to answer my question.

19 Q. Did Drago Nikolic disobey any of his orders and can he give me

20 examples?

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I remember you asking the same question last week,

22 and he had answered that to his knowledge, Drago Nikolic never disobeyed

23 any of his orders. So why put it again?

24 MR. BOURGON: I was just starting with my new section and then he

25 starts on to something different, so I'll move on.

Page 31609

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move on.

2 MR. BOURGON: My question is simple, could he issue orders to

3 Drago Nikolic and did Drago Nikolic obey the orders when he did. That

4 was the question in the beginning.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move on. Let's move on.

6 MR. BOURGON:

7 Q. Sir, let's look as an example, in 1994 that

8 2nd Lieutenant Drago Nikolic would perform the duty of brigade duty

9 operations officers like the other officers in the command, would you

10 agree that this is what happened and that from that point on,

11 Drago Nikolic was the brigade operations duty officer whenever his name

12 appeared on the list. Is that the case?

13 A. Yes. Sometimes, perhaps someone stood in for him but he was on

14 that list, and he was the duty operations officer.

15 Q. And that happened from the moment that you ordered him to be on

16 duty; is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 MR. BOURGON: If I could have in e-court please 3D551.

19 Q. Sir, as you can see from this document on the screen before you,

20 it's an order issued by you on 13 October 1994 to the chief of security

21 who was at the time Second Lieutenant Drago Nikolic; is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. I draw your attention to paragraph 5 which basically states that

24 once the military conscripts have been checked, no later than October

25 1994, a report containing various information described in the following

Page 31610

1 subparagraph was to be submitted to the command of the Drina Corps; is

2 that correct?

3 A. That's what it says.

4 MR. BOURGON: If I can have the next page in e-court, please.

5 Q. At paragraph 6 of this order, do you agree that you rendered the

6 chief of security 2nd Lieutenant Nikolic responsible for the realisation

7 of this order?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And it's my understanding that Drago Nikolic obeyed your order

10 and submitted the report to the corps command; is that correct?

11 A. Paragraph 6 says I make him support for this and now there should

12 follow a document showing that he acted upon this order. To be quite

13 frank, I see that Obrenovic signed this document. I do not remember this

14 document.

15 MR. BOURGON: If I could have in e-court, please, 3D554.

16 Q. Sir, this is a document, and you will agree it's an order dated

17 the 6th May, 1994, issued by yourself to the chief of security who

18 happened to be 2nd Lieutenant Drago Nikolic; is that correct?

19 A. Yes, correct. Just as the previous order, military conscripts

20 were checked by a military police platoon. I gave an order to

21 Drago Nikolic and then he pursued this with them just as the present

22 order in addition to being dispatched to all the subordinate units it was

23 also sent to the assistant commander for logistics so that he could deal

24 with this in the logistics battalion and to the assistant commander for

25 security so he could deal with this at the military police platoon

Page 31611

1 level -- military police company level.

2 Q. If I can have the second page of this document in e-court,

3 please. Sir, I draw your attention to paragraph 10 of this order which

4 says that you ordered a security organ to continue working on the

5 collection of information, and I also ask you to look at paragraph 13

6 where you say:

7 "I am to be informed about everything by way of regular daily

8 reporting ..."

9 My question is: The information that you requested from

10 Drago Nikolic through this order was given to you; is that correct, sir?

11 A. The information was probably provided but what I asked

12 Drago Nikolic to do was about the regular combat report that contained a

13 paragraph about the security situation, the duty operations officer would

14 either leave that blank or just for formal purposes would write a single

15 sentence. I wanted Drago Nikolic to contribute to this, and I wanted him

16 to draft that particular portion of the interim combat report in order to

17 leave the final report that was about to be dispatched to the corps

18 complete, which he failed to do.

19 Q. I need you to explain again, what did Drago Nikolic fail to do?

20 A. The regular combat report being sent to the corps. There are

21 certain items or paragraphs, if you like, standard ones, that are always

22 there. Number 3, I think, was security and morale. Drago Nikolic was

23 supposed to tell the duty operations officer about any events of

24 significance in that respect over that period of time so that this

25 information might be forwarded to the corps command. He sent his own

Page 31612

1 reports through a security communication line where he probably recorded

2 these aspects too. This wasn't something to do with counter-intelligence

3 and could have been included in the regular combat report.

4 Q. Well then, sir, my question is: Whenever Drago Nikolic collected

5 information about the upcoming activities of -- and the aims of the

6 enemy, are you saying today in your testimony that this information was

7 withheld from you?

8 A. All the information should be relayed to me. I can't see page 1;

9 and, therefore, can't see the date for this. I don't know if the

10 intelligence and the security bodies were still joined, so that's why it

11 was written this way. Okay. They were. So this was a job for the

12 intelligence section of that body, and they were one body at the time.

13 Later, the intelligence body became the Chief of Staff for

14 intelligence.

15 Q. This is an order that dates from 6 May 1994. Was any

16 intelligence information withheld from you by Drago Nikolic at any time?

17 A. I don't know if there was information that he failed to forward

18 to me, how on earth could I possibly know if I never got it? It was

19 certainly his duty to report to me.

20 Q. Sir, were you informed in May 1994 of the intelligence

21 information that was gathered by the Zvornik Brigade command?

22 A. This is a very generic question, intelligence information. That

23 covers a multitude of sins, doesn't it, but he probably did things

24 pursuant to this order as specified. What sort of information, what

25 quality of information is hardly something I can tell you now.

Page 31613

1 MR. BOURGON: If I can in e-court please 3D522.

2 Q. Sir, you see from this document that this is an order dated

3 15 January 1994 issued by yourself to the chief of security who happened

4 to be 2nd Lieutenant Nikolic; is that correct?

