1 Wednesday, 18 February 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.26 p.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: So good afternoon. Madam Registrar, could you
6 please call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
8 number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you so much, ma'am. All the accused are
10 here. The composition is the same as yesterday with the exception of
11 Mr. Josse and Mr. Lazarevic that I don't see unless the column is in the
12 way. Okay.
13 So the understanding is, and correct me if I am wrong, that the
14 Popovic defence team has decided to reduce the cross-examination from
15 eight hours to two hours and that the Nikolic defence team has increased
16 its request from about 45 minutes to about one hour today; correct.
17 MR. BOURGON: That is correct, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Stick to the one hour, please, Mr. Bourgon and good
19 afternoon to you, and good afternoon to you, Mr. Pandurevic. Let's
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
22 WITNESS: VINKO PANDUREVIC [Resumed]
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Judges,
25 good afternoon, colleagues, and good afternoon, sir.
1 If I could have in e-court, please, 3D444.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon: [Continued]
3 Q. Sir, this is a document that we looked at yesterday and I just
4 have one quick question. If you can read the first page of this
5 document, the first paragraph where it says:
6 "In addition to information submitted previously, our associate
7 Zmaj has told us the following ..."
8 I would just like to confirm that you know that Zmaj was a Muslim
9 that was used as a secret source by 2nd Lieutenant Nikolic to obtain
10 intelligence information on the enemy.
11 A. I've never heard the code-name before, the way it's written here.
12 If you say that he was a Muslim forwarding information to Nikolic then
13 that must be true. I can't confirm or deny.
14 Q. Well, then, can you confirm, sir, that you were aware that
15 Drago Nikolic was using secret sources to obtain intelligence information
16 of which you would be made aware?
17 A. I don't know whether he had any persons on the Muslim side
18 working with him, forwarding this sort of information to him. Perhaps he
19 did, it's just that he never told me about that.
20 Q. Well that's exactly my question, sir. It says here:
21 "In addition to information submitted previously, our associate
22 Zmaj ..." is it your testimony today that you were never informed that
23 Drago Nikolic was using associates as they are referred to in this
24 report, to obtain intelligence information of which you would be made
1 A. As far as I understand the methods that they used in their work,
2 he would never disclose to anyone his network of associates. This
3 information is about the Sekovac Brigade and the Vis [phoen] facility
4 which was in their defence zone. Perhaps he received information from
5 them and perhaps he obtained information himself from another source, I
6 really don't know.
7 Q. Once again, sir that's not my question. Were you made aware that
8 Drago Nikolic used associates or secret sources to obtain intelligence
9 information that you were made aware of while you were brigade commander
10 whether it's a Muslim or any other associates?
11 A. Well, I'm telling you he probably had sources, I didn't know who
12 the people were or their whereabouts. I received information as it was.
13 Q. So then when you saw this report here associate Zmaj you never
14 asked any question, Who is Zmaj?
15 A. That's why the word itself strikes me itself as strange, Zmaj. I
16 had never noticed that word before so I'm asking myself if I had ever
17 heard the code-name used before in the context of this report which
18 doesn't necessarily imply that he did not exist.
19 Q. That's not what I'm saying, sir. Did you hear of any other code
20 names of associates used by Drago Nikolic, and he would say, I've
21 obtained this information which I'm telling you today from one of my
22 associates and provide you with the name of the associates?
23 A. I don't think he ever mentioned the names of his associates to
24 me. The usual thing to do was to say source reliable, information
25 verified, or non-verified and that was the extent of what I would
1 normally learn about a source.
2 Q. And one last question on this document. Look down to the
3 before-last paragraph, I hope you have the same in your language, if I
4 can have -- yes, you do where it says:
5 "The associate was inserted back into enemy territory in the
6 evening of 10 May 1995
7 scheduled for the evening of 14 May 1994."
8 So you're telling us that you never had information like this
9 from Drago Nikolic during the time you were commander of the Zvornik
10 Brigade; is that what you're telling us?
11 A. I'm not saying that. I don't know whether I ever learned those.
12 I don't remember. He would have had to forward this type of information
13 to me. That much is true but I'm telling you about the sources. He
14 certainly was not disclosing his sources to me.
15 Q. I'll say again, sir. Did you, while you were brigade commander,
16 did Drago Nikolic come to you and say, I obtained this information from
17 one of my associates and he gave you that intelligence information,
18 whether in writing or orally? Did that happen or did that never happen,
19 according to your testimony?
20 A. Again, he did forward information to me, but he would not specify
21 the source. Sometimes he would forward to me information that had
22 arrived from the corps, generally speaking, regrettably, the Army of
23 Republika Srpska, the Drina Corps specifically as far as I know, did not
24 always have the right information and did not always know in time what
25 the enemy's intentions were. This was one of our weaknesses that marked
1 us throughout the war, poor intelligence work.
2 Q. That's not what I'm asking you, sir. When Drago Nikolic provided
3 you information, did he tell you that he had information coming from
4 secret sources and he gave you what the information was? Did he or did
5 he not?
6 A. For the third time, he did forward information to me, but I did
7 not know the source.
8 MR. BOURGON: If I can have in e-court, please, 3D529.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we go into private session for just one
12 JUDGE AGIUS: By all means. Let's go into private session and
13 wait until you -- I give you the go ahead.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just out of an --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, one moment. Wait until I give you the
16 go ahead.
17 [Private session]
11 Pages 31667-31668 redacted.
5 [Open session]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: The reason why I'm saying this, it was explained to
7 me yesterday that since the order is to be translated, sometimes it
8 happens that we switch on from one mode to the other prematurely. So
9 let's move on.
10 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Q. Sir, this is a report on the combat readiness of the Zvornik
12 Infantry Brigade for the period of 1 January until 31 December 1994; is
13 that correct?
14 A. I don't have the document yet. Here it is. Yes, that's correct.
15 Q. Sir, one of the purpose of this report is to review the
16 activities in which the Zvornik Brigade was involved during 1994; is that
18 A. I see the date this was done, the 27th of January, 1995. I was
19 not there then, I was receiving treatment elsewhere. This was supposed
20 to be an analysis of combat readiness and not a report on the situation
21 in relation to combat readiness. That's how the title should have read,
22 in relation to 1994.
23 Q. Sir, have you seen this type of document before for other years
24 at any time, and does it normally include a review of the main activities
25 conducted by the brigade in the previous year?
1 A. Yes. Analyses are conducted on a yearly or bi-yearly basis
2 depending on the level of command.
3 Q. And this report also provides the status of the brigade in terms
4 of combat readiness as of the end of 1994; is that correct?
5 A. Yes, in relation to 1994 in it's entirety. This is an analysis
6 of combat readiness according to each of its elements. There is a
7 standard form that is used and the elements recur every year virtually
8 across the units.
9 Q. Another objective of this report is to highlight if, as of the
10 end of 1994, there are any problems which need to be resolved in order to
11 increase the combat readiness of the brigade; is that correct?
12 A. Well, the purpose of the analysis is to review the overall
13 situation, to analyse the strengths and the weaknesses, spotting workable
14 solutions, spotting omissions, shortcomings, weaknesses and taking
15 measures to enhance the level of combat readiness.
16 MR. BOURGON: If I can have in e-court, please, page 15 of this
17 document in English and page 17 in B/C/S. The last page of the document
18 in B/C/S. Yes, that's the one.
19 Q. Sir, you can confirm that this document was compiled and signed
20 by your Chief of Staff Dragan Obrenovic?
21 A. It was compiled by Miodrag Dragutinovic, typed up by Misko Vasic,
22 and signed by Dragan Obrenovic.
23 Q. And you can also confirm that when the Chief of Staff of the
24 brigade prepares this document, he draws from and calls upon the officers
25 working in the command staff working under his direction as well as his
1 three assistant commanders to provide him to with the necessary
2 information, do you agree with that?
3 A. That is a simplification of the entire process, an over
4 simplification, actually. The commander's signature should have been
5 here indicating that I was there at the time or in this case deputy
6 commander Major Dragan Obrenovic. As for the analysis, it is conducted
7 based on a special plan in addition to the commander and the Chief of
8 Staff the persons involved are the assistants certain officers from the
9 operative organ and normally the commanders of subordinate units.
10 Q. Again, sir, that was not my question. I was not describing the
11 process, I was asking: Are the officers working in the command and your
12 three assistant commanders involved; yes or no?
13 A. Well that's what I said right now, Mr. Bourgon. Yes.
14 Q. Thank you. I move to my next question.
15 MR. BOURGON: If I can have in English page 12, and in B/C/S,
16 page 16.
17 Q. Sir, you see on this page the section of the report called
18 "Intelligence and Security Support." Would you agree with me that in
19 this section, it would have been compiled and drafted by
20 2nd Lieutenant Nikolic as the assistant commander for intelligence and
22 A. He should have been the one compiling this report but the combat
23 readiness category contains this element called security. Intelligence
24 is not an element of combat readiness but because of some of the details
25 to do with the establishment at the time, the whole thing was mixed up
2 Q. And sir, you will agree with me --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 MR. BOURGON:
5 Q. You will agree with me that this section here, section 6, and
6 maybe we can go to the next page because I'm told that there is a
7 difference between the English and the B/C/S. If I can have the next
8 page in B/C/S, please, so that we get the full title, intelligence and
9 security support.
10 A. We should go back, perhaps.
11 Q. Yes, if we can go back to the previous page in B/C/S.
12 Sir, this contains a review of the activities conducted within
13 the intelligence and security organ during the year 1994; is that
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And, sir, I'll just ask you to draw your attention to a few lines
17 in this document, and the first one I'd like to -- is to the sentence
18 which begins with:
19 "Reconnaissance of the enemy," that's in subparagraph A, the
20 second paragraph, where it says:
21 "Reconnaissance of the enemy has been carried out in force
22 according to the plans of the brigade command and battalion commands."
23 JUDGE KWON: Next page for B/C/S.
24 MR. BOURGON: Yes, next page in B/C/S, please, second paragraph.
25 Just above the 6 where it says:
1 "Reconnaissance of the enemy has been carried out in force
2 according to the plans of the brigade command and battalion commands."
3 Q. I'm just asking you if you read this sentence?
4 A. I don't think you've got that one.
5 Q. Well, you do because it's the paragraph just above --
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. And the last line of this paragraph reads, you can read that with
9 "All intelligence data has been delivered to users regularly in
10 duty." Did you read this part of the sentence?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now I draw your attention to subparagraph B where it says
13 "security support." I will read this paragraph and -- which reads as
15 "Great attention is given to counter-intelligence work.
16 Particular attention is devoted to preventing leaks of secret military
17 information. For this reason, 6 hand-held radios ..."
18 MR. BOURGON: It should be there in both languages,
19 Mr. President.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay it's okay, go ahead.
21 MR. BOURGON: "Six hand-held radios were confiscated from persons
22 talking to the Turks on the so-called hot line."
23 Do you see this, sir.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And a little further down, I draw your attention to where it
1 says, the paragraph beginning with:
2 "During the year we had one case where soldiers in the 4th
3 Battalion zone of responsibility had direct contact with the Turks.
4 Reaction was swift and further contact was prevented on the same day.
5 There is nothing to indicate that there have been such contacts in other
6 units, but it is common for soldiers to shout across the lines and talk
7 to the Turks. This phenomenon should be energetically discouraged."
8 The last sentence reads:
9 "All data collected by counter-intelligence work is duly
10 delivered to users."
11 Have you read this paragraph, sir?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And I draw your attention a little bit further down, the
14 paragraph that deals with the military police. It says, and you can read
15 from this paragraph beginning with "in the brigade ..." all the way down
16 to the last where it says attachment number 16.
17 Do you agree that in this paragraph, it says that requests were
18 received to take into custody the word used here in the English version
19 is "to bring in" 3.369 men from the Zvornik Brigade and 821 men from
20 other brigades. It also says, amongst other things, that 2.911 men from
21 the Zvornik Brigade were, in fact, taken into custody and that 211 were
22 kept into custody.
23 Do you see this information, sir?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You will agree with me that these are activities which would
1 involve some sort of supervision by 2nd Lieutenant Nikolic.