5 A. Yes, this is an order from the command of the Zvornik Brigade.

6 Q. And if I can have page 2 of this order in e-court, please, in

7 both English and B/C/S. I draw your attention to paragraph 4 where you

8 order the chief of security to establish contact with the organs in the

9 municipality and with the MUP, and in cooperation with them to organise

10 the collection of weapons possessed by army members which are not

11 standard issue.

12 Was that the gist of this order issued to Drago Nikolic?

13 A. That is a single paragraph of this order, no more than that, and

14 it's about Drago Nikolic.

15 Q. And it's my understanding that Drago Nikolic executed the order

16 which you issued to him on 15 January 1994, and that you were informed

17 either directly or by him -- sorry, either directly by him or through

18 Dragutinovic who was responsible for the entire organisation; is that

19 correct? And progress of the work given, sorry.

20 A. The gathering of those weapons was an ongoing process. It wasn't

21 even over until after the war. There was an operation that we named

22 Operation Harvest and that was the code-name of this operation for

23 gathering weapons. I'm sure he still has that. I don't think Drago

24 could have possibly organised this over such a short period of time.

25 Tried as he might, he wouldn't have been able to manage.

Page 31614

1 Q. Sir, first, you can confirm that the name Milutinovic appearing

2 in the English document is a mistake; is that correct? The original

3 reads Dragutinovic?

4 A. Yes, it also says that this was delivered to him.

5 Q. Pursuant to this order or to this Harvest Operation as you call

6 it, you never obtained any information from Dragutinovic that

7 Drago Nikolic refused to do something or did not reveal any information

8 in this respect; is that correct?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. Sir, one more question on this issue. When you were at the IKM,

11 the forward command post on 15 July, you will agree that you could order

12 2nd Lieutenant Drago Nikolic, who was at that time as we've seen earlier,

13 the brigade duty operations officer, to immediately report to you at the

14 IKM; is that correct?

15 A. Report to me about what? I had received all of the reports that

16 I was supposed to receive already by the time I arrived on the 15th. And

17 I received those reports from a person who was in a position to inform me

18 about everything.

19 Q. Sir, I'm not talking and maybe there was a mistake in the

20 translation, maybe my question was put too quickly. Could you order

21 Drago Nikolic, Come and see me immediately at the IKM?

22 A. I never did that sort of thing. I would never order a duty

23 operations officer to leave his office and see me elsewhere, outside the

24 command building anywhere. That would have run counter to the

25 instructions under which the duty operations officer was doing his work.

Page 31620

1 Q. And once again, sir, that's not my question. Tell me of one

2 report that you found out Drago had sent without your knowledge?

3 A. I did not ask for the reports. I was not engaged in

4 intelligence; however, I would see combat reports, and I would see that

5 his part was not filled or there was just one sentence; and I knew that

6 there was a line of reporting along the security organs line and that was

7 the only one that mattered to him, nothing else.

8 Q. So you cannot tell us of one report that you know of that made

9 its way to the corps that you found out about the contents that Drago did

10 not tell you; is that correct?

11 A. No, I never received any such reports, none reached me.

12 Q. So your problem was the line of reporting and not the contents

13 because you never saw any of that contents; is that correct, sir?

14 A. It was a matter of principle. I don't know what the documents

15 contained; however, there was a woman, a typist who could have typed all

16 those things and was privy to that information which might have been very

17 sensitive counter-intelligence, and I as his commander was not privy to

18 that information. Now, you can see for yourself the logical nature of

19 the whole matter.

20 Q. So your problem was the secretary gets to see reports that I

21 don't see, and I don't like it because I'm the commander; is that

22 correct?

23 A. I told you this by way of example; however, if you know that 80

24 percent of the work of the security organ is beyond the scope of the work

25 of the commander to whom he is allegedly subordinated, and I'm not

Page 31621

1 talking about Drago Nikolic now, I'm just saying this for illustration.

2 I would like to tell you that the security organ, the way it was

3 positioned in the organs was figuratively speaking somebody who was

4 sleeping in my bed or was supposed to sleep in my bed, and 80 percent of

5 the time he was sleeping in the bed of the security organ of the corps

6 command; and I didn't know what he was doing there, and I had every right

7 to be jealous of that situation.

8 Q. Thank you, sir. During your examination in chief, you said and I

9 quote. Page 30788, line 22 to 30789, line 12:

10 "I knew what the difference was between counter-intelligence and

11 other matters that the security organ dealt with."

12 Is that correct?

13 A. Yes, that is correct.

14 Q. So you are familiar with the aim of counter-intelligence; is that

15 a fair statement?

16 A. Yes, and he was supposed to draft a plan of counter-intelligence

17 security and he was duty-bound to do that, and he was supposed to show

18 that to his commander, i.e., the officer that he was subordinated to.

19 Q. Sir, something like Operation Stit in 1995, which you approved?

20 A. As far as I can remember, at the time I was not at the command.

21 I was probably undergoing treatment and that operation never came to

22 anything. There was just the plan on how to use the corps and its

23 brigades. I believe that this was the first time in the war that all the

24 documents were drafted in keeping with the commander's decision on the

25 use of the units.

Page 31622

1 As a result of that, the security organ must have drafted his

2 contribution. As far as you can remember, I never approved that plan.

3 Q. We'll take a look at this plan later which was approved by

4 somebody acting as commander of the Zvornik Brigade, but if we start,

5 because the -- I want to establish clearly that we understand each other

6 what is intelligence gathering and what is counter-intelligence.

7 So you will agree with me that the intelligence function, it

8 refers to all actions taken to find out what the enemy is doing and what

9 the enemy intends to do, how, and when. Do you agree that this is a very

10 general, but correct definition of "intelligence"?

11 A. Partly. Intelligence gathering is a very complex activity.

12 Intelligence sources vary but let me just add something to your

13 definition. The intelligence organ is concerned with the whole area from

14 the front line in depth into the enemy territory, and a security organ is

15 interested in the area from the front line into the area within its own

16 ranks.

17 Q. Well, sir, that's the answer to my next question, but first I

18 want you to tell me am I wrong in saying that the aim of intelligence to

19 gather information on the enemy; is that a wrong statement, or is that

20 correct?

21 A. The main purpose of an intelligence organ is to collect

22 intelligence on the enemy.

23 Q. And counter-intelligence, on the other hand, it refers to all

24 actions taken to prevent the enemy from learning what you, your unit

25 intends to do, as well as how your unit intends to do so. In other

Page 31623

1 words, counter-intelligence, the aim of that is preventing the enemy from

2 gaining intelligence on your unit. Do you agree with this general

3 statement?

4 A. Yes. Their purpose is to prevent leak of military intelligence

5 and figuratively speaking, the intelligence of one side clashes with the

6 counter-intelligence service of the other side.

7 Q. Thank you. That's very useful. Sir, there are many ways to

8 prevent the enemy from gaining information and at the brigade level, I

9 suggest that one way to do this is to ensure that no member of the

10 brigade is in a position to be black-mailed into providing confidential

11 and secret information to the enemy; do you agree with that?

12 A. I agree that no individual should be put in a position to provide

13 intelligence to the enemy side.

14 Q. Let's look at one example together. If one of your officers is a

15 gambling addict who owes lots of money to many people, you will agree

16 with me that this officer represents a threat because he may be

17 black-mailed into providing secret information about the brigade in

18 exchange for the settlement of his gambling debt. Is that a good

19 example?

20 A. Well, his gambling activities have to involve the enemy. If he

21 gambles with his own friends, colleagues, and peers then you have not

22 provided the best of examples; however, I see your point. I understand

23 what you're saying.

24 Q. Maybe let's look at another example. What about an officer who

25 is married but who has an affair with another woman. You will agree with

Page 31624

1 me that he may be a threat to the security of the unit because he may be

2 black-mailed into revealing secret information about the brigade in

3 exchange for not telling his wife about the affair he is having. Is that

4 a fair example?

5 A. Well, from the JNA practice, I can tell you that this was their

6 favorite subject of the security organ or whether somebody had

7 100 German marks and exchanged them for dinars at the moment when marks

8 could not be used in the former Yugoslavia, that's a good example. But

9 what did that service do. They would never report to the commander to

10 allow him to react on time and prevent the further decay of that person.

11 They want to keep that for themselves and then gloat in how clever they

12 were: For example this would be like looking at the person drowning and

13 while he is drowning, the two of them are discussing whether the person

14 can swim or rather whether he cannot swim and while this discussion is

15 going on, the man drowns. So this was the whole purpose of the -- of

16 that service in the army.

17 Q. Sir, I'm trying to let you answer the questions with every detail

18 that you can. I'm simply asking please try to keep to the question I'm

19 asking, so we can finish as soon as possible. But I won't stop you, if

20 you want to explain, it's your right.

21 Sir, I give you another example, and this will be my last one

22 before moving on. And it's that of an officer who illegally obtains

23 stolen goods. Do you agree with me that he's a threat to the security of

24 the brigade because he can be black-mailed into providing secret

25 information for not -- in exchange for not revealing that he obtained

Page 31625

1 illegal goods. Do you agree with this example?

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey.

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm going to ask if he's got something in mind

4 with these hypotheticals, I think he ought to just put it to the general.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: I've been trying to think along the same lines, but

6 what stopped me was remembering part of the witness's previous evidence

7 in relation to his frequenting his girlfriend in 1995 having premised

8 that he had already quit with his wife so ...

9 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, I can enlighten my colleague from

10 the Prosecution, there will be specific example put forward, and the line

11 of questioning in this regard is linked to one very specific allegation

12 which is that this is the motivation of this witness --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Then go straight there. I mean it's ...

14 MR. BOURGON:

15 Q. Sir, you will agree with me that in the example we just covered,

16 the officer in the brigade who is responsible to investigate these

17 matters is the chief of security; is that correct?

18 A. Since you are claiming that he can't do anything without his

19 commander then the order should come from the commander, but let me give

20 you an example to make things easier for you. Since the girl with whom I

21 lived at the time, and I was not married to anybody else, was looked at

22 by the security service as a possible accomplice of the German security

23 service, I was in a very unfavourable position. I was responsible for

24 everything, and I was suspicious. Everybody suspected me.

25 Q. When did you find this out and how, that you were a suspect?

Page 31626

1 A. There were rumours about that person, and her sister lived in

2 Germany at the time. My drivers and my escorts would learn things, and

3 they would talk to me.

4 Q. Sir, do you agree with me that the rules of security allow the

5 chief of security of a brigade to investigate the private lives of

6 members of the brigade? I can show you the rules if you want, but if we

7 can go quicker if we agree that the rules allow him to do that?

8 A. Yes, I agree, but that would be during the -- during Stalin and

9 Beria's era. Beria, who was the chief of the KGB during Stalin's reign

10 and he famously said, "Give me a name and I'll find a crime to attach to

11 the name."

12 Q. Sir my question is not quite this one. My question is in 1995 --

13 from the time you were commander of the Zvornik Brigade, and that Drago

14 was your chief of security, did the rules of security allow him to

15 investigate the private lives of members of the brigade to find out if

16 there was a security threat? Did the rules allow for that? We can go

17 through the rules, I don't mind that. I'm just trying to go quicker.

18 A. According to my understanding of the rules, he could, as part of

19 his investigation, he could enter an apartment, search the apartment,

20 seize objects, bring in persons; and when approximate comes to

21 investigating other people's private lives based on his assumption that

22 that person might be a threat for the brigade, that was out of the

23 question. He was not allowed to do that.

24 MR. BOURGON: If I can in e-court, please, 3D550.

25 Q. Sir, the document that will appear before you was used during

Page 31627

1 your examination-in-chief, and at that time it had the number 7D717.