2 A. Well, of course he had to do something that was part of his job.
3 You see that he is here directly reporting on what the police did and how
4 many people were brought in. He talks about the problems regarding
5 command and control and a number of other problems too.
6 Q. And sir, on the basis of the information we just reviewed
7 together, those lines that we read together in this report, I put it to
8 you that it is simply incorrect to say that 2nd Lieutenant Nikolic was
9 performing tasks under your control for only 20 percent of the time; is
10 that correct, sir?
11 A. Well, ever since the two bodies were separated, that was
12 certainly true. In 1995, it was 20 percent under my orders. In relation
13 to this period, one couldn't state the same thing because both bodies
14 were still joined. However, this sabotage and reconnaissance platoon was
15 under the command of the Chief of Staff. This is an annual overview of
16 the activities. It was never the case that, for example, our
17 reconnaissance group was infiltrated deep into enemy territory. There
18 was always a scout in a trench with a pair of binoculars observing what
19 was going on and that was all the intelligence activity that he ever did.
20 Q. It appears to me that this is a change in your testimony as well
21 as not a real answer to the question I was asking; however, I'll ask you
22 a new one. In light of this information, and especially both lines where
23 it says that all data collected by intelligence has been delivered to
24 users regularly and duly and the fact that all data collected by
25 counter-intelligence work is duly delivered to users, that it is simply
1 incorrect to say that you were not kept aware of all information you
2 needed to command the Zvornik Brigade by 2nd Lieutenant Nikolic; is that
3 true, sir?
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes.
6 MR. HAYNES: Is what true? Is it true that it is a change in his
7 testimony? Is it true that it's not an answer to the question he was
8 asked? Is it true to any of the following six questions that appear in
9 that paragraph. What is the question there? It's not fair on the
10 witness to just to say is that true at the end of a speech like that.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
12 MR. BOURGON: I appreciate the tag team, they know that the time
13 is counted, I appreciate it, I have no problem with that; that's fair
14 game, but let me be very, very clear. There are two sentences there in
15 this report that I read. I read those two sentences with the witness:
16 All intelligence data has been delivered to users, all
17 counter-intelligence data has been delivered to users. And we've covered
18 that it's a report prepared by the Chief of Staff Obrenovic, and he said
19 that it's a report that he should have signed and I suggest to him on the
20 basis of these two sentences that it is not true that he was not being
21 kept informed of everything by Drago Nikolic. It's a very simple
22 question, and he can answer yes or he can deny it, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the way you have condensed it now into one
24 question, namely whether it's true that he, in other words, whether it's
25 true that it's not correct to say that he was not kept aware of all the
1 information he needed to command the Zvornik Brigade by the
2 2nd Lieutenant Nikolic, I think he can answer that now.
3 It's being put to you that what you've previously stated is not
4 correct and that, in other words, you were kept aware of all information
5 you needed to command the Zvornik Brigade by Accused Nikolic.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can answer that one,
7 Your Honours. We're looking at a theory here that counter-intelligence
8 was duly and timely forwarded to users, but we don't see the word
9 "commanders" there. We should see what sort of counter-intelligence
10 we're looking at and then throughout this trial we have arrived at the
11 conclusion that counter-intelligence was forwarded to a commander only to
12 the extent that the security organ believed was necessary. But they
13 certainly were forwarding all their counter-intelligence to their
14 superior security organ which doesn't necessarily mean that all of
15 Drago Nikolic's counter-intelligence was available to me.
16 MR. BOURGON:
17 Q. And sir, in all this report which covers the entire year 1994,
18 there is not one line that indicates that there was any type of problem
19 where the commander felt he was not getting the information he needed; is
20 that true or is that not true?
21 A. Well, this kind of report is drafting as a template. If we leave
22 out some specific information and figure, it might relate to any brigade
23 within the Army of Republika Srpska. It does not mention any problems of
24 which there were many, and therefore, this is not a good report because
25 it does not contain a critical analysis of the work of this organ. This
1 is just a cosmetic touches on how the work was done.
2 Q. Sir that's like your combat report of 16 July, it is inaccurate
3 and you provided inaccurate information to the corps command where you
4 had problems with Drago Nikolic, and you did not put it in that report.
5 Is that your testimony, sir?
6 A. I had no problems with Drago Nikolic on the 16th, I didn't even
7 see him. I don't know where he was or what he was doing, or whether he
8 had any problems himself.
9 Q. Maybe it's a question of translation. I'm not talking about the
10 16th. I'm talking this is another report where you provide false
11 information to the corps command because it's your testimony that there
12 were problems with Drago Nikolic and you did not put that in that report.
13 Is that your testimony or the fact that the report does not contain a
14 line shown that there were no problems. Which one of the two is it, sir?
15 A. Item 6 was drafted by Drago Nikolic and handed over to
16 Mijo Dragutinovic. Being an operative, he combined it. And put it
17 together. This was neither written by Dragutinovic, Obrenovic, or
19 Q. Is it a report approved by the brigade by whoever and sent to the
20 corps command; yes or no?
21 A. It is being sent.
22 MR. BOURGON: If I can have in e-court, please, 3D443.
23 Q. Sir, the document that will appear before you is the brigade
24 monthly work plan of the Zvornik Brigade command for the month of July
25 1995. Do you recognise this type -- this document, sir?
1 A. Yes, I am familiar with this kind of documents, may even probably
2 have even this one while it was being drafted, but I cannot say for sure.
3 Q. And these documents were drafted for every month for the brigade;
4 is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And they were drafted by the Chief of Staff at least one month in
7 advance; is that correct?
8 A. I think that the date, 31st of May is incorrect whereas the next
9 month as it says here is July. The schedule is being normally done at
10 the end of the current month for the next month.
11 Q. So the date at the top corner in the left 30 June 1995, would be
12 the correct date for this document for the upcoming month of July; is
13 that correct?
14 A. The print is too small, I can't see whether it is the 30th of
15 June or ... yes, it says the 30th of June.
16 Q. Thank you, sir. If I can have page 2 in both B/C/S and English,
17 please. And on this page 2, sir, I will draw your attention to number 8
18 where it says:
19 "Protect units from enemy intelligence and reconnaissance
21 Sir, you will agree with me that this was one of the focal tasks
22 as it says here, of the Zvornik Brigade, for the month of July 1995?
23 A. Well, yes, more or less the tasks didn't vary throughout the
25 MR. BOURGON: If I can have in e-court, please, page 4 in English
1 and page 3 in B/C/S.
2 Q. Sir, you are familiar with this type of report. I'd just like
3 you to confirm where the columns at the top say "tasks to be carried out
4 by," and before there is a column for cooperating. That simply means
5 exactly what it says; there's a person responsible for the task and there
6 are other persons or other organs cooperating in the task; do you agree
7 with that?
8 A. Whatever is written here is self-explanatory.
9 Q. You were the commander in 1995, I'm asking you to confirm; is
10 that correct, sir?
11 A. Well, that's how it's written.
12 Q. Sir, everywhere on this document where we see chief of security
13 or PKBO for assistant commander for security and intelligence, everywhere
14 we see these two terms, this would be a task either to be carried out by
15 Drago Nikolic or in which Drago Nikolic was involved as your
16 intelligence -- your security organ.
17 A. I would like, please, to see the page where the tasks of security
18 organs are displayed.
19 Q. By all means, sir. I refer to page 8 in English -- page 12 in
20 English and the corresponding page in B/C/S where the numbers 62 to 71
22 So it would be page 7 in B/C/S.
23 Now again that was not my question but you see here there is a
24 section 7, or 6 for security organ. And you see in the box where task to
25 be performed by, you see chief of security. And the task where we see at
1 line 71, we see OBO, that's also your organ of security; is that correct?
2 A. Yes, from item 70 all the way to item 76.
3 Q. So if I look at item 72, for example, it says "briefing by the
4 chief of brigade security and corps command." Those are briefings. And
5 it says here, "OBO," which means that this is a task for which the
6 security organ was responsible for.
7 A. Yes, this is a combination of his tasks relating to security,
8 counter-intelligence, and police work as well as his obligations
9 vis-a-vis the command corps and -- corps command and the Main Staff.
10 Q. And sir, you will agree with me that during that period for the
11 month of July 1995, 2nd Lieutenant Nikolic was regularly assigned as
12 brigade operations duty officer both at the brigade command and at the
13 brigade forward command post. Do you agree with this statement?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. BOURGON: If I can in e-court, please, 3D435.
16 Q. Sir, the document that will appear before you is a security
17 measures plan and it says, as you will see in the top left corner,
18 "Approved by the brigade commander." And you will agree with me -- well,
19 maybe we have the wrong document. 435, 3D435.
20 You will see in the top left corner that this security plan is
21 approved by the brigade commander and that the code-name is Stit 95; is
22 that correct?
23 A. Yes, I did mention something about this yesterday. This is one
24 of the attachment with the commander's order. This was supposed to be
25 approved by the commander, however, there is no handwritten signature and
1 this is one of the staff documents of the security organ, and it was his
2 duty to do this.
3 Q. So this document, sir, was attached to the order, signed by the
4 commander, but because there's no signature, it's not approved by you; is
5 that your testimony today?
6 A. Pursuant to the commander's decision, attachments are compiled
7 such as chief of various branches issue orders for their respective area,
8 the same applies to the security organ, the moral guidance organ, the
9 intelligence organs, et cetera, do their own share. All has to tally
10 with the commander's order or decision.
11 Q. And as brigade commander, did you ensure that they tallied with
12 your order?
13 A. I'm not familiar with this Operation Stit. I didn't participate
14 in the compilation thereof, but the commander should know whether all the
15 elements are in compliance with his decision.
16 Q. And sir this is for 1995 and it's not an operation but it's a
17 plan you can see; is that correct?
18 A. This is a plan of security measure as part of the combat plan or
19 the wartime engagement of the Drina Corps. All these documents were
20 drafted under code-name Stit 95.
21 MR. BOURGON: If I can have page 2 in B/C/S and English, please.
22 Q. Sir, when you look at this page 2, maybe we can just put that
23 in -- because I need the witness to see the columns.
24 Sir, we see that this is a number of tasks which all are tasks to
25 be performed by 2nd Lieutenant Drago Nikolic in 1995 in coordination with
1 various other organs in the brigade command and battalions; is that
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And this document shows the relationship which should exist
5 between the commander and the assistant commander for security; is that
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Sir, on the basis of the documents that we've reviewed together,
9 the brigade monthly plan for 1995, the security plan for Stit in 1995, as
10 well as the previous document we looked at, so that's what I want, my
11 question will be focussing on those three documents that we looked at.
12 And here is my question: On this basis, I put it to you that
13 other than for the fact that you discovered that 2nd Lieutenant Nikolic
14 provided information about you to the corps command security chief, there
15 were absolutely no problems between yourself and your assistant commander
16 for security in 1995; is that correct, sir?
17 A. Well, you have seen that the problems go back to 1994 whereas the
18 plan that we see now and other similar plans were exactly the reason for
19 misunderstanding. A lot of things were put on paper but not implemented.
20 Once I insist on this being implemented, then it is construed as my
21 meddling with the security issues.
22 If you are familiar with security operation, you would know where
23 his 80 percent engagement is and where the other 20 percent of his
24 engagement was.
25 Q. Sir, yesterday, you mentioned that you complained or you asked
1 the corps commander for direction as to how to employ your assistant
2 commander for security, Drago Nikolic. I'd like to know when you
3 contacted the corps commander, who you spoke to, and what you were told
5 A. I didn't seek guidelines from the corps commander for how to
6 engage Drago Nikolic. Instead, I asked the corps commander to inform me
7 that his assistant for security had planned to engage Drago Nikolic and
8 that was all. It happened on a few occasions throughout the whole war.
9 Q. In writing or orally, sir?
10 A. Orally.
11 Q. I move to a different topic which is my last one. You can
12 confirm that the commander of the military police company was Jasikovac
13 within the Zvornik Brigade?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And correct me if I am wrong, but you've said that when it comes
16 to the use of the military police company in combat, this has nothing to
17 do with Drago Nikolic; is that correct?
18 A. Not within his mandate, but if he is given an order to command
19 this company, he may do so.