2 However, at that time, only seven articles were translated into English;

3 but for the purpose of my cross-examination, I need different articles so

4 that's why we now have it under 3D550, and I would like to have page 2 in

5 English and page 23 and 24 in B/C/S.

6 I draw your attention to Article 86. I think it's the next page

7 in B/C/S, 86. For the record, the title of this document is, "The rules

8 on responsibility of the command of a brigade or regiment."

9 Sir, if we look at Article 86, would you agree with me that the

10 kind of preventative actions which can be taken by the security organ to

11 protect the security of the brigade and its information is covered by

12 Article 86 which provides as follows:

13 "The security organ prepares, proposes and conducts

14 counter-intelligence work and measures in order to prevent and detect

15 espionage, sabotage, propaganda, and other types of subversive

16 activities.

17 "Counter-intelligence activities of security organs are conducted

18 in line with special regulations and in accordance with the plan of the

19 superior command security organs."

20 Do you agree that this covers investigating information about the

21 private lives of members of the brigade?

22 A. It says here that the security organ prepares, proposes, and

23 implements counter-intelligence. Since we are talking about the command

24 of the brigade, this refers to the security organ in that command, but it

25 is not very clear who the proposals go to whether the commander or

Page 31628

1 somebody else and your understanding of the whole matter is far too

2 broad.

3 What a security organ should not do in his counter-intelligence

4 work and should not show to the commander as are his methods of work, his

5 sources, his associates and techniques. However, the results obtained as

6 a result of such work and the threats for the unit has to be communicated

7 in time because it is only that way that the commander will be able to

8 react in an appropriate way.

9 Let me tell you in the Republika Srpska army, there was security

10 organs in the corps, there were over 50 of them, of whom only one of had

11 completed a course and academy at the brigade level, and one in the corps

12 command. Do you think they really understood the meaning of this. They

13 acted like Inspector Clouseau of sort, and they did exactly what you are

14 saying that they did. They investigated other people's private lives.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have Inspector Clouseau in Canada?

16 MR. BOURGON: I do, Mr. President.

17 Q. Sir, do you remember that on 9 April 1993, you were given an Opel

18 Vectra car as a gift by the municipality of Zvornik.

19 If I can have in e-court, please, in the meantime 3D525?

20 A. I remember the event, but I can't remember the date.

21 Q. Sir, according to this document, this vehicle was given to you as

22 a sign of gratitude for everything you did for the well being of the

23 Serbian people in the Zvornik municipality on 9 April 1993. This

24 document is signed by Branko Grujic, who was then the president of the

25 Zvornik Municipality Assembly. Do you recall this event?

Page 31629

1 A. Yes, this was on the occasion of the day of the municipality. It

2 was given to me as reward and some other people received other gifts.

3 This was not contrary to the regulations that were in effect at the time.

4 This was a normal procedure.

5 MR. BOURGON: If I can have page 2 of this document on e-court,

6 please, also in B/C/S.

7 Q. Sir, Branko Grujic is the same person who would have told you

8 about the prisoners of war on 15 July; is that correct?

9 A. Yes, one and the same.

10 Q. And he's the same person whom I cannot speak to today because he

11 is in gaol in Belgrade for events which took place in the Zvornik

12 municipality in 1992; is that correct?

13 A. Yes, he did not want to talk with my Defence counsel either.

14 Q. And sir, can you tell us if you remember, what is it that you did

15 that was so special for the well-being of the Serbian people during the

16 first three months of arriving in Zvornik?

17 A. Nothing special. I didn't do anything special. This was a

18 celebration the day of the municipality, and it was their decision. This

19 is what they wanted to do at the time when there was no sale going on and

20 when there was barter and exchange of goods; and I understood this as

21 their way of showing me that they wanted me to behave the way they wanted

22 me to behave, and this never happened the way they wanted.

23 MR. BOURGON: If I can go back to page 1 of this document.

24 Q. Sir, can you confirm that this is the vehicle that you received

25 from the municipality?

Page 31630

1 A. I know that it was an Opel Vectra. As for the numbers, I

2 wouldn't know.

3 Q. Can you confirm that you had already been driving this car before

4 it was given to you in April 1993 by the municipality?

5 A. I'm not sure. I know that that vehicle was a company car and

6 that it had the registration plates of the Army of Republika Srpska

7 because it had not been registered as a civilian vehicle.

8 Q. Sir, did you know a person having the nickname Bekerac?

9 A. Bekerac as far as I can remember, was a young lad who was my

10 driver for a rather short period of time. I can't remember his real

11 name.

12 Q. And do you recall that Bekerac was let off from the Zvornik

13 Brigade by yourself?

14 A. Well, I demobilised a lot of soldiers at somebody's request. I

15 don't know whether he was among them. If he was, there must be a

16 document to that effect.

17 Q. And sir, do you know a person by the name of Dragan Spasojevic?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And Dragan Spasojevic, you know, was between April 1992 and

20 February 1993 the director of Auto Transport company in Zvornik; is that

21 correct?

22 A. I don't know when he was the director of Auto Transport. I know

23 that he was the president of the executive board in the municipality and

24 later, he worked at the Glinica factory. He was either an

25 assistant-director or something to that effect.

Page 31631

1 Q. Sir, I have information that in early 1993, Dragan Spasojevic and

2 your ex-driver Bekerac, they went to the town of Sabac in Serbia where

3 they picked up the Opel Vectra that was given to you as a gift, that they

4 removed the German licence plates that were on the car, that they

5 replaced them with military licence plates and brought the vehicle to

6 Zvornik. Does that refresh your memory in any way as to where this car

7 comes from?

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.

9 MR. HAYNES: What information?

10 MR. BOURGON: This is the information I have obtained, and that's

11 the foundation for my question; and I do have the information and I can

12 provide it to my colleague after that, but it's the foundation that is

13 required for me to put the question to the witness whether he knows, on

14 the basis of this information, which is not made up, if this is what my

15 colleague is insinuating; and I'm allowed to put the question to the

16 witness whether that refreshes his memory as to where the car comes from.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.

18 MR. HAYNES: Provide me with the information, and I'll see

19 whether there is a foundation for the question. It might be an idea to

20 take a break now.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: When was the break supposed to be?

22 MR. HAYNES: 20 past.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Then we'll have it now. 25 minutes. Thank you.

24 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.

25 --- Recess taken at 5.16 p.m.

Page 31632

1 --- On resuming at 5.49 p.m.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Bourgon.

3 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.

4 Q. Sir, when we left off, we were talking about the car which was

5 given to you by the Zvornik municipality in April of 1993. My question

6 is do you know where this car comes from?

7 A. I know that Mr. Spasojevic drove me there. He said the car was

8 from Serbia.

9 Q. Sir, do you know a man by the name -- and when was this, sir,

10 that Spasojevic drove you there?

11 A. He didn't drive me there, he drove the car there.

12 Q. He went to pick up the car there and he brought it to Zvornik?

13 A. I don't know when he left. He drove the car up to Zvornik.

14 That's what I know. And he told me that the car was from Serbia

15 originally.

16 Q. And then that car, as you mentioned earlier, had some military

17 licence plates on it; is that correct?

18 A. Until it got a pair of civilian plates, it had military plates.

19 It had all the appropriate documents and occasionally it was used as an

20 official vehicle.

21 MR. BOURGON: If I can have in e-court, please, 3D525, and the

22 third page of this document both in English and in B/C/S.

23 Q. Sir, according to this document that is before you, this vehicle

24 Opel Vectra would have been registered in your name on 10 February 1992

25 in Visegrad and would have had then civilian plates.

Page 31633

1 My only question is why would the vehicle, which according to

2 this document belonged to you, would then have military licence plates

3 and would then be given to you by the Zvornik municipality. Can you

4 explain that?

5 A. First of all let me explain what this means what you just said.

6 This is a traffic permit for this vehicle. The first box where it says

7 1992, that is when it was first registered, but that's got nothing to do

8 with my name. And the next column tells you that the vehicle was

9 registered to my name on this date when the traffic licence was issued

10 which means that I owned this vehicle as of the day of issuing of this

11 traffic permit.

12 Your own investigator may -- might as well have explained this

13 for your benefit what exactly this means.

14 Q. Sir, the only thing I'm asking is that I see a date of

15 10 February 1992 that the car was registered; and I'm asking why would a

16 car registered in your name, why would that be necessary for this car to

17 be given to you by the Zvornik municipality?

18 A. Say this car was now assigned to someone else, it would still

19 have all the same information, the 10th of February, 1992, and Visegrad,

20 the same plates, and the name of the new owner will be there too. The

21 vehicle was not mine in February 1992, but if you want, I can explain

22 where the information comes from because the people who got it registered

23 told me.

24 Q. And what did they tell you?

25 A. At the time, I was registered as residing in Visegrad, and my ID

Page 31645

1 document. This is a warning, an instruction as to how commanders should

2 treat the specific organs because evidently some of them did not know how

3 to behave towards them.

4 "Q. I'm going to ask you one very simple question: Did you take

5 the view, when you first saw this document, as a corps commander that it

6 changed the relationship between a commander and his security organ or

7 merely restated the position as it was?

8 "A. Your Honours, I'm a trained officer, and I knew how one

9 should treat the security organs. This is an instruction intended for

10 those young commanders who had arrived without having completed any

11 training beyond military academy, and they did not know how to behave, so

12 they made use of these people in ways other than what they were supposed

13 to be doing, nothing changed here. I acted like that even before."

14 Sir, my question is the following: When General Simic referred

15 to young commanders who arrived without having completed any training

16 beyond military academy, and who did not know how to behave towards

17 security and intelligence organs, would you agree that in October of

18 1994, you fit that description?

19 A. If you look at the preamble to this instruction, you will see

20 that Simic is wrong. This talks about lack of understanding at all

21 levels of command. Well, you could hear me out at least. It's your

22 question that I'm answering, none other.

23 Q. Please answer my question, and then we'll move on to the next

24 question.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.

Page 31646

1 MR. HAYNES: The basis for Mr. Bourgon must be the acceptance of

2 the accuracy of what General Simic said because he's one question ahead

3 of himself. If General Pandurevic does not agree with what General Simic

4 said before this Trial Chamber then the question Mr. Bourgon asks cannot

5 follow.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.

7 MR. BOURGON: I disagree entirely, Mr. President. My question

8 was something completely different. General Simic says that there were

9 young officers coming who did not have any training on the security

10 organs beyond what they had learned at military academy, and they did not

11 know how to treat security organs.

12 Does he fit that description? And my next question will be: Did

13 he have any training at the time on how to deal with security organs?

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed with your answer. You are perfectly

16 capable of answering this question, but if you don't agree with what

17 General Simic has purported as having said by Mr. Bourgon, then please

18 speak out.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. First of

20 all let me say that General Simic is wrong. This wasn't addressed to

21 young commanders. This was addressed to all levels of command in the

22 VRS. It encompasses the entire army.

23 As for there being different commanders, different battalions and

24 brigades, that is a fact. There were trained people, qualified people,

25 not sufficiently trained people, ranked people, and unranked people. It

Page 31647

1 wasn't just about me having a relationship with the security organs but

2 with all the other organs in the brigade command. If I remember

3 General Simic's evidence correctly, he said that his security organs were

4 into POW exchange, into visiting POW camps, and so on and so forth; but

5 that is not enshrined anywhere in the rules governing the work of the

6 security organ so one is perfectly entitled to ask one's self how

7 familiar was he with the specific rule.

8 MR. BOURGON: I'll move to my next question, sir.

9 Q. Did you have any training beyond military academy with respect to

10 how and what relationship should exist between the brigade commander and

11 his security organ?