20 Q. And, sir, in fact, the use of the military police in combat is a
21 command decision can only be taken by yourself or by someone standing in
22 by you such as, for example, your Chief of Staff acting as deputy
23 commander in your absence; is that correct, sir?
24 A. That's correct, because that was not the basic or the fundamental
25 purpose of engaging the police and that is in combat.
1 Q. And sir, I take it that this is what you were referring to when
2 you said, and I quote from page 30765, line 13 to 30766, line 9:
3 "In practical terms as your Chief of Staff or chief of -- if your
4 Chief of Staff or chief of security wanted to employ some military
5 policemen, would you necessarily be consulted about that?"
6 Your answer was: "Since all of these headquarters support units
7 are units attached to the staff" -- just one moment, please.
8 I was just trying to read a shorter quote to try to save some
9 time. It starts at line 22 of what I just said and it reads as follows:
10 "In the case of the police and in the case of
11 counter-intelligence work and the need in the course of such work to
12 involve the police or to use some kind of equipment well in such a case I
13 would not have been informed of the matter; but if it was necessary to
14 use the police company to carry out a particular task, or if it was
15 necessary to use a platoon from that company, I or someone standing in
16 for me would have been asked to authorise such a task."
17 Now, having read your testimony, I'm simply saying that if the
18 military police is to be used in combat, that this falls in the category
19 of particular task which can only be approved by you or someone standing
20 in for you; is that correct?
21 A. That is correct. If there is an emergency situation and the use
22 of police cannot be avoided, Drago could have issued an order to that
23 effect, but then he would be obliged to later inform the commander about
24 having used such a unit in combat.
25 MR. BOURGON: If I can have P322 in e-court, page 1 in English
1 and in B/C/S.
2 Q. Let's look at an example, sir. You will see a document which
3 you've seen before during this trial, it's a regular combat report dated
4 12 July 1995
5 command of the Drina Corps. I draw your attention to paragraph 2 where
6 it says that one military police platoon will set an ambush at
7 Dzafin Kamen by 1700 hours. Do you see that, sir?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And do you agree with me that Drago Nikolic would have had
10 nothing to do with the sending the military police platoon to
11 Dzafin Kamen?
12 A. That should have been a decision to take -- to be taken by
13 Dragan Obrenovic.
14 Q. And further down on this document, it says: "One military police
15 detachment was sent to Konjevic Polje pursuant to your order."
16 Do you see this, and in the meantime can I go in private session,
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go into private session, please.
19 [Private session]
7 [Open session]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: We are now in open session.
9 MR. BOURGON:
10 Q. Sir we also know from the evidence that Drago Nikolic was not on
11 duty on the 12 of July and that he had the day off; do you recall this
13 A. I don't remember that specific date but this is an example how
14 command functions should function. The command corps -- corps command
15 issues an order to the brigade command which could have been forwarded to
16 the company commander of Jasikovac or Nikolic, I don't know who the
17 command was forwarded to.
18 Q. Well, you said that you were familiar with the evidence that we
19 just reviewed in private session. What I'm telling you today is that
20 even if Drago Nikolic had been at the command on that day, you will agree
21 with me that he could not send the military police detachment without
22 seeking the authorisation of the Chief of Staff who was then acting as
23 deputy commander in your absence; is that correct?
24 A. The Chief of Staff or rather my deputy received this order, and
25 he told either Drago Nikolic or Jasikovac to send this police squad.
1 Q. My question was: Drago Nikolic could not have done so without
2 seeking the authorisation from the Chief of Staff who was standing in for
4 A. How could he have done if he hadn't received such an order and he
5 has no knowledge of what he is supposed to do with them and where to send
7 Q. Sir, if the Chief of Staff is present in the brigade command and
8 the brigade operations duty officer, whoever he is, received this order
9 from the corps command, he doesn't give it to Drago Nikolic, he gives it
10 to the Chief of Staff who is the one who can authorise the deployment of
11 this detachment to Konjevic Polje; is that correct, sir?
12 A. Yes, and if he hadn't -- had been here, it could have been
13 forwarded to Drago Nikolic or Jasikovac, and they would have done the
15 Q. And that is because if the Chief of Staff had not been there, the
16 brigade duty operations officer would then have taken a decision which
17 would be a command decision on behalf of the commander of the brigade; is
18 that correct, sir?
19 A. He wouldn't take a decision but rather relay the order from the
20 corps commander.
21 MR. BOURGON: If I can in e-court, please, 3D340.
22 Q. Sir, the document that will appear before you is an order issued
23 by yourself on 18 March 1995
24 see, is prevention of desertion and uncontrolled draining away from
25 soldiers -- away of soldiers from units, do you see this document, sir?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. You agree that preventing desertion or dealing with soldiers that
3 desert falls within the remit of 2nd Lieutenant Nikolic's
5 A. This was first and foremost the responsibility of the commanders
6 of the units from which these soldiers have deserted; however, if that
7 happened, then a military police company is engaged to locate these men
8 and gather them together.
9 Q. And as such, is that included within the remit of Drago Nikolic's
10 responsibilities because he supervises the military police; is that
12 A. Yes, and I commanded the police through him. He issued them with
13 specific tasks and pursuant to this order, it was his duty to make
14 arrangements for what is stipulated here.
15 Q. Thank you, sir, I take good note of what you just mentioned that
16 you commanded the military police through Drago Nikolic, but I ask you to
17 look at paragraph 1 through this order where it says that 12 soldiers
18 from the military police company are to establish checkpoints in three
19 different places on 25 -- by 25 March 1995. And those places are well
20 identified in this paragraph.
21 Then it says that the exact location of the checkpoint is to be
22 decided by the chief of security; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. BOURGON: If I could have page 2 in B/C/S and English,
1 Q. Sir, here we see in paragraph 6 of this order -- can you see
2 paragraph 6?
3 A. Could we have this moved to the right slightly, please? Yes.
4 Q. So we see that for the implementation of this order, you hold the
5 brigade chief of security as well as the assistant Chief of Staff for
6 personnel and legal affairs responsible; is that correct?
7 A. Assistant Chief of Staff for personnel. That's how it should
8 read, yes.
9 Q. Sir, I suggest to you on the basis of this order that 2nd
10 Lieutenant Nikolic could not, by himself, select 12 members of the
11 military police company and set up these checkpoints without an order
12 from you or your approval; is that correct?
13 A. I think he produced a proposal on how many soldiers would be
14 required and where the points, the checkpoints would be. So then I
15 looked at the order.
16 Q. And the proposal was approved by you; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, sir, you know our position in this case which is that
19 Drago Nikolic never requested the Chief of Staff, Dragan Obrenovic, to
20 have members of the military police company be put at his disposal in the
21 evening of 13 July. That's our case, and we've made our case very clear.
22 Nonetheless, my question is the following: You will agree with
23 me that even if Drago Nikolic had made such a request to the Chief of
24 Staff, who was acting as deputy commander in your absence in the evening
25 of 13 July, what I'm putting to you is that the information contained in
1 the statement of facts of Dragan Obrenovic concerning the request he
2 would have received from Drago Nikolic, that makes it clear that 2nd
3 Lieutenant Nikolic could not have used members of the military police
4 that night for the purpose of observing the arrival of the convoy of
5 prisoners without first seeking the approval of the Chief of Staff; is
6 that correct?
7 A. Well, it's a lengthy question. You say he didn't request that
8 and now, as far as I understand, you say he couldn't take it and he
9 didn't request that.
10 Based on what I know about the statements made by
11 Dragan Obrenovic, he did make the request, and the request was approved.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: We will have the break.
13 MR. BOURGON: I do apologise, it's my last question. I'm done,
14 Mr. President.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Then go ahead, please.
16 MR. BOURGON:
17 Q. Sir, I do admit that this question was very long. I will try to
18 make it very simple.
19 You've just mentioned that on the basis of the evidence,
20 Drago Nikolic would have requested the military police to place at his
21 disposal. But I'm saying to you that that night, whether he did or not,
22 he could not do so, he could not use those military police to attend the
23 arrival of any prisoners at any time without seeking the approval of the
24 Chief of Staff. Do you agree with that?
25 A. No. He could have done it anyway. If, for example, he hadn't
1 found the Chief of Staff anywhere around, he certainly would have done it
2 nevertheless. You look at all the documents in this trial where tasks
3 are given to the military police directly by the security organ.
4 Q. Well, can you point to some of these documents, sir?
5 A. Well, I don't know the document numbers off the top of my head,
6 but I'm sure they are bound to turn up again sometime during the trial.
7 MR. BOURGON: Thank you very much, sir. I have no further
8 questions. Thank you, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Bourgon. We'll have a -- we'll come
10 back to you in 25 minutes' time. Thank you.
11 --- Recess taken at 3.34 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 4.06 p.m.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: So for the record, both Mr. Josse and Mr. Lazarevic
14 are now present.
15 Now, I take it you are next, Mr. Zivanovic.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: That is correct.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Before I give you the floor, I just
18 want to check with the rest of you for a revised assessment.
19 Mr. Ostojic, you had asked for eight and a half hours. What's
20 your assessment now.
21 MR. OSTOJIC: Approximately eight hours, Mr. President, but I
22 will try to endeavour to shorten it.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Lazarevic or Mr. Gosnell, I don't
25 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President, we've just sent an e-mail indicating
1 that we're increasing our estimate from 30 minutes to one hour.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Had we known that, Mr. Bourgon, we wouldn't have
4 Madam Fauveau.
5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No questions for the time being,
6 Your Honour.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And Mr. Josse.
8 MR. JOSSE: Your Honours, there's every chance we will ask no
9 questions, but we would like to reserve the 30 minutes we had previously
10 asked for, please.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Josse. Mr. McCloskey, you are still
12 tied to your 20 hours?
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's going to be, after the last cross, there's
14 certain areas I'm not going to have to get into with the kind of detail
15 we just saw, so I know it will be less than 20. How much, I don't really
16 know quite yet.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
18 Now, Mr. Haynes, where is Mr. Haynes?
19 MR. HAYNES: I'm here.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm coming back to you on the short break that you
21 had asked for upon the termination of your client's testimony with a view
22 to reviewing the list of witnesses to follow. You had asked for a week
23 at some point in time and my understanding is that you would still like a
24 week. My suggestion to you is I'm sure you can achieve the same result,
25 be able to get to a conclusion if we give you two or three days? We find
1 it difficult to grant one whole week for the purpose that you have
2 indicated. Especially since we have been hearing evidence for 13 or 14
3 days already.
4 MR. HAYNES: The principal difficulty is, of course, that we are
5 all creatures of our instructions and all the decisions we have to take
6 have to be taken in consultation with Mr. Pandurevic from whom we are
7 maintaining a healthy distance at the moment. We're keeping an eye on
8 his health and welfare, but other than that, we are fastidiously
9 observing the limitation that you placed upon our contact with him.
10 And if we are only to have two or three days after the conclusion
11 of his evidence, we are simply not going to be able to go through with
12 him the decisions that we have to take. There are 23 witnesses other
13 than him on our 65 ter list, 686 documents; eight witnesses are scheduled
14 for the month of March with whom we propose to consider 534 documents.
15 We have to provide the victims and witnesses service with a minimum of
16 five days' notice of witnesses we propose to bring next month, and we're
17 getting very close to end of this month. Monday is the 21st, and
18 realistically we would have to make that decision by Tuesday for March
20 So it's not, in our view, an outrageous request. We make it on
21 the basis that we want to be in proper and full consultation with our
22 client. We don't want to cause inconvenience with the victims and
23 witnesses section, and we don't want to be in a position where we are a
24 causing witnesses to be brought here next Tuesday that we later decide
25 we're not going to call and cause immense cost and inconvenience to those
1 people, not cost to those people, but cost to the Tribunal.
2 So I do submit that a working week is necessary for that process
3 and to avoid time wastage later on and unnecessary inconvenience to the
4 organs of the Tribunal and to any witnesses we would wish to call --
5 would wish to cancel or what have you. Sorry, that was rather inelegant.