12 A. I was familiar with the brigade rule, with the brigade regiment

13 competence rule, with the rules of service of the JNA, and the

14 provisional regulations on the Army of Republika Srpska. I was also in

15 principal familiar with the tasks and remit of the security organ.

16 My own security organ or my own assistant for security, in my

17 understanding, did not have the required knowledge, the required level of

18 training, the required level of education, or, indeed, the required rank

19 to discharge that duty. He could try as hard as he could, but he could

20 never have become the sort of security officer that a fully-trained

21 colonel might have been with all the appropriate educational background

22 and all the relevant courses taken and completed.

23 Q. Sir, once again, and Mr. President, I note for the record that

24 this was not my question, and that my question was not answered.

25 Moreover, sir, you will agree with me that what you just said at the

Page 31648

1 beginning of your answer is completely contrary to what you said in the

2 beginning of your examination-in-chief when you said that you were not

3 familiar with the doctrine and the rules of the JNA; is that correct,

4 sir?

5 A. The rules that I enumerated are not doctrinaire rules of the JNA.

6 The doctrine is much more far ranging and encompasses much more than

7 that. This is the abridged version of the rules that one must

8 familiarise one's self with if one really wants to work with the army and

9 up to brigade level, I should say.

10 Q. And sir, did you follow any formal training in the VRS before

11 becoming brigade commander in December of 1992?

12 A. No, I didn't.

13 Q. Sir, in respect of the same Mladic instruction, do you recall the

14 testimony of Prosecution witness Richard Butler before this Trial Chamber

15 and that was in January of 2008?

16 A. I don't remember the details of that.

17 Q. I will quote from transcript page 19643, line -- between lines 3

18 and 6:

19 "Q. All right. Now, referring to the Mladic instruction, the

20 question was it lays out in further detail but do you find that this

21 instruction of 24 October changes the fundamental rules as they were used

22 and set out in the JNA and used in the VRS?

23 "A. No, sir, it does not."

24 Do you recall Richard Butler saying this?

25 A. If you are reading from the transcript, then he did say that, but

Page 31649

1 I wouldn't agree that Mr. Butler is more familiar with these rules than

2 any other rules than the JNA than I was.

3 Q. And sir, do you recall that the Prosecution expert Butler had the

4 exact same opinion as the expert that we called in the defence case of

5 Drago Nikolic, which is Petar Vuga, that they both agree that the Mladic

6 instruction did not change anything to the relationship which must exist

7 between a commander and his security organ?

8 A. This instruction clarified certain provisions of the rules of

9 security service. It provided for rewards, promotions, punishments as

10 not being under the authority of the commander but rather for the sector

11 for security and intelligence in the Main Staff. It also provided the

12 security organs with certain powers which should not -- they should not

13 have had under no circumstances.

14 This instruction mixes up a lot of things and it aberrates from

15 certain rules that were in effect at the time.

16 Q. Sir, so it is your testimony that General Simic, Prosecution

17 expert Richard Butler and defence expert Colonel Petar Vuga are all wrong

18 and you are right; is that correct?

19 A. Mr. Simic spoke about the people this was intended for. He did

20 not talk about the contents of the document. Mr. Petar Vuga researched

21 the jobs of the security organs and how much time they should spent on

22 that, and he said that 80 percent is counter-intelligence and 20 percent

23 is security. All of this is very hard to measure, and if we take this

24 statement as correct then we can also take a look at the establishment

25 book of the organs of security administration of the Main Staff; and you

Page 31650

1 will see that there is no 80 percent staff in the counter-intelligence

2 organ as opposed to 20 percent in the rest of the service. The ratio may

3 be 25 percent of the staff in the counter-intelligence department of the

4 administration of the Main Staff. The methodology used here is simply

5 not acceptable.

6 Q. Sir, you can confirm that when you receive this instruction and

7 you testified that you received this in two different forms from the

8 corps and from the Main Staff, can you confirm that at no point in time

9 in 1994, having received those two documents, you sought any

10 clarification from the corps chief of security or from the corps

11 commander?

12 A. I received an instruction from the corps command which says that

13 any explanation about the implementation of this instruction would be

14 provided by the security organ of the Drina Corps, and I believe that

15 such a clause did not exist in the instruction received from the Main

16 Staff. Having received this document, I discontinued all of my previous

17 efforts in terms of my requests towards the security organs because I

18 realised that the only boss of the security organs in the VRS is

19 General Mladic acting through General Tolimir and that was the end of it.

20 There was nobody else.

21 Q. Once again, sir, I note for the record that this is not the

22 question I asked you, and I will say my question again.

23 Did you or did you not seek any clarification concerning this

24 document from the corps chief of security in 1994? Yes or no.

25 A. Indirectly, I said that I didn't, and I am confirming it again, I

Page 31651

1 didn't.

2 Q. Did you or did you not seek any clarification from the corps

3 commander concerning this instruction?

4 A. I read the instruction, and I understood the instruction. I

5 actually said to myself, This is useless. Leave it be as it is.

6 Q. And you did not seek any clarification from anybody else

7 concerning this instruction in 1994; is that correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. And even if you testified today that you understood the

10 instruction at the time, you'll agree with me that even if you received

11 the instruction and you understood the instruction, you continued to use

12 2nd Lieutenant Nikolic contrary to the JNA rules of security by, for

13 example, putting him on duty as brigade duty operations officer; is that

14 correct, sir?

15 A. That's correct, and I'm sorry that within the context of some

16 institutional matters, Drago Nikolic's name keeps on being mentioned. I

17 would like to apologise to him as a person. My personal attitude towards

18 Drago was not as it's portrayed. However, there is a clause in the rules

19 of service stipulating that all officers and noncommissioned officers

20 have to be on duty, and that the security organs are on duty in their

21 respective organs. However, duty service in the security organs at the

22 corps level was not organised, and Drago Nikolic did not have any duty

23 service anywhere; and that's why I signed him to the duty service where I

24 was.