6 If, however, you are against me on that we may as well seek your
7 leave to start discussing those matters with Mr. Pandurevic now, which I
8 don't want to do, not least because he's undergoing an extremely tiring
9 procedure anyway, and I prefer to leave him to rest for the rest of the
10 day that he's not giving evidence. But that's our position for what it's
12 I know I would be roundly supported in that if you threw the
13 floor open but I don't think, on the pure basis of my submissions, I can
14 expand any further.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: And just to get a clearer picture, I would imagine
16 you would have a re-examination, re-direct? How long would you, given
17 the situation as it stands now, how long would you expect that to last?
18 MR. HAYNES: I'm not a great believer in re-examination, but
19 there are certain things already that I would like to sweep up. I'd have
20 thought it might take a day, a working day, something like that.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Having heard you, we'll come back to
23 Yes, I'll come back to you -- do you wish to comment on --
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just very briefly, Mr. President. The
25 Prosecution does support that. We would benefit by a break of a week to
1 get ourselves together and prepare for the future and maybe able to
2 discuss things with Mr. Haynes and see if I can help to convince him to
3 streamline what he is doing. So given the process that we're going now
4 and how much exertion is going on, I think a week is not inappropriate.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Will you be agreeable to Mr. Pandurevic meeting
6 with his client to discuss -- to discuss only these matters?
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's no problem and next week is also "crocus
8 vakantie," so it's a very important week in Holland to take off.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: It's also carnival.
10 Mr. Ostojic, in case Mr. Haynes can conduct these discussions
11 with his client over the weekend, for example, since you wouldn't be
12 finished with your cross-examination, would you be against Mr. Haynes
13 meeting with his client to discuss these matters.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Not at all, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So we'll come back to -- yes,
16 Mr. Haynes.
17 MR. HAYNES: I thought I should just point out that meeting my
18 client over the weekend is not possible under the rules of the detention
19 unit, he's only allowed social visits at the weekends.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Can't he meet his counsel socially?
21 MR. HAYNES: No. Well, if you're going to grant him provisional
22 release. I won't stand in your way.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll come back to you tomorrow on this.
24 Now, Mr. McCloskey, you realise that time is of the essence now.
25 We are very fastly approaching the end of the last of the defence cases,
1 and we are concerned about two things.
2 First is the following: You will recall that we had granted a
3 motion some time back for you to reopen the Prosecution case and you had
4 indicated at the time, in your 7th April motion that you estimate that
5 testimony to last for about two and three quarters hours, roughly three
6 hours, 2.75 hours, make it three hours.
7 Do you still stick to that? And my next question is going to be:
8 When do you intend to file, if any, your motion for rebuttal?
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: We do intend to file that and I have to check on
10 what that estimate, that must have been, I hope it was, the estimate for
11 direct testimony.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, it was the estimate for direct.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: For the Busina witnesses, and I hope we can do
14 it relatively quickly. They are all very straightforward witnesses. And
15 we do have a couple of other witnesses in mind, and I know Mr. Thayer is
16 working on that as we speak. We are watching some issues as they arise
17 during the direct and cross-examination of this witness as well, but I
18 don't see any longer than a week, I hope.
19 We're also discussing with Mr. Zivanovic this issue that has
20 continued to be their outstanding motion for records for ICMP.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: We are going to decide that.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Because we are -- what we have been kicking
23 around is the idea of providing ICMP DNA records for the some 30-plus
24 Busina victims; since we now know they've challenged that, we had no idea
25 there was a challenge when it came up in court initially, but trying to
1 get ICMP to give them those DNA
2 we can bring in Mr. Parsons with a DNA
3 those records and maybe that will save the issue of the motion or if
4 you -- if you if you make a ruling on the motion, maybe the whole thing
5 will change.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: The ruling on the -- on Mr. Zivanovic's motion will
7 be handed down pretty soon. It's practically ready, we are just going
8 through the last draft. So we should be able to hand down the decision
9 fairly quickly, possibly even this week.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: But apart from that, what is more of concern to us
12 at the present is when to expect the motion for rebuttal from your side
13 or any other similar motion because you seem to indicate also the
14 possibility of a similar motion.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: We -- I can get back to you very soon on that.
16 As you know, we've just withdrawn the idea of two witnesses.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I know that.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: So this is something that is priority for us, and
19 I will discuss this with Mr. Thayer and we'll get back to you -- well,
20 probably the best information will be for tomorrow.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. McCloskey. That would avoid us
22 having to fix a time limit, which we wouldn't like to do.
23 The other thing I just wanted to mention en passant, which I'm
24 sure you will think about and act upon is the following: As I said, time
25 is flying, and very soon we will come to the end of the Pandurevic
1 defence case. We'll come to the end of the reopening of the Prosecution
2 case, and possibly rebuttal, and rejoinder, if there is one; and there we
3 also will be finding ourselves faced with a decision on how much time to
4 grant for the final briefs, et cetera.
5 I would like you, as we have done before, to meet, have
6 consultations amongst yourselves, and then come back to us with your
7 suggestions which we will keep in mind when we are taking a decision
8 later on. If you can actually come back to us, say, not later than next
9 week, I think it would be very useful to us.
10 Yes, Mr. Bourgon.
11 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. Just on this particular
12 issue from the defence side, we've already have -- we had those
13 consultations already, and we have a joint position with only one of the
14 defence teams having a slight different position on one issue; and we've
15 communicated this information to the Prosecution and we hope to sit down
16 with the Prosecution as soon as possible so that we can inform the Trial
17 Chamber with, hopefully, a joint position.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And since there is no ban for such
19 meetings during the weekend, I suggest that you try and come back to us
20 as early as possible next week.
21 Okay. Mr. Zivanovic. Thank you for being patient.
22 Yes, Mr. Pandurevic, I'm sorry I didn't notice you straight away.
23 Yes, go ahead.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
25 apologise to Mr. Bourgon if he took any of my answers personally.
1 Secondly, I would like to thank him for his fair treatment of me
2 and his general approach during his cross-examination.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
4 Do you agree, Mr. Bourgon?
5 MR. BOURGON: I don't think I will meet socially with
6 Mr. Pandurevic over the weekend, but I do agree. Thank you.
7 So Mr. Zivanovic.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:
10 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, General. I would first like to
11 ask you this. In July 1995, you knew Vujadin Popovic, did you not?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Between your return from your mission on the 15th of July, 1995
14 and the end of that month, do you remember seeing him?
15 A. No, I didn't see him.
16 Q. Did you perhaps hear from anyone else that he was in Zvornik or
17 in the Zvornik area at the time? But please, limit yourself to any
18 knowledge that you might have had at the time and do not conflate this
19 with something that you might have learned at a later stage while, for
20 example, listening to proceedings before this Tribunal or reading
21 Mr. Butler's report.
22 A. Yes, I heard at the time that Mr. Popovic was in the area, that
23 he appeared at the Zvornik Brigade command and that he was in the Zvornik
24 municipality area.
25 Q. Do you remember who you heard this from?
1 A. Yes, I do. It was part of the information that I received from
2 Obrenovic which he, in turn, had received from Jokic, indicating that
3 Jokic had seen him at the command, I think the same day that he saw
4 Mr. Beara. Nevertheless, Obrenovic received information from Mr. Trbic
5 too indicating that on the 16th, Trbic saw Mr. Popovic in Zvornik.
6 Q. Were you told anything specific on that occasion as to what he
7 did or what he was doing generally?
8 A. Nothing very specific. His name was dropped during a
9 conversation about all the general activity surrounding the POWs.
10 Q. When you say "all the general activities" is there anything more
11 specific you'd like to share with us?
12 A. No, nothing that would be more specific than everything that has
13 transpired during this trial. In the sense of those people arriving in
14 the Zvornik area and then being kept in those buildings.
15 Q. On the 30th of January, you spoke about a meeting that took place
16 at the Bratunac Brigade on the 11th of July, 1995. Page 30883, line 16
17 to 30884, line 11, that is the transcript reference. I think it's
18 line 11.
19 You spoke about a meeting that was held at the brigade.
20 General Mladic was there, General Krstic, as well as the commanders of a
21 number of other units. You do remember that, don't you?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. Do you perhaps remember if on that day, General Mladic or anyone
24 else for that matter said that the 28th Division was not in Srebrenica at
25 all but rather somewhere along the Sarajevo front line?
1 A. No, no one said that the 28th Division was in Srebrenica. We had
2 entered Srebrenica by this time and all we knew was the possible axes for
3 the withdrawal of the 28th Division. However, at an earlier stage, there
4 was information indicating that certain individuals were leaving the
5 Srebrenica area including a number of commanders and possibly minor
6 groups being sent to the Sarajevo
7 more specific about the figures.
8 Q. Could you look at 3038, it's an OTP document, P3038.
9 If we look at the header of this document, you will see that it
10 says Republika Srpska, and then we can't see which specific body produced
11 this document. We can see the number, the date. I think you are
12 probably familiar with this document. At least now you are, even if you
13 didn't see it at the time, aren't you?
14 A. Yes, but I have come across this document before.
15 Q. When you say "before," do you mean back in 1995 or do you mean
16 during this trial?
17 A. I mean during this trial.
18 Q. If we look at the lower half of the document, and could we please
19 lower the document -- or rather the bottom of the B/C/S page.
20 You will see that the time is recorded there that the document
21 was received, the time the telegram was sent, the 11th of July, 1995
22 1945 hours. Do you agree with that?
23 A. Yes, received, processed at 1947 and received 1945.
24 Q. Yes, indeed, 1945. The meeting that you held at the
25 Bratunac Brigade was some time later, I think you said it was past 2200
1 hours in the evening; right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Was an order given at the meeting for the units to deploy and
4 wait for a possible return of the forces of the 28th Division from the
6 A. No, those of us who were involved in Krivaja 95 operation
7 received no orders about any possible involvement vis-a-vis the units of
8 the 28th Division that were on their way back from the Sarajevo front.
9 Q. You received no information like this at the meeting, did you?
10 A. No, none.
11 Q. Did you know or do you perhaps remember if the information was
12 generally known that the commander of that division, Oric, and possibly
13 other officers were outside Srebrenica at the time when Krivaja 95 was in
15 A. That's true, we knew that he was not in Srebrenica.
16 Q. Was there an assumption that he was in the Sarajevo front
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, could counsel please be
19 asked to speak up or move closer to the microphone. Thank you.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Given the fact that I had no
21 information like that at the time --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, finish.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time, I had no information
24 on the possible presence of the forces of the 28th Division on the
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic, the interpreters are complaining
4 that your voice is too low, and it's not reaching them properly. So if
5 you could either approach nearer to the microphone or raise your voice a
6 little, that would help. Thank you.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [In English] thank you, Your Honours.
8 Q. [Interpretation] At any rate, there was no doubt at the time, was
9 there, that up until the 11th of July, when the VRS came in, the 28th
10 Division had been in Srebrenica; right?
11 A. Yes, that's right.
12 Q. You told us something in very general terms about the discipline
13 of the soldiers of the VRS, and I'm quoting the relevant portion of the
14 transcript for you, specifically, first you talked on the 11th of
15 February, 31300, lines 24 to 31 301, line 3. I'll read back to you what
16 the transcript recorded:
17 [Previous translation continued] ... [In English] "... what is
18 that all about?
19 "A. That was probably to the third of the people that were
20 supposed to be sent to the Djevanje-Kruske area because that was the
21 problem with that particular battalion when a man has to be sent outside
22 the defence area."
23 [Interpretation] You mentioned something that was generally
24 similar to this in your evidence on the 13th of February, 2009, 31407,
25 that is the page, lines 10 through 17. You say:
1 [In English] "Mr. Bourgon, I have to touch on your previous
2 question. I did my very best to protect the lives of my men and to
3 ensure that my soldiers had what they needed. These were reservists who
4 did not understand the logic of warfare and the ways in which the
5 soldiers were used. They were local patriots. Had they carried out my
6 orders and acted in ways described by certain individuals in this
7 courtroom, and had everything been done the way they say it was, I would
8 happily have been a commander for another ten years, but that's not how
9 it was."
10 [Interpretation] Can you please clarify some of the things that
11 you've told us already? First of all, they were only reservists in the
12 Zvornik Brigade, there were no soldiers waiting to be trained; right?
13 A. Yes, no recruits and no soldiers serving their regular military
14 term, reservists alone.
15 Q. Can you clarify what you said when you said they were local
17 A. A lot has been said about that during the trial as well as about
18 the front and the defence lines resembling the skin of a leopard in terms
19 of pattern but each of soldiers were prepared to defend their own
20 doorstep or stand around the fringes of their own village in order to
21 protect it, and they were not prepared in keeping with the military rules
22 and norms to get involved in a different area militarily.
23 Q. That means that you and other officers were facing some
24 difficulties whenever you had to convince them to follow orders; right?
25 A. Yes, it was often necessary to go and talk to those units and
1 explain why their presence was required elsewhere. They would have been
2 glad to accept any mission as long as it was within their own area, place
3 of residence, as opposed to leaving their native area and being
4 dispatched elsewhere.
5 Q. I assume they knew that they were under every obligation to carry
6 out any orders from their superiors, they had been appropriately trained
7 and aware of that, weren't they?
8 A. All of those who did their regular military term in the JNA were
9 well familiar with the principle.
10 Q. Surely everyone knew that they mustn't commit any war crimes or
11 any crimes at all even if ordered to do just that; right?
12 A. How familiar were they with the provisions of international law
13 of war? That is to say the least debatable. My opinion is they were
14 entirely unfamiliar with those. Based on human reason, they could have
15 assumed what would have been legal and what would have been illegal and
16 which category murder would have fallen under as a result.
17 Q. Back at the command, you had an organ for operations and
18 training; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What about that organ? Was it not supposed to explain different
21 rules and regulations to the soldiers that they were meant to abide by
22 including this?
23 A. No, that was not their job. The operations and training organ
24 has an entirely different job. We would receive from the Main Staff and
25 the corps command instructions on the application of the
1 Geneva Conventions and norms of International Laws of War. The officers
2 were familiar with those.
3 Now, as for officers in lower-ranking units and to what extent
4 they familiarised their foot soldiers with these rules and regulations,
5 that is really not something that I can say.
6 Q. Would they brief their superiors about what exactly they did and
7 what they told their soldiers about?
8 A. If there's an order that is sent from the brigade command or some
9 sort of an information letter to the battalions and other units, are
10 received by those units; and those units are duty-bound to act on that.
11 One analyses any missions completed, and everyone submits reports in
12 relation to their own area and any steps taken within their own area of
14 Q. About what I've just asked you about the operations and training
15 organ, was that perhaps a responsibility of the other organ, moral and
16 legal affairs, or rather morale and legal affairs?
17 A. Who could have forwarded information like that to the
18 lower-ranking units, it could have been the operative organ it could have
19 been the morale people.
20 Q. Did you monitor this as a commander?
21 A. The information were forwarded down to units, but to what extent
22 it went downwards through the battalions, companies and eventually to the
23 privates. I don't know the details but the feedback information always
24 came that they were informed; however, it was not often easy to finish
25 this whole job entirely due to the absence of soldiers from their
1 positions for a variety of reasons.
2 Q. I would like to ask you a couple of things relating to the
3 wounded who were at the clinic of the Zvornik Brigade. You spoke about
4 this on two occasions on 9 February, that's page 31144, line 19 to 31149,
5 line 31, and then again on the 10th of February, 2009, page 31169, line
6 15, up to 31170, line 5.
7 From your testimony given on the 10th of February, it seems that
8 Obrenovic had informed you about the wounded people in the Zvornik
9 Brigade clinic and that he did it on either the 18th or the 19th of July
10 at the IKM; is that right?
11 A. I am not quite sure whether this was exactly what was said. I
12 would kindly ask you to quote my words from the referenced page numbers
13 in the transcript.
14 Q. That actually starts from line 15, I apologise:
15 [In English] "When I returned from the IKM, I can't tell you
16 exactly when it was, whether that was on 18th or 19th because I don't
17 remember. However, as soon as I received the information, as soon as I
18 learned that there were such people there, I was not really clear why the
19 wounded had to be accommodated in the infirmary of the Zvornik Brigade
20 together with the soldiers of the Zvornik Brigade who had been wounded,
21 and I personally ordered Dragan Obrenovic to inspect them and to look
22 after their safety and that order should be conveyed to the medical
23 personnel. My order was to treat the enemy wounded as any other wounded
24 person would be treated."
25 [Interpretation] My question in this regard is: Did Obrenovic
1 tell you that these wounded men had been brought at the time when you
2 were absent?
3 A. I don't know exactly what the time was, but I think it was
4 mentioned that they had arrived a few days before I learned about it,
5 whether it was precisely before the 15th, I cannot confirm.
6 Anyway, I learned about their presence exactly as you have quoted
7 my words just now.
8 Q. This infirmary and the whole medical service of the
9 Zvornik Brigade was not part of the staff?
10 A. Yes, you are right. This was the medical service within the
11 logistic department of the Zvornik Brigade, and the chief of the medical
12 service was responsible for the infirmary and for providing accommodation
13 to the wounded.
14 Q. In other words, Obrenovic had an opportunity and a right to issue
15 orders or instructions or guidelines to the chief of medical service as a
16 deputy commander not in the capacity of a Chief of Staff?
17 A. Yes, he could have issued him tasks even in the capacity of the
18 Chief of Staff provided these tasks were in the spirit of my previous
19 orders and decisions. In addition to that, I had personally entrusted
20 him, and that is Dragan Obrenovic, with taking care of and providing
21 accommodation for these wounded men.
22 Q. Did Dragan Obrenovic tell you that he had made any other requests
23 prior to receiving instructions from you?
24 A. I don't think so other than that he only knew that they were
1 Q. Was that a usual practice for patients who are not members of the
2 VRS to be moved from a civilian hospital to the infirmary of your
4 A. No, this is outside any existing rule and defies any military
6 Q. You had an opportunity in this courtroom to hear the testimony of
7 Dr. Zoran Begovic, who was the chief of the medical service; and he was
8 practically running the infirmary of the Zvornik Brigade. He testified
9 on the 21st of March, 2007. Among other things, and I refer you to page
10 9137, lines 17 to 21 where he says that 10 to 15 wounded men sometime in
11 July 1995 arrived at the Standard barracks from a hospital in Zvornik.
12 It was obvious they had received some prior medical treatment and that
13 they had been registered with the medical institution from which they had
14 arrived. However, they said that they arrived there without any
15 notification being sent to the staff in the infirmary including the head
17 Tell me, did you hear from Obrenovic or anyone else, and whether
18 it was customary to bring anyone to the infirmary without notifying the
19 infirmary staff in advance?
20 A. When we have urgent delivery of wounded soldiers from our unit or
21 from the veresa [phoen] in general, they are admitted immediately and
22 taken care of, so there could be no notification. However, speaking
23 about this specific incident, I believe that the command of the brigade
24 should have received some kind of order and then it will be -- it will
25 make arrangements for these people to be accommodated.
1 Q. Dr. Begovic also said on page 9142, line 10, to page 1144 [as
2 interpreted] line 8 to the effect that a group of soldiers had brought
3 these wounded men to the infirmary. My question is: Did Obrenovic tell
4 you who those -- these people were, this group who sent them there?
5 A. I don't think he did. I don't know who had brought these people
6 and put them there. By the way, an infirmary is medical institution
7 where people who are injured, who are sick, and who have sustained light
8 wounds are accommodated for further treatment.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Just one correction. Line 6,
10 page 49, the page should be instead of 1144 [as interpreted], 1143, line
12 I'll repeat on page 49 of today's transcript, line 6, instead of
13 1144, it should read 9143.
14 Q. I'm also going to read one section of his testimony, I mean
15 Dr. Begovic, before I ask you the next question. This is precisely from
16 the pages that I mentioned a short while ago:
17 [In English] "... by a number of soldiers; is that right?
18 "A. Yes.
19 "Q. Okay. Now, in relation to where they were taken after they
20 were brought to that room, did you have any discussion with anybody
21 concerning where they should be placed or where they would be placed?
22 "A. When Mr. Dragan Obrenovic came, then he started talking. He
23 said that they would be accommodated there, that was the safest place for
24 them, that they would be secured by the military police, that was the
25 only room where they could have been accommodated but because everything
1 else was full; and I guess for their personal safety, it was a good idea
2 to have police nearby. I guess that was the idea, but I don't know.
3 "Q. Okay. And so from the area where you worked, they were
4 taken to another room; is that right?
5 "A. Yes, correct.
6 "Q. Did you have to make any special accommodation, move things
7 or make arrangement in order to have those people placed in that room?
8 "A. No, nothing was moved. There were palettes there, and then
9 boards, and then mattress were placed on top of that, soft mattress."
10 [Interpretation] That was it, more or less. My question is: Is
11 it in a way customary or do you as a commander find it unusual that
12 Dragan Obrenovic was the one who made decision as to when and where these
13 wounded persons would be accommodated depending on the severity of their
14 wounds and the need for receiving medical treatment?
15 A. I don't know if he had full insight into their medical condition.
16 Anyway, he was not qualified to do that. In my view, that should have
17 been done by the chief of the medical service.
18 As for security measures to be put in place, that was the job of
19 Dragan Obrenovic. The treatment falls into the category of medical
21 Q. Among other things, Dr. Begovic said on page 9144, lines 6 to 14
22 that he had heard from Obrenovic that the doctors from the Zvornik
23 civilian hospitals would be coming over to treat the wounded Muslims.
24 Now, was that customary to make such arrangements not to be made
25 through the chief of the medical service and the medical staff, but
1 instead, they just hear that this had been agreed between, in this case,
2 the Chief of Staff and some of the doctors from the hospital in Zvornik?
3 A. I have no reason to doubt what Mr. Begovic has said, but to me,
4 this looks like a rather unusual arrangement and an unusual way in which
5 these wounded men appeared in the infirmary of the Zvornik Brigade.
6 When they were transferred from the hospital in Zvornik, it would
7 only have been logical for the chief of the medical service to go to the
8 hospital beforehand and to check with the doctors there what kind of
9 wounds these men had sustained, to review the medical records, and then
10 admit these men. Had this been done in that way, maybe Begovic would not
11 have granted permission for them to be accommodated in the infirmary of
12 the Zvornik Brigade.
13 Q. Can you tell me, did Obrenovic ever tell you or inform you about
14 this kind of arrangement or this kind of agreement with the staff of the
15 Zvornik hospital?
16 A. No, he never mentioned anything to me to that effect.
17 Q. Dr. Begovic also testified that Obrenovic had told him that he
18 shouldn't enter these wounded men in the register of the patients that's
19 being kept in the infirmary of the Zvornik Brigade. Tell me, is that
20 within the remit at all of the Chief of Staff or the man who was standing
21 in for you to make such a decision and instruct the medical service not
22 to register the patients in their books?
23 A. This boils down to direct meddling with the procedure and the
24 professional conduct. This shouldn't have been -- should not have been
25 told to Begovic. Begovic would have acted, as he did, in all the
1 previous occasions and he would open and maintain proper records for
2 those people as he did for all the other wounded.
3 Q. Dr. Begovic also said that he had received from Obrenovic
4 instructions or an order to have temperature charts opened for those
5 persons. Did Obrenovic ever tell you about this instruction that
6 apparently he had given Dr. Begovic for the patients not to be recorded
7 in terms of admission, and only to have temperature charts drawn up for
8 them instead of the normal procedure?
9 A. No, he told me nothing about that.
10 Q. When you testified in chief --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please be asked to speak up, the
12 interpreter didn't hear the names. Thank you.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, Mr. Zivanovic, back to square one. The
14 interpreters couldn't hear the names that you mentioned. If you could
15 repeat your question a little bit slightly more loud, please.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [In English] Yes, Your Honours.
17 Q. [Interpretation] While testifying in chief, you spoke twice about
18 Popovic and about the fuel which he had apparently requested. You saw
19 some intercepts, you saw some materiel lists. The first time was on the
20 2nd of February, page 31014, line 19, and then all the way to the end of
21 that day's transcript. The second time was on the 12th of February,
22 31318, line 18 and 31323, line 20 is in relation to the 16th of July,
24 In addition to that, the 10th of February, 1995, page 31221, line
25 4 to 31222, line 12. This is Popovic's questions, the questions that you
1 asked about fuel back in September 1995.