25 Q. Sir, I can show you the document but maybe in order to save time,

Page 31652

1 you can just agree with me that assigning your chief of security to the

2 duty of brigade operations duty officer, whether it is at the brigade

3 command or at the brigade forward command post is against Rule 93 of the

4 rules of security. Do you agree or do you want us to go through the

5 rule?

6 A. There's no need for me to look at the rules. I agree. But I

7 achieved a very good effect. Drago could check many things in his own

8 service as a duty operations officer, he could listen to the information

9 received from the battalion, from the battalion commanders, and he also

10 could hear what information he received from the security organs of the

11 same battalion describing the same events.

12 Q. Sir, did you or did you not disobey the Mladic instruction by

13 signing Drago Nikolic as duty operations officer?

14 A. I violated the stipulations of the instruction, but I did not put

15 everybody on duty service.

16 Q. And sir, did you or did you not continue to insist on checking

17 any correspondence from Drago Nikolic after receiving the Mladic

18 instruction?

19 A. I did not check his correspondence before or after the

20 instruction.

21 MR. BOURGON: If I can in e-court, please, 3D544.

22 Q. Sir, you can see from this document that it was sent from the

23 Main Staff on the 23rd of December, 1994, to a number of formations

24 including the Drina Corps; is that correct?

25 A. Yes, but could I please look at the second page?

Page 31653

1 Q. Well, now that we are on the second page, you can confirm that

2 this document was issued by General Mladic.

3 A. Yes.

4 MR. BOURGON: If we can go back to the first page, please.

5 Q. Sir, this document was, as we can see from the first page, sent

6 personally to the commander of a number of units including the

7 Drina Corps; is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. You see that this document refers to the command and control of

10 the security organs in the VRS.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And if we look at the first paragraph, if you can read it for

13 yourself, would you agree that basically it says that the Mladic

14 instruction that we referred to earlier, the one dated October 1994, was

15 to have eliminated the observed problems and omissions of the command

16 organs through its consistent implementation and more efficient

17 engagement of the members of the security and intelligence organs. Do

18 you agree with that first paragraph what it says there?

19 A. I can see, yes, I can see it; and it says what it says, yes.

20 Q. And do you agree that the second paragraph, again which you can

21 read for yourself, basically states that lately, there's been new

22 instances of disregard for the above-mentioned instruction, instances

23 which have been registered as was the case in the Zvornik Brigade.

24 A. I can see that as well.

25 Q. And the next paragraph, where it says that:

Page 31654

1 These, that means the example in the Zvornik Brigade, and other

2 similar cases and the behaviour of certain commanders are in violation of

3 legal regulations of orders of the Main Staff of the VRS and of the

4 above-mentioned instruction and that these constitute an abuse of their

5 official status and overstepping their authority.

6 A. Yes, the similar actions of particular commanders and I don't

7 know whether it refers only to me or somebody else as well.

8 Q. But at least to the Zvornik Brigade example; is that correct?

9 A. Many other things are mentioned above and then case one in the

10 Zvornik Brigade and then such and similar actions on the part of

11 particular commanders. I believe that I was not the only one.

12 MR. BOURGON: If we can go to the next page, please, of this

13 document.

14 Q. Sir, we see from this next page that the deadline for taking

15 action is 20 January.

16 A. Well, I'm not sure that the corps instruction arrived before this

17 document was issued. As far as I can remember, it arrived in December.

18 Maybe we did not have an instruction to act upon and this order arrived

19 and applied to the security organs, not to the intelligence organs. But

20 I know that after the instruction, I did not treat Drago Nikolic the way

21 I did before the instruction arrived.

22 Q. Well, sir, that's exactly my point. After receiving not only the

23 October instruction and we know that you continued after that with the

24 measures taken in your security organ, but after receiving this second

25 document, you can confirm that you continued using Drago Nikolic as

Page 31655

1 brigade operations duty officer; is that correct, sir?

2 A. I'm sure that I received information from the corps. I could not

3 have received the information from the Main Staff before the instruction

4 of the corps. That may well be the case. However, the Drina Corps

5 instruction ensued at least a month later after the instruction of the

6 Main Staff and Drago remained performing the duty service. Nobody

7 explicitly asked me to withdraw my decision because they knew that he

8 would not have had a place to perform duty service and they knew that

9 there was room for him to be on duty where I put him.

10 Q. So you continued doing so but you never discussed this issue at

11 any time with either the corps or chief of security or the corps

12 commander; is that correct, sir?

13 A. I don't remember that I spoke to the chief of security. I know

14 that I sent requests to the corps commander to tell me how to deal with

15 the engagement of my assistant for security, and I appealed to the higher

16 security commands including the Drina Corps.

17 Q. Well, I thought you said earlier that you never sought

18 clarification concerning the instruction, and it is the first time that

19 we hear from you that you did ask the corps commander or send a request

20 to the corps commander to tell you how to deal with your security organ;

21 is that correct, sir?

22 A. No, it's not correct, Mr. Bourgon. I believe that on

23 examination-in-chief and now on cross, perhaps in the course of today or

24 even earlier, I requested from the corps commander to inform me whether

25 the security organ of the corps would engage my assistant for security.

Page 31656

1 I was not interested in the exact position that I would give him, but I

2 knew that that was the regular procedure. I was to observe whether there

3 was an instruction or whether there wasn't one.

4 Q. Sir, during your examination-in-chief, you referred to the fact

5 that you only had 20 percent control over your security organ and that is

6 how you acted, and I think you repeated that today on a few occasions.

7 Would I be right in saying that this is your position regarding

8 Drago Nikolic in 1994 and 1995, that you only controlled him for 20

9 percent. That's your position, isn't it?