2 Generally speaking, you agree that fuel was of exceptional
3 strategic importance for the VRS at the time, don't you?
4 A. Fuel is certainly strategically important, but when you talk to
5 me as a soldier, you mention strategically, strategic importance, what I
6 mean is truckloads and truckloads and truckloads of fuel. That's the
7 order of magnitude. But yes, in answer to your question, it was
9 Q. It was very important to get fuel because of the sanctions;
11 A. Well, I wasn't the one who was in charge of getting fuel, but I
12 know that it was difficult.
13 Q. Do you agree with me and do you know at all that fuel was
14 something that was often stolen, smuggled, resold, that sort of thing?
15 A. Yes, that was the case.
16 Q. Given the significance of fuel to the VRS, and given what you
17 know about the areas of competence of certain bodies, were the security
18 organs in addition to other things responsible for uncovering any such
19 criminal activity such as the stealing of fuel and any form of misuse at
20 all within the VRS?
21 A. As far as I remember, when your expert spoke about the security
22 organs and the rules of service pertaining to the security organ, I think
23 one of the areas of competence was who was in charge and who they were
24 working with. I think he also said that the security organs were
25 contributing to the uncovering of crimes within certain units, and I
1 think smuggling fuel would fall under one of those headings.
2 Q. Yesterday, you spoke, among other things, about the rule of
3 responsibility of the brigade and regiment commands; 7D717, as far as I
4 remember. Among other things, I think it said that security organs did
5 counter-intelligence work and took measures in order to uncover any acts
6 of espionage and counter-intelligence activity. How did that relate to
7 fuel and activity like that, the stealing of fuel, the stealing of fuel,
8 then do you think that, according to these rules this would have been
9 something for the security organ?
10 A. It wasn't as such a part of counter-intelligence work. As for
11 subversion or internal attempts to undermine the established order, well
12 that might be taken as one of the tasks for the security organ. Fuel
13 expenditure and in other words how much fuel is used up, that is
14 something for the chief of technology.
15 Q. So he is watching how much fuel is used up and the security
16 organs should see to it that the fuel is not stolen; right?
17 A. If he sees thieves and potential danger everywhere, well, then,
18 there would be more security officers than those looking after the
19 technical department and using the actual technology available to them.
20 Q. To your knowledge, and in your understanding, was there any
21 reason for anything like that?
22 A. If it becomes clear that there has been theft, stealing of fuel,
23 or expenditure levels that were not typical, anyone can report that, and
24 the security organ should then be involved in the investigation. There
25 is some form of material and financial monitoring. They look into all
1 the books, and this is certainly not the job of the security organ.
2 Q. In your capacity as a commander, did you ever notice any
3 expenditure levels in terms of fuel that were not typical, anything that
4 might have indicated some form of irregularity or anything that might
5 have warranted action from the security organ, by the security organ?
6 A. We did not have enormous amounts of fuel available to us to begin
7 with. Such enormous expenditure levels would have cropped up if the
8 armoured mechanised units were being used, but we knew what the daily
9 needs were for fuel; and there was a procedure in place that was pretty
10 much established on how fuel was handed out, how the travel lists and
11 warrants were filled in and recorded. These were then sorted out on a
12 monthly basis so sometimes minor theft was possible; for example, someone
13 mis-recorded the time they spent on a mission, bad road conditions, bad
14 traffic conditions, all vehicles, more fuel used up than envisaged by the
15 regulations and so on and so forth.
16 Q. You heard Branko Bogicevic testify here, didn't you, he was a
17 member of your unit. You probably remember that, that was on the 18th of
18 June, 2008?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You heard about the circumstances under which he transported fuel
21 that had apparently been ordered by Popovic, who he got the order from,
22 where he took this fuel to and what the circumstances were of the
23 hand-over itself. Do you remember those details?
24 A. I remember the evidence, but I'm not sure about each little
1 Q. Let me try to refresh your memory, this was on the 18th of June,
2 2008. The pages are 22364 to 22374, line 24.
3 Based on his evidence, he took the fuel to Pilica. That was the
4 order he had received from the technical department of the brigade. His
5 orders were to hand over the fuel to some people who were waiting behind
6 Pilica along the road to Bijeljina. The fuel was then poured from
7 barrels into jerrycans. There weren't sufficient jerrycans to go around.
8 There was a dispute, they wanted to take his barrel away, which he
9 refused to allow them to do and that's how the 140 litres of fuel were
10 spilled. There were no officers among those people there, otherwise if
11 there was an officer ordering him to let go of that barrel he would have
12 to do that because he was just an ordinary soldier. He said he didn't
13 know Popovic at all, and the document that you were shown here was
14 produced only after the fuel had already been handed over. And he was
15 never told to begin with who to hand the fuel over to.
16 Were those circumstances not indicate that there was some
17 irregularities in terms of how one dealt with the fuel?
18 A. If he said that the document was produced following the hand-over
19 of the fuel, that means one knew exactly who the fuel was handed over to,
20 and there must have been some sort of a record reflecting that. At any
21 rate, based on the documents available to us, which is the record of this
22 hand-over, one can see that the Zvornik Brigade dispatched 500 litres of
23 D-2 fuel to the Drina Corps command, in parentheses, Mr. Popovic.
24 The Zvornik Brigade from now on has nothing more to do with this
25 fuel and cannot be held responsible for the way it is used. That is as
1 much as we can infer based on the documents.
2 Now, I really don't know what actually happened on the ground.
3 Q. That is the question, isn't it? The documents could be forged
4 because there's no other a way to steal fuel from an army; right?
5 My question to you is what about the circumstances under which
6 the hand-over occurred. Do they in any way indicate to you about what
7 happened to the fuel?
8 A. Well, one thing is certain, that this was certainly not the best
9 way to forge this, you know, by stating that they actually handed it over
10 to 2nd Lieutenant Popovic, who was the security chief.
11 Q. Tell me one thing, did you ever see that document?
12 A. I think there must be thousands and thousands of such materiel
13 lists in the logistics unit of the Zvornik Brigade. I never signed a
14 single one myself or indeed set eyes on any of them. Perhaps I did when
15 I went back to the logistics units where they had their offices but the
16 orders were signed by the commander for logistics, each and every one of
17 them, and the remaining officers in the technical department, the traffic
18 department, the quartermasters department and so on and so forth.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: It's time for the break. We'll return in
20 25 minutes.
21 --- Recess taken at 5.22 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 5.52 p.m.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you.
25 I'd just like to make a correction in the transcript it is page
1 56, line 16. The B/C/S word, "vraceno" was translated as "spilled"
2 instead "returned."
3 Q. [Interpretation] General, in relation to what you called
4 excessive use of fuel, something that could perhaps be noticed, you
5 didn't have that problem, you didn't noticing anything like that
6 happening in the Zvornik Brigade?
7 A. I did not personally have access to that type of information but
8 had someone informed me about any excessive use of fuel or fuel
9 disappearing, I don't think anything like that ever happened.
10 Q. I noticed that in your regular --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please be instructed to speak
12 into the microphone. Thank you.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic, again, and if you could repeat the
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: And also try not to overlap because you were moving
17 a little bit too fast, in my opinion, for the interpreters.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. I noticed that in your regular combat reports, you regularly
20 reported on the daily use of fuel to the Drina Corps command; am I right?
21 A. Yes, your observation is correct.
22 Q. Could we now please look at your own regular combat report or
23 rather that of the Zvornik Brigade, the date being the
24 13th of July, 1995, P325.
25 Can we look at paragraph 6? We can't actually see it in the
1 B/C/S, not in it's entirety, so maybe we could just lower this. Yes.
2 Paragraph 6 says:
3 "Logistic support is functioning with difficulty due to a
4 shortage of fuel, ammunition, and all calibres and spare parts."
5 We're just focussing on fuel here. What is shown here is the
6 consumption of fuel D-2, 412 litres?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So you agree with that.
9 Can we now please go to the next regular combat report, 328.
10 326, I'm sorry. This is P326, an OTP exhibit.
11 We can go to paragraph 6 again. It reads:
12 "Logistic support is functioning with difficulty due to a
13 shortage of fuel, ammunition of all calibres and spare parts."
14 Consumption, D-2, 827 litres. You agree; right?
15 A. Paragraph 6 is nearly identical in all regular combat reports.
16 The fuel consumption is not always accurately expressed. It's always
17 shown as being slightly more than is actually consumed in order to try
18 and obtain from the corps any amount of fuel at all. The consumption is
19 calculated on a daily basis based on reports that arrive from the units
20 and also based on what the traffic and technical department issued and
21 used up over a day's time.
22 Q. Be that as it may, can we conclude that on the 14th of July, the
23 amount of fuel used up was three times that used up on the 13th?
24 A. Yes, that's what it says. Maybe this much was actually issued.
25 I'm not sure if it was actually all used up.
1 Q. On the 14th, and you should know, was there any peculiar going on
2 on the 14th that would have required a bigger amount of fuel than usual?
3 A. Yes, combat activities, ambushes being set up, people were being
4 driven to and fro, perhaps a greater number of different activities than
5 on the previous day, the 13th; but we also know that certain engineering
6 machines on that day were beginning to be used.
7 Q. Did you notice this discrepancy between the 13th and the 14th in
8 terms of how much fuel was used up?
9 A. I didn't read the report at all. Therefore, I never took note of
10 the discrepancy.
11 Q. Could you perhaps tell us why you did not read the reports at
12 all, those pertaining to the 13th and 14th?
13 A. I hardly ever read the reports except the ones that I signed.
14 When I was there, I would have a glancing look and I believe I have
15 explained sufficiently here where I went when I came on the 15th and when
16 the first time was that I returned to the command. These reports were
17 history by then especially as compared to what was soon to happen.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please go back to 328,
19 report 328. I think the previous reports were dispatched by Obrenovic.
20 Can we please again go to paragraph 6. It's on the next page, I think.
21 Q. This is rephrased to some extent, it reads:
22 "Logistic support is functioning with difficulty due to reasons
23 already given."
24 Again, there is a chart showing the use of various items. Again,
25 the amount of fuel, 841 litres. Can you explain why this particular day,
1 the consumption was twice as great as on the 13th?
2 A. It's possible that the tank company had its manpower levels
3 brought up, the one that had returned from Zepa on that day, hence the
4 greater-than-usual amount.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please go to 7D532.
6 Q. Again, your regular combat report dated the 16th of July --
7 THE REGISTRAR: Could the counsel please repeat the number.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] 7D532.
9 Q. Let's go to paragraph 6 again:
10 "Logistics support is functioning with difficulty due to reasons
11 already known," yet again "and there are breakdowns in communications."
12 D-2 consumption, 2.595 litres.
13 Did you notice a jump up in the consumption of fuel in relation
14 to the previous day?
15 A. Well this is best compared to the materiel lists where you can
16 see fuel being supplied to the units. You can see the lists recording
17 the issuing of fuel at the various petrol stations and the travel lists.
18 The 16th was a very demanding day. What purpose this amount of fuel was
19 used for, I don't know. It is possible that the fuel was delivered to
20 the users, and that day it had left the petrol stations, and it was
21 recorded as consumption.
22 If you go back to the documents I have mentioned, if you analyse
23 them, it should be easy enough to establish what had happened.
24 Q. Perhaps we could even do that, but my question is this: You, in
25 your capacity as brigade commander at the time, did you notice this jump
1 in fuel consumption between the 13th and the 16th, 400 litres to begin
2 with and ending at 2.500 litres over a single day. Did you perhaps not
3 consider that to be excessive in terms of fuel consumption?
4 A. I had no idea how much fuel had been used up on that day. The
5 traffic clerk or rather the chief, Mr. Pantic, had the best, most
6 reliable information, and I believe he would be able to explain this.
7 It is possible that some materiel had been brought up over from
8 the logistics bases on that day, some other supplies coming in and being
9 delivered such as food or something along these lines.
10 Q. When you drafted this combat report and when you dispatched it,
11 did you pay this information any heed at all, how much fuel was being
12 used up, fuel consumption in relation to the previous day, for example,
13 three times as many?
14 A. The report was drafted by the duty operations officer, and he
15 dispatched it at the time given here. You know where I was at the time.
16 I hadn't seen the report. I hadn't read the report, and I hadn't signed
17 the report, and I had no idea how much fuel had been used up.
18 Q. Did you, perhaps, see the report two, three, four days later; did
19 you ever read those reports that other people drafted?
20 A. I didn't read this report.
21 Q. Because you didn't read those reports at all, the reports that we
22 discussed and that we'll keep on discussing, or is it just that you
23 skipped some reports?
24 A. When you see a report that I actually signed, I read those. Some
25 in their entirety and some I just glossed over, as we say. Those not
1 signed by my hand were not read, not on the day when they were
2 dispatched, not later.
3 Q. Do you deny that you produced these reports at all?
4 A. I'm telling you I wasn't the person who produced the draft of
5 this report. The interim combat reports that we discussed were indeed
6 dictated by me. The duty operations -- the operations duty officer is
7 the person who produced regular combat reports.
8 Q. What about the reports for the 15th and 16th of July, did you
9 ever read those?
10 A. No, not until I came here.
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now go to that same
12 report in relation to the 17th, P331.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Mr. Zivanovic, but
14 before the report comes up, I just remembered something. Around that
15 time, I think on the 17th of all days, the 17th and the 18th to be more
16 specific, some gravel and pebbles were taken to Baljkovica, a container
17 arrived and some other things were being tidied up and sorted out; so
18 that might have accounted for the use of that amount of fuel, that amount
19 of fuel being issued or used up on that day or sometime later.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. I'm sorry, who exactly brought the gravel there?
22 A. Trucks.
23 Q. Your brigades?
24 A. Trucks from our brigade.
25 Q. Can you go to P332 now, please. Have a look, sir. 331.
1 Can you see this here, fuel consumption, 1.590 litres in this
3 A. Yes, I see that.
4 Q. You didn't read this combat report either, did you?
5 A. No, I didn't.
6 Q. Mr. Pandurevic, you said someone was in charge of all this fuel.
7 I assume that to be one of the commander's duties, was that assumption
9 A. A commander is a commander, and everybody says so. And a
10 commander is in charge of all sorts of things. I don't keep track of how
11 much fuel is used up, but I am in charge of all the decisions on how my
12 units are used and how the combat equipment is used; and there has to be
13 a military rationale behind all of these decisions.
14 If I find out that there is theft, that people are stealing, it
15 is my duty to put a stop to that or rather to prevent that. In the
16 brigade, there are various kinds of services or bodies that are directly
17 involved in jobs like this.
18 Q. Can you please just clarify how exactly you thought you might
19 find out about any stealing or misuse of fuel if you never read the
20 combat reports that bore your signature?
21 A. I'm telling you there was a procedure in place and our fuel was
22 issued. I had a rough idea of when fuel got there and how much. I knew
23 when a knew request was being dispatched asking for more fuel. Sometimes
24 I could have my suspicions in terms of anything dodgy going on or
25 something like that.
1 Q. For example, do you know how much fuel was requested at the time
2 by the brigade?
3 A. Up until the 16th or the intercept, I hadn't known. Pantic asked
4 himself, and we were lucky that Pantic himself was in the traffic service
5 and was well acquainted with officers over at the Main Staff who were in
6 charge of fuel and also over at the corps. He would often wrap up these
7 jobs all alone in terms of how fuel was obtained and supplied. I would
8 normally not interfere at all because he was offering other types of
9 services such as military vehicle maintenance over in Zvornik and so on
10 and so forth.
11 Q. But you knew that, didn't you, that he was offering various other
12 types of service, other people's vehicles over in Zvornik and that's why
13 he was being awarded more fuel.
14 A. It wasn't other people's vehicles, those were military vehicles
15 but there were fewer garages in Han Pijesak than in Zvornik, and that's
16 why he helped them out sending their vehicles to our garages, or he could
17 enlist assistance like companies who will get the repairs done assuming
18 there was a proper compensation, obviously; but everything was done under
19 the strictest of procedures and this was nothing exceptional whatsoever.
20 Q. So why was he awarded any fuel at all just because of that or was
22 A. No, it wasn't because of that. The person in charge of
23 distributing fuel faces a list of units and then they prioritise what
24 goes to whom and in what order exactly. There is no violation involved.
25 Pantic for example, is his friend, okay; so Pantic will get his supplies
1 as part of the next round, and there is another person maybe on that same
2 list who will just have to wait for a couple of days, right?
3 Q. I'm sorry, but I want to get this man's role straight, Pantic.
4 He just asked for some fuel but he couldn't have any idea about what the
5 needs of the brigade might be in terms of fuel.
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the last part
7 counsel's answer for the same reasons as mentioned before. Thank you.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When a unit is used in combat and
9 when there is an order by the commander, there is --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Please, you are going too, too fast. I can hear it
11 in the interpreter's voice. He is trying to do his utmost, but I'm sure
12 he is suffering. So slow down, both of you, please.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel also be asked to speak up,
14 appreciably. Thank you.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic, again -- I mean I would understand
16 it had it been Mr. Ostojic with his size, but in your case, I mean you
17 should have no problem in keeping near enough the microphone.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I would have no problem.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I wouldn't either.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Should I repeat my question or could you perhaps answer straight
23 A. No need, I can answer it.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: It's really for the transcript. We need it for the
25 transcript if you can kindly repeat your question, please.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. My understanding is that Pantic could have requested the fuel
3 that was necessary. It wasn't his call to assess what the brigade's
4 needs might be because it was you, the commander, who was in charge of
5 that and that was part of your tasks within the brigade and all the other
6 officers. So he just did what he was told to do; right?
7 A. To some extent, yes, you're right. When a commander takes a
8 decision on how the brigade should be used, then there is this paragraph
9 that says logistic support. The amount of fuel is determined there as
10 well as the amount of ammunition that may be used up for that particular
11 mission. The circumstances under which we worked were peculiar, and we
12 could not really move away from our defence area. We knew approximately
13 what our daily needs in terms of fuel might be and despite this, we never
14 received the exact amounts that we had requested. And whenever we got
15 anything at all, or what we had requested, it would never quite meet our
16 needs or exceed our needs. Pantic could always submit requests, and he
17 was happy whenever he could report back to me that fuel had been received
18 without me being involved in the process.
19 Q. Does that mean that you were not involved in the process of
20 actually making requests vis-a-vis the fuel?
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the last part of
22 counsel's question.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Whenever a unit --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Pandurevic. The interpreters
25 didn't hear the last part of your question, Mr. Zivanovic. Can you also
1 switch the other microphone as well in case that is possible. Maybe that
2 will help.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Does your last answer mean that you did not participate in
5 issuing requests for fuel? You did not get involved in deciding on the
6 quantities of fuel necessary for the execution of daily tasks?
7 A. If those were just regular daily tasks, then the supply of the
8 units would be regular and nothing out of the ordinary. There was no
9 need for me to decide anything. It was well known how many vehicles were
10 used every day, and they were the ones using the fuel.
11 In case there was combat going on in the area of the brigade or
12 outside of it, then it was well-known how many non-combat vehicles were
13 engaged, how many combat vehicles were engaged, and then the fuel for the
14 particular tasks had to be planned; and I had to be aware of the
16 Q. What was the situation like on the relevant dates, the dates that
17 were covered by the regular combat reports that I've shown you, the 15th,
18 the 16th, the 17th, for example? To be more precise, from the moment
19 when you returned and took over the command of the brigade, did you issue
20 any requests? Do you remember were there any fuel requests? Were there
21 just regular fuel requests or were the quantities involved higher than
23 A. In the course of those days, in addition to the regular supply,
24 there was also increased supply due to combat activities due to the fact
25 that units were brought in and taken from the area and that fuel was
1 issued daily on request of the units that were engaged and had to be
2 supplied from our reserves.
3 I never received a report talking about a lack of fuel which
4 prevented the execution of a task and that was enough for me at the time.
5 Q. During that period, did you have any special requests for
6 increased quantities of fuel?
7 A. I'm sure Pantic did send such requests because he had realised
8 how much fuel was issued in the course of a day and as soon as that was
9 done, he asked and requested for his supplies to be replenished to cover
10 the needs over the next few days.
11 Q. However, this did not have anything to do with any requests of
12 your own?
13 A. Those were requests that you could see in the duty officer's log
14 book. It says in that log book: At the end of the day, requests from
15 the units listing the quantities of fuel requested by each of the
16 battalions, and that's just one type of consumption. Another type of
17 consumption is for the vehicles that served the logistics. Pantic was
18 one who served those vehicles, he did not have to cover that with any
19 requests, any prior requests. He just fuelled the vehicles that were
20 used for logistics.
21 Q. Do you know when it comes to that period how much did the brigade
22 receive in terms of fuel?
23 A. If I were to inspect the lists, the receipt lists, I would be
24 able to tell you how much fuel was supplied to the Zvornik Brigade in
25 July and how much was consumed. I really can't tell you off my head.
1 Q. You've never had an opportunity to inspect those lists?
2 A. I've seen a huge number of such lists here, all sorts of lists
3 delivery books, receipt books, the books recording the fuel issued and so
4 on and so forth, but I don't have the figures at my fingertip. I simply
5 can't tell you.
6 Q. Can we now look together as how things stood, the number of the
7 document is P290 and the page is 219, so I would like to call that
8 document up on e-court, please.
9 I can see that this is a list of fuel issued. Could this be
10 blown up just a little for the benefit of everybody in the courtroom.
11 In the left corner, you can see that the date is 15 July, I
12 believe that this was filled out either in Han Pijesak or Vlasenica, it
13 doesn't really make a difference, and I suppose that this is the date
14 when the issuance of that fuel was approved?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In the right corner, you can see another date, the 16th of July
17 and also there is a number next to it, a number of a document, I suppose.
18 I suppose that this is the date when the fuel actually arrived in the
19 brigade. And we can see that the -- on the 16th of July, a total of
20 1.000 litres of diesel was delivered. Am I right in concluding that?
21 A. I believe that the date 16th of July is the date when this list
22 was accounted for and recorded into the books of the Zvornik Brigade, and
23 the fuel arrived on the same day when it was issued.
24 Q. Maybe you can look at the lower part of the document where you
25 can see the signature of the person who received the fuel, there is also
1 a stamp of the Zvornik Brigade, and above that, there is another date,
2 the date is the 17th of July. Could that be the date when the fuel was
3 accounted for in the book, of the Zvornik Brigade?
4 A. You are right. This was sent to the accountant, this list, this
5 copy of the list, and the first date is the date when the fuel was
6 recorded by the logistics organ because it really did not take the fuel
7 two days to get from Vlasenica to the Zvornik Brigade, I'm sure of that.
8 Q. And now I would like us to look at page 216 in the same document.
9 Again, in the left corner we can see a date. This time it is the
10 16th of July, and the date is repeated in the right upper corner; do you
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And we also see that the fuel in question is diesel, D-2 and the
14 quantity is 2.000 litres; do you agree?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. Again it was received by the same person. There is some other
17 details featured in the document. Do you agree that this could possibly
18 have been the fuel which was subsequently mentioned in the intercept, the
19 two tones that had been sent to Zvornik on the 16th of July and from
20 which the 500 litres that you mentioned were taken?
21 A. If we make a link between the intercept, the note made by the
22 duty operations officer, this particular materiel list, and the materiel
23 list featuring 500 litres of D-2 then we can infer the following,
24 Mr. Basevic requested from someone in the Zvornik Brigade to issue 500
25 litres of fuel. That person refused to issue the fuel and then that
1 person was encouraged by saying -- by saying to Basevic, I'm sending you
2 2.000 litres so you can easily issue me with 500.
3 The list featuring 2.000 litres arrived in Zvornik, the Zvornik
4 Brigade was issued with 2.000 litres; however, at the same time, the
5 Zvornik Brigade issued 500 litres to the command of the Drina Corps and
6 writes the 500 litres off its books which means that it is left with
7 1.500 litres of fuel. In other words, this means that the Zvornik
8 Brigade did not receive 2.000 litres on this particular occasion, but
9 rather 1.500 litres that were accounted for.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could just have a clarification. There may
12 be a translation error because I thought I heard the General say that
13 Zvornik was sending Basevic 2.000 litres, and that doesn't seem to make
14 sense. That's what's on the transcript. I may be wrong, but it doesn't
15 seem to make sense so it might ...