10 A. It is.

11 Q. Well, in light of your testimony you'd like to ask you a few

12 questions and share a few documents with you to see what exactly what

13 Drago Nikolic was doing during that time.

14 Firstly, it's my understanding and you can confirm that from

15 March of 1993 until 29 January 1995, as a minimum, 2nd Lieutenant Nikolic

16 was the intelligence and security organ of the Zvornik Brigade. In other

17 words, he performed both functions, the gathering of intelligence and

18 counter-intelligence; is that correct?

19 A. Yes. I don't know when he was provided with a desk officer for

20 security and another one for intelligence, but it did happen during the

21 period that you referred to in your question.

22 MR. BOURGON: If I can have in e-court, please, 3D519.

23 Q. Sir, looking at the document which will appear before you, you

24 will agree with me that this, that it confirms that until at least

25 29 January, Drago Nikolic performed both the intelligence gathering and

Page 31657

1 counter-intelligence functions within the Zvornik Brigade?

2 A. Yes, but he had at least two more people under him during the

3 period that we are talking about.

4 Q. But did he perform as assistant commander for intelligence for

5 security, both functions?

6 A. He was the chief of that organ and both sides of that organ,

7 organs, worked concerned him.

8 Q. And as the chief of both organs, but as the assistant commander

9 for intelligence and security, he was directly subordinated to you as

10 commander of the Zvornik Brigade; is that correct?

11 A. We've already established that, and we've already repeated it

12 several times, it's correct.

13 Q. And it's only after this document was issued that the

14 intelligence function was transferred to be working under the Chief of

15 Staff; is that correct?

16 A. It's correct. I don't know when Captain Vukotic was transferred

17 and when a separate intelligence organ was established within the

18 framework of the staff.

19 MR. BOURGON: If I could have 3D444, please, in e-court.

20 Q. Sir, this is an intelligence report addressed to the security and

21 intelligence organ of the Drina Corps by 2nd Lieutenant Drago Nikolic on

22 12 May 1994; is that correct?

23 A. Correct. It doesn't have to mean that he drafted the document,

24 but it was his duty to sign it.

25 Q. And sir even though this document is not addressed to you, you

Page 31658

1 will agree with me that you would have seen this report if you were

2 present at the Zvornik Brigade command at the time it was compiled in

3 May 1994.

4 A. If we followed the logic that I had to be present every time when

5 a report was drafted, rather than reports being sent to me, it would have

6 been very difficult for me to see all the reports. I had to be kept

7 abreast. He might have informed me about it, but I don't know.

8 Q. I was just trying to be nice to you by saying that only if you

9 were present, you would have seen it; but whether or not you were present

10 as the commander, you would have been kept abreast of the intelligence

11 information compiled in this report; is that correct, sir?

12 A. I should have been kept up to speed, but I'm not sure about this

13 particular document.

14 Q. And sir, I suggest to you that you were always fully made aware

15 of any intelligence information gathered by Drago Nikolic; is that a fair

16 statement?

17 A. You may put it that way.

18 Q. I just want to confirm one thing concerning this document. The

19 first page in English says Lieutenant-Colonel Drago Nikolic, but you can

20 confirm that in the original version, it does say 2nd Lieutenant Nikolic;

21 is that correct?

22 A. Correct.

23 MR. BOURGON: If I can have in e-court, please, 3D329.

24 Q. Sir, this is another intelligence report compiled by

25 Drago Nikolic on 5 December 1994; is that correct?

Page 31659

1 A. Yes, but I see another person's signature here, it's not his

2 signature.

3 Q. Who is the report addressed to?

4 A. To the security and intelligence organ of the command. I don't

5 know which command. This a means that the document had to be filed in

6 the command of the Zvornik Brigade, this A/A.

7 Q. And sir, whether this document was addressed to any particular

8 corps command, you will agree with me that you can -- you would have seen

9 this report or have been made aware of its contents in December of 1994.

10 A. If the report was addressed to the corps command, I would have

11 probably not received it, but it was also possible that Drago or the

12 intelligence officer would have conveyed some pertinent information to

13 me.

14 Q. Sir, would any intelligence information gathered by the

15 Zvornik Brigade command, the security and intelligence organ be withheld

16 from you at any time?

17 A. Well, when it comes to intelligence, probably not; security,

18 probably yes. However, when I look at the document, I can see that it

19 contains information that neither Drago Nikolic nor our security organs

20 could obtain. He received information from the corps and then conveyed

21 or passed that information on to our lower units.

22 So that you don’t get an impression that to receive or obtain such

23 information, one would perhaps need to work for a month. Some things were

24 simply copied from the reports that were received from other sources.

25 Q. My question is: Was any intelligence information gathered or

Page 31660

1 obtained by the Zvornik Brigade command hidden from you at any time?

2 A. Well, this should not have been the case. Any intelligence had

3 to be conveyed to the commanding officer as soon as possible. The

4 intelligence that a commander is concerned with is the intelligence

5 relative to the activities of the enemy and any such intelligence had to

6 be conveyed to the commander as soon as possible.

7 Q. Sir, you will agree with me that once Drago Nikolic was no longer

8 the chief of the intelligence organ at some point in the spring of 1995,

9 that his knowledge of intelligence information gathered by the

10 Zvornik Brigade was much less. Do you agree with this statement?

11 A. In principle, yes. However, he was the assistant of the Chief of

12 Staff for intelligence submitted that information, and he could also

13 exchange that information with Drago Nikolic because those two services

14 were related; and since our relationship was how you describe it, but

15 provoked on my part, then I can also imagine that Drago Nikolic could

16 have kept relevant information for me to put me in a position not to be

17 able to act in time and to be perceived as an incompetent commander.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. We have to stop here.

19 MR. BOURGON: Mr. President, unfortunately I'm not finished with

20 my cross-examination.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: You've gone beyond your 12 hours.

22 MR. BOURGON: I am, and I ask for the indulgence of the

23 Trial Chamber.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: How much longer, Mr. Bourgon.

25 MR. BOURGON: I will need no more than 45 minutes to finish,