16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you for that, Mr. McCloskey.
17 Will you deal with that, Mr. Zivanovic, please.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, of course.
19 Q. [Interpretation] General, could you please repeat. You mentioned
20 Basevic and the whole situation about the sending of the fuel to
21 somebody. Could you repeat what actually happened? Was it Basevic who
22 sent fuel or was he the one who received it?
23 A. Well, you could say both, Basevic sent 2.000 litres to the
24 Zvornik Brigade. Previously, he had requested from the same brigade to
25 issue 500 litres to the command of the Drina Corps, so what happened, the
1 Zvornik Brigade did receive 2.000 litres, at the same time it issued 500
2 litres to the command of the Drina Corps which means that the -- what the
3 Zvornik Brigade received on that day was 1.500 litres of fuel and not
5 Q. I would like to remind you of one thing. You noticed in the
6 materiel list that 140 litres of fuel were returned. Could you please
7 explain how was it that the Zvornik Brigade wrote off 500 litres from its
8 books and 140 litres were returned to it which can be seen in that
9 materiel list?
10 A. Yes, the corps command requested 500 litres. Five-hundred litres
11 were sent accompanied with a materiel list. Whoever used the fuel was
12 very rational and didn't use the whole quantity. He only used what he
13 needed and returned the rest. And again, the Zvornik Brigade was made
14 accountable of the 140 litres.
15 Q. But the 500 litres were written off at the corps?
16 A. Yes, the first quantity was 500 and then 140.
17 Q. Do you --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: You're speaking far away from the microphone. And
19 turn the other one -- but he is facing the other side so turning the
20 left-hand side microphone will not help much.
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Pandurevic, as you are looking at this, doesn't it come
23 obvious to you that the 140 litres were stolen, and the 140 litres that
24 were returned to the brigade; isn't that obvious to you?
25 A. Whoever made a note on the materiel list that 140 litres were
1 returned was also supposed to return the fuel to the gas station.
2 Q. But still, the corps command was charged with the whole
3 500 litres. It did not change.
4 A. When the list was filled out to accompany the fuel, 500 litres
5 were requested and 500 litres were noted. However, that person actually
6 received 360 litres. That's why the 500 is crossed and replaced by 360.
7 This is what happened during the hand-over of fuel.
8 Q. And do you think that this was a correct procedure that this is
9 how things should have been done? That it was okay to show to the Drina
10 Corps that all the 500 litres were used and keep the 140 litres?
11 A. If that was the intention of that person, he would not have
12 crossed the figure 500 and replaced it by 360. He would have left
13 everything as it was and he would have taken 140 and kept it for himself.
14 Q. And who are you talking about? Who is that person who crossed?
15 I'm not expressing my doubts about the person who returned the fuel, I'm
16 doubting the intentions of the person who kept the fuel for himself and
17 you are talking about the person who returned the fuel and recorded it
18 very honestly on the list.
19 A. I'm talking about manipulance in the true sense of the word,
20 people who were mishandling and misusing the fuel. Nobody actually stole
21 140 litres of fuel. It was returned to the Zvornik Brigade, and the
22 Zvornik Brigade had to justify the consumption of the 140 litres and as
23 for the 360, the consumption of that quantity had to be justified by the
1 Q. As far as I understood it, the Zvornik Brigade had all the
2 500 litres written off in favour of the Drina Corps. That's how I
3 understood it, and that's why I am inferring that the 140 were covered
4 up, stolen, and you are denying that, you are saying that was not the
6 A. Well, you saw the list which shows 360, so the valid number is
7 360 and not the crossed out number 500 litres. I'm really -- I don't
8 know what the problem is. What's not clear?
9 Q. Let me tell you what's not clear. Where are the 140 litres? You
10 are saying that that was not misused and stolen. Did this quantity enter
11 the books of the Zvornik Brigade ever?
12 A. It had to be entered in the books because the Drina Corps could
13 not take it off the books. If they received 500, that's what they
14 accounted for. If they received 360, they accounted for the usage of
15 360, and the rest was accounted for in the books of the Zvornik Brigade.
16 The Zvornik Brigade was charged with the remaining 140 litres.
17 Q. How do you know that? Have you ever seen any document to that
19 A. Well, it's written --
20 Q. Yeah, it's written that the Drina Corps has no longer the
21 liability for 500 litres.
22 A. Yes, it says 360.
23 Q. Well, it says that the brigade has no liability regarding
24 500 litres, that's what it says.
25 A. Mr. Zivanovic, this is not what is written there. What is
1 written there is 360. Let us look at this list on the screen. I don't
2 want to talk about it without looking at it.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic, if your client wishes to speak to
4 you, then you can approach him. I would prefer that rather than have him
5 speak across the floor.
6 [The Accused Popovic and counsel confer]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Popovic, in future, if you wish to speak to
8 your lawyer, please address the Chamber rather than speak loud across the
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I apologise on behalf of my client.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation].
13 Q. General, let us please now look at page 218 of this same
14 document. Here, we can see that another 2.000 litres were received on
15 that day by your brigade. It seems that this document is identical with
16 the previous one. If we look, we can see the same signature of the
17 recipient; however, if we compare the numbers next to the date, that is
18 in box 1
19 see, first of all, that in the left top-hand corner there is the number
20 21/6-723 and then in the right-hand corner, there is 21/1-2148; is that
22 A. Yes, only I don't know which numbers were on the previous one.
23 Q. Yes. We can go back now to document 216. I'm sorry, page 216.
24 The same document.
25 We can see now that the number is 21/6-718 and on the right, it's
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Tell me, General, can we conclude from this that on the 16th of
4 July, the Zvornik Brigade received a total of 5.000 litres of fuel?
5 A. Based on the materiel list that arrived at the Zvornik Brigade
6 established exactly the amount of the fuel that arrived and reached the
7 brigade. It might be 5.000. It might be more. But it has nothing to do
8 with the materiel list showing the 360 litres that were given over to the
10 other quantity of 2.000. It's irrelevant. The point is that the
11 Drina Corps had these 360 litres instead of the Zvornik Brigade.
12 Q. And do you think -- is it important what happened with
13 4.460 litres that the Zvornik Brigade had?
14 A. Of course it's important. The Zvornik Brigade was using this
15 fuel according to its needs, and it's covered with appropriate documents.
16 Q. You have seen this document, I presume, naturally?
17 A. No, I didn't see each and every document. I don't know whether
18 the point of this exercise is to establish how the Zvornik Brigade used
19 up its fuel or how and for what purposes these 360 litres were used up.
20 Q. The 360 litres of fuel can be traced when and where it was issued
21 and we even know if any activities were going on at the time. What I'm
22 interested in now, on the 16th of July, when these 4.640 litres were
23 delivered to the Zvornik Brigade, can you tell me were there any specific
24 activities going on that required such a huge amount of fuel?
25 A. That probably had to do with replenishment. It wasn't only in
1 this month that we received 2.000 litres. Our monthly requirements were
2 much higher than the quantities received and shown here. You could see
3 from daily report if the minimum amount was 400 litres, if you multiply
4 that by 30, that's 12 tons a month. So you shouldn't be surprised that
5 this kind of quantities were supplied, 2.000 plus 2.000.
6 Q. What I'm noticing is that the 4.000 or more precisely 4.200
7 litres were used in only two days of the 16th and the 17th. Are you
8 talking about that?
9 A. No, I'm not talking about that at all.
10 Q. Well, let's go back, if you wish, to the regular combat report of
11 the 16th and the 17th so we can add up exactly the quantities that we are
12 discussing. First, the 16th of July, 7D -- I'm sorry, give me just a
13 moment for it. 7D532 is the document.
14 We see here too 2.595 litres?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at P331.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well let me just tell you about the
18 16th of July. This represents the consumption before the 2.000 litres
19 arrived, because this is a summary report for that particular day. You
20 don't honestly believe that these 2.000 were immediately dispatched on
21 the ground and used for something. It was sent to the pump and only the
22 quantity received previously was used up and this is the replenishment.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. So how do you know all this if you didn't monitor the situation
25 with the fuel?
1 A. Well, judging by the date when the fuel was dispatched and
3 Q. Do you know when the fuel was received, at what time of the day?
4 A. Well, let us assume that it was received at 5.00 in the morning,
5 which was impossible and the amount was 2.000 litres, how was it possible
6 that the consumption was 2.500, who used all this fuel? This amount of
7 fuel arrived on the 16th and was stored at the pump and the report for
8 the 16th represents the consumption of the fuel received earlier.
9 Q. What you want to say is that this fuel was actually used up on
10 the 15th?
11 A. Well, you see the date is the 16th.
12 Q. Yes, I do and as I understand it, this is an exact quantity of
13 fuel used up on that day; but I have the impression that you're trying to
14 tell us something else, that this is not exactly what is represented
16 A. This is the fuel issued from the pump, whether it was completely
17 used that day is a separate issue, and this is not the fuel that arrived
18 on the 16th that you are talking about. And even if that were the case,
19 what happened with those 360 litres? I have no answer to that, whether
20 these 360 litres were used up.
21 Q. But you do have an answer about the consumption of the 4.460?
22 A. One can see that from the documents of the Zvornik Brigade. We
23 had books in which each vehicle and each journey was registered every
24 day. There were requests coming from units. There were working lists.
25 There were receipts and issuing papers. There is a whole set of
1 documents that can show that.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: I understand fuel is important, but if he could
4 put his case to the witness on this so we can see where this is going
5 because it's impossible to follow.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Counter-intelligence.
7 MR. HAYNES: I'd support that, and I also think it's a little
8 discourteous when a witness says can we discuss the question you're
9 asking with the document on the screen, not to put it up for him to let
10 him see it and comment on it. It's page 220 of P290.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic, I mean, you've asking questions
12 on this fuel business for an hour plus. You're being called past now and
13 asked what is the purpose of this line of questions. What is your case,
14 in other words? What are you ...
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: The issue of fuel was put to the witness during
16 his examination-in-chief.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. But --
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: And also some relation of my client to the fuel
19 and relation of duties of security service of VRS regarding fuel and
20 regarding protection of the Army of Republika Srpska from subversive
21 activities, from stealing of fuel, and all other kinds of abuse of it.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I said counter-intelligence, I wasn't far off the
23 mark because that's how we started in the first place, whatever the
25 Yes, we've got five minutes left. Mr. Haynes, do you insist on
1 the point raised by you or can we move ahead.
2 MR. HAYNES: No, if I think it's necessary, I can deal with it in
4 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's proceed then, then conclude for the day,
5 Mr. Zivanovic, please.
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I have to see my last question, sorry.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: The last question was answered.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes. Yes. Thanks.
9 Q. [Interpretation] General, tell me just one more thing. Now that
10 you said that this quantity was not used up on that day, is that your
11 assumption or are you positive about this?
12 A. You are really going to drive me into the logistics department.
13 I never said that, as you put it, this used-up quantity of that day --
14 this report says that this is the consumption for that particular day,
15 but it refers to the fuel issued from the pump station, and there's
16 documents to corroborate that.
17 During that same day, however, they received another quantity of
18 the fuel, and it was stored at the pump station.
19 Q. My question is very clear and it goes like this: Since you know
20 that there was a report from the pump, did you ever raise the question of
21 issuing 2.595 litres to someone? Didn't you ask to which unit it went?
22 A. This quantity was issued on that day. At that point, there was
23 seven battalions, there was a Podrinje detachment, a tank company, there
24 was at least six or seven vehicles on the move on that day, and this fuel
25 was issued to them. Everybody knows that.
1 Q. Was that done with a view to carrying out combat activities?
2 A. Yes, for the combat activities and the overall activities that
3 the brigade was involved in.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: We can stop here. We'll continue tomorrow in the
5 afternoon at 2.15. Thank you.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.58 p.m.
7 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 19th day of
8 February, 2009 at 2.15 p.m